Commons Sitting of 25 August 1880

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [August 24] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Report—Savings Banks (No. 1) (re-comm.) [273].
Considered as amended—Ground Game [changed from Hares and Rabbits) [314–318].
Considered as amended— Third Reading—Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Grain) [315],

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  GROUND GAME BILL (changed from "HARES AND RABBITS BILL").
  (Mr. Gladstone, Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Dodson, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Arthur Peel.)
  GROUND GAME BILL (changed from "HARES AND RABBITS BILL").

    [BILL 314.] CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Sir William Harcourt.)
    MR. WARTONrose to move that the Bill be considered that day three months. The reason why he objected to such a Bill was that it wandered very far from its Preamble and Title. The ostensible object of the Bill was, so far as they could judge, to give protection to farmers against the ravages of hares and rabbits; but its real object was to strike a blow at the landowners of this country. The ostensible object of the Bill was to put an end to what was admitted on both sides of the House to be an evil— namely, the over-preservation of game. That object could be easily accomplished by giving the farmer compensation in case of his crops being injured by hares and rabbits, or by allowing the landlord and the tenant to enter into such arrangements as they choose with regard to the preservation of game. Such legislation as that, however, would not suit the Radical supporters of the Government, who sought to strike a blow at the landowners by sowing dissension between them and their tenants, and they had accordingly hounded on the Government to introduce this wretched Bill. When the Liberals were advocating the

    3
    adoption of Free Trade, they were never tired of urging that everybody should be free to make their own contracts; but the moment that the landed interest was involved they had changed their tone, and now they wished to legislate paternally for the protection of the farmer. Such was the political hypocrisy of the present day, that men voted for that which they hated and detested, and were afraid to speak out their minds. That wretched Bill, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, included the Ballot Act; and he thought if hon. Members could vote by Ballot different results would be seen. They had voted for the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill because they knew it would be thrown out in "another place," and he dared say they would vote for this Bill with a similar expectation. The effect of this measure would be to withdraw the country gentleman from his home, to which he had hitherto been attracted by his love of sport. Every person of sane mind, of full age, and who suffered under no legal disability to contract, should be allowed to enter into any contract he chose. He could not see what objection there could be to a landlord entering into an arrangement to compensate his tenant for damage done by game, especially if it were in the tenant's power to set that arrangement aside if he found that he was a loser by the bargain.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. NEWDEGATEwished to state that when the House was in Committee he opposed the 3rd clause, and he had reason to think that there had been some misunderstanding as to the ground of his opposition—
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member was addressing himself to a particular clause, and the Question was, Whether the Bill should be considered now, or three months hence?
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would refer to the matter at a subsequent stage.
    EARL PERCYwould not recommend the hon. and learned Member for Bridport to take a division on his Amend-
    4
    ment; because he hoped that, on the third reading of the Bill, there would be discussion and a division upon its main principle. At the same time, if the hon. and learned Member chose to divide, he would certainly support him; because he thought they ought at all the stages of the Bill to protest against its being forced through the House at so late a period of the Session.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTmoved to leave out Clause 7, and to insert the following Clause:—
    (Exemption from penalties.)
    "A person acting in accordance with this Act shall not be subject to any proceedings or penalties in pursuance of any law or statute."
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he would be glad if, before the Bill went to "another place," there was a Schedule added showing what Acts would be repealed. That would be of use to magistrates in dealing with cases which came before them.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought the suggestion deserved attention. The reason why no Schedule had been prepared was that this Bill would apply to England, Scotland, and Ireland; and if any one of the numerous statutes affected should be left out of the Schedule great mischief might ensue. But a magistrate could have no difficulty under this Bill. Prosecutions would be based either upon the Common Law, or upon some statute. It would only have to appear that the person was acting in accordance with the Act of 1880 to exempt the person from penalties under any statute or at Common Law.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONpointed out that, under this new clause, persons using guns without a licence would be exempted from any penalty under the Gun Licence Act. If that were not intended, there should be words to that effect.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
    MR. GREGORYmoved the following new Clause;—
    (Agreement between landlord and tenant in certain cases.)
    "Provided, That where the occupier of land has, by agreement with his landlord, the unrestricted right of killing hares and rabbits during any months of the year not being less than four in number, the landlord may, notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, by agreement with the occupier, reserve the exclusive right of killing hares and rabbits on the land of the occupier during the remainder of the year."
    If he were told that it was contrary to the principle of the Bill for a landlord and tenant to enter into any agreement at all, he would ask where that principle was to stop? It might apply to rent, it might apply to crops, and it might apply to the mode of cultivation. He put it to any tenant, whether four months was not sufficient time to enable him to destroy the ground game, and this would be secured to him? But if he required more there was nothing in the clause which would prevent his obtaining it by agreement with his landlord.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the clause was exactly the same as that which had been introduced in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants(Mr.Sclater-Booth); and he thought it would be wasting the time of the House to argue a question which had been discussed over and over again, and upon which many divisions had been taken.
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSdenied that this was the same clause as his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had moved in Committee; but, even if it were, the hon. Member for East Sussex had a perfect right to move it over again on the consideration of the Report. It appeared to him that the new policy of the Liberal Government was to abridge the individual liberty of the subject, and he should have thought that they would seek to increase that liberty. This seemed to be the policy of the Government looking at the Bills before the House. He did not know anyone who had insisted more strongly than the Postmaster General, before the present Government came into Office, on the justice of leaving parties to make
    6
    their own contracts in this country. If the right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that farmers were to be put on a level with women and children working in factories, and were to be legislated for accordingly, he congratulated him and his Colleagues on his compliment to the tenant farmers of England. It seemed to him (Sir R. Assheton Cross) that the Bill went a great deal further than was necessary for its object; because if the tenant farmer had power to kill ground game during certain seasons of the year, he would be quite able to protect the crops; but if he had absolute power to go over the land at all times of the year and shoot the game, he would be encouraged to keep up the ground game for purposes of sport, and the right of the landlord to shoot over his own property would be interfered with. The landlord would be unable to secure quietness for the sake of winged game, and would be unable to enjoy sport with his friends. The right hon. Gentleman repeated his congratulations to the Home Secretary on his treating the farmers like women and children.
    MR. GURDON,as one representing and living in a game county, contended that four months in the year would not be nearly enough to meet the requirements of the occupiers in many cases. He wished to refer to one remark made by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). The hon. and learned Member had passed a gratuitous insult upon some landlords in the House. He had insinuated—nay, stated openly— that some of them had supported this Bill against their belief in it. He (Mr. Gurdon) repudiated that accusation, and said it was because they had sympathy with the occupiers of the land that some of them had been returned to that House for the first time; and he thought this Bill would prove their sympathy, because he believed it would prevent the excessive preservation of ground game, while it could not possibly do harm to a good sportsman or a good landlord.
    EARL PERCYsaid the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), who was a competent judge in such matters, had spoken approvingly of four months, and considered that period quite sufficient; but if the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Gurdon) was dissatisfied with the time named in the proposed new clause, he could move an Amend-

    7
    ment to extend that time, as he did not understand his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) to be bound to any particular period.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 92: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 135.)
    MR. WHITLEYmoved the following Clause:—
    (Legal proceedings against unauthorised persons.)
    "From and after the passing of this Act it shall he lawful for either the occupier or the owner of any lands having a concurrent right to kill or take game thereon, to take legal proceedings against any unauthorised person or persons trespassing in pursuit of game, hares, or rabbits."
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpointed out that the clause was unnecessary, as any party aggrieved would be able to commence legal proceedings.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause withdrawn.
    MR. GREGORYmoved, in Clause 1, page 2, to leave out sub-section 3, and insert—
    "No person having a right of killing ground game under this Act or otherwise shall use any lire-arms for the purpose of killing ground game between the first hour after sunset and the last hour before sunrise; and no such person shall, for the purpose of killing ground game, employ spring traps above ground or poison; and any person acting in contravention of this section shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a penalty not exceeding two pounds."
    MR. RODWELLtrusted that the Home Secretary would accept the words proposed to be inserted by the hon. Gentleman.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHexpressed a similar hope.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTadmitted that the proposal was a very reasonable one. He had only accepted these limitations with reluctance; but the proposal to place the owner and the occupier on the same footing, with reference to the use of fire-arms and traps, was one to which he had no objection. He thought that the concurrent right
    8
    of shooting hares and rabbits ought not to be exercised in the dark.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked what use there was in having the word "poison" in this clause?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, not any, as poison was forbidden to be used in such cases, under a heavy penalty, in the Act passed in the reign of William IV., and other Acts since that time. The retention of the word, however, would do no harm.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLobserved, that the statement just made by the Home Secretary only proved the force of a suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson)—namely, that there should be a Schedule of the Acts repealed and of the Acts not repealed. In answer to that suggestion, however, the Home Secretary said that magistrates, in dealing with cases brought before them under this Bill, would only have to look to its provisions, and would not be bothered by having to consult any other Act of Parliament. If the magistrates would only have to look to this Act, it was perfectly clear that a person could not be convicted under any former Act.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the noble Lord had omitted to look at the Paper of Amendments. If he would look at the list of Amendments, he would see one, on page 3, in which were the words—
    "Or by any methods prohibited by any Act of Parliament in force at the time of the passing of this Act."
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTmoved, in Clause 1, page 2, line 17, after "inclusive," to insert—
    "But this provision shall not apply to detatched portions of moorlands, or unenclosed lands adjoining arable lands, and less than twenty-five acres in extent."
    MR. THOMASSONmoved to amend the Amendment by inserting, after "arable land," "where such detached portions or unenclosed lands are less than twenty-five acres in extent."
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in order to meet an objection which had been previously raised, moved to insert, at the end of Clause 4—

    9
    "Nothing in this Act contained shall exempt any person from the provisions of the Gun Licence Act."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. BORLASE,in moving the omission of the 5th clause, thought he was justified in making this Motion, because he represented a large agricultural constituency in the West of England who were deeply interested in this particular point. He thought he was justified in this course, also, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in introducing this Bill, stated that he wished to hear what were the real opinions of the English constituencies, and especially the large agricultural constituencies, with regard to this subject as expressed by their Representatives in Parliament. In making this Motion, however, he entirely disclaimed, both on his own part and on the part of those whom he represented, any wish to deprive either the lessee of game or the landlord of any just compensation for disturbance which might be due, not, as in a former Bill, from the owner to the occupier; but, in this case, from the latter to the former. He believed he might argue, with regard to this clause, that it was neither necessary nor admissible. In the first place, it was unnecessary; because, in the construction of Acts of Parliament, vested interests in existing leases, where any valuable consideration was involved, were always respected without a saving clause of this sort, lest some innocent party should receive damage thereby. In the second place, it was inadmissible, upon the authority of Dwarris on Statutes, on the ground that no clause was admissible which overthrew, as he maintained that this one did, the whole purview of the Bill. But he would not argue the ease merely upon legal or technical grounds; but would take it upon the simpler ground of common sense, and would hold that the clause was antagonistic, not only to the Preamble of the Bill, but to the very title of the Bill itself. In order to show this, he must follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Beresford Hope), and read the Title and Preamble of the Bill. The Title stated that the Bill was for the "better protection of Occupiers of Land against injury to their Crops from Hares and Rabbits;" and the Preamble said that such and
    10
    such things were to be done "in the interests of good husbandry." "In the interests of good husbandry!" Yes; but when? Now, or in the future? Was it not in consequence of the existing depression in agriculture that these tenant farmers' grievances had been brought before their Representatives, and were now being brought before that House? Upon that ground alone he thought that this clause ought not to be in the Bill. If it was maintained in the Bill, it would be giving scope for stipulations being made which, to use the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who brought in the Bill, would "prevent the crops from growing." It would be giving further scope for agreements with that middle man—the lessee of the game—under whom, admittedly, the greatest evils had arisen. If they retained it, then, under the pretence of protecting existing rights, they would be countenancing existing wrongs. Lastly, they would be saying that the principle of the measure was not of sufficient value to be put into immediate practice. He must say a word on a subject which had been alluded to over and over again during the debates upon the Bill—namely, upon the principle of the Bill—but he would only say that, so far as the principle of the Bill was concerned, he perfectly agreed with what the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) said upon the second reading of the Bill—that they had not been arguing this Bill upon the principle of its Preamble. They went off on a side issue, and they were led into that side issue by an incident raised in the speech of an hon. Member. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) had said that the cause of this Bill was over-preservation. But over-preservation was an indefinite term, and involved in the mind of those who used it a certain indistinctness of thought. Over-preservation was a relative expression. It was relative to the opinion of three distinct persons variously interested in the matter. It was relative to the opinion of the lessee of game; it was relative to the opinion of the landlord; and it was relative to the opinion of the tenant farmer. What was over-preservation to the lessee of game? He could not see what over-preservation could mean to the lessee of game as long as he got his money's worth of pleasure. Over-preservation

    11
    to the landlord!" Well, what did that mean? The test of it was when his agent came to him and said—"Your rent, sir, will no longer bear the strain of the game." And what was over-preservation to the tenant farmer? They were contending that the preservation of hares and rabbits, in any form, was over-preservation in the opinion of the tenant farmer. As tenant farmers, his constituents were greatly interested in the principle of this Bill; but it had been argued upon an incident, while it was the system at which they wished to strike. The principle of the Bill, as he understood it, was one which he hoped to see underlying many another measure which might be brought in in the future with regard to land in this country; it was that every acre of land in the United Kingdom, not held in the hands of the owner, should have every artificial restriction taken from it which could prevent its fullest development, which could prevent the tenant farmer from getting from it the fullest remuneration for his labour and his capital expended on the soil. To put this in the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who brought in the Bill, "no stipulation in an agreement should be possible which would prevent crops growing." To put it in a popular form, which the people of this country would understand—Since God had given man the land to till and to keep, man should not be able to make laws to prevent himself from doing so efficiently. If ever a Bill was brought in pro bono publico, this was the Bill; if ever a Bill ought to be without a saving clause, it was this one; if ever a Bill ought to come into immediate operation, this was the one. They, on the Government side of the House, owed a debt of gratitude to hon. Gentlemen opposite for the unselfish way in which they had come forward and supported this Bill. Perhaps, there were never fewer landlords in the House of Commons than there were at that present moment; but, perhaps, there never were so many good ones. He could not, indeed, for his part, see how there could be a single bad landlord under the present system of voting, especially if he sat on the Conservative Benches opposite. He entreated hon. Gentlemen to join with him in bringing upon themselves one more obligation from the tenant farmers by asking the right hon. and learned Gen-
    12
    tleman the Home Secretary to do what he felt sure he had it in his heart to do—to make the Bill as perfect as possible by bringing it into immediate operation, and by granting this further measure of justice and right.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 41, to leave out from the word "Where," to the word "Act," in page 3, line 14, both inclusive.—(Mr. Borlase.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'Where at the date of the passing of this Act' stand part of the Bill."
    SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsupported the Motion to omit the clause. He rose, however, to call attention to one particular point. They were sometimes told that Petitions were not very trustworthy; but although the House of Commons did not pay so much attention to them as it might do, still they were thought a great deal of out-of-doors, as shown by the long list of them the daily papers thought it worth while to publish. He knew there had been six Petitions against the Bill; but in favour of the Bill absolutely there were 33 Petitions; and, what was an important point, there were 77 Petitions presented in support of the Bill, but demanding alterations, and these Petitions had nearly 8,000 signatures. He had examined the Petitions from Scotland. They were nearly all alike in their prayer. One presented by the Home Secretary, from the tenant farmers of the County of Edinburgh, pointed out that, so far as Scotland was concerned, if the Bill passed in its present form the position of a great many tenant farmers, instead of being benefited, would be made seriously worse by the insertion of the 5th clause. They also pointed out that when former changes in the law were made—when the Corn Laws were repealed, when foreign cattle were admitted to this country, when poor rates were imposed, and, still more recently, when education rates were imposed— these Acts came into immediate operation. Leases were not taken into consideration, and no abatement and no compensation were allowed to farmers. If the Bill passed in its present form it would be for many years in Scotland a dead letter. It must be 10 years before it came into operation on the average. Had this clause not existed in the Bill,

    13
    had the Bill come into immediate operation, with due compensation and arrangements for obtaining compensation, he believed that, as far as the tenant farmers were concerned, the Game Question would have been finally settled. As it was, if the Home Secretary declined to entertain this Amendment, he was afraid that that would not be the case in Scotland. And he would remind the House that, though the Bill dealt with the question of game as between the landlord and tenant, there was a large class interested in the reform of the Game Laws, and that a large number of those who were deeply interested would shortly have a potential voice in the settlement of this question. He felt certain that those who were in favour of maintaining the Game Laws, at least in a modified form, would do well to get rid of the hostility which at present existed among the tenant farmers of Scotland.
    DR. FARQUHARSON,as representing a large agricultural constituency in the North of Scotland, said, he would vote in favour of this Amendment. He had presented a Petition from 3,500 occupiers in West Aberdeenshire, praying that this Amendment might be carried out; because it was perfectly evident, as the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had shown, that a large portion of Scotland would be cut off from the beneficial operations of the Bill, if some means could not be taken to enable leaseholders, whose leases had years to run, to come within its operation. The only weak point in the Amendment was that it made no provision for compensation. Every communication he had received, either from individuals or by Petition, had invariably stated most particularly that some fair and just compensation should be given.
    MR. RODWELLsaid, an hon. Member had based his objection to the clause on the ground of common sense; but, for his part, he opposed the rejection of the clause on the ground of common justice. To deal with existing leases would not, in his opinion, be just; and the proposal which had been made by his hon. Friend seemed to be far more objectionable than that of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay)—which the House, however, would not accept—although it provided for compensation. There were cases of farms, let at a very low rent, where the greatest injustice might
    14
    be done to the landlords. In a case which he knew, the tenant, with his eyes open, had foolishly taken a game farm at a very low rent; but what an injustice it would be to the landlord to at once allow the tenant to remain at an absurdly small rent, and, at the same time, give him the power of keeping the game down. In the county in which he resided many of the tenant farmers suffered largely from the ravages of ground game. At a meeting of their number, one of those present proposed a resolution, very much in the form of the Amendment, for the rejection of this clause. He (Mr. Rodwell) was in the chair, and he took pains to explain what the effect of that resolution would be. He explained its injustice, and the result of that explanation was that the Amendment was withdrawn without any discussion. He believed, indeed, that the tenants did not want that any injustice should be done to the landlord; they only wanted fair play. It would be most unjust, in his opinion, without any compensation, without any provision for compensation, to ask the landlords to do what was proposed.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he felt, as strongly as anyone, the disappointment that would be experienced by a great number of persons, especially in Scotland, under the system of leases, it being excluded from the benefits which the Bill was intended to confer on the occupiers of land; and he should have been extremely glad if he could have seen any ground on which to justify the acceptance of the Amendment to include existing leases in the operation of the Bill. He could not, however, accept that proposal, because it was one he could not defend. Let hon. Members consider for a moment what a lease was. A lease was a mutual insurance between the landlord and the tenant. They agreed for a certain period of time to insure one another the enjoyment of the status quo which was established by the lease. If things became better and prices rose, the tenant got the benefit, because the landlord could not increase the rent. In Scotland, 10 years ago, when the price of wool and sheep rose immensely, the farmers found that they were able to pay their rents simply out of the sheep; but yet the rent remained as before. As regarded the landowner, the lease prevented him from making any alteration in the

    15
    status quo. As regarded future arrangements, the proposal of the Bill was perfectly just; because, when their contracts had expired, the two parties would make their arrangements on the basis settled by the present Bill. But to apply this process to an existing contract would be open to censure and condemnation, for there was an entire difference between freedom of contract with reference to the future and interference with contract which had actually been made in the past. The two things were as distinct as possible. Gentlemen, indeed, who were in favour of freedom of contract, seemed now prepared to make proposals which were inconsistent with freedom of contract. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), for instance, forbade anyone to make a contract for the exclusive use of game without compensation. If freedom of contract was to be real, why should it be hampered with conditions? The fact was, that there was not a single man who had made a proposal upon this subject who had not more or less proposed to interfere with freedom of contract. That, however, was a totally different thing from altering existing contracts which had been made upon a certain basis. No one was more anxious than the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) to do justice; but, at the same time, he proposed to alter the situation of parties who had entered into contracts without making any compensation. That was not a proposal that was capable of being defended on any principle known to law. His hon. Friend who made the proposal was, fortunately for himself, not responsible for this Bill. That misfortune was his; and he had to consider what would be the result of excluding the 5th clause from the Bill. He suspected that it would be found that the farmers who were benefited under the Act would not thank him for the consequences of omission; and, therefore, he entirely concurred with the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell). He did not believe that the state of things which his hon. Friend behind him feared would come about. He did not think they would see for many years one class of farmers possessing the rights given by this Bill, living side by side with persons who, under existing leases, would not have these rights. He had no doubt that, without
    16
    introducing or attempting to set in motion any elaborate machinery, the operation of the Bill would lead to some form or other of arrangement which would give all tenants an equal right. He felt certain that when this measure had clearly declared it to be the mind and intention of Parliament that the occupiers of land in England, Scotland, and Ireland ought to have the right to which it referred, in order to protect and defend themselves in the exercise of their industry, that mind and intention would prevail, and that the landowners of the country generally would not desire in any way to oppose or to thwart the expressed will of the Legislature.
    MR. WARTONwished to call attention to the inconsistency between the two paragraphs of the clause. The two paragraphs went on a perfectly distinct principle. The principle of the 1st paragraph was to maintain existing contracts; while the principle of the 2nd paragraph was, in the most arbitrary manner, to set aside the real contract between the parties—namely, a tenancy from year to year. That, to him, seemed a capricious way of dealing with the question.
    MR. D. M'LARENsaid, the position of the farmers in Scotland who had petitioned against the clause was completely misunderstood in the speeches that had been made against the Motion for leaving out this 5th clause. The arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rodwell), and of the Home Secretary had, in substance, been that leases were sacred things, and that they ought not to be interfered with; that it was a bargain between the landlord and tenant that should be observed; and, especially, if any alteration was made, compensation should be allowed. Well, he had had the honour of voting with his hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Barclay) who had proposed compensation; but the Government had not acceded to that proposal; and it seemed to him, therefore, that they could not now argue upon that ground. Having gone with his hon. Friend on the just ground of giving compensation, and that having been rejected, he was entitled now to take any other ground. The 5th clause altered the spirit and substance of all the leases in Scotland against the farmer; because as soon as a long lease expired, the effect of the tenant having

    17
    rights to shoot down the ground game would be to drive the game on to the farm of his next neighbour. When another lease expired, there would be another force to drive the ground game on to the same farm, and a similar effect would follow the termination of a third lease; and, after a number of years, the remaining farmer with an unexpired lease would have the whole ground game on his farm which naturally belonged to all the farms in his neighbourhood. The instinct of the animals would carry them to the protected farm. He held that the Bill had altered all the leases in this respect—altered them materially to the disadvantage of the farmers—and that the farmers were entitled to have redress under the circumstances. He had had a letter from a distinguished agriculturist in Haddingtonshire, Mr. J. C. Shepherd, on this subject. He stated that if the 5th clause was allowed to stand, as at present, it would make matters with the great majority of the Scotch farmers worse than at present. Each tenant who acquired rights under the Bill would necessarily protect his crops and drive the ground game over to other farms. This new source of evil would increase for many years in the case of long leases. Surely, the Legislature could not intend to introduce this new cause of annoyance and loss to the farmer. The hon. Member assumed that 500 leases might expire every year in Scotland, and the leases were nearly all for 19 years. In that case, 500 leases would expire this year. The tenants would be freed from restrictions, and they would either kill off the game, or drive it on to their neighbours farms. Next year another 500 leases would expire, and the following year another 500 would expire, and the same process of driving off the game to their neighbours' farms would go on. It was hard that this change should be made in the position of farmers with leases to run, 15, or 19, or 10 years; and he thought it was the duty of the House to give redress. It was the duty of the Government to point out a way, by proposing a new clause on the third reading, to obviate this new grievance which would be imposed on the farmers of Scotland.
    MR. BORLASEsaid, that after what had been stated by the Home Secretary he should ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. He could only say that if
    18
    his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell) had heard the opening sentences of his speech, he could not accuse him of wishing to deal unfairly with landlords, or, indeed, with any other parties affected by the Bill.
    EARL PERCYexpressed the great satisfaction with which he had heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) say that, while the landlord could not increase the rent when there were high prices and the tenant had a lease, the tenant should be also bound by his agreement when there happened to be a bad harvest. That was a principle which, he confessed, he was surprised to find the Home Secretary speaking so strongly on; and he deeply sympathized with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the position he must have been placed in a minority of the Cabinet, when the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill was under consideration.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, the following words were added to Clause 5:—
    "Or during the currency of any contract made before the passing of this Act whereby any other person is entitled to take and kill ground game on the land."
    MR. WARTONmoved the omission from Clause 5 of the 2nd paragraph, to which he had previously taken objection. Tenancy from year to year was a favourite form of tenancy in this country, and one which often went on from generation to generation; and he asked why they were to enact that a tenancy should be deemed to determine when it really did not determine?
    [The Motion, not being seconded, could not be put.]
    On the Motion of Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, the following words were added at the end of Clause 5:—
    "Nothing in this Act shall affect any special right of killing or taking ground game to which any person other than the landlord, lessee, or occupier may have become entitled before the passing of this Act by virtue of any franchise, charter, or Act of Parliament."
    Clause 7 (Repeal of Acts) struck out.
    MR. H. ALLENmoved, in Clause 8, page 3, line 20, at beginning, to insert—

    19
    "No person shall kill or take in England or Wales or Scotland any hare or leveret during the time between the thirty-first day of March and the twelfth day of August; and."
    He did not see why a law which, only 12 months since, it was thought necessary to introduce into Ireland in order to prevent the extinction of hares in that country, should not be applied to Great Britain; and he thought the House would approve the idea that these animals should not be killed during the breeding season, when their slaughter would be cruel, and their flesh unwholesome.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, this question had been discussed four or five times, and twice there had been a large majority against the proposal for a close time. The only difference in his hon. Friend's proposal was that he proposed a much longer close time. He held it was undesirable that a farmer should not be allowed to shoot down hares which were destroying his garden or crops during the time mentioned. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTmoved, in page 3, line 20, to leave out all after "taking," and insert—
    "Of ground game on any days or seasons, or by any methods, prohibited by any Act of Parliament in force at the time of the passing of this Act."
    Amendment agreed to.
    An hon. MEMBER called the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the fact that the Game Act prohibited the killing of game on Sundays, and that, as rabbits were not game under the Act, their destruction was, consequently, not so prohibited. It might, therefore, be necessary to prohibit the killing of rabbits on Sunday.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not mean to introduce any such prohibition.
    MR. NEWDEGATEwished to clear himself of a misapprehension which prevailed in respect to a Motion of his for the omission of the 3rd clause, which he considered was a most arbitary provision, and he wished to give Notice of the following Clause, to be substituted for the clause in question:—
    (Power to let right to kill ground game.)
    "It shall be lawful at any time, or from time to time, for the occupier to let or to lease the right of killing and taking ground game by this Act vested in him, or otherwise appertaining to him, for a valuable consideration to the owner of the land he occupies, or to any other person having a concurrent right to kill and take ground game thereon: Provided always, That such letting or lease of his right to kill and take ground game to be granted by such occupier shall be in writing, and shall be stamped, and shall in all respects be held to be distinct and separate from the terms or conditions, whether in writing, by custom, by common law, or otherwise, under which such occupier holds his occupation, and that such letting or lease of the right of the occupier to kill and take ground game shall in all cases absolutely cease and determine at the expiration of a year from the date thereof."
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Speaker, whether the hon. Gentleman would be in Order in moving the new clause of which he had given Notice on the third reading of the Bill?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that no Amendments other than verbal could be moved on the third reading. The only way in which the hon. Member could bring forward his Amendment would be to move the re-committal of the Bill?
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it was understood that the Home Secretary would bring forward an Amendment with respect to the retrospective character of the Bill in regard to shooting leases.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that could be done on the third reading.
    MR. LABOUCHEREreplied that it would then be too late.
    Bill to be read the third time upon Friday, at Two of the clock, and to be printed. [Bill 318.]

SAVINGS BANKS (No. 1) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 273.]
(Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Fawcett, Lord Frederick Cavendish)
COMMITTEE. [Progress 18th August.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 3 (Investment of deposits in Savings Banks in Government Stock).
MR. MAGNIAC,in moving, in page 3, line 13, after "deposit," to insert "or any sums deposited with a Post Office Savings Bank for the purpose of investment," said, that this Amendment stood

21
in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread); but as his hon. Friend had entrusted it to him, he should like to say a few words in favour of it. The object of the Amendment was one which he was sure they all had at heart—namely, to induce the people of this country to invest their savings in the public funds. It had long been almost a scandal that the people of this country did not hold the National Debt to any large extent, when the national obligations ought to be the best, the cheapest, and the most simple mode of investing their money. The fact was, that every regulation with regard to the National Debt of this country had been made for the convenience of the rich, and not in the interests of the poor—the manner of purchasing the funds, the mode of receiving dividends, and every transaction connected with the subject, had been framed in such a way as to throw great practical difficulties in the way of the people of this country generally becoming holders of the National Debt. If they went across the Channel they found a very different state of things existing. He regretted very much the way in which this Bill had been presented to this House, because it rendered it necessary to discuss the general principle upon this particular clause. But he felt himself at liberty at that time to state a few facts which would warrant the consideration of the matter, if not then, at some future time, when the principle could be developed. As regarded the National Debt of France, it was not nearly so large as that of Great Britain. It was a Debt of comparatively recent growth, and the holders of it, amounted at the present time, to between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000 of persons. That Debt was divided into the Five per Cent Debt, the Four-and-a-half per Cent Debt, and the Three per Cent Debt, and the whole of the Debt under those definitions amounted to £300,000,000. As he had said, the Debt was held by between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000 of persons, which showed an average to each person of something like £80 a-piece. The National Debt of Great Britain, of which they had had a Return within the last few days, amounted to £730,000,000. That National Debt, it was almost incredible to say, was held by only 230,000 people. Thus, they had a National Debt, more than double the National Debt of France, which, instead of being divided
22
between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000 persons, was held by only 230,000 people. The average amount of Debt held by each holder in France was £80, whereas in England the average amount was£84,000. These figures proved that the National Debt of this country was not held by the people as he (Mr. Magniac) believed that it ought to be. He believed that inestimable advantages would be derived by making people have an interest in the welfare and prosperity of the country. He knew of nothing which conduced more to that end than giving persons an interest in the pecuniary affairs of the country. It would make every man pause before he advocated any revolutionary doctrine—if there were any man in this Kingdom who desired to do so. Upon the other side of the Channel a greater interest was given to the people in the Debt of the country, and he believed that that was the best security for ensuring prosperity and peace. He knew of nothing which conduced more to make persons peaceable than having a real stake in the country. The converse proposition was also true; and he knew of nothing that made a man, or a class, more uneasy than to have no stake in the country. He thought that if they could induce all classes to invest their money in the public funds, it would be of very great advantage to the country. That might be done, either at the present time, or at some future time; and his right hon. Friend the Postmaster General would be doing very good service to the country by carrying out that principle. He would be also doing very good service to the agricultural community by adopting his suggestion. In every country with which he was acquainted they had savings banks where the people themselves could invest their money under the sanction of the State. Where the money invested in these savings banks was lent to the Treasuries of these countries, an enormous weight and an enormous responsibility fell upon the Governments of such countries. He did not know whether it was generally known that the amount invested in the Post Office Savings Banks was now £34,000,000, and that there was invested in the other savings banks of the country £42,000,000. Thus, they had no less than £76,000,000 invested at 10 days' call. Besides that, they had the Floating Debt of this country, invested at a short term, amount-

23
ing to £28,000,000. They had thus £104,000,000 hanging on any events that might occur. In this country they had had commercial crises and financial famines; but they had never had a conjunction of a commercial and a financial crisis. If such a thing occurred, they would have a rush of holders upon the savings banks that would be extremely serious for those who were responsible for the finances, and would make them regret that the House had not at an earlier period directed its attention to this question. He might be told that it was impossible for any public institution in this country to become insolvent; but if they had an institution which was unable at once to meet the demands upon it, it was insolvent. It should be remembered, if these institutions had not assets sufficient to cover the demands that could be made upon them, they were practically insolvent. A case occurred in 1866—the last occasion on which they had a commercial crisis. The deposits in the savings banks, together with the Floating Debt at that time, amounted to only £52,000,000, or about one-half of the amount at present invested. There was a rush of depositors upon the savings banks; and they withdrew in the course of a year £3,500,000, in the course of a month nearly £2,000,000, and in the course of a week nearly £900,000. It was an extraordinary fact, that although it was perfectly well known that the demand would take place, the Bank of England had only £700,000 in hand to provide those savings banks with money. That was so; although at the time the demand was not known, it was shrewdly surmised. It was necessary, at present, that an enormous amount of money should be found at short notice, and that was a state of things terrifying to those who had any acquaintance with commercial affairs. If they did not institute some means whereby they could reduce the deposits in the savings banks by some legitimate means, or have some other safety-valve, he felt sure that they would be in the position of a man sitting on a barrel of gunpowder, which might explode at any moment. The Bank of England might be said to be safe, and so it was; but no one would have said that the position of the Bank of England was safe in 1866. The amount of money which a bank ought to hold to meet any sudden demand, had been roughly computed at
24
33 per cent of the claims which might be made upon it. In 1866, at the time he referred to, the liabilities of the Bank of England were £25,000,000, and the assets available to meet those claims were exactly £ 1,750,000. Instead, therefore, of having 33 per cent of its assets in a perfectly available form, the Bank of England had only 5 per cent. That being the case, and this clause dealing with savings banks, he maintained that no Government was entitled to let this question remain in the position in which it now stood. The enormous demand for money in 1866 was felt throughout the country, and the matter had been reported upon by a Select Committee. The Committee said that great alarm had prevailed in London, the centre of all the monetary transactions of the world; that vast sums had been deposited at interest at short notice, in addition to money deposited at call. An enormous amount of money was paid away by all the banks, some of which kept open for the purpose during the evening. They said that 62 Scotch banks had their establishments open at night for the purpose of receiving and paying small deposits. When that state of things was going on the savings banks deposits and the Floating Debt amounted to £52,000,000; while, at the present time, the same items had reached the sum of £104,000,000. Since 1866 they had had no commercial famine, and, practically, no political famine; but if ever they had a combination of those two, they would have a disaster which would be stupendous. On those grounds, he ventured to urge the adoption of the Amendment; and at that late period of the Session he should not do more than express a strong hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would give some encouragement, to what he believed was the universal desire—namely, that the securities of the nation should be made conveniently and practically available for the savings of the people.
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 13, after "deposit," insert "or any sum deposited with a Post Office Savings Bank for the purpose of investment."— (Mr. Magniac.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. FAWCETTsaid, it was scarcely necessary for him to assure the hon.

25
Member for Bedford, or the Committee generally, that he entirely sympathized with the object of the Amendment which had been moved. Long before the present Government came into Office, he expressed the same opinion as the hon. Member for Bedford had expressed, as to the political and financial advantages of offering the people of this country more opportunity of making small investments in the Public Funds. It was, therefore, unnecessary for him to trouble the House with a repetition of those views which had been so well stated by his hon. Friend. If he did not, on the part of the Government, accept this Amendment, he trusted that the hon. Member would believe he did not arrive at the decision he did from any feeling of opposition to the object which he had in view. He would tell the Committee at once, frankly, that they had given the subject careful consideration, and that they did not think it wise to accept the Amendment at the present time. This Bill was, undoubtedly, an experiment of great importance. It was believed that it would succeed; but no one could tell the extent to which it would succeed. They thought it better to proceed by steps and tentatively; but when it was possible, no one would be more anxious than himself to extend the principle advocated by the hon. Member, so as to enable people to invest smaller sums than those proposed in the Bill. It seemed to him, however, at the present time, to be better to let the Bill stand as it now did, with £10 as the minimum amount of investments, and to watch the matter carefully; and if they found there was a desire to invest smaller sums, he could promise, on the part of the Government, that they would at once introduce a measure to reduce the limits of the sums that could be invested. His hon. Friend had referred to the National Debt of France; but it was well to point out the distinction between France and England in this matter. No doubt, France did afford facilities to people for the investment of sums in Government Securities which had been wanting in this country; but it must also be borne in mind that the savings' banks system in France was less developed, and that France was only now beginning to do what they had done in this country years ago. France was now attempting to follow the example that England, long ago, set in regard to savings
26
banks. If this Bill were passed, a man in this country having £11 to invest would be enabled to put £10 in the Funds and £1 in the Post Office Savings Bank. Then, he could keep his money in the savings bank until it reached £10, when he could again invest it in Consols. He hoped that, under the circumstances, his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment. This Amendment, if adopted, would lead to a considerable reduction in the amount of deposits held by the savings banks at the present time. Although the savings bank business was a profitable one, yet he thought it would be better finance to have a portion of the existing deposits in the savings banks converted into investments in Government Stock. But this Amendment would not only affect the Post Office Savings' Bank, but also the old savings banks, which might reasonably object that the House had, at the last moment, after already inflicting injury upon them by reducing the rate of interest, inflicted a second blow by adopting this Amendment, the argument in favour of which was that it would induce a considerable reduction in [the deposits in the savings banks. For all these reasons—first of all, that the matter required watching; secondly, that they ought not suddenly, and without notice, to take this step; and thirdly, that the old savings banks would consider they had had an injury inflicted upon them—he hoped that his hon. Friend would be content with his assurance that they would propose any reduction for which there might be shown to be a necessity at another period, and not press his Amendment.
MR. E. W. HARCOURTsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General had told them that it would be in the power of the poor man to invest his money in the Savings Banks, and to leave his deposit there until it increased to £10. Those who wished to see the greatest opportunity given to persons in this country to become holders of Government Stock would hardly be content with a system by which a person would have to accumulate £10 before it was possible to invest it in Government Stock. However able some of the artizan classes might be to accumulate £10, yet, in the sparsely-populated agricultural districts, the people would not be able to accumulate such a sum as that. The right hon. Gentleman the

27
Postmaster General had told them that one reason for not accepting this Amendment was that it would be striking a blow at the old savings banks. He would wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had more tender feelings towards those old savings banks than towards the investing public of England? He thought that the savings banks, whether old or new, were to be looked at simply as a means of doing the best possible good to the people of England. Therefore, in his opinion, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General fell to the ground. He had imagined that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General would have urged as a reason against this Amendment the vast difficulty of paying dividends upon small sums. He thought that was an imaginary difficulty, and that the real difficulty would be to pay interest upon broken sums. For instance, the interest upon £1 would be about 7¾d. per annum, and that would be a difficult sum for the Post Office to deal with. But if they took 16s. 8d., which gave 6d. at 2½ per cent; if they took £1 13s. 4d., which gave 1s.; if they took £8 6s. 8d., which gave 5s.; if they took £16 13s. 4d., which gave 10s.; then there would be no difficulty in the matter. He thought, also, interest might be paid yearly, as in France, and so the Post Office would have the advantage of the half-year's interest. Moreover, investors might call for their interest yearly. The second difficulty which he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General would have raised was with regard to the expense. That might be entirely met if a commission was charged. A commission of 6d. would more than amply repay the Post Office any expenses to which it might be put. It was true that the payment of one commission would have to cover the expenses of dividends for the whole of an investor's lifetime, and if no one ever sold Stock that might be a difficulty; but as, in fact, Stock was constantly being sold, the margin would be very abundant. Again, he thought fees for transfer might be charged. It was no imaginary scheme he was propounding. Already the National Penny Bank in London had been successfully working on those lines. He held in his hand a form of certificate, by which it appeared that, on the 28th November, 1876, an individual purchased, through the National Penny Bank,
28
16s. 8d. worth of Three per Cent Reduced Consolidated Annuities, for which, at their then value, he paid 15s. 8d.; on the back of the certificate, it appeared that the holder sold the Stock on the 4th March, 1880, for 16s., that he paid 6d. commission, and that he received 1s. 6d. for interest, so that 17s. was paid to him for the commodity which had cost him 15s. 8d. Why should such a great Institution as the Post Office be less able than a small private undertaking to initiate these schemes? Another argument against going lower than £10 might, perhaps, be put forward—namely, that more work would be given to the Government officials, who would, consequently, require more pay, and that this would eat up the profits, and probably incur a debt. Now, he was going to answer that the more work that was done by the Post Office, the more good would be derived by the public; and as to the debt, it was fair to argue that increased business brought more profits; and, again, that now that the old savings banks were going to be put upon a sounder footing, the profits of the Post Office Savings Banks would not be required to bolster up their dividends; and then, the sum of £150,000 per annum would be at the disposal of the Post Office to meet any deficiencies. He did not believe there would be any deficiencies; and he thought the profits would be a secondary consideration in the eyes of the country, if only the object was attained of providing an easy means of safely investing small sums to every member of the community. He thought it would take a long time to teach people what Consols meant. He thought it would take many a weary day and many a weary year to amass that fat £10, which it was so easy for Chancellors of the Exchequer to talk about—not, perhaps, in the case of artizans and operatives in towns; not, perhaps, amongst domestic servants, but certainly amongst that class for whom he was specially pleading—namely, the poor inhabitants of rural districts, who had as good a right as any in the land to the full benefit of such measures as the present. And, therefore, whilst thanking the Government for moving in the matter, he must confess he could not consent to consider the question of small investments in the Funds settled by this measure; and he should not be content till he saw it brought with in the power

29
of every Englishman who possessed it, to invest 16s. 8d. in the Funds through the medium of the Post Office.
MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he entirely agreed with the tenour of the remarks of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) with regard to the danger of these large sums being held by Government. The Committee would remember that he had himself expressed that view, in the form of an objection to the other Bill which had been withdrawn. He wished to point out to the Postmaster General some figures which had not been referred to by the hon. Member for Bedford. By a Return for the year 1879, he found that a large majority of the deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks was under £5 for each depositor, and that the largest proportion of all ranged from £1 1s. to £5. It would, he thought, also be found that something like 90 per cent of the deposits ranged under the latter amount. He argued, therefore, that it must not be expected that the class who now deposited their money in the Post Office Savings Banks would be able to invest £10 in the Funds. The idea was ridiculous, and he thought they would have to begin operations upon a less ambitious scale. At this point, it would be interesting to the Committee to notice that the total cash received in 1879 was £9,800,000, divided between 3,470,000 persons, which gave an average of something like £3 a-piece. But, notwithstanding these figures, it was said we must have a minimum investment of £10. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had so clearly explained why this was so sacred a number of pounds, and why it would so certainly succeed. The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman amounted to this—that you must make some restriction; but if he (Mr. W. Fowler) was right in the view he had taken of the figures, there was no prospect of success if it was insisted that so large a sum should be at once invested. This requirement could only be met by those who had already a considerable sum in the savings banks. Again, there were other figures than those brought forward by the Government which would illustrate this subject. For instance, a Return from the Manchester and Salford Savings Bank showed that the sums under £1 1s. formed about 43 per cent of the total deposits, ranging over a great number
30
of years; while those between £1 1s. and under £5 represented 35 per cent of the deposits. Then, another curious illustration of his views upon the inability of the classes concerned to invest this sum of £10, was found in connection with the savings banks conducted by the Manchester, Sheffield, and Liverpool Railway Company, the last Report of which showed that, out of a total of 16,525 depositors for the last year, no less than 12,809 did not exceed 10s. each in the amount of their deposits. It was, therefore, clear that the great bulk of the class of depositors could have nothing to do with the investment of the sum of £10; and that, if the scheme was to be a success, some other starting-point would have to be adopted. He was not himself very sanguine of the desire on the part of these classes of depositors to invest in the Public Funds. He doubted, in fact, whether they cared much about the difference between 2½ and 3 per cent interest. What they wanted was safety, with the knowledge that they could have their money back when they wished it. But if they once had the notion that a war might diminish the amount of their savings, he thought they would soon get weary of investing in Consols. And that brought him to the great national danger which, in his opinion, existed, of holding these vast sums of money payable on demand, and the consequent necessity of having to meet the demand in money, no matter what might be the commercial crisis through which the country was passing; and he desired to express the desire to see, if not at once, at a very early date, an alteration in this respect. He was satisfied, apart from any other argument, that the primary sum of £10 was practically a limit which would make the success of the scheme impossible; and he did not think it wise that Parliament should start a scheme of this kind, with the feeling that there could be hardly a doubt that it would fail. He would like to see the same condition of things in this country with respect to the investment by the people in the public funds, as existed in France; but he feared that the different habits of the two peoples rendered it doubtful that this could be brought about. He felt it his duty to express his doubt that the scheme would succeed; but sincerely wished it might have greater success than he expected.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he was fully alive to the importance of the business transacted by the National Penny Bank, as he was one of the Trustees of that Institution. He agreed in the hope which had been expressed by the Postmaster General, that the time would soon come when further facilities would be given and would be taken advantage of by the classes depositing in savings banks, for investment in the Funds. It would almost appear, from the arguments of hon. Members, that the question before the Committee was one of restriction in this respect on the part of the Government. But this proposal was an attempt to carry out a system under which persons would have these facilities for the first time. It was not a proposal to restrict them, for no such facilities existed. The Government proposed to go a great length in the direction of affording these facilities; and the question was, whether the Committee was satisfied with waiting to see how their scheme worked, or whether, before the experiment had been tried, they would force Her Majesty's Government to go very much further than they at present thought right? His own opinion was that the best course would be not to carry the scheme further at present. If, however, it was found that the expectations of the hon. Member who had just spoken were realized, it would then be time to consider the propriety of carrying it further. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr.E. W. Harcourt) that a fee should be charged on transfers; nor with his proposal that people should have to go to the post office to receive small sums in the way of interest. The object of the Government was to prevent the people having any such trouble. He thought there had been some exaggeration with regard to some of the figures cited in the course of the debate, and would point out to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) that the National Debt of France was not £300,000,000, but £750,000,000; and the average sum held by the holders of Rentes was between £170 and £180. He need hardly point out to the Committee the danger of basing arguments upon figures so entirely erroneous. The figures of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) were also, in some respect, open to the same remark. According to the detailed account of the Post Office Savings Bank, out of the
32
sum of £32,000,000 deposited there, £29,000,000 were held by depositors of £10 and over—that was to say, something like ten-elevenths of the whole amount; and only £2,800,000, or the remaining eleventh, were held by depositors of less than £ 10. If, therefore, the figures quoted were correct, it would hardly be worth while to make, at first starting, the alteration suggested for the sake of the eleventh part of the sums deposited. Upon these grounds, he hoped the House would not force Her Majesty's Government to carry the experiment further than they proposed to do.
MR. E. W. HARCOURTsaid, with regard to the commission referred to, he had only proposed this in accordance with the suggestion of the Postmaster General, and in order that the State should not lose. It required only a scanty knowledge of the feelings of the investing classes to know that they, in common with all Englishmen, had a dislike to having their banking affairs made a matter of public notoriety. The arrival of a parcel from the post office containing interest on investments would be known to all the neighbours, and it was in the interest of investors that the proposal that they should call for their dividends was made. The Post Office officials were well aware of those feelings, and had themselves tried to meet them by special arrangements.
MR. MAGNIACsaid, after the frank and courteous speech of the Postmaster General, he was hardly prepared for the lecture which had been read to himself, and hon. Members who thought with him, by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, charging them with exaggeration, and enjoining him in particular, to take the trouble to inform himself better with regard to the figures in connection with this subject. But he had expressly stated that he refrained from going into greater detail than he had on account of the lateness of the Session, and his consequent desire not to detain the Committee. He now took the liberty to state to the right hon. Gentleman that he had informed himself thoroughly as to the figures relating to this subject during some years past, and was prepared to show that those which he had quoted were not exaggerated; that was to say, if the right hon. Gentleman would accept the authority of the Agent of the French Government from whom they were derived. He

33
repeated, as a fact, that 4,000,000 of the French people held £260,000,000 of the French Debt; and he hoped the time would come when the people of England would hold the English Debt in the same proportion. Again, in France, one person in twelve deposited in the savings banks, and the proportion was daily-increasing, as well as the deposits. He thought this showed that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, that the savings banks of France were in their infancy, was hardly correct; and in making that remark, he would express his belief that there were many rules and regulations belonging to the French system which might, with advantage, be adopted in this country.
MR. WARTONsaid, he hoped, before the Committee proceeded further, some agreement would be arrived at with respect to the figures involved. He wished to point out that the number of the depositors in Post Office Savings Banks who held less than £10 was 94½ per cent of the total number of depositors. The only safe way of judging of the future investments of the poorer classes was, by taking into consideration the amount which they did invest, and it was not right to ask a man with only two sovereigns in his pocket to try and invest £10.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, the total number of persons who held deposits over £10 was about 700,000, and the total number under £10 was about 1,200,000.
MR. WARTONsaid, he held it to be a very curious experiment, to begin so high in the scale as £10; and as all were agreed that it was desirable that the people should be able to invest in the public funds, he should shortly propose that the limit be fixed at £1 13 s. 4d., which would yield an income of 1s., the minimum sum which could now be paid in to the Post Office Savings Banks.
MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he had quoted the figures with regard to the current business, and had stated that, judging from them, no success could be expected except from the accumulated deposits, and that continuous investments could not take place. The right hon. Gentleman had, therefore, rather lectured him upon what he had not rather than upon what he had said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. WARTONproposed, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 16, after the word "shall" to insert "be one pound thirteen shillings and four pence, or any multiple of that sum."
Amendment negatived.
MR. J. G. HUBBARDmoved, as an Amendment, in sub-section (b), page 3, to leave out lines 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23, and insert—
"The amount deposited in any one year shall not exceed fifty pounds, and whenever the amount deposited by any one depositor shall exceed two hundred pounds, the Savings Bank authority shall invest a portion thereof in the purchase of one hundred three per centum stock (the interest whereof shall be placed to the credit of the depositor): Provided, That within one month, upon notice given to him, the depositor shall not forbid such investment."
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he sympathized with the object of this Amendment; but he thought it would not be wise to accept it before the present experiment had succeeded. They could not be too careful that the experiment should he made with the full and entire sanction of all concerned; and it was possible that considerable grievance might be felt by persons who did not understand these matters, whose money might be invested in the way suggested. As the system became well known and established, he thought it possible that the principle might be adopted; but until it was so known and so established he thought it wise not to introduce it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. W. FOWLER moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 23, to leave out "five," and insert "three."
DR. LYONSsaid, he found that considerable apprehension existed on the part of the banks in Ireland, with regard to the amount of Stock proposed to be credited to one account; and it had been proposed that the amount should be limited to £250, with the object of preventing competition between the savings banks and the general banks of the country. The Committee would, perhaps, remember that he had had the honour of presenting to the House, on the part of the Irish banks, a very important Petition with reference to this Bill, which pointed out that the general banks in Ireland held on deposit the sum of £31,000,000 sterling, of which it was stated that 60 per cent was in

35
sums of £300 and under; and that the Petitioners were apprehensive that, if the Government came into competition with them, from the superior character of the Government security, the depositors would withdraw a considerable amount of the deposits naturally flowing into the banks, and now used in the general circulation of the country. In the present restricted condition of credit in Ireland, it was of great importance that attention should be bestowed upon this matter. He was glad to hear that the noble Lord was willing to accept the limit of £300, which he thought would, to a considerable extent, do away with the objection raised by the Irish banks; and if he would but go a little further, all practical difficulty would, he thought, be removed. It was a matter of serious moment, in the present financial condition of Ireland, that nothing should interfere with the natural circulation of the capital of the country through the banks. One of the effects of the condition of things in Ireland had been that a very considerable diminution of the general circulating medium had taken place already. He had intended to move to amend the clause, but would be glad to hear what the noble Lord had to say upon the question.
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the remarks of his hon. Friend applied rather to the provisions of the original Bill than to the present. He had, however, much pleasure in accepting the Amendment to limit the amount of Stock to £300, inasmuch as it did not affect the principle of the Bill, and appeared to be fair to all parties.
Amendment agreed to; word substituted accordingly.
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 34, to leave out "corresponding," and insert "equivalent."
Amendment agreed to; word substituted accordingly.
MR. MAGNIAC,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 36, after "commission," to insert "and send to the depositor a certificate thereof in the prescribed form," said, the object of the Amendment was that persons should have something tangible in exchange for their money. He believed that it would be impossible to bring
36
to the minds of many people the nature of the investment in the way proposed by the Bill, without they were furnished with a certificate, which would satisfy them that there was some security attached to it. That plan was generally adopted in France. He held in his hand one of those documents issued in France, which had a coupon attached to it; and it would be seen how useful this would be to persons in settling small accounts. The system was of great use amongst the people in France, and he trusted the noble Lord would agree to the Amendment which he now begged to move.
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the certificate would, no doubt, be of use in the sense indicated by the hon. Member for Bedford, and he saw no objection to accepting the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to: words inserted accordingly.
On the Motion of Mr. W. FOWLER, Amendment made, in page 4, line 3, at the end of the Clause to add "and shall forthwith pay over the same to him."
MR. MAGNIAC,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 4, to leave out lines 4 and 5, and to insert—
"In the event of a depositor not claiming the certificate of stock bought for his account, the savings bank authority shall collect the; dividends on such stock and shall deal with them,"
said, the Amendment went in the same direction as that which had just been proposed by him, and accepted by the noble Lord. It was an endeavour to popularize a doctrine not generally known. Few people were aware that, if they chose, they could have coupons for the interest on their Consols, although the Bank of England had not shown themselves ready to facilitate business in this respect. He hoped, however, the regulations of the Bank might next year be amended. He could imagine no more convenient document than a coupon to holders of Stock, and was glad that the Government had intimated their willingness to accept the Amendment. At the same time, he wished to guard himself against being supposed to think that very large results would follow; because he thought that it would be found that the operations of the Bill required to be largely extended.
MR. COURTNEYsaid, he merely wished to make one observation upon this Amendment. According to the construction of the Bill, it appeared to him that it should have come in after subsection 7, between sub-section 7 and sub-section 8. He hoped that would be considered by the draftsman before the Bill was reported, as that seemed to be the natural and logical position for it.
MR. MAGNIACsaid, that this Amendment was put in at this particular point on the advice of the draftsman himself.
Amendment agreed to; words substituted accordingly.
On Motion of Mr. MAGNIAC, the following Amendment was inserted in page 4, line 17:—
"(7.) Subject to the regulations under this Act, on a request from a depositor to obtain for him a stock certificate with coupons annexed, under 'The National Debt Act, 1870,' for such amount of stock standing to his account, being either fifty pounds or a multiple of fifty pounds, as is specified in the request, the savings bank authority shall, in the prescribed manner, write off the amount of stock from the account of the said depositor, and procure from the National Debt Commissioners a stock certificate for the same amount of stock: Provided, That the sum required to pay for the commission, the expenses, and the fee for the sick certificate, shall be paid by, or debited in account to, the depositor in the prescribed manner."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 (Regulation as to investment in Government Stock) agreed to.
Clause 5 (Definitions).
Amendment proposed, in page 5, lines 27 and 28, to leave out the words "New Three and a-Half per Centum Bank Annuities."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
MR. WARTONsaid, he should like to add to that Amendment to leave out the words "New Two and a Half per Centum Annuities," also. It was a very small Stock, and it seemed to him it was better to omit that Stock also.
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he had no objection to the proposition.
Amendment amended accordingly; and, as amended, agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH,in moving to insert the following new Clause;—
38
(Amendment of 26 and 27 Vic. c. 87, s. 29, as to the separate surplus fund of Trustee Savings Banks.)
"Nothing in section twenty-nine of 'The Trustee Savings Bank Act, 1863,' shall require the trustees of any Trustee Savings Bank to ascertain, certify, and pay over annually to the National Debt Commissioners the amount of any increased stock and property except when they are required so to do by the said Commissioners, and any amount so paid over shall carry interest at the same rate as any other sums standing to the credit of the said Trustee Savings Bank,"
said, its object was merely to carry out the agreement he made with respect to the separate surplus fund.
Clause read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.
MR. E. W. HARCOURT,in moving, in page 3, after Clause 2, to insert the following Clause:—
(Minimum of deposits.)
"And whereas it is provided by 'The Post Office Savings Bank Act, 1861,' that no deposit shall be of less amount than one shilling, and it is expedient to reduce the said amount: Be it therefore Enacted, That it shall be lawful for the Postmaster General to fix, and from time to time to alter, the minimum amount which may be deposited at any one time,"
said, that as he thought it was really the key to all the improvements which might be looked forward to in the interest of thrift he should press it to the best of his ability. He wanted to reduce the amount which any person was allowed to pay into the Post Office Savings Bank. He knew that he should be met by two objections on the part of the Postmaster General; first, in respect to the expense of the transaction; and, secondly, that the increased business which it would bring to the Post Office would require entirely new staff arrangements. The profit which was at present made by the Post Office, under the heading of Post Office Savings Banks, amounted to £150,000 per annum; and the cost of each transaction, according to the Return, was 7½d. It was, therefore, not fair to consider the minimum deposits were in any way the same as the average deposits, because if 1s., which at present was the minimum deposit, were also the average deposit, and if every transference of 1s. cost 1s. 3d., there could be no profit left at all to the Department. Experience had shown that the average deposit was 56 times as great as the minimum deposit; and, therefore, if the average were in any degree maintained

39
there would be no fear that lowering the minimum would destroy the profits. On the contrary, he maintained that the increased business which would be brought would result in increased profits, sufficient to meet any expense of extra staff that might be necessary. The present profits had been used to bolster up the old savings banks, which paid an interest that they could not afford. It was to be hoped this Bill would create a new state of affairs; and those profits would be now used instead to develop the Post Office system to the great advantage, moral as well as financial, of the nation. Then, with regard to the alterations in the staff of the Post Office, which might be rendered necessary in consequence of lowering the minimum, that was a question which would have very shortly to be faced quite independently of his proposal. It was quite clear that the business could not always be carried on in London as it was at present. Then, if more responsibility was given to the local postmaster, that would, of course, imply larger pay. But at that point his argument applied. If more business was brought into the offices, more profits would accumulate; and, by that means, the Department would be able to meet the increased pay at the branches. He would not prolong his observations at present, although, had a better opportunity been afforded, he should have desired to have expressed his views at greater length. He would now, however, merely express his strong hope that a diminution in the minimum deposit would be agreed to; and if he now failed to persuade the Committee, he should bring in a Bill on the subject during the next Session.
New Clause (Minimum of deposits,)—(Mr. E. W. Harcourt,)—brought up, and read a first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
MR. FAWCETTsaid, he very much regretted that he could not accept this clause. In the first place, it threw too great reponsibility upon the Postmaster General. According to the wording of the clause, not only would he have power to reduce the minimum, but he would also have power to increase it,
40
if he thought necessary; and, therefore, without notice to the public, the power was to be placed in the hands of one Minister, without consulting Parliament, of changing this minimum of deposit as he liked.
MR. E. W. HARCOURTsaid, he was sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman; but he thought his proposition had been scarcely understood. What he proposed to do was to give the Postmaster General power merely to lessen the amount of deposits.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, he would not pursue that point further. The hon. Gentleman had, however, talked of the profits of the Post Office. For his part, he thought they were not making too much profit for safety; because it must be borne in mind that much of their money was invested in Consols; and, if they were suddenly called upon to sell, there might be a loss on the sale. There were two reasons why the Bill at present should remain as it was. If it proved at all successful, and the investment clauses were resorted to by the public to any considerable extent, the effect would be that the Post Office would lose some of its best accounts. Of course, the accounts on which they made profits were not the small ones, but those between £100 and £200 and, if a great number of those accounts should be invested in Consols they would evidently lose a considerable number of those accounts from which they made their best profits. Another way in which this Bill might affect the profits of the Post Office would be that, if people invested largely in Consols, the extra demand for Consols would increase their price, and this, pro tanto, would reduce the profit of the savings bank business. For these reasons, he could not accept this Amendment. The last time this proposition was under discussion, his right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) denied the accuracy of their system of accounts, and said that the expenses were more than 7d. per transaction.
MR. J. G. HUBBARD: I beg pardon; I did not deny its accuracy. I had never heard what it was. It was only my own estimate, and your figures may be more accurate for all I know.
MR.FAWCETT,continuing, observed, that, however that might be, even if the cost of each transaction were 7d. the

41
liability was considerable, and be felt that the State ought not to undertake business which might involve a loss. At the same time, he was very anxious to assist his hon. Friend in the object he had in view; and, with that purpose, he was on the point of carrying out an experiment which had been suggested to him by one of the officials at the Post Office, Mr. Chetwynd. There would be obtainable from every post office a form containing 12 divisions, in each one of these could be placed a stamp, and when the form was full it would be received at the savings bank, in lieu of 1s. as a deposit. He was about to try this experiment, and he should be exceedingly glad if it succeeded. At the same time, he was extremely anxious in all cases to proceed cautiously and with care; and, therefore, he had arranged that, for the present, this plan should be tried in five counties of England and Wales, in two of Scotland and two of Ireland. In order as little as possible to infringe upon the business now carried on by the Penny Banks, he had selected those counties where there was a small number of those banks. The counties selected had also been chosen as representing different industries, and were as follows:,*— Somerset and Norfolk, as representing the agricultural industry; Leicester, as partly manufacturing and partly agricultural; Cumberland, as partly mining and partly agricultural; Aberdeen, as representing the North of Scotland, and Ayrshire the South; while in Ireland, the two counties chosen were County Down and County Waterford. He should watch that experiment with very great interest; and, if it succeeded, he would extend it to the whole of the country. That experiment, if successful, would go a long way towards meeting the views of his hon. Friend, without infringing the present rules of the Post Office.
An hon. MEMBER asked what county had been chosen in Wales?
MR. FAWCETTreplied, Cardiganshire.
MR. J. HOLLONDsaid, he had an Amendment to almost exactly the same effect; and, therefore, be might as well deliver any remarks he had to make on it at the present time. He would remind the Committee that there really was a need for a reduction in this minimum at the Post Office; because it
42
must be remarked that not only was there a fixed minimum of 1s., but only sums which were a multiple of 1s. could be paid in. The result was that no person, for instance, could deposit such a sum as 2s. 6d. at one time. That seemed rather an absurdity; and it would be very much wiser, in his opinion, if, with the view of encouraging thrift generally in the country, the Post Office Savings Bank would undertake to say that though they would not take sums below 1s., they would take any sums over 1s., whether in pence or not. There was a Return, No. 342, which seemed to show that this reduction which he advocated was not needed, because deposits of 2s. and 5s., and even 10s., were greater in number than the single deposits of 1s. If, however, they compared that Return with the Return of the National Penny Bank, which had been alluded to, issued in 1877, he thought they would come to the conclusion that there must be some other explanation of this fact; for, certainly, the Return proved that where the mass of the people had facilities for paying in very small sums they did take advantage of them. In the year 1877, the Return of the actual deposits, in one week, at the National Penny Bank, which had 66 branches, showed that more than half were under 1s. The total number of deposits was 10,236; and of these 5,774 were actually of sums below 1s; and the greatest number of all consisted of sums of 6d., of which there were 1,856. This showed the real want there was for some institution where the very lowest sums could be paid in. The objection to the reduction of the minimum—that it would cause a great deal of trouble, was, no doubt, worthy of consideration; but he thought that the extra profit, which, possibly, might be made by a large increase in the number of deposits, would, to a great extent, meet this difficulty; and, if not, it must be remembered that the Post Office Savings Bank Department, at the present time, was working at a considerable profit. In his opinion, it would be perfectly fair for them to use some part of their profit for the purpose of giving greater facilities for small deposits. They had been told that the cost of every transaction was 8d.; and that, therefore, to receive a deposit of 6d. would not pay; but, in a calculation of that kind, they must take not the individual sum, but the great mass of the

43
sums, and consider what the profit was on the whole number of transactions; and if that calculation showed that there would still be a gain, the reduction would be well worthy of consideration. On the whole, however, the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General had shown that he was so fully alive to the importance of this subject, and the experiment he had undertaken to make was so very desirable a one, that he (Mr. J. Hollond) did not think it would be fair to press him to go any further until they saw the result of that experiment.
MR. E. W. HARCOURTsaid, he quite agreed that the Post Office must make profits; but all hon. Gentlemen who took an interest in this matter would agree that it was not so much the amount of interest which was paid to the depositors which was of importance, as the security which they obtained for the money they placed in the Bank; and if the Post Office could not make profits at the present rate of interest, he was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General would propose to reduce the interest, and give less. It was evident, however, that the right hon. Gentleman was fully alive to the importance of this question; and, in view of the experiment which he was about to try, he (Mr. E. W. Harcourt) would not press this clause.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. E. W. HARCOURT,in moving in page 5, after Clause 4, insert the following clause:—
(Post Office Savings Banks to be established wherever there is a Post Office.)
"Whereas it is expedient that greater facilities should be afforded to the public in the use of Post Office Savings Banks in the view of the promotion of thrift: Be it therefore Enacted, That a Post Office Savings Bank shall be established wherever a Post Office exists."
said, the strongest arguments in favour of the new clause he was about to propose would be found in the Report of the Postmaster General himself—in his 25th Report. He there said—
"That the numerous bank failures, whilst shaking public confidence in many modes of investment, could not fail to draw attention to the advantage of depositing savings under the security of the Government Savings Bank."
Well, it was his object to obtain for every possible investor the advantage which the Postmaster General pointed
44
out. What was the present fact? Why, that one-half of the population were, at the present moment, without the advantage of Post Office Savings Banks. Moreover, they were told in the 25th— which was the last—Report issued by the Post Office, that it was never the intention of that Office to extend Post Office Savings Banks to "retired and sparsely populated districts;" in other words, of bringing thrift to the doors of many who would certainly not go out of their way to look for it. He was not going to argue that it would be expedient to convert every post office into a money order office, nor that it would be necessary to have expensive employés everywhere; but he was going to maintain that it was possible, that it was practicable, and that it was desirable, that employés should attend, at least one evening in the week, at offices to transact savings bank business. Last year a deputation waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject—he was sorry to say without any effect—and an account of the proceedings of that deputation was described by the Postmaster General with a delicious roundness of period that it would seem rude to interfere with. They were told—
"That the facilities now afforded to the public were all that could reasonably be desired with due regard to the interests of the State."
Now, he had innocently conceived that the interests of the State were best consulted when the greatest possible facilities were afforded to the public. There was no standing still in these matters; and if those intrusted with their management were unable or unwilling to move, there was nothing left to the public but to take things into their own hands. Petitions were pouring into the House on the subject; and it was not likely that, when people had begun to realize the benefits of thrift, which, thank God, they were doing now, and more and more every day, they would be satisfied with half measures, or be willing to be put off with timid excuses. Well, now, how did the Postmaster General, in the 25th Report, propose to meet this matter? He suggested that private Penny Banks should be resorted to—very simple indeed; but there was this objection—that there was no guarantee that these amateur bankers were in all cases competent, in all cases punctual, and in all cases honest; and he affirmed that the

45
"illiterate people in country places," as the Postmaster General called them, had a right to the best security for their hard-earned savings which it was possible to give them. And he said, moreover, that if they were deterred by the machinery of the Post Office Savings Banks, as the Postmaster General said they were, from putting their money into those banks, then the Post Office Savings Banks were a failure as far as half the population were concerned. Therefore, he asked, in the interest of a large and deserving class who were endeavouring to help themselves, and in behalf of a still larger class whom they were endeavouring to teach to help themselves, that a Post Office Savings Bank should be established wherever a post office existed. They had just heard that the Postmaster General was organizing an experiment on this very subject, and he should be very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman with what success it was attended. It was not his wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman to tread in any unexplored paths; all he asked was, that work already found to be good, already proved to be acceptable to the people, and to possess the confidence of the people, should be extended within the discretion of the Postmaster General into channels which would work untold good to the nation at large. No fainthearted excuses would find favour with the public; and those who had these matters at heart would continue to press them upon the authorities until success was obtained, a success which was sought for to serve no private ends, but in the sincere belief that it would benefit the most necessitous and the deserving members of the community.
New Clause (Post Office Savings Bank to be established wherever there is a Post Office)—(Mr. E. W. Harcourt,)—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
MR. FAWCETTsaid, he wished to offer one word in explanation. The experiment to which his hon. Friend had referred was not only going to be tried, but had been tried. About a month since, he ordered every Post Office surveyor to select two or three villages in his district, in which different industries were
46
carried on, and where there were no Post Office Savings Banks. At those villages a weekly Post Office Savings Bank was to be established, and a clerk sent over from the central office to receive deposits, and to carry on a money order business. Thirty places had been selected in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and 145 visits had been already paid. The average expense of each visit had only been 6s. 8d., including everything; and already more than £290 had been received in a single month, while less than £35 had been withdrawn. If the experiment went on in the future as satisfactorily as it had worked up to the present, he could only assure his hon. Friend that no one would be more rejoiced than he would to gradually extend it. If that experiment did succeed, they could easily send out clerks once a-week from the central office to do savings bank business and money order business in country villages, and thus confer a great benefit on the public, and introduce a very advantageous system without any great amount of cost. He hoped his hon. Friend would be satisfied with that experiment, and would feel that he had done his best in the matter.
MR. E. W. HARCOURTsaid, after the very satisfactory explanation of the right hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (CARRIAGE OF GRAIN) BILL.
(Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Evelyn Ashley.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING (CARRIAGE OF GRAIN) BILL.

  [BILL 315.] CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed; "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
  MR. NORWOOD,who had on the Paper a Notice to move that the Bill be considered on that day three months, said, he thought it necessary to explain why he had put down a Notice which was a virtual stoppage of the Bill. The Bill was of a very important character, as it affected the interests of shipowners

  47
  who carried grain to any extent. He had abstained from opposing it at the last stage, because he had no desire to obstruct it; but he found that it was pushed through Committee at a late hour one night, when he and other Members had left the House thinking it would not come on. He thought both the House and the shipowners had some right to complain of the manner in which the Bill had been forced through the House, without a word of explanation from the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of it. He had no doubt he should be told that the Bill was the product of a Committee who had carefully considered its provisions; but he could not attach much weight to that argument, seeing how that Committee was constituted. The Committee was a very large one, but was not composed of practical men, or persons such as could, express opinions governed by any acquaintance with the difficulties and dangers attending voyages across the Atlantic. According to the statistics he held in his hand, he found that the average mortality of seamen from all causes was only 19·7, being a lower rate of mortality than was to be found in any other of the great services in the Kingdom. In his opinion, the Bill was a kind of part payment to the late hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) for the seat which he, in conjunction with his wife, gave up to his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary; and he might remark that the Home Secretary had performed his part of the compact most loyally. There was, however, no Representative of the important port of Liverpool on the Committee. [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There was a Member from Birkenhead on the Committee.] Yes; but Birkenhead was not Liverpool. The question was not so much one of carrying grain, as the character of the ship in which it was carried; but it was to be observed that the Bill before the House was very different to that advocated by Mr. Plimsoll; and although it had not received great opposition from shipowners, it was, nevertheless, highly offensive to them. He contended that the Bill would injuriously interfere with the shipping interest of the country; and he protested against the conduct of the Government in hurrying the measure through the House without giving opportunities of considering it fairly and fully.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsubmitted that the course adopted by the Government was quite justifiable. When he introduced the measure, he explained its provisions at great length; but in view of the lateness of the Session, and the pressure of Public Business, he refrained from speaking at any great length on the second reading and in Committee. Had there been time, he should have been most happy to have made a further statement. The Committee from whom this Bill emanated was appointed with very much the same Reference as that which was given to the Committee which the late Government had appointed to consider the same matter. It consisted of the same Members, so far as the voice of the constituencies enabled them to be chosen, with some Members added from both sides of the House. Of the 27 Members who sat upon it there was a very fair proportion of shipowners. The Bill of Mr. Plimsoll was a Bill to compel the shipowners to put the whole grain cargo in bags; but this Bill did not carry out that intention. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) had described the Bill as operating to regulate trade and to annoy the members of the shipowning interest. Well, he could not understand what had caused the hon. Member to express himself in so strong terms in regard to a Bill which had the approval of nine-tenths of the shipowners of the country. He said this, because he had been in communication with many of the large shipowners of the United Kingdom, and in its present form the Bill was approved. It was urged against the Bill that it did not touch the main cause of the losses. Well, it did not touch one of the main causes. The Government were dealing with only one branch of the subject. They should remove one serious cause of loss; and next Session, when the Committee was re-appointed, they should proceed to deal with the other branches to which attention had been called. But the House should not think that this cause of loss was a slight one. From 1873 to 1880, 274 grain-laden vessels were lost, and 2,799 sailors lost their lives. He did not say that in every case they lost their lives through the shifting of the cargoes; but in 139 cases evidence was taken, and in 32 cases out of these 139 there was shifting of cargo, and the shifting of cargo was a contributory, if

  49
  not the only, cause of loss. The hon. Member had described the Bill as an aspersion on the shipowners; but he could say that he, as President of the Board of Trade, was as much prepared as anyone to resent any aspersion on that class. He thought the enterprize of that body, no less than that of the sailors, who in these matters must not be forgotten, was something of which the country had cause to be proud; but it was impossible to deny there were some among them whose conduct demanded the interposition of the House. The Bill did not deserve the sweeping charges of the hon. Member, for it only sought to make more clear and definite the provisions of the law as it now stood. The Committee had before them two of the largest Liverpool shipowners, and they said that the precautions provided in this Bill were what every prudent shipowner would adopt. He did not believe that the Bill would in any way interfere with legitimate enterprize; and the Government felt they could not face another winter without removing a serious cause of loss of human life. He hoped the House would now proceed to consider the Bill.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he did not rise to oppose the progress of the Bill, nor even to find fault with the President of the Board of Trade. Still, he regretted that the President of the Board of Trade had not been able to secure a full discussion of this important Bill; and he hoped that would not be taken as a precedent for the future treatment of important interests. He could only congratulate himself on the results of the Committee's labours. Hon. Members would recollect that some opposition was made with regard to the course to be adopted as to Mr. Plimsoll's Bill. He had thought it was the duty of all parties to have this great subject investigated by a Committee, and he acknowledged his gratification at the result; because it had been proved beyond all doubt that, if Mr. Plimsoll's Bill had been accepted as it was, there would, in all probability, have been considerable danger of life being sacrificed, and not only that, but the evidence showed that there would have been a very unnecessary burden cast upon the shipping trade of the country by forcing the owner to use sacks and bags on all occasions. The President of the Board of
  50
  Trade had said that the Bill was very acceptable to the shipping trade generally. He was quite aware that a great number had accepted it; but it was impossible to look at Clause 5 of the Bill without seeing that it was virtually throwing the whole responsibility as to the construction and loading of grain ships upon the Board of Trade. Virtually, as time went on, the clause would make the Board of Trade responsible for the kind of ship used and for the loading of all such ships. The clause would relieve the shipowner; and he imagined that no Court would hold him liable if he had complied with the regulations of the Board of Trade, and his ship was constructed according to their rules. He confessed he looked upon this Bill with very great apprehension. As years went on, the interference of our great Departments with the transactions of business must tend to check the spirit of enterprize and the spirit of invention. For himself, he was of opinion that the evils against which the Bill was directed would have been better met by inquiry into the loss of missing vessels than by such regulations as the Bill proposed. He should, however, offer no opposition to the measure; and he would, on the present occasion, content himself with asking whether it was intended to put Clause 5 into operation to any very large extent, and when the regulations under the operation of the clause would be introduced?
  MR. ANDERSONobserved that, as the Bill was the outcome of the Bill introduced by Mr. Plimsoll, and subsequently by himself, he should like to say that he entirely approved of the alterations made upon it. Those alterations entirely went with his own opinion in the matter. When he joined in the introduction of the Bill he had told Mr. Plimsoll that there would be other provisions at least as effective as carrying grain in bags; and he mentioned, as one of them, the adoption of a longitudinal division over the keelson. That was now the principal recommendation in the Bill. He was pleased that the alteration had been made, and pleased to think that it had been possible to legislate on the subject during this Session, so that they might not have another winter with the disgraceful loss of life that had been sacrificed in previous winters for want of a Bill of this nature.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he was convinced no evil results to the shipping trade would arise from the Bill. Whenever beneficial legislation was proposed, they always had gloomy forebodings which were never realized.
  MR. WILLIAMSONdisputed very much the correct ascertainment of the causes which had led to vessels foundering at sea. There could only be a haphazard guess as to those causes. As to this matter, prevention was better than cure, and on that ground he highly approved of this Bill; and he had no doubt, although there were some points that might not be entirely to his mind, that it would bring about good results, and would act as a deterrent to bad men.
  EARL PERCYthought that no sufficient answer had been given to the statements made by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood). The conduct of the Government in connection with this Bill, which was not the only one forced through, required consideration on the part of the House; and not only that, but the conduct of Government in introducing measures at a late period of the Session without adequate discussion.
  SIR EDWARD REEDdefended the Bill. He had sat through the Sittings of the Committee, and had taken a great deal of pains with reference to the evidence; and he was very glad that the Government had not frustrated the labours of the Committee by failing to introduce the Bill.
  SIR STAEFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it was not sufficient that a Select Committee should have inquired into this question. This was one of those subjects which ought to be discussed in Parliament, so that the country might know the result of their legislation upon a matter which affected the welfare of very important interests. They had a right to expect a statement of the character of the Bill, and of the grounds upon which it was presented to Parliament. He did not think the Government had any reason to complain of the way in which their measures had been treated this Session. ["Oh, oh!"] There had been a great desire on the part of the House to facilitate the Business of the Government. ["Oh, oh !"] Some very important measures had been introduced which had not been mentioned in the Queen's Speech; but there had been no attempt unduly to
  52
  delay those measures. They had a right to complain that measures of great importance should not be made the subject of proper explanation in this House.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Amendment made.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 22, to leave out from the word "unless" to the word "not," in line 23, both inclusive, in order to insert the words "if he,"—{Mr. Warton,)—instead thereof.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 12 and 13, to leave out the words "supported on suitable platforms laid upon the grain in bulk."—(Mr. Norwood.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Another Amendment made.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 26, after the word "that" to insert the words "in ships with two or more decks."—{Mr. Norwood.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Clause 4 (Precautions against shifting of grain cargo laden in port in Mediterranean or Black Sea, or on East Coast of North America).
  MR. NORWOODmoved, in page 2, line 29, to leave out "one-half," and insert "three-fourths," his object being to exclude from the operation of the Bill ships carrying less than three-fourths of their cargo in grain. He considered that a stowage of grain forming less than three-fourths of the total cargo was perfectly safe.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 29, to leave out the words "one-half," and insert the words"three-fourths,"— (Mr. Norwood,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'one-half stand part of the Bill."
  MR. JENKINSsupported the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT SANDONhoped the Government would accept the Amendment. He believed it met with the approval of most practical men.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINcould not accept the Amendment, and pointed out that its effect would be to exclude the great majority of grain-carrying ships from the operation of the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  Clause 5 (Exemption from precautions specified in this Act for ships laden in Mediterranean or Black Sea, or on East Coast of North America).
  In reply to Viscount SANDON,
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, it was not his intention to deal with every individual case of grain-loading that might be submitted to the Board of Trade for approval. He proposed merely to deal with the cases of ships specially constructed for the grain trade.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1878–9.
  Resolved, That this House will, upon Friday, resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Savings and Deficiencies upon the Grants for Navy and Army Services in the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, and the temporary sanction obtained from the Treasury by the Navy and Army Departments to Expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year.
  Ordered, That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy and Army Departments, which were presented upon the 20th day of February last, and upon the 16th day of February last, be referred to the Committee.—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.