§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,) Nottingham, E.I do not think I need detain the House in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. The Government desire to raise the annual limit of deposits from £30, at which it has stood since 1828, to £100; but, in view of the opposition that was raised to that, we have agreed to make the limit £50. I regret that that step has been necessary. I believe the limit of £100 is strongly desired by the country; but if we had not made the concession, the Bill would have been a controversial Bill, and would have been lost for the Session. I beg to move the Second Reading.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. A. Morley.)
§ SIR T. LEA (Londonderry, S.)protested against the Bill, on the ground that it would deprive Irish banks of a large number of deposits. In England it did not matter, because the money 1254 came from England, and was invested in Consols. But the Post Office Savings Banks in Ireland would be the means of taking out of Ireland and investing in Consols money which, if placed in the ordinary Irish banks, would be used to encourage trade and agriculture by loans, to farmers, merchants, and traders. He did not propose to move the rejection of the Bill, but would content himself with that protest on behalf of the Irish banks.
§ MR. GODSON (Kidderminster), said the effect of the Bill would be to draw a large number of small sums of money into the Government net to be invested in Consols. He considered that every inducement ought to be given for retaining as much money as possible in the agricultural districts, where it was so much wanted. From the point of view of the bankers, the Bill was not a good one; but, on the whole, the Government had fairly met them, and they accepted the compromise as to the limit of the annual deposits.
§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)said, he was not surprised at the opposition of the bankers, but he could not help thinking that they were not altogether justifiable in their opposition. The substantial banks did not get the savings of the poorer classes, because they required larger sums on deposit than the poorer classes could command. The poorer classes were, therefore, driven to invest in those Societies of whose failures so much had been heard recently. He welcomed the Bill, as it would tend to prevent the poorer classes being robbed by these Societies in the future, his only regret being that the Government had not retained the limit of £100.
§ SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)said that, as a Member of the Inspection Committee, he regretted the Government had been compelled to give way in the matter of reducing the amount of deposits. But as there was no alternative, the Government had acted wisely in agreeing to the compromise. He was sure this increase in the facilities for investing in Consols would greatly benefit investors, and be a source of strength to the State.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.