the manner in which they were being exe- | a form as original Motions. I do not wish cuted. He believed that the complaints to say anything with regard to this paragainst the fortifications were unfounded, ticular case, because the practice has not but the appointment of a Select Committee been settled. The Notice to call attention implied that there was some doubt on the to the question of fortifications, and to subject. There was great force in the move a Resolution by the Member for objection of the Secretary for War that Cashel, would have been sufficient Notice the Motion had been made without notice, at a week's distance: but before the day and that, in consequence, he wished to arrived, it would have been suitable and consult his Colleagues. The best plan proper that the exact terms of the Resoluwould therefore be to adjourn the debate. tion should appear upon the Paper. And No public inconvenience would arise from if that is the general opinion of the House, postponing any ulterior expenditure, as it is a course that ought to be followed for the Report of the Committee was likely the future. With regard to the Amendto be obtained in a short time. He ment of the hon. Member for Pontefract would suggest that the debate be now ad- (Mr. Childers), it is not liable to the same journed. [Mr. SPEAKER intimated that objection, because it constantly happens this could not be done.] He would then in the course of the debate that the orirecommend the hon. Member for Cashel to ginal Motion is objected to, and that havwithdraw his Amendment on the under- ing been withdrawn another is substituted standing that he should have an early more acceptable to the House. I have opportunity of bringing the matter on taken the liberty of making these observaagain after the right hon. Baronet had tions to the House, rather with the view consulted his Colleagues. of collecting the opinion of the House with regard to its future practice. MR. O'BEIRNE said, he would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Pontefract. MR. SAMUDA said, he wished to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Royal Commission made two recommendations-one with reference to fortifications, the other with regard to floating batteries for the defence of our shores. If the matter was re-considered by the Government, it would perhaps be found that they had carried out the less important matter, and neglected the more important of the two. MR. GOSCHEN put it to the hon. Member for Cashel, whether it would not be well to bring this question before the House again? [Cries of "Divide!"] Hon. Members opposite were not acceding to the wish of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for War, who had pleaded that sufficient Notice had not been given. [Renewed cries of "Divide!"] As it seemed the wish of the House to divide, they must each vote according to their convictions, and he had no option, but to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Pontefract. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, no further outlay on the Fortifications for the defence of the United Kingdom and of the Colonies, except such as may be absolutely necessary under existing Contracts, or to complete works which cannot be suspended without serious inconvenience, ought to be in MR. SPEAKER: The Secretary of State for War has taken exception to the terms of the Notice of the hon. Member for Cashel (Mr. O'Beirne), as not being sufficiently precise and complete, and I should wish to take the direction of the House, as to what should be the practice for the future. It is a rule of the House, that no original Motion should be made without due Notice; but of late years, on the question of going into Committee of Sup-curred until the Report of the Committee recently ply on Fridays, the Motions all partake of the nature of original Motions, though made in the form of Amendments to the Motion, "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair;" but they are, in fact, a succession of original Motions, which Mem bers expect will be called on in due order. Now, this is a new practice, and I should like to know if it is the opinion of the House that Notices for Friday should be given in sufficient time and in as complete appointed shall have been laid before this House," (Mr. Childers,) instead thereof. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divided:-Ayes 93; Noes 48: Majority 45. Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." in Bombay an inflation of credit, before INDIA-BANK OF BOMBAY.-QUESTION. that time unknown; and when, on the MR. AYRTON said, he supposed the House would not go into Committee that night, and he therefore rose to call attention to the Papers laid on the table with reference to the Bank of Bombay, and to ask a Question thereupon. The Question was one of pressing importance, relating as it did to the existence of an institution in Bombay, which had a very great effect upon the state of public credit and credit generally in Bombay, and might indirectly seriously affect the credit of this country. In consequence of the failure of the Bank of Bombay, a new bank had been established, and the Government had established relations with it, resembling those which it had sustained with the late Bank. To this he should have felt no objection but for the extraordinary circumstance that all the evils that existed in the old Bank, and that led to its failure, had been re-created in the new Bank, which was to be supported by the Government of India. The old Bank was founded in 1840. It was established by an Act of the Legislative Council, which defined the powers and duties of the directors. The Court of Directors in England sent out instructions on which the Bank Act was passed; and they adopted this fundamental policy, that it was improper to give to a bank in India those unlimited powers which were given to similar institutions in this country; that no funds should be advanced, except on security, either of public loans of the Government of India, or merchandize, or bills of exchange having the security of an independent and solvent person in addition to the drawer and acceptor; and further, that no one should obtain upon his own credit loans exceeding £30,000. There was a further provision that the length of credit to be given should be limited to three months; and there was a strict prohibition against the funds being appropriated in any other manner. Under this admirable system the Bank was carried on for many years, and its credit stood higher than the credit of any bank in the world. Unfortunately, however, a change was made in the constitution of the Bank. A new law was passed empowering the directors to advance money on cash credit, and to buy and sell bills of exchange without those restrictions. Thus they were at liberty to advance what they pleased on the security of a single person, without any collateral security. Then began failure of the Bank, the Government called for an explanation of the cause, a schedule was delivered, from which it was apparent that it arose from the changes which had been made. In that schedule he found this - Financial company, bill discounted £100,000, no security; fixed loan, £113,000, no security; a merchant, £50,000, cash credit, and no security. And those three items represented the character of the institution which had failed. In proposing the establishment of a new bank one would have expected that there would be an avoidance of the errors that had brought the old Bank to grief. But looking at the constitution of the new Bank he was surprised to find that there was precisely the same power given to invest funds without security that existed in the old Bank. Under these circumstances he was surprised to find that the Government of Bombay proposed to take shares in the Bank, and that the only security they proposed for their own protection was the appointment of an auditor or inspector, who would not be able to control any laches in the management of the business of the Bank as it proceeded from day to day. The reason assigned for the Government taking shares was, that persons of influence would not take shares unless the Government did so. On making inquiry who those persons of influence were, he was surprised to find that one distinguished member of the Council of the Governor General had applied for shares while these negotiations were pending, and that he threatened to withdraw his application unless matters were thus arranged to his satisfaction. Now, he had always thought the besetting sin of Indian administration was the tendency of its members to embark in joint-stock companies, but he did not expect to find this instance of it. He knew the gentleman in question to be a man of the highest sense of honour; but there were hundreds who would imitate his example for one that would imitate his motive, and in India people did not discriminate. He thought that the Government of India should merely watch over the accuracy of its own account, and that it should be made clear that the Government had no intention of securing either the public or the shareholders against loss. He wished, therefore, to know, what were the views of the Secretary of State for India on these was therefore submitted to the Secretary of State before it was considered by the Legislative Council. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) he agreed with most of what the hon. Member had points, and he ventured to suggest that if it had not already been done-orders should be sent out to India directing and insisting on the constitution of the new Bank on the same principle as that which at its outset regulated the old Bank; that the powers of the directors should be regu-said; but he had to state that the Bank lated, not by a mere deed of incorporation, but by an Act of the Legislative Council, which should make it penal for the directors to misappropriate the funds of the institution. had only been temporarily constituted under articles of association which had been considered by the Home Government. The Secretary of State in Council had already sent a dispatch to Bombay pointing out that the articles of association were not satisfactory, and expressing a desire that an Act should pass, and that a draft of this Act should be sent home to the Secretary of State, in order that its details might be considered here before it was submitted to the Legislature of Bombay. When the draft came home it would be considered carefully, with a view to making it as perfect as possible. With respect to the question of the connection of the Government with banks, it was one on which his general opinion had in no way changed, but was rather strengthened by what had occurred. It was his opinion, MR. DYCE NICOL said: I will not detain the House beyond urging, in the strongest manner, on the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India the severing of the present connection between the Bombay Government and the Bank of Bombay, a continuance of which exposes the Government to a repetition of the difficulty in which they are now involved with the old Bank-calculated, as it is, to degrade the authority of the Government in India, and placing it in an entirely false position by assuming a responsibility before the public which, when called on to fulfil, it is under the necessity of repudiating. The present time appears, also, opportune as a general principle, that it was inexpefor dissolving this commercial partnership. The community of Bombay have in a great measure recovered from the effects of their insane speculations, and have been the chief recipients of the millions expended in the Abyssinian expedition, while the chief article of export-namely, cottonhas, within the last few months, increased in value 100 per cent, there can be no longer any claim for the interposition of the Government credit in banking operations. I trust, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet will give early notice of the withdrawal of the Government from this co-partnership, and to intimate to the Banks of Bengal and Madras the intention of Government of adopting the same course with those institutions at the expiry of their present charters. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, he wished to explain to the hon. Member who last spoke that he (Sir Stafford Northcote) was in error when he told him the other day, in answer to a question, that the Act of 1863, which made an alteration of the charter of the Bombay Bank, had not been sent home before it was sanctioned. It had not been sent to the usual Department to which these dispatches came-he meant the Judicial Department; but he now found it had been sent to the Finance Department, and dient for the Government to be shareholders in Presidency banks, and so rendered, to all appearance, responsible for their management. When the question of allowing the Government to take shares in the new Bank at Bombay came up for decision, he felt so strongly upon it that he overruled the opinions of a large majority of his Council, and sent out a despatch objecting to take shares. In the particular case of Bombay, however, he subsequently surrendered his own opinions upon finding that without the co-operation of the Government it would be impossible to reestablish the Bank, and that if it were not re-established great difficulties would arise and great injustice would be done to the mercantile community in Bombay. His assent, however, had been accompanied with this condition-that a Commission should inquire into the whole subject, and should examine whether the precautions taken were sufficient, or whether it was desirable that any other arrangements should be made. He hoped that by that inquiry some conclusions might be arrived at which would regulate the future relations between the Governor General of India and the Presidency banks generally. In the case to which reference had been made there would be no ground for comment or censure, either as to the spirit or anything went wrong they held the Government responsible for what really was the result of their own want of caution. It was very desirable, now that there was a constant demand for Government supervision and direction in a variety of ways, that from the recent occurrences in India a lesson should be drawn and that it should be impressed both upon the Government and the mercantile community. Anything more disastrous than this case of the Bank of Bombay he could hardly conceive, for it had covered the Government of Bombay with a kind of discredit, at the same time that the supervision of the Government had wholly failed to avert that ruin against which it was supposed to operate as a complete safeguard. intention of the distinguished person referred to. He was a shareholder in the old Bank of Bombay, and when the new Bank was proposed to be re-constituted, he made an application in the ordinary course for shares, under the impression that the Government were to be shareholders as before. Finding, however, that an objection was raised by the Secretary of State, he at once said that altered the position of affairs, and withdrew his application. There could be no doubt that both the application and the withdrawal were perfectly right; but it was equally true that this proceeding on the part of a person so exalted in position exercised an immense effect throughout a country like India. The question whether it was possible to lay down any rules forbidding Members of the Government or persons employed in Government Departments to hold shares in banks, he had discussed privately in letters with Sir John Lawrence and with menbers of his own Council; but it was exceedingly difficult to arrive at a decision as to putting limits to private investments; and he could only hope that the Report of the Commission would throw some light upon it. He did not commit himself to any positive opinion upon the point, but owned that he thought the present arrangement undesirable. Power would be given-probably had been given by this time-to the Commission to take evidence in India; and he had desired the Governor General to facilitate, if necessary, the adjournment of the Commission to England, though he did not expect that such a course would be necessary. Sir C. Jackson had sailed that day for Bombay, and had directions from him (Sir Stafford Northcote) to obtain power, if necessary, to carry on the inquiry without delay. MR. GOSCHEN said, he did not intend to offer one word of hostile criticism upon what had been done by the right hon. Baronet. Not the least satisfactory part of his explanation was that in which he stated his views as to the undesirableness of the Government becoming shareholders in a bank. But there was one moral to be drawn from the case of the old Bank of Bombay which ought not to be overlooked-namely, the inefficiency and unreliable character of Government inspection and Government interference in commercial matters. Where there was Government inspection the public was always likely to cease to be vigilant or to contest the action of the directors; and then if MR. KINNAIRD said, he thought it certain that the fact of a member of the Council of Government in India being connected with the management of a bank must give a great impulse to speculation. As matters stood in India, it appeared as if there were an irresponsible Council which was continually reversing the opinions of the Secretary of State and the House of Commons. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India would adopt effective measures to prevent a recurrence of the evils complained of. The right hon. Baronet had not distinctly stated that he had taken steps to prevent the possibility of a member of the Governor's Council becoming a shareholder. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Committee deferred till Monday next. ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS BILL-[BILL 88.] (Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens, Mr. Kinnaird, Mr. Locke.) THIRD READING. Order for Third Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."-(Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens.) MR. AYRTON said, that as the Bill stood persons who had no interest in the finances of the metropolis would be at liberty to impose burdens on the tax. payers. With a view of having this altered he moved the re-committal of the Bill. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the words "Bill be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "re-committed, for the purpose of amending the Schedule," (Mr. Ayrton,) -instead thereof. SIR JAMES FERGUSSON said, this was not a Government Bill, but last year the First Minister of the Crown stated that the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens), who introduced it, would have his sympathy. The question raised by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was not a new one. The House, after a full discussion of the subject, had decided on adopting the area of the Metropolitan Board of Works. No sufficient reasons for re-considering that decision had been advanced either by the hon. Member or by the deputation that had waited that morning upon his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and his right hon. Friend was of opinion that there were no good grounds for re-committing the Bill. MR. LABOUCHERE said, he apprehended that the effect of the Bill would be to increase and not as was supposed to diminish the inequalities of taxation in the metropolis. The measure would impose a charge of 2d. in the pound for the purpose of carrying out objects which could be effected equally well without it. The vestries, and not the Board of Works which did not possess the confidence of the ratepayers, ought to be charged with carrying out the measure, and he would appeal to the hon. Member for Finsbury to agree its being re-committed. to MR. MELLY, as representing a large constituency of 150,000 persons, objected to the re-committal of the Bill, which he hoped would be at once read a third time and passed. COLONEL HOGG said, that the accusations made against the Metropolitan Board of Works were unfounded. The Board did not wish for additional responsibilities, although they would discharge to the best of their ability any fresh duties which Parliament might impose upon them. MR. FAWCETT thought it was altogether too late to raise the objections made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. MR. HARVEY LEWIS said, he felt that the metropolis had not had opportunity enough to consider this Bill. The Bill had been hurried through the House and therefore it ought to be re-committed. Question, "That the words proposed to Main Question put, and agreed to. WAYS AND MEANS. (In the Committee.) 1. Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized to raise any sum of money, not exceeding £600,000, by an issue of Exchequer Bonds. 2. Resolved, That the principal of all Exchequer Bonds which may be so issued shall be paid off at par at any period not exceeding five years from the date of such Bonds. 3. Resolved, That the interest of such Exchequer Bonds shall be payable half-yearly, and shall be charged upon and issued out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or the growing produce thereof. Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (SCOTLAND) BILL. On Motion of Mr. CRAUFURD, Bill to amend the Acts relating to Weights and Measures in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CRAUFURD and Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 109.] JURORS' AFFIRMATIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL. On Motion of Mr. CRAUFURD, Bill to give relief to Jurors who may refuse or be unwilling, from alleged conscientious motives, to be sworn in Civil or Criminal Proceedings in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CRAUFURD and Mr. DUNLOP. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 110.] CUSTOMS AND INCOME TAX BILL. Bill "to grant certain Duties of Customs and Income Tax," presented, and read the first time. [Bill 108.] House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock, till Monday next. [INDEX. |