I wish, Sir, to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government, Whether any arrangement has been come to with the other leading European Governments in respect to the proposed Conference on the Danish Question; and, if so, when the Conference is likely to meet? Perhaps the noble Lord will also state, supposing a Conference has been arranged, on what basis the parties will negotiate—whether it will be the uti possidetis, or the basis mentioned in the Despatch of Earl Russell which is given towards the end of the recently published Blue Book?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government, as is well known, have obtained the consent of Austria and Prussia to a Conference, and we are waiting for an official answer from Denmark upon the same question. We have good reason to believe, however, that Denmark will consent to the Conference, though we have not yet received any official intimation to that effect. With respect to the basis mentioned by the noble Lord opposite—uti possidetis—that refers rather to an armistice than to a Conference. What we have proposed is — whereas it was found impossible to bring the parties to agree to an armistice upon any terms likely to be accepted by both, we suggested a Conference without an armistice, trusting that when the Conference met, the first question it would have to consider would be the establishment of an armistice. What the basis will be is, of course, a matter for subsequent consideration; but I wish the House to understand that the state of the matter at present is, that we have good reason to hope that we shall get from the Danish Government a consent to the Conference.

Sir, I wish to ask what further Papers will be presented to the House relative to the Danish Question. I understand that a statement has been made in the Swedish Parliament to the effect, that the Papers hitherto presented to the English Parliament did not fully represent the whole state of the case as regards the action taken by Sweden. I wish, therefore, to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the additional Papers to be placed before us will include those relating to the course proposed by Sweden in February last, and whether they will be laid on the table previous to the Motion of the hon. Member for Liskeard?

The utmost I can do will be to present the Papers referred to by the noble Lord to-night in "dummy." They shall be printed without delay, and distributed as soon as possible after the adjournment of the House for the recess.

Sir, I have placed a Notice on the paper to move—

"That the statement of the Procureur Général, implicating a Member of this House of Commons and of her Majesty's Government in the plot for the assassination of our ally the Emperor of the French, deserves the serious consideration of the House."

I wish to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government, Whether he will allow this Notice to take precedence of the other Notices?

I have no power over the order of business in the House.

I did not hear the noble Lord's answer to my Question; will he be good enough to repeat it?

The hon. Baronet asked me if I would consent to his Notice having precedence of the other Notices; and I answered that I had no command over the business of the House, It is for the House itself to say, whether or not it will give precedence to the Motion of the hon. Baronet.

I do not wish, Sir, to give any opinion on the propriety or impropriety of the suggestion of the hon. Baronet, but I do wish to vindicate the privileges of the individual whose duty it is to lead the business of this House; and I must say that I do not understand how the noble Lord on a Government night has not the power of arranging the order of business. I should like to understand from the noble Lord, whether he has abdicated and given up that privilege which hitherto the leader of this House has been supposed to possess of arranging on Government nights the order of business.

The Notice given was of a Motion on going into Committee of Supply, and I do not myself see any reason for disturbing that arrangement.

I merely desire to say, in my own justification for rising, that while I admit that the noble Lord may be the best judge as to what is the best course for proceeding with the business of the House, yet I understood him in his explanation to state that he had no power of arranging the order of business on a Government night.

said, he would move that the Orders of the Day be postponed until after his Motion.

That will not be the proper course for the hon. Member to take. If the hon. Member could claim the ground of Privilege, that would give his Question precedence without postponing the Orders of the Day. It is for the House to say whether this is a question of Privilege of that nature which should take precedence over all the other business. The hon. Member did me the favour of speaking to me in private on this point. A matter of Privilege which claims this precedence should be some subject which has recently arisen, and which clearly involves the privileges of this House and calls for its immediate interposition. I stated to the hon. Baronet that as this subject has already been twice under the notice of the House—as questions have been asked twice in this House upon it—it did not appear to me to come under the character of something which had recently arisen, and required the immediate interposition of the House without notice. I therefore told the hon. Gentleman that in my opinion the course which he proposed to himself of raising any question which he might deem fitting upon it on going into Committee of Supply was the right course for him to follow. It is for the House to decide whether it thinks, under the circumstances, that is the proper course to be pursued. The House has the power of directing the course which it may think right in this case.

I would offer a suggestion, Sir, which may, perhaps, meet the views of all parties—namely, that after my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Bill on Government Annuities, the Penal Servitude Bill should be postponed, to give the hon. Baronet the opportunity he desires.

Sir, I rise before the reading of the Orders of the Day with reluctance, but without any hesitation, to refer to the statements made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Mr. H. B. Sheridan) on this day week. The House is naturally jealous of the character of its Members, and would very justly resent observations made by any one, and especially if made by a Minister of the Crown, which purported to relate to matters of fact that appeared to reflect upon the character of any one of its Members, and which might afterwards be found not to be fully sustained by the real state of the case. I wish, therefore, to acknowledge, in the fullest manner, to the House, that if I made any statement of facts implicating, in any degree, the character and conduct of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. B. Sheridan), and if I am not able to sustain that statement, I not only owe to him a full and humble apology, but I deserve, at the hands of the House, the severest censure. On that principle I propose to refer to what has taken place. The hon. Gentleman made partial explanations—very fairly stating that he had had no notice on this subject—partial explanations with regard to allegations that proceeded from me on the nights of the Monday and Tuesday of last week. As far as respects the question of notice, it is but due to him I should say that I only became acquainted with the facts of the case of the British Provident Association, in such a manner as to make me feel it to be my duty to notice them in debate, on the morning of the Monday, when the debate came on. At the same time it would be to me matter of the deepest regret if, in consequence of the want of notice, the hon. Member suffered any prejudice. However, the explanations offered by him on the Monday and Tuesday of last week did not appear to me to make it necessary for me to proceed further with a subject from which I not unnaturally shrank. But on Thursday the hon. Gentleman made a statement in which he distinctly impugned and contradicted various allegations of fact which I had submitted to the House. He concluded with the assumption—which would have been justifiable on the supposition upon which it procceded—the assumption that he had dis- posed of those allegations; and he kindly assured me, that although I had misrepresented the facts he was quite sure that I had done it unintentionally. That was on Thursday last. I thought it my duty to lose no time in examining into the statement which I had made — for I had no right to keep a matter of that kind hanging any longer than was necessary over the head of the hon. Member, and I may add over my own head also. On Friday afternoon I therefore addressed a note to the hon. Member to this effect—

"11, Carlton House Terrace.

"The Chancellor of the Exchequer presents his compliments to Mr. Sheridan, and is prepared to reply to Mr. Sheridan's statement of yesterday in the House of Commons. He will, as Mr. Sheridan may prefer, either postpone his reply until Thursday, when the Bill comes on, or request the Speaker to permit him to make it on Monday, at the commencement of public business, as a matter of personal explanation."

I did not receive any written answer to that letter, but I received a verbal message through my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Brand), from which I gathered that, on the whole, the hon. Gentleman would prefer that I should make the statement to-day. Now, I wish the House to have in the most distinct manner present to its mind the actual issues that were raised. I stated that an institution called the British Provident Association had existed for eleven years. I perceive that I am reported as having stated that it did business for eleven years. I did not use that expression. I stated that only for three years did it register its accounts, as required by law, and that those three years were from 1853 to 1856. I stated that its receipts in those years were £10,600, and that its expenses were £15,700—that is to say, being chiefly at least a Life Assurance Society with immediate receipt and with postponed liabilities, its expenses in those three years were about 50 per cent above its receipts. I said that it was taken into Chancery, and that the shareholders were called upon to meet the demands of the policy-holders. I stated that an action was brought against the manager, and that the substance of the action was that he was charged with interpolating words into a deed, the effect of which was to transfer the liability in respect of unpaid calls from himself to the portion of the shareholders from whom he bought them; and, lastly, I stated two names, one of which appeared to be, and has proved to be, the name of a Member of this House.

I beg pardon; but do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the second name he mentioned had anything to do with the trial?

I have stated precisely the allegations which I made on Monday week. I never said anything whatever in relation to the connection of any person with the trial except Mr. John Sheridan. I come now to the contradictions. But as the hon. Member wishes me to enlarge—I was desirous rather to contract my reference to that—I ought to say that I did state that the name of the hon. Member appeared first as auditor and then as trustee of that society. The hon. Member, Sir, contradicted me as follows:—He said the society did business for eight years only, from 1852 to 1850. He said it registered its accounts in the years 1852, 1853, and 1854; he said the Act was then accidentally repealed which required the registration of accounts, and that the Registrar refused to receive them; he said, so far from being a bad concern, that—but I had better read his own words upon both these points. He said that it registered its balance-sheet for the years 1852, 1853, and 1854, but that it was then held that the Act of Parliament which compelled their registration was repealed—unintentionally repealed—and that the Registrar refused to receive the balance-sheet after that date. Then with reference to the goodness of the concern the hon. Member stated that—

"So far from the company being compelled to go to Chancery to make provision for the policy-holders from the resources of the shareholders, and so far from their affairs being in a bad state, the fact was that when their business was transferred to another office in 1869 a bonus of £6,000 was paid to the shareholders for the business thus transferred."

Lastly, Sir, the hon. Member said that—

"No action was ever brought against Mr. John Sheridan, and that no charge was ever made by any shareholder against the manager.

I rise, Sir, to order. I made no such statement.

I am quoting the words as they are reported, but of course it is quite open to the hon. Gentleman to question their accuracy, and I should make a similar claim.

My words were not reported in the same way as the words of the right hon. Gentleman were reported. My words were only given generally, as observations, but his were given literally.

I cannot tell the exact force of that distinction, but I make no difficulty about that matter, if the hon. Gentleman says the report is inaccurate.

What I said was that no action was brought against the manager charging him with interpolating words in a deed.

On the whole, the upshot of it was that this society while it existed had obeyed the law, had transacted a reputable business, and had been unfortunate, but had not been guilty. Now, Sir, I applied no epithets in my description of the doings of that society; but I frankly own that I consider that the facts which I stated to the House made out the case of a dishonest or fraudulent society. And I am not at all surprised at, and I do not at all disclaim, the interpretation, if this were the interpretation given to my statement. Sir, I will go back to the facts, and endeavour, if possible, to avoid the use of a single epithet. And first, as to the existence of the society, it was provisionally registered in the name of "The United Trades and General Life and Fire Assurance Association," in the month of September, 1849. On the 26th of September, 1850, its name was changed to "The British Provident Life and Fire Assurance Company." The hon. Member has stated that it did no business until the year 1852. I hold in my hand a tract published on behalf of the British Provident Life and Fire Assurance Company, containing the tables of the company, dated 1850, and bearing among the names of the auditors the name of the hon. Member. It assumed the name of the British Provident on the 26th of September, 1850. It was completely registered on the 14th of December of that year. In 1859 it made arrangements for transferring its business, and an order for winding up was made by the Court of Chancery, on the 8th of March, 1861. Therefore, in stating that the existence of the society reached over eleven years, I am rather within than beyond the mark. So much as to the duration of the society. The hon. Member says it registered its accounts in 1852, 1853, and 1854.

I rise to order. I never made any such statement. I said from 1853 to 1856, the accounts being from March to March in each year.

It certainly is rather a misfortune that the figures of the hon. Member were misapprehended by those who reported them. I pass that by. But he does not contradict my statement, which is to the effect that the society registered its accounts from 1853 to 1856—that is, from March, 1853, to March, 1854, March, 1855, and March, 1856. I have said the society was completely registered in 1850. It was bound to register its accounts every year from that time, and consequently it now stands confessed that this society registered no accounts till it came to the year March, 1854. Then comes the question of the repeal of the Act. The hon. Gentleman stated, as I understood him, that the Act was repealed in 1854; but as he now explains it the Act was repealed in 1856. Sir, the Act was not repealed in 1856; but there is this colourable ground for the statement of the hon. Gentleman—that an impression prevailed that it was repealed in 1856. That impression, however, continued only for ten months, until a certain date in 1857. At that time other Assurance Societies resumed the registration of their accounts; but no further accounts were registered by the British Provident until it transferred its business in 1859. At any rate my statement is completely borne out that it registered its accounts during three years only of its existence. Even according to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, it appears that during five or six years it did business without registering its accounts. The Act requiring registration of the accounts of Joint Stock Companies was repealed in 1862. I have stated that the expenses of the society were £15,700. Its receipts were £10,600. The hon. Gentleman appears, however, to contradict me indirectly, by saving that, so far from being a bad business, a bonus of £6,000 was paid to the shareholders. That obliges me to inquire what was the position of the shareholders if a bonus of £6,000 was paid to them. That is not sufficient to show it was not a bad business, because the question is, what had the shareholders paid? Now, that is very difficult to ascertain, but I think I can ascertain enough to bear out the statement that this was a bad business; that it was taken into Chancery; and that it was necessary to make large calls on the share- holders in order to meet the claims of the policy-holders, which I believe up to this moment have not been completely settled. In the three years for which the society registered its accounts, the shareholders paid £7,584. There were about 17,000 shares of £10 each taken up. Before the society was wound up a further call was made of £2 10s. per share, and if that £2 10s. was paid the sum must have amounted to about £38,000. After the society got into Chancery, the Vice Chancellor found it necessary to make a further call in 1862 of £5 per share, and in 1863 another call of £5 per share. So that this much appears clear, that besides the £7,584 originally paid, £12 10s. was called on these 17,000 shares. I leave any one to add up the sum, and ask whether I am not justified in representing this as a rotten unsound concern, to use the mildest term, even if it be true that £6,000 was paid to the shareholders. What I find is, according to Mr. Turquand, the eminent accountant, the debts acknowledged amounted to £9,000. There were £39,000 of claims registered under examination; and as to payments to shareholders, I am only able to trace £2,069 subject to taxation for costs; and it appears, according to a printed statement, that £5,000 were paid to Mr. John Sheridan, but what further became of it I have not been able to ascertain. I have gone into these details because the hon. Gentleman represented the state of this society as one in which the shareholders had particularly benefited. The hon. Member says—and here he has the advantage over my ignorance or carelessness in legal phraseology—that no action was brought against Mr. John Sheridan. How the gentlemen connected with the Chancery bar must have smiled when I said that an action was brought against Mr. John Sheridan when I spoke of a matter of Chancery jurisdiction! I was quite wrong in the expression I used. What I intended to convey to the House, and what I believe every one who heard me knew I intended to convey, that which was clearly apprehended from what I said was this—that there was a legal proceeding in which the substantial issue was whether, for the benefit of Mr. John Sheridan, or for his exoneration from a pecuniary charge and to throw that on another shareholder, certain interlineations were made in a deed after it was executed. I am now referring to that part of the hon. Gentleman's personal explanation in which he thought fit to contradict my statement. I hold in my hand a statement of the proceedings in this very case, extracted I from The Times newspaper, and which some 100,000 persons have read before me. I will read to the House only a few lines. Mr. Sheridan was examined upon that occasion, the formal issue of which was between Mr. Harben, the complaining shareholder, and the official manager of the company. But Mr. John Sheridan was the party really involved in the transaction, and that was what I intended to convey in my original statement. The account in The Times says: —"Mr. Sheridan, the managing director, was examined, He distinctly swore that he had no doubt that the interlineations were made before the execution." A statement was made that the interlineations were made by the clerk; but Mr. Knight, the clerk, "positively swore that he never made and never would make any interlineation after the execution of any document for Mr. Sheridan or any other person." "Mr. Orpen swore distinctly as to the transfer of the shares in question being executed after Mr. Sheridan had agreed to give him £50 for them and take them himself, these two only being present at the agreement." Mr. Serjeant Shoe then addressed the jury in reply in an able speech.

Surely the opinion of counsel ought not to be taken against the character of one of the parties?

I am sustaining my statement by the evidence of public documents, which have been read by 100,000 persons in this country, and are matters of perfect public notoriety. Besides, from whom am I to know the real issue if not from the counsel in the cause?

From the Vice Chancellor.

Well, you shall have his opinion directly. I quote the statement of a friendly counsel. Mr. Serjeant Shee insisted on the utter improbability of two persons like Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Knight conspiring together to commit one of the grossest frauds that could be imagined without the least apparent motive; for in the case of Mr. Knight there was an instance of an attesting witness to a deed afterwards lending himself to interline it, when many a man had been executed for a less matter: the jury must be perfectly certain that the interlineations had been made after the execution of the deed before they could find a verdict in favour of Mr. Orpen, and must weigh well before, upon a case of suspicion only, they took a course entailing such very serious results to two persons. The jury consulted for a short time, and stated that they were unanimously of opinion that the interlineations in question were made after the deed of transfer had been executed. The Vice Chancellor said "that the public and the parties were very much indebted to the jury for the patience and intelligence which they had shown, and he saw no reason to be dissatisfied with their verdict." Then I again state that every allegation I have made against the British Provident Society has been either admitted or proved by the facts of the case; and, I submit, the counter allegations of the hon. Gentleman I have overthrown, with the exception of the trivial verbal question of the word "action." Every statement I made on the subject of the British Provident Society remains unshaken and unquestioned. I have not stated any matters now on the authority of any private information or from any knowledge of my own; I have stated what is recorded in public documents, and has been for the most part published in the journals of the day. Under these circumstances I leave the matter in the hands of the House.

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman seems much astonished to find that he cannot so much rely upon the report of the words used by me in this House as upon the elaborate report of his own speech in reference to this matter. There is this material difference between our positions. The right hon Gentleman addresses this House in a twofold capacity —it is a tribunal in which he is not only listened to but his words are stereotyped on the public mind. The words of the right hon. Gentleman are stereotyped in the minds of the people of this country. But of course, with an humble individual like myself, that advantage is not enjoyed, and the defence I make is so dwarfed and briefed, that when read in the public prints, it links so horribly as to become merely a string of detached quotations. The right hon. Gentleman has used the name of Sheridan so frequently that it would not be surprising if hon. Members were led to believe that I was the person to whom he referred in connection with all these pro- ceedings. Almost every other word used by him was the name of Mr. Sheridan. Public documents, or newspaper reports rather, were read, and the right hon. Gentleman's notion of fairness under the circumstances was that he could do nothing better than read the speech of the counsel for the official manager in order to show the character of the issue. The right hon. Gentleman has said this was an action against the manager of this company for interlining words in a deed. That I distinctly dispute and deny. No action whatever was brought against the manager. I stated the other day that an issue was raised upon the trial as to which that gentleman was called as a witness, but it was no part of the charge to the jury that Mr. John Sheridan had interpolated those words. I knew nothing about these matters until the right hon. Gentleman threw them at me the other night; but I have since informed myself concerning them, and I find that the whole of the writing in that deed was in the hand-writing of another person, and not in that of Mr. John Sheridan, the manager of the society. The right hon. Gentleman also says that the trial was a trial by jury. It was rather a trial by inuendo than a fair trial by jury of a person accused of an offence. The meanest subject of these realms is entitled to be tried by a jury when a charge is made against him. But then, what are the circumstances attending such a trial? The accused must first be summoned to take his trial by a writ of summons, or by some form of process in the name of the Sovereign or of some person who charges him. That enables him to prepare his defence, to retain his own private attorney, to collect witnesses, to select counsel, and in all the thousand and one ways connected with such proceedings he takes whatever steps he thinks necessary to defend himself. None of these incidents were to be found in connection with the trial to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and it will be time enough to launch all the charges made by him against this gentleman when he has been fairly tried and a jury has pronounced a verdict against him. The right hon. Gentleman admits that in point of form, or according to the ordinary meaning to be attached to language, he was in error when he said that Mr. John Sheridan was the manager of this company, and that an action was brought against him for interpolating words in a deed. I say, I accept the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that statement was an error in point of form; but there was an error in something else than form. I had myself nothing to do with that trial. When the right hon. Gentleman attacks me for something supposed to be done by my brother or by anybody else, it is difficult to see what that can have to do with this House. But if he would look about him more carefully he could find other game of the same sort to fly at. If personal charges of this kind, or what appear to be personal charges, are to be thus bandied about, it is highly necessary that the person making them should take care that he is fully conversant with the facts, and he should look about and see if he is the person to make them. There is an adage that persons who live in glass houses ought not to throw stones, and if such a person does throw a heavy stone he must expect to have one in return. The right hon. Gentleman says this was a trial against Mr. John Sheridan. If it was, then that gentleman was undefended at it. I find in the Post Magazine, from which the right hon. Gentleman himself has quoted, it is stated that at the conclusion of the trial the counsel for the defendant announced their intention of appealing to the Lords Justices, the defendant being the official manager of the company. Another point upon which the right hon. Gentleman had not correctly informed himself, or respecting which his memory had failed him, is, that there was a second trial, and that there had been a previous proceeding of a similar character, though not before a jury. Now it is very well known to all persons conversant with legal proceedings, that nineteen out of twenty cases in the Court of Chancery are tried in Chambers before the representatives of the Vice Chancellors. Hon. Members who are acquainted with the practice in Chancery know that the Judge's deputy in chambers does nearly all the real business in a manner somewhat resembling the proceedings before common law Judges in chambers. Those gentlemen are accustomed to hear charges of fraud banded about with freedom whenever shareholders are called upon as contributories, and in the case which has been referred to, the presiding authority, who represented the Vice Chancellor, was informed that there had been an interlineation in the deed. He heard all the facts the witnesses had to say upon that point, and his decision I will read from the same document to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred—

"In March, 1861, an order was made to wind up the society, and the official manager included Orpen's name in the list of contributories. Orpen insisted that he had transferred his shares, but on producing the instrument of transfer two inter lineations appeared in it that the transfer was to Sheridan, 'on behalf of the Society,' and these Orpen, by an affidavit, stated were not in the instrument at the time of his execution, and Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Knight, a clerk, were examined vivâ voce before the Chief Clerk, who decided the interlineations were in the deed of transfer when it was executed."

It is very odd that the right hon. Gentleman should have forgotten this circumstance, for if he had made himself acquainted with all the facts, he must have known that there was a preliminary proceeding, and that the second proceeding to which he referred was an appeal from the first. I think, so far as relates to the so-called trial by a jury, I have at all events restored the balance. We all know what the inclination of juries is when the parties to the proceedings they are inquiring into are, on the one hand, an objecting shareholder, and on the other a company or the representative of a company. I do not doubt that in this case the jury was composed of intelligent, careful men; but all who are acquainted with such matters know that juries, whenever there is an opportunity, prefer an individual to a company or the representative of a company, I shall say no more of this so-called trial, except that I believe if Mr. John Sheridan had really been put upon his trial the result would have been very different. Now, as to the filing of the balance sheet. The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. He said on the former occasion that this company was in existence eleven years; but towards the end of his statement he admitted, inadvertently I believe, that the company was only in existence for nine years, having been started in 1850, and the business transferred to another company in 1859. The right hon. Gentleman stated—and that was the only statement uncontradicted — that the accounts of the company were only registered for three years, and that no other accounts but those referring to those three years from 1853 to 1856 were to be found at the registration office. It must be borne in mind that I had nothing to do with these accounts beyond auditing them on two occasions; but the fact is that all the cash accounts and other proceedings of the company up to 1856 were registered. So little business was done up to 1853 that all their business up to that time was included in the first balance sheet. The object of registration is to set forth the state of the company, its financial position, and the business it has done. All these facts, from the commencement of the society to 1856, are to be found in the balance sheets registered in the proper office. But, says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the society did not register its balance sheet after that date, and he denies that the Act 7 & 8 Vict, was repealed. He referred to my statement upon that point as an attempt to mislead the House. I have in my hand the Act of Parliament which was said to have repealed the 7 & 8 Vict, c, 110. It is dated the 14th of July, 1856, and it repealed the former Act, and the Law Officers of the Government must have declared so, or the Government would not subsequently have re-enacted the former statute. In part 5, paragraph 107, of the General Act of 1856, I find that the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 110, is repealed, and in the margin, under the head of "Acts repealed," is the entry "7 & 8 Vict. c. 110." Yet, notwithstanding this fact, the right hon. Gentleman says I misled the House when I said the Act was repealed in 1856. But it is clear that the Act must have been repealed in 1856, when we find that another statute was passed in 1857 re-enacting the 7 & 8 Vict. If the Government and their Law Officers were led to believe that the first Act had been repealed, was it surprising that the managers of companies should have thought so too, especially when they found the registration office refused to accept their balance sheets? The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that this society did file its accounts up to 1856.

No, for three years only.

I will quote the right hon. Gentleman's words—

"I mean the British Provident. It was founded in 1851, and carried on business for eleven years, and only for three of those years did it register its accounts as required by law. These were the years from 1853 to 1856."

The right hon. Gentleman says "No!" but, I repeat, up to 1856 the whole of the accounts of the company were registered. After 1856 the Act of Parliament under which the accounts were registered was repealed, and considerable confusion was occasioned in consequence of that state of the law for one or two years afterwards; so that the balance sheets, not of this company only but those of other offices, were not filed, and before 1858 and 1859 the business was transferred to another office. The very utmost the right hon. Gentleman made out, therefore, was that the last balance sheet for 1858–9 was not filed. The Government, on the re-enactment of the registration clause; did not send round to the other offices and inform them that the blunder had been rectified, and to request them to continue the registration of their accounts. A great difference of opinion also existed at the time in the country upon the question of registration, and there were some of the largest offices who did not during that time file their balance sheets. The Act of Parliament under which they were filed was a partial one— friendly to some offices and not to others, and it was not a proceeding which found so much favour with them as to induce them to go in shoals to register their accounts. The registrar was not empowered to take them in the years he had mentioned. I contend that I have fully substantiated the statement, that it is not true the British Provident was in existence for eleven years, and that for three of these years only had it filed its accounts, and that I have shown, that in every particular so far as that is concerned my statement was correct. With respect to the third statement, that this policy business must have been bad, because two years afterwards the shareholders got into difficulties, and the business was transferred. What has that to do with me? It is well known that shareholders are many of them great speculators and adventurers. They do not take shares for the mere dividend of 3¼ per cent, but they often make 500, 600, and 700 per cent premium. I know shares at this time that are at a high premium, and the London and Liverpool Company paid last year 40 per cent dividend. The House has nothing to do with the difficulties of unhappy shareholders: if they lose on some shares they make it up on others; but all the House has to do is with questions of public policy. The right hon. Gentleman, in illustration of his argument for a change, said the British Provident, amongst others, had failed to pay those poor persons who had intrusted their savings to them. I deny that statement, or that he has in any way answered the statement I made the other night. The right hon. Gentleman said the othernight—

"Of course it was necessary that the society should be brought to book, and called on to make provision from the resources of the shareholders for the demands of the policy holders. The society was in Chancery in 1862. An action was brought against the manager of the society for interpolating words in a deed in order to alter its character."

But no such demand was ever made. Two years before the society went into Chancery, its business was transferred to an office of character and standing, which paid something like £6,000 for the goodwill, showing that it was not considered to be worthless by those who understood it. But the right hon. Gentleman insinuates that, although the business might have been transferred for that sum, probably Mr. John Sheridan might have had some of it. That is a new issue; the right hon. Gentleman finds he cannot sustain his former statement, and he prefers a new indictment in the hope of carrying away the attention of the House. What if Mr. John Sheridan might have had £5,000 out of that sum. He is not a Member of this House. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman has been engaged getting up this case ever since I denied his statement, and I have heard from an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House that the right hon. Gentleman has sent for a copy of the shorthand writer's notes of what took place in Chancery, and every effort has been made during the past week to get up a complete and crushing reply to my statements; but I do not think that up to this time it has been done. I will read a letter to the House which I have received from the cashier and accountant of the office which took the transfer of the business from the British Provident. He says—

"British Nation Life Assurance Association,

Chief Offices, 316, Regent Street, W., London,

16th of March, 1864.

"Re British Provident.

"Dear Sir,—The amounts paid by this Company for the policy business and goodwill of the British Provident were something between £7,000 and £8,000, the whole of which was paid to the credit of the shareholders of the British Provident Company, and no part of which was paid to the manager or officers of the Company, or in any way, directly or indirectly, paid to their use or benefit.

"I am, dear Sir, yours truly,

"JOHN MADDEN, Cashier and Accountant.

"H. B. Sheridan, Esq., M. P."

That letter I am willing to place in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, should he think it necessary to test its accuracy. Now the right hon. Gentleman thinks to insinuate again his charges against a gen- tleman who is not before the House; but surely every hon. Member of this House who has the least regard for the responsibility of his position, ought to be careful how he attacks the reputation and character of persons who are not before thorn. There was, indeed, a time when statements and attacks like these might have been made with impunity—when you debated with closed doors; but now, when every such statement is stereotyped out of doors in millions of ways, these attacks come under the notice of all, and are read everywhere. Therefore, neither the right hon. Gentleman, nor any one else ought to have the same protection when he attacks private and individual character now as was given in former days. He ought not to have the same privileges as in former days, because there is not the same reason for it. The statements are not now made to Members only, but to the whole world. And I say that such insinuations as the right hon. Gentleman threw out just now, in order to answer the strongest part of the case he had to deal with, are not worthy of the dexterity of so great and so renowned a debater. I have answered all these points, and I have proved that the statements which I made on a former occasion were correct, and that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in every one of his. I have proved that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in each and every one of his charges, and I should like to know with respect to other statements which the right hon. Gentleman made the other night, whether he is willing to divest himself of the shield of privilege which surrounds and protects him here, and repeat boldly out of doors what he has said in the House, so as to take upon himself the civil responsibility for these depreciatory statements? I now ask the right hon. Gentleman, what was the object of his statements with respect to the British Provident Society? Why did he intrude that question upon the attention of the House? I think the House has good reason to demand an answer. Was it as an illustration of his argument? The letter I have just read proves that the business of the society was conducted in such a way that a large sum of money was paid for it. What was his object in making the charge with regard to the non-filing of the accounts? What has that to do with the business turning out ultimately bad? Is it that he thought to damage me in any way, by associating the name of the Member for Dudley with this society? I never acted as a trustee, but only as an auditor many years ago. Is any Member of this House who happens to be honourably connected, as trustee or otherwise, with a public company, to be the next person to be selected for such attacks? Is it come to this — that in these days of joint stock enterprise any one connected with a public company is to be assailed in this House as if he were responsible for its actual management and for the details of its transactions? I repeat it is most unfair, and that the argument cannot be sustained on any grounds. The right hon. Gentleman introduced the subject in reference to Friendly Societies. But the British Provident was not a Friendly Society, and did no friendly business. All the right hon. Gentleman professed to do was to introduce a Bill to provide for the better regulation of Friendly Societies; why, therefore, did he bring forward the British Provident Society, which was not in existence, and which left behind it no heritage of woe? I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman that question, and if he can give a good reason for having done so, then I shall be very much surprised indeed. I should like to know how it was that the right hon. Gentleman forgot to mention other institutions with which he might be supposed to be more familiarly acquainted. The right hon. Gentleman spoke, indeed, of the European Office in language which requires a more ample apology than I have heard in this House. He described their transactions as equivalent to wholesale robbery; and—I beg it to be observed that I make the statement in the full belief and knowledge—there is not a more high and honourable institution, and it would be no disgrace to any one to be connected with it. The right hon. Gentleman must have believed otherwise, or he would never have made use of such remarkable and never-to-be-forgotten words; but he forgot to mention, when something in connection with the European must have appeared to I him so monstrous as to raise his indignation against it to the utmost, to state that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was the President of that society. I have no wish in saying that—no one would wish—to give pain to so high-minded, amiable, and honourable a man, and it is right I should say that he is not the President of that company now— neither am I the auditor of a society that ceased to exist three or four years ago. A more flourishing and honourable company than the European does not exist; but I want to know how it is the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that a Gentleman sitting in the Cabinet with him was once the President of an institution which he described in such terms; how it was the right hon. Gentleman forgot to mention that fact to the House, and yet drew out of the ruins of the British Provident my name and laid it on the floor of the House. I cannot understand it, nor can I understand how it was the right hon. Gentleman forgot to mention another of these Benefit Societies, which, in the language of the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners), "has come to grief." I am not about to drag before the House the names of hon. Members in connection with matters with which this House has nothing to do; but there is one of these companies, which has the names of twelve M.P.'s and ex-M.P.'s on its direction and connected with it—not that there is anything dishonourable in it; not only were there ten or twelve M.P.'s and ex-M.P.'s connected with it, but there are at this time three of them holding high offices under the Crown, two of them are in the Cabinet, and one of them holds a very high position indeed. I will not refer to the names. ["Name!"] I am in the hands of the House, and will do so if they wish, but I would rather not. Now, the right hon. Gentleman forgot to mention that, but he did not forget to mention a more insignificant person like the Member for Dudley. Was it that the fire insurance question was coming on? It could not be that; but it must have been something that would give the Member for Dudley more significance than twelve Members of Parliament, including three Members of the Cabinet. There must be something more than meets the eye in this outburst of invective, and this torrent of indignation. Another circumstance connected with the European is, that the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Charles Forster) is a director. He is a gentleman of the highest estimation in this House, and his character will not be diminished by the fact of his being a director of this company, for it is a first-class institution. The hon. Member for Walsall deserves well of the Government; he is in direct communication with them, and attends a great deal to the private business of the House. I think he is a gentleman whose claims to notice should not have been overlooked. The right hon. Gentleman has a facility in forgetting his friends, it is very clear. I want to know how it is that the right hon. Gentleman did not look still nearer home in his Quixotic research after rotten companies. I believe that there are some hon. Gentlemen in this House who have to avenge themselves yet in reference to particular companies, and the right hon. Gentleman will find that every statement he made on Monday week affecting the financial condition of the institutions he referred to, and generally all those sweeping charges he ventured on with respect to their fraudulent transactions, will be successfully denied. I do not wish to trespass too long on the attention of the House, though I could say a good deal more; but I believe further explanations will be given to-night by other hon. Gentlemen, and I do not wish to anticipate them. I want to know, however, how it is that the right hon. Gentleman, under these circumstances, with his mind so much incensed, forgot the Protective Burial Company in Liverpool, in the prospectus of which Mr. Robertson Gladstone is described as "justice of the peace and treasurer." Yes, he is described "justice of the peace," in order to induce poor people to part with their money to this Insurance Company. I do not mean to sink to the level of abusing institutions which I know nothing about, and I am not prepared to say that this is not a first-rate institution —I believe it is—but it is odd that the right hon. Gentleman should have forgotten it, particularly when he inveighed so much on the sin of paying 20 or 25 per cent to agents. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the expenses of certain companies being about 13 per cent on their receipts; but in respect to this company to which Mr. Robertson Gladstone belonged, the very first item is 25 per cent to agents. I find that the expenses of this institution, which probably formed the model of those which the right hon. Gentleman regarded with so friendly an eye, as his brother's name was connected with it, though I do not say that it now is, are 45 to 46 per cent on the receipt. The figures are £2,132 13s. 11d. for expenses out of £5,890 11s. 9d. for receipts; yet the right hon. Gentleman the other night said, or implied, that anybody going beyond 13 per cent for expenses was driving headlong to destruction. I will not go further in this matter, for I think I have shown the House that there was some partial selection of these companies on the part of the right hon. Gentleman; but I wish to know what he meant by associating my name with the trial of Mr. John Sheridan. I will forgive him forgetting his brother's company and certain other companies, though there is nothing dishonourable about them that I know of. I also forgive him remembering that I was auditor of the British Provident Company in 1856. The fact of my being auditor does not imply that I had anything to do with the management. I was auditor, or accountant, in fact—that is, I inspected the items of account; but no accountant is responsible for the bankruptcy of the persons whose accounts he audits. But I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman should drag into the House the name of John Sheridan in consequence of some quarrel with the shareholders of his company into which he was only incidentally a party. Why was his character as a witness attacked, and why did the right hon. Gentleman put him and me side by side? I have looked into Mr. May's Law and Practice of Parliament. I find that it is an offence against the privileges of this House to reflect against any hon. Member by name. The person so acting must either give good reason for what he says or retract. This is a matter affecting the privileges of the House, and good reason should be given for associating my name with remarks of a sweeping nature. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should give some account of his conduct to this House if he will not condescend to do so to me. Does he mean to say that I am connected with the management of the society to which he alluded? It is, however, a question of a much larger and wider character—it is a question affecting the freedom of debate in this House, You take care of Members on their approach to this House, and on their exit from it, and protect them from arrest; but that is not; sufficient if when they get here the frowns of the right hon. Gentleman or the threats of any one should intimidate them from doing their duty to their country. I have been the humble means of getting an expression of opinion from the House with respect to one item of taxation; and I had given notice of opposing the Government Annuities Bill. I may have suffered for that; but it is for this House to decide whether, when a person in the high position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has worked up the House to a great degree of excitement, he should not say what is his object in making the comments he did reflecting on an individual Member. I maintain that some apology is necessary to this House for the hon. Gentleman's unwarrantable personal attack on me. ["Hear, hear!"] I accept that cheer as evidence that I have established the position which I undertook to establish.

It appears to me that the hon. Member for Dudley has considerably widened the scope of this discussion. I do not complain of that; but if I do not follow him into matters that do not appear to me —["Order!"] I think I am justified— ["Order!"]

I rise to order. If the right hon. Gentleman is allowed to address the House a second time, I hope the House will accord the same privilege to the hon. Member for Dudley.

rose again, but was stopped by cries of "Order!"

The right hon. Gentleman is at liberty to make any observation, but it must be confined to explanation, and not be a reply.

I am not going to reply to the statement of the hon. Member, but to answer a few questions which have been put to me; and I should have been wanting in respect to the House if I had not risen to do so. The hon. Gentleman asks why on a previous occasion I did not name other societies. I can only say, with respect to those to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that as far as I was acquainted with them —and I was very imperfectly acquainted with them—they did not appear to me to bear the character of fraudulent institutions. With respect to the case of the British Provident Society I have not disguised my reason for selecting that case. I thought it my duty not to deal simply with anonymous charges, vague and un-particularized, against societies many of which I deemed to be great disgraces to the age. I selected the British Provident Society, because I deemed it to be the case of a society which was necessary to justify the description I gave; and it seemed to me a far more manly course to choose a society with which was connected, in some manner, the name of a Member of this House than to deal with a society which had no representative here. The hon. Gentleman has asked me a third question —why I have connected his name with that of Mr. John Sheridan? What I did was simply this—I described to the House the history of this society as far as I had been able to learn it, and not one of the essential particulars I mentioned has, in my opinion, been shaken. I then stated the hon. Member's connection with this society, and I was in hopes that the hon. Gentleman would have explained that connection—and he has explained it, in a manner of which I leave the House to judge. I do not know whether I should express concurrence with the hon. Gentleman on one point. He has said that an apology is due to the House. ["Hear, hear!"] In answer to that cheer from hon. Gentlemen opposite I may remind them that I began by stating, that if the allegations I made were not sustained, not only was an apology due from me to the hon. Member, but that I deserved the severe censure of the House. By that issue I intend to stand or fall.

in rising to move the Amendment of which he had given, notice, begged to ask the indulgence of the House, for he especially felt the difficulty of his position after the very extraordinary and exciting scene which had just occurred. He could not refrain from expressing his deep regret that personal feeling should have formed so large an element in this debate. The motives of the right hon. Gentleman were, he was satisfied, thoroughly pure and honest in bringing forward this measure, and no doubt he had done so with the feelings that it would be for the benefit of the industrial classes. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, that the Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies was the foundation of the Bill; that Report having recorded many failures, and many very gross abuses. He (Sir Minto Farquhar) had referred to that Report, and he found that most of the complaints from members of Friendly Societies in different parts of the country had reference to the expenditure of funds in beer, dinners, processions, and what might be called outside charitable subscriptions. The Registrar had brought this question under the no- tice of the late Attorney General (Sir William Atherton), who had given a distinct opinion that such expenditure was illegal, and that proceedings might be taken against any officers of a Friendly Society who might pay away a portion of the common funds for such purposes. He thought that the knowledge of this fact would lead to much improvement in some of the Friendly Societies, in many of which, however, if the members chose to have an annual dinner, they provided it at their own expense. The right hon. Gentleman had taken credit to himself for the unpresuming and unaggressive manner in which he had introduced his Bill. The truth was, that at first hon. Members did not know what to make of the Bill, the object of which appeared to be simply to give additional facilities with reference to Government Annuities, to which no one could be opposed. It was at the opening of the Session that his hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Brand), had given notice of the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring in this Bill, and on the 11th of February, the right hon. Gentleman introduced it, and stated that it would deal with small Life Insurances as well as with Annuities. Before that statement, not a soul in the House had the least idea that the Bill had reference to Life Insurances. He (Sir Minto Farquhar) had read the Bill, and put it aside, supposing it to be simply an amending Bill relating to Government Annuities. It was the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby), who, with his usual sagacity, at once saw the necessity of deferring the second reading of the Bill long enough to give the country time to consider its provisions. The Bill was nevertheless read a second time on the 15th February. It was only on Monday week last that an explanation of the proposed machinery of the Bill was given by the right hon. Gentleman, and he (Sir Minto Farquhar) did not think that he had made out his case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that Parliament had interfered for the regulation of factories, and of companies, and had introduced sanitary Acts. These were totally different cases to the present one, and it was very questionable how far the Government ought to undertake such a measure as this. The right hon. Gentleman had said that—

"The Bill had grown, not out of the case of Life Assurance Societies, but out of a considera- tion of the case of Friendly Societies, and of the wholesale error, but not error only, along with error, deception, fraud, and swindling, which are perpetrated upon the moat helpless portions of the community who find themselves without defence."

Yet he had not omitted to assail certain smaller Insurance Offices in sweeping terms, and they should be permitted to vindicate their character if they could, and ought not to be condemned unheard. He maintained that if those Friendly Societies were not on a proper footing the law ought to be remedied, and as such a vague and general attack had been made, the parties ought to have an opportunity of coming before this House, and showing that they were not in the condition which the right hon. Gentleman said they were. He had no personal interest whatever in this question. The Company with which he had the honour to be connected was indifferent to the measure. It was an old office, and one of those first-class institutions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. But was it to be said that the old Insurance Offices, because they were not affected by this Bill, were to turn round and say they would not lend a helping hand to those offices of a later origin, and which had done a great deal of good by enlarging the application of the principle of Insurance among the people and making it more freely known? It would be too bad on the part of the old offices if they did not express their desire that all the offices affected by this Bill should at least have an opportunity of stating their case. There was not one of them which did not declare that the right hon. Gentleman had overstated his case. The right hon. Gentleman said he was not to be frightened by the clamour against centralization. What did he mean by that? Was it to be said that hon. Gentlemen were not to protest against such a measure as that introduced? He (Sir Minto Farquhar) would, for one, join in the clamour against centralization, because he was opposed to it. The right hon. Gentleman had made use of the words "fraud and swindling" in reference to certain societies. No doubt there were some fraudulent societies. He acknowledged with regret that there were societies which had disgraced themselves; but that was no reason why those who desired should not be allowed to defend themselves. Take the invested capital in Life Insurance Offices generally, and it would be found to amount to £100,000,000, while the risk was £375,000,000, and the interest and premiums no less than £14,000,000 a year. That, indeed, was a vast and wonderful fact. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the subsidy which the Friendly Societies received from the Government in the shape of interest on their investments, the rate which at the National Debt Office the Government was compelled to pay such Friendly Societies as existed before 1828 being £4 11s. upon every £100, and to those founded before 1844, £3 16s. per annum. It must be admitted that the Government subsidy, as the right hon. Gentleman had termed it, was a boon; but he had the authority of an eminent actuary for saying, that by far the greater number of existing societies received no benefit from it. What did he say?—

"No doubt this must be admitted as a boon and as a government subsidy, but how many of the existing societies are entitled to those benefits? It appears that in 1857 out of 3,073 societies which gave returns of their duration, 1,672 were under twenty years of existence, and 2,714 under forty; so that if this proportion holds good as to other societies the returns of which are not sent in, by far the greater number are not receiving the benefit of either rate to which the statement refers. Under the Act 1850 this privilege only amounts to an investment with the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt at a rate of interest of £3 0s. 10d. per cent."

He (Sir Minto Farquhar) could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the present proposal was analogous to the Post Office savings banks system. In the case of a Post Office savings bank, a man made his deposit and he was without difficulty paid again; there was little or no risk of fraud and personation. But take the case of a man insuring his life. A number of forms had to be gone through; certain printed questions had to be sent by the office to a friend and to the medical man of the insurer for reply. Those questions related specially to the health, (habits whether active and sober), and the profession of the insurer. The printed questions were then returned to the office, and he had afterwards either to appear before the medical officer of the office, or if he lived in the country he had to be examined by a doctor appointed by the office, and at last before he was accepted his case had to be considered and approved by the board of directors. Then he had to pay the premiums upon his policy, and when he died, the office, upon the probate of his will, and the certificate of his death, paid the money. If the money happened by some mischance not to be paid to the proper person, the office was liable to have to pay it again. He would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman thought that attendance to all the requirements of an Insurance Office was a task the Government could undertake? and how he was going to regulate all that he could not understand, either from the Bill or the speech of the right hon. Gentleman? Now, if the measure were referred to a Select Committee, they would at least have the advantage of having before them Sir Alexander Spearman, Mr. Scudamore, and Mr. Chetwynd, who, as he understood, were the promoters of this Bill, and who could then show how they proposed to carry it out. In the second place they would give opportunity, which fair play and justice demanded, to the offices which had been attacked to come forward and offer an explanation. He (Sir Minto Farquhar) was sure that every hon. Member must regret to have heard what passed to-night. He saw opposite the hon. Members for York and Bradford, two Gentlemen of the highest position, and of great commercial knowledge and standing, and yet if one might believe the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who surely could not have intended it, they were, one the chairman, the other a director of a company, capable of entering into a fraudulent understanding with a bankrupt concern. It was only fair that individuals and associations, attacked in such terms, should be heard before a Select Committee. There were no fewer than 3,000,000 persons connected with Friendly Societies, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not be ignorant that his statement had excited among them great alarm and apprehension. Only a full and impartial investigation could quiet their fears. The right hon. Gentleman had said a good deal about the activity of insurance agents; he called them "Touters!" Was an agent to sit in his office twiddling his thumbs, or was it not rather his duty to get as much business as he could for his employers? There was not the slightest doubt that against these Insurance Offices there was a certain amount of fraud and personation constantly attempted. That was an important point, and one which would require the utmost caution on the part of the House in dealing with the subject. The noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, the other night, put his finger upon that point in a moment; and no doubt this was the real difficulty and great defect of the Bill. Now, the agents of some of these societies were obliged to go from house to house collecting the weekly and fortnightly pence required to keep up the policies of the persons insured; they thus became acquainted with all the insured, and, as they were responsible for their identification after death, they gave their employers a very valuable degree of security. How was it possible for the Government to transact such a business, to protect themselves against fraud—a point of so great importance, and to meet the convenience of the poorer classes as it was met by the existing societies. He could mention one of these companies connected largely with the industrial classes, which had frequently suffered from personation, and from numerous misstatements of age. He was informed that it was the custom of that office to pay the claims each Board day, but this was found so objectionable that it was compelled to adopt the system of paying claims every day which were delivered in the office before a certain hour. He understood that this company was necessarily obliged to have proper certificates as full as those for ordinary insurances, and the agents, who visited the houses of the assured regularly, had no difficulty in identification, and in the payment of claims at the head office. To a certain extent, the strict rules observable in the ordinary insurances had to be disregarded, and the claims were paid by what is called rule-of-thumb principle. If the assurers removed from one town to another, there were what are called transfer sheets, and the agents at that town soon became as familiar with the assured as he who introduced them. In a Government system, unless they adopted (which was not likely) the plan of collecting the premiums from door to door, the difficulty of identification would be incalculable, and in cases of removal from town to town all idea of identity must be cast aside, and the Government, or any company which did not adopt similar rules, would be exposed to very great loss. Another question which would affect all Government Assurances would be, that while their rates were calculated at £3 per cent, it was well known that if companies were to be restricted to £3 per cent for their investments, little if any margin could be secured. It was only by the power to advance money at £4, £4½, and £5 per cent, which companies possessed, that they were enabled to accomplish great results. Now, as to lapsed policies, the truth was they were almost valueless until they had run a considerable number of years. What was termed the surrender value of a policy was known to all Insurance Offices; and it meant that the policy after a certain time acquired a certain value, and that if the holder wished to surrender it, the office would give him back a certain proportion of the premiums he had previously paid. As to the lapsed policies, which the right hon. Gentleman referred to on a former occasion, most of them could only have been a short time in force, and when they were allowed to lapse only a few pence or shillings could have been paid; and, after considering the risk of death during the continuance of the policies in question, in which case the office must have paid the full amount, it would be seen that the policies lapsing under such circumstances, had absolutely no surrender value at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said something about returning the amount of five years' premiums on surrender, but he would find it rather difficult to carry that out. He (Sir Minto Farquhar) would ask for further information on this point, which he (Sir Minto Farquhar) probably misunderstood, for what would become of the claims on death in the mean time? for premiums were meant to provide for claims. The right hon. Gentleman spoke also of the romance connected with amalgamations. No doubt, in the case of the amalgamation of some offices, there had been circumstances of mismanagement or even fraud; but bankers and merchants sometimes failed as well as Assurance Companies, and as long as this continued the wicked world it was, there would always be rogues and scheming speculators whose only object was to rob innocent people of their money. That, however, did not prove that two companies might not honestly and advantageously coalesce, and be carried on at much less expense than if they remained separated. He would not dwell on the case of the Royal Liver Friendly Society, which the right hon. Gentleman had attacked, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, who was to second his present proposition, was well able to deal with that matter; but a petition from that society alleged that its rules had been submitted to the late Attorney General and approved by the Registrar of Friendly Societies; that they had also been sanctioned by Mr. Samuel Brown, Mr. Neison, and other well-known and experienced actuaries. The petition- ers, moreover, courted the strictest and most searching investigation into the state of the affairs of their institution, and wound up by praying to be heard at the Bar of that House, or, at least, in a Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that many of these offices insisted on having their arbitrations in London; but it turned out that the Royal Liver Society had its arbitrations at Liverpool. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the society he had named was the Friend-in-Need Society.] He was not the defender of these societies, but he thought they were entitled to an opportunity of rebutting, if they could, the grave charges which had been made against them. If they were found, on proper investigation, to deserve the bad character imputed to them, they would suffer the consequences. If, on the other hand, they had been accused unfairly, the House should afford them the opportunity of exculpating themselves. Mr. Harben, an officer of the British Prudential Society, had written to The Standard impugning the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's statements, and a similar complaint had appeared from the secretary of the Friend-in-Need Society. Surely these gentlemen should receive a hearing before a Select Committee. Moreover, if the right hon. Gentleman's picture of the state of so many of these institutions proved on full inquiry to be correct, a much more radical remedy for the evil would be demanded than this Bill could supply. The machinery of the measure should also be closely examined in a select Committee, and care should be taken that its working was not likely to involve any risk to the public exchequer, as the taxpayers would have to make good any possible loss. The principle of insurance on lives was directly contrary to that of cancelling the public debt by terminable or Life Annuities. The former was in fact creating a new debt by undertaking to pay a certain sum at death in return for sums paid in, and unless there were some care in the selection of lives, and unless the premiums were accurately calculated and ample, there must be a loss, and who was to pay?—the public. It was clear that the prime motive which induced a poor man to join Friendly Societies, and Offices more particularly connected with the working classes, was that he might obtain assistance when ill—the sick pay was the attraction, that which especially helped him when perhaps on a bed of sickness, when his family were hanging on his hands, and when it was possible that without such aid they might be thrown upon the workhouse. The Government surely could not think of adding a plan for giving sick pay to their proposed measure. If it were contended that these societies were not able, under existing arrangements, to keep their promises to those who joined them, let the regulations affecting them be amended, but let them not, by a measure of this kind, deprive such societies of the very elements of success. He (Sir Minto Farquhar) had had a good deal to do with the working classes. He should not be in the House of Commons but for the support of the industrial classes and small tradesmen. They had sent him to Parliament, although he was a Tory. Although he questioned the policy of Government interference, and although opposed, as he had already said, to centralization, yet if it could be clearly proved to him that the Government could undertake to work the machinery of this Bill, and that it would really be a benefit to the working classes, he should be prepared to waive his objections; and he believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was under the impression that the proposition was a good one. Let the question, however, be fully gone into. Let Parliament and the country know by the means of a Select Committee's investigations the whole machinery and working of the measure, and let that Committee have before it those who had been attacked. It was for these reasons that he must persist in his determination to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, and that Motion he accordingly made.

said, he rose to second the Motion. He could not quite concur with the hon. Baronet who had just sat down in believing that there had been any intention to mislead the House on the introduction of the Bill.

I do not make the imputation. I said the other night that I did not impute any such intention.

Looking, however, at the important interests affected by the Bill, and the large amounts which had been invested in Friendly Societies by the humbler classes of the country, he would urge upon the House that the greatest caution ought to be observed in dealing with the subject. The pleasure with which he had listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's eloquent speech the other evening, was in some degree marred by the conviction he then had in his mind, that the statements put forward by the right hon. Gentleman could not altogether be substantiated. It was easy to bring very serious charges in a very few words, but it often took time and some documentary evidence to rebut them. He must, therefore, ask the indulgence of the House if he referred to documentary evidence at greater length than was his wont in addressing them. The right hon. Gentleman said in his speech, "I am very anxious to have it understood that I state these things as I gather them from the published records, and not as matters privately or personally known to myself." Accordingly, he took it for granted that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and on taking up that volume he was very much surprised to find that a large portion of it consisted of fifty to an hundred anonymous letters, with no names, no places, and no dates, and of five extracts from leading articles in provincial papers. The book was edited, he believed, by Mr. Tidd Pratt; and one of the articles opened in these terms—

"Mr. Tidd Pratt, the Registrar of Friendly Societies, has rendered many a good service to the working classes of England, but none more likely to accomplish greater ends than that which he has just achieved with regard to the legal expenses which a Friendly Society may incur."

He opened the volume hoping to obtain some valuable information, but with the exception of these leading articles, anonymous letters, and one or two balance-sheets, the Report was good for nothing. The right hon. Gentleman singled out for comment two societies existing in considerable strength in the town he had the honour to represent—the Royal Liverpool Friendly Society and the Liverpool United Legal Friendly Burial Society. As regards the first of these the right hon. Gentleman had misstated—he was sure unintentionally —some of the facts connected with the society. In the first place, he had taken the number of policies to the end of the year 1863, whereas he had only taken the accumulated fund down to June, 1863. The right hon. Gentleman said, "The Royal Liver last year made 135,000 policies; the number which lapsed in the same time was 70,000." He did not state that the rules of the society provided against the forfeiture of any policies in consequence of non-payments through omissions or derelictions on the part of the officers of the society. Its rules also were most favourable to members in arrear of payments. Only members who by their own default were fourteen weeks, or more than a quarter of a year, in arrear were wholly excluded and out of benefit. All the large societies allowed but twenty-one days' grace, whereas the Royal Liver gave a quarter of a year to enable members to recover their policies. The right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, was not aware that great difference of opinion existed as to the state of the law. Parliament had not given to Friendly Societies the power of buying up lapsed policies. Parliament defined the payments Friendly Societies should make, and limited those payments to fixed contingencies. The fact that a large proportion of lapsed policies accrued in the Liver as in all other large Friendly Societies was not owing to any want of consideration for the depositors, but chiefly to the state of the law. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, had not acted quite fairly in bringing a charge of want of consideration against the society. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I brought no such charge.] The charge had not been made in terms, but by implication. The right hon. Gentleman said—

"There is a rule in the regulations of the Royal Liver which authorizes the Committee of Management to grant to the widow or relations of any member dying out of benefit, in cases of want of employment, sickness, or anything else whereby he was necessarily rendered unable to pay, any sum not exceeding £5. The discretion is given to the committee; but," he added, "it is not for me to say how much has been distributed in that way."

Again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the premium income of the society to be£77,000 a year; and asked what did the House suppose to be the expense of management in raising and dealing with the income —£36,000! The whole cost of management, properly so called—namely, salaries to agents, treasurer, collectors, clerks, and committee of management would be found not to be a large percentage on a gross receipt of £83,000. The society's accounts were swollen by items for 'commission' and costs of collection, which scarcely ought to be regarded as a part of the cost of management at all. These commissions were, in effect, payments made by the depositors themselves to the collectors, who saved them the trouble and loss of time and labour incident to attendance at an office, to pay in their deposits. The commissions were cheerfully paid by the depositors to the collectors, who called at their houses for their money. In the accounts of many societies the commissions were not thus accounted for; but the Royal Liver Society, since its reconstruction, had always kept those items on the face of its accounts, feeling that the true interests of Friendly Societies required that nothing whatever should be concealed from the members, but that every item of receipts and every item of expenditure, to the smallest fraction, should be brought into the balance-sheet. Such Friendly Societies as the Royal Liver wholly depended upon a system of house-to-house collection of small sums, not exceeding 1d. in the majority of cases, and rarely amounting to 1s. in any case. The commission was calculated for in the tables of the Royal Liver Society, and did not exceed the amount so allowed for. It could be wished that commissions for collection might be dispensed with. But how was that to be effected? Habits of providence and thrift had to be brought home to the dwellings and families of the poor; and when agents of the societies collected the money at the dwellings of depositors, regularity of payment was promoted and public-house temptations avoided. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Royal Liver held its meetings in public-houses, but that assertion he (Mr. Horsfall) denied. Then, as to the accumulated assets of the society, which the right hon. Gentleman stated at £39,000, with an income of £77,000, after fourteen years' existence. The Royal Liver Friendly Society had however, only in its present form, an existence of four years. In 1860, the members themselves entirely reconstructed the board of management, and that board caused to be framed new and most excellent rules, which were settled by Her Majesty's late Attorney General, and instituted a continuous and rigid audit of the accounts through Messrs. Harmood, Banner and Son, public accountants, of Liverpool. The result was, that the society had since enjoyed great prosperity, In 1861, its income was £27,000; in 1862 it had risen to £64,900; in 1863 to £83,000; and by July, 1864, at its then rate of increase, it would be £100,000. In 1861, the assets of the society were £18,000; in 1862, £25,600; in 1863, £39,000; and in the six months between July, 1863, and January, 1864, they increased to £50,000. Such were the true facts connected with the Royal Liver Society, which conducted the whole of its proceedings in public. There was no concealment or hurrying up to London in case of arbitration. An application to the nearest magistrate was all that was necessary, and by him an arbitrator was appointed. The trustees of the society were well known to the right hon. Gentleman; they were Mr. Rathbone, of Liverpool, Mr. Rawlings, of Liverpool, and his hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire. These names ought surely to be guarantee sufficient for the manner in which the affairs of the undertaking were conducted. But that was not all. He held in his hand a document signed by a gentleman whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer had deservedly complimented a few evening ago —the actuary of the Guardian Fire Life Assurance Company—and what said that gentleman?

"I have examined the burial branch benefit tables, and also the endowment and sick branch tables of the Royal Liver Friendly Society, and on the perusal of the rules of the said society, and ascertaining therefrom the restricted liability of the society under such rules, on information furnished me by a Committee of the said society appointed for such purpose, together with the statistics produced to me by such Committee, and in comparison of their rates of charges with the usual assurance rates, and taking into account the nature of their insurance and the class assured, and the modes of paying the premiums for securing benefits from the funds of the said society; and further taking into consideration the results of the previous and present working of the said society under such tables, so far as can be judged of by their balance-sheets for the last two years produced to me, and the continued progressive improvement of the said society in a pecuniary point of view, and also allowing a rate of working expenditure not exceeding 40 per cent per annum, I hereby certify, that I consider the said burial branch, endowment, and sick branch tables of the said Royal Liver Friendly Society perfectly safe, and calculated at rates which may be beneficially retained by the members of the said society.

It was not necessary that he should say more with reference to the Liver Society, and he now came to the other society— the Liverpool United Legal Friendly Burial Society. The title of that society, as quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, was differently reported in different papers. In The Times it was called the Liverpool United Loyal Friendly Burial Society, in the other papers it was rightly called the Liverpool United Legal Friendly Burial Society.

It was the Liverpool Victoria that I quoted.

It was not so reported in any paper, and they could scarcely all be wrong.

This is the programme I quoted from (holding up a prospectus).

said, the right hon. Gentleman must have quoted then the title of one Company, and the balance-sheet of another. Of course, when the subscribers to the Liverpool United Legal Friendly Burial Society read the Chancellor's statement, they went to the Committee and said, "You must be putting forth a false balance-sheet, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that your business is £10,000 a year, and after twenty-one years your accumulations are only £3,900." The Committee were naturally very indignant, and they had written to him (Mr. Horsfall) with a statement of their accounts, from which it appeared that, instead of the income of the society being £10,130, and its accumulated capital only £3,900 as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, its income was £12,725 and its accumulated capital £14,158. He was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had withdrawn his accusation against this society, and he had no doubt that that withdrawal would be perfectly satisfactory to its members. The hon. Member for Dudley had referred to a society in Liverpool called the Liverpool Protective Burial Society, of which Robertson Gladstone, Esq., was the treasurer. Now, he (Mr. Horsfall) would not have alluded to that at all if it had not been for the difference between the statement put forward by that society and the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman calculated the working expenses of that society at something like 48 per cent. The society made it—[The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I never mentioned it.] He was perfectly well aware of that, but the hon. Member for Dudley had mentioned it; and upon the mode of calculation adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, the expenses of the management of that society would amount to from 45 to 48 per cent of the receipts, but according to the calculations of the managers of the society themselves, they were only about 10 per cent. It would be for the right hon. Gentleman to explain how he made the amount between 40 and 50 per cent. Now that it was proposed that the business of all these societies should be taken under the patronage of the Government, it would be well to know a little of the results of Government management. He had in his hand a book published by an hon. Member opposite, in which it was stated that the expenditure in the Post Office for the year 1861 amounted to £3,154,000, against a gross receipt of £3,530,000, leaving only £376,000 to be properly carried to revenue—a pretty large percentage for the cost of management. He had also a curious document relating to the "Customs' Insurance Benevolent Fund," the balance-sheet of which, he did not hesitate to say, was the most extraordinary one that was ever submitted to the public. The accounts were all mixed up together, but the receipts for the year ending the 5th of January, 1864, were estimated, subject to correction, at £33,000. These receipts were derived from a variety of sources. One was what was called "The Bill of Entry Income," which was estimated to produce from£25,000 to £27,000. Although this society had no office to pay for, the expenses of management of this branch of the society were something above 50 per cent. But what was its most remarkable feature was, that, although every Customs' officer was bound to contribute one penny in the pound of his salary to it, there were certain members who did not receive a farthing of benefit from it. As an illustration of the opinion which was entertained of the measure by those who were acquainted with the subject, he would read what was said of it by a gentleman who was evidently an admirer of the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. George Smyth, who described himself as having been for twenty years mixed up with Insurance Companies and Friendly Societies, said—

"When I read the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—as I did over and over again—in support of his Annuities Bill, I was perfectly astounded. No one can admire more than I do the learning, the eloquence, the financial ability, and political integrity of the hon. Gentleman; but I did not think that by such a Bill he was capable of offending the feelings of self-help, self-respect, and self-reliance of, I may say, the entire working population of England; that he would despise and ridicule the mighty work which, almost unaided by legislative protection, they alone I have done to provide against the afflictions of sickness and death; that he could mistake or misrepresent important facts with respect to that work, the Friendly Societies of England; that he would sneer at or undervalue the good they have done, as it were, by stealth; and that, all of a sudden, he would introduce a Bill, not to reform these institutions, not to give protection to the members of them, and perpetuate them as a prominent feature of our social system and the loftiest and holiest objects of finance—in my mind an easy work for the Legislature—but that he should ask the representatives of the working men of England in Parliament assembled to help the Government to establish a Friendly Society of its own, which proposes, not to insure persons under sixteen years of age, being rather a risky and troublesome as well as an unprofitable class of lives—not to insure against sickness, an unprofitable business also—but a society that, by virtue of the security it would offer, might induce the best lives of the working classes to become policy holders in it, leaving to the existing Friendly Societies all the sick business, which is bad, and all the bad lives in the life branch, without offering to the members that must remain by these societies the slightest hope of that legislative protection, the want of which alone has led to the evils of which the right hon. Gentleman complains."

All the objections to the Bill were summed up in that sentence. It did not go to the amendment of the Friendly Societies Act, as it ought to have done. It went to sapping them all; taking the best Life Assurance business to be managed by the Government, leaving the rest to the managers of these societies, and depriving three millions of their members of the best portion of the receipts which should accrue to them. He had, therefore, great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.

said, that he failed to discover in the observations of the hon. Member for Liverpool and the hon. Baronet the Member for Hertford any reason why the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. They had both adduced reasons why a Select Committee should be appointed to consider the management of Friendly Societies and Life Assurance Companies, but none why the Bill should be referred to such a Committee. It was quite immaterial to the consideration of the measure whether the Royal Liver or any other Friendly Societies were solvent or insolvent, or whether their affairs were well or ill-managed. It was impossible to have read the recent Reports of the Registrar of Friendly Societies without being aware that many of these societies were in a very unsound state. But those which were unsound were generally confined to certain districts. He was happy to be able to bear testimony to the general management of most of the Friendly So- cieties in his own district. He could speak of the careful way in which their accounts were kept, the prudence with which their resources were husbanded, the economical and remunerative manner in which their savings were invested, the sound principle on which their benefits were granted, and consequently the great amount of good they had effected. It was true that the Bill would, in some degree, interfere with private enterprize, and it was equally true that the rule that Government should not interfere with private enterprize was a sound one, but it was not of universal application. Like most other rules it admitted of exceptions, and it should be remembered that Friendly Societies already owed much of their security to the interference which for some time had existed with respect to them; and he, for one, should be glad to see that interference go one step further. Something in the shape of an official audit or examination of their accounts should be—he would not say, forced upon them, but placed at their disposal. He did not mean an audit year by year, but a periodical valuation of their assets and liabilities. He believed every sound, well managed society would gladly avail itself of the offer, and those which refused must either have a character far above suspicion or they would very soon become powerless for evil. It was said this Bill would enable the Government to enter into active competition with Friendly Societies and Assurance Companies. In his opinion, it would do so to a very limited extent. It was only with reference to small Life Assurances that the Bill introduced any innovation. It had been stated, in the course of the debate on the subject which had taken place a few evenings before, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would subsidize his Insurance Offices, because he had the National Exchequer at his back, and that he would thus be able to defy all competition. The House, however, had the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that nothing of the kind was intended, and even if that assurance had not been given, it might be safely conjectured, that if a Vote were asked for such a purpose it would be almost unanimously rejected. But it was said that the scheme was to be self supporting, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had himself stated that the rate of interest at which he could accumulate his premiums would be 3¼ per cent. From that amount, however, he would have to deduct the expenses of carrying on the business, which would absorb at least a quarter per cent, and he would ask whether, accumulating his premiums at the remaining 3 per cent, he would be able effectually to compete with private companies? He did not believe that such would be the case, while he was of opinion that the Bill would have some operation, and that that operation would be beneficial in those districts in which the Benefit Societies had been badly managed, as well as advantageous to persons whose habits were migratory, and who would have an opportunity of paying their premiums at a post office. He maintained, however, that, like the Post Office savings banks, the measure would not have the effect of supplanting, but of supplementing existing societies. The Post Office savings banks, for instance, had not prejudicially affected any well managed savings banks which were previously in existence, and which, so far as his experience went—and he knew a great many of those institutions—were doing as great a business now as before. Taking, for instance, the new deposits in Newark savings bank, and he meant to speak simply of new accounts, he found that those for the year ending the 20th of November, 1860, were £11,841; for the year ending the 20th of November, 1861, 12,484; 1862, 11,324; 1863, 11,997; while for the period from the 20th of November last to the present date they exceeded those for the corresponding period of any former year. But, although his opinion of the probable operation of the present, which was a somewhat similar scheme to the Post Office savings banks, was such as he had indicated, he could not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his estimate as to the expense of working out the proposal, which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think would be very trifling. Now, the first expense attendant on the insurance of lives was that for medical examination. The right hon. Gentleman stated, that the Government had already a most efficient staff of medical officers connected with the administration of the Poor Law, who might be called Government officers, and be made available for the purposes of the Bill. It was no doubt true that those medical men were, to a certain extent, Government officers; they were elected by the Poor Law Guardians; their election had to be confirmed by the Board in London; and one-half their sa- laries was repaid out of the Consolidated Fund. But then their pay was fixed with reference to the special services which they had to perform, and the right hon. Gentleman would, he thought, find that he had got into a hornet's nest if he set about delegating the delicate task of examining lives for insurance to those gentlemen without giving them additional pay. Then the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that it would cost little or nothing to collect his premiums, inasmuch as that could be done through the Post Office. Now, the hon. Member for Liverpool, at all events, did not seem to look upon that as an economic mode of collection, but although he did not agree with him in the opinion that the Post Office was the most expensive of our institutions, yet he would go the length of saying that if an addition were made to the labour of any department the allowance to the labourers must also be increased. It should, moreover, be borne in mind that policies of Insurance were subject to transfer; that in the case of a policy which remained in operation for twenty or thirty years, the transfer might take place, as in existing institutions, a great many times, and that many delicate questions must very frequently arise as to who the persons were to whom the money should be paid. Such were the difficulties which Insurance Offices had now to encounter, and he felt convinced that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had got his scheme fairly at work, adhering to the principle that it was to be self-supporting, he would find that, so far as pounds, shillings, and pence were concerned, he would not be able to compete with those societies already in operation. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech had alluded to the enormous expense at which some of those offices were conducted, as the rock on which so many of them split, instancing specially the high premiums paid. There were, however, other expenses even still higher. There was often an unnecessarily large staff maintained, either to give the appearance of a large business being done or patronage to the directors. There were, besides, expensive buildings, and above all a system of advertising on a scale the most extravagant. In saying so he did not allude to the legitimate advertising in the newspapers, but to the custom of inundating men's tables with books and pamphlets, and placarding the walls of towns with statements, to the effect that Mr. So-and-So was a director of the particular office named. He found, for instance, that the cost of advertising in an office which he would not mention, but which stood first in the list of the blue-book delivered in. June last, was no leas than £7,359 12s. 3d, the income of the office being £311,000, and its expenses of management £74,000, or 24 per cent on its receipts. The managers of those offices, he might add, were not satisfied with advertising in the way to which he referred, but sent about almanacks containing puffs of their several establishments. Another office which had an establishment in Pall Mall and one in Oxford Street, went beyond advertising, for it kept a poet to sing the praises of Life Insurance. He might be permitted to read an extract from a poem commencing—

"When dear Papa was ta'en to Heaven,

And Ma was left to strive for seven,

With scarce enough for burial fees,

(So lingering was poor Papa's disease),

Tho' full of grief, we'd no despair,

Relations spoke so very fair."

After describing how advice and a kiss was all the benefit derived from relations, the poem went on to show how a policy of Life Insurance in a certain office was found, and concluded—

"They took it to the office, and wasn't it funny,

When they got there they received the money?"

There was one point upon which he was not quite clear, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was correct. He doubted whether there was any royal road for the ascertainment of the solvency or otherwise of Insurance Offices. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think that giving the age of the office, the amount of the premial income, and the extent of the accumulation, it was easy to determine whether the society was solvent or not. The right hon. Gentleman instanced two offices of the same age, having been established in 1825. One office had a premial income of £247,000, and accumulations to the extent of £2,133,000, or between eight and nine years' income. That office was safe, according to the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The other office had a premial income of £44,000, and an accumulated fund of £780,000, or seventeen years' premial income. Both offices professed to divide their profits among the assurers, so that if one was safe the other must have defrauded its deceased policy holders of a large amount of bonuses. However, the truth was that there was no royal road to ascertain solvency, as in the cases referred to one office might have done a large busi- ness at first, and very little lately, while the other might have done quite the reverse. He was himself a director of an office which was established in 1823. It had already paid £6,000,000 to its policy holders, it had an income of £500,000, of which £283,000 was derived from premiums, and had accumulations to the extent of £5,200,000, or the amount of eighteen years' premial income; while the best feature was the fact that the total expenses of management, including agents' commission and directors' fees, was under 4½ per cent of its income. He could not but think the Bill might do much good, and could do no harm, and as he did not see any advantage that could accrue from sending it to a Select Committee, he should vote against the Amendment of the hon. Baronet.

said, that having taken a deep interest in the objects of Friendly Societies, he differed from many hon. Members on that side of the House in regarding the Bill as a small matter. He believed the principle of that and all Bills of a similar character was simply to declare that there were occasions when it was necessary for the Legislature to interfere for the protection of certain classes of the community, who either from poverty or want of education, or the peculiarity of their position, were unable fully and adequately to help themselves. But the protection which the State afforded in cases of that description was necessarily limited by another principle of equal importance—namely, that the Government ought never to interfere with the business and the commercial transactions of private companies, unless such an interference were absolutely necessary and for the benefit of the community at large. He believed that principle applied to the Bill before the House. The first clause of the present Bill related to what were called Deferred Annuities, which were better understood by the term of "old age pay." The principle of giving old age pay under the guarantee of the Government was no new one, and the clause simply extended an already existing power by permitting Deferred Annuities to be paid for by periodical contributions instead of, as at present, in one lump sum. He could not conceive a greater boon that could be offered to the poor labouring man than a measure of the kind. There were certain things which the poor man required. The provision usually made for him was usually for old age pay, sick pay, and pay for medical attendance; and the question was, whether Life Assurance Societies were competent to deal with all these matters, or whether there were any of these particular requirements with which the Government should interfere. It was the opinion of authorities who were experienced in such matters, that Government interference was necessary where the payments were long deferred, or where the benefit was not immediate. But as to payments at death and Deferred Annuities there were some difficulties which required the interference of the Government to be overcome. He had taken great interest in small parish societies, founded in pure honesty and good faith, and some of them dating seventy or eighty years ago; and he was satisfied that, under a proper system, safe societies might be established by which sick pay could be adequately provided for poor men. Much evil had arisen, however, from the true principles of Life Assurance not being properly understood, and from the funds not being kept up through young men not being induced to enter. They had young men beginning at the age of twenty with their small payments, thinking that when they reached the age of sixty, they would be possessed of sick pay and all the advantages these societies were supposed to possess. But too often, when forty years had elapsed, the shillings and the pence, which had been hardly wrought for and which economy and self-denial had treasured up, were found to have vanished, and the poor man's hopes of independence were doomed to disappointment. He was unable to tell any poor man who came to him for advice where he could deposit his earnings with safety. The old savings banks had not done what they should have done in that respect; and in one instance when he had written to a manager about a small annuity he received for answer that they knew nothing about it. He was connected with one Friendly Society which he believed to be perfectly stable. Its rules had been carefully considered. It was under excellent management. The clergyman and the gentry took an interest in it, but where was the security that forty or fifty years hence the members would have the services of such able administrators? For these reasons he thought the subject was one which eminently demanded the interference of Government, and that it was the duty of the Government to popularize and systematize a plan of old age pay. He was sorry that in that Bill the phrase of Deferred Annuities was used, because it was apt to mislead and withdraw attention from the real point to be considered—namely, the benefit of the labouring classes. For the grounds he had stated, however, so far as Clause 1 was concerned, he gave it his hearty and unqualified support. As to the Life Assurance Clause he did not believe that the Bill would interfere in the least with long established companies. The Government savings banks had in no way interfered with well established Banking Companies, and beyond providing £3 or £4 for burial expenses, he never knew or heard of a poor labouring man entertaining the notion of Life Assurance. The small insurers for £50 or £100 at death were men earning £2 or £3 a week—men who could reason acutely, and in matters of business were quite as well able to take care of themselves as those in the higher classes. He accepted with unfeigned thankfulness and heartfelt satisfaction the first clause of the Bill. He believed it would confer one of the greatest boons which could possibly be given to the poor, and was likely to bring comfort and plenty to many an aged couple in their declining years, as well as preventing as many aged couples spending the last days of their life in the solitude of the Union Workhouse. He was not quite so certain about the operation of the second clause, but on the whole he thought it would be of benefit, and when the Bill passed, he hoped steps would be taken to make its provisions fully and efficiently known to those whom it was calculated so materially to benefit. If a scheme could be devised which would secure to poor men old age pay, with a moderate sum at their death for burial, with the possibility of repayment of premiums according to the scheme already adopted by the Government, and by no other office, an incalculable benefit would be offered to the working men of this country.

said, he was of opinion that the House ought not hastily to proceed with the Bill. If working men were discouraged from insuring by the loss which they might sustain through the failure of Insurance Societies, and it was suggested that the mischief might be remedied by legislation, any measure introduced for that purpose was certain of receiving favourable consideration, particularly when it was recommended by so eloquent a speech as that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But he must say that when he ceased to listen, and began to reflect, he felt that the right hon. Gentleman had failed to satisfy him, either that the business proposed to be undertaken was one that could be transacted by the State with safety to the public—with safety to the finances of the country, or that the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would really serve the interest of the classes for whose benefit it was proposed. First, with regard to the finances: it was said that the insurance business intended to be carried on under the Bill was identical in its character with the business of Deferred Annuities. The two were quite distinct. In the case of Deferred Annuities, all that was required was to ascertain the age of the person and to receive the money. In the case of Life Assurance it was necessary to inquire into the state of health of the party whose life was to be insured, and that was attended with more difficulty than the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose. Indeed, when introducing the measure he informed the House that it was easy to ascertain all that it was requisite to know when it was proposed to insure the life of a working man. The right hon. Gentleman said the only things necessary to be known were the age, the employment, and the habits of the man.

And there is the medical examination.

A medical examination was the main security at present, and it now appeared to be admitted that there could be no simplification in that respect. Then it was said that a periodical Report would be laid before Parliament, showing the nature of the business transacted, and enabling the House to put a stop to operations with which it might be dissatisfied. But was this a matter over which it was possible for the House of Commons to exercise any effective control? They knew that in ordinary Insurance Offices, the business was, as a general rule, managed by the directors, and that the shareholders could not interpose except in cases of the grossest abuse. It was vain to expect that as to transactions of this character the House of Commons could do what was found impracticable by shareholders. The next consideration was whether the scheme was for the benefit of the working classes. With re- ference to that point, two arguments were used which were the twin offspring of the same fertile brain, but which appeared to him to be fratricidal. First it, was admitted that the Government ought not to undertake the business except for the advantage of the classes for whom it was intended, and then it was admitted that there were many companies at present engaged in the business which were of a solid character; but it was said those offices would not suffer by the Bill. If they told him that the working classes did not understand, and could not be made to understand, the difference between solvent and insolvent companies, then he contended that by interfering with Life Insurances in the way proposed by the Bill, they must withdraw support from both sound and unsound offices in an equal measure. If, on the other hand, he was told that the working classes were capable of distinguishing or being taught to distinguish between sound and unsound offices, then he said the whole foundation, of the Bill disappeared. He believed the latter supposition to be the true one. He thought it was an unfair imputation on the working men, looking at the advances they had made of late years, to say that they could not be taught to make the distinction between sound and unsound societies, and he contended that it was the duty of statesmen not to pass such a Bill as this, but to spread among the people that knowledge of insurance which would enable them to make a judicious selection of an office or a society. As one means of enabling them to do so, Parliament ought to require the publication of accounts and rules as recommended by Mr. Tidd Pratt. Employers, both in towns and in country, would also do great service by helping to find for Friendly Societies places of meeting, distinct from public-houses. In a letter to The Times, a clergyman of much experience—the Rev. Mr. Girdlestone—stated that in his opinion the principle of the measure was a most valuable one; but he added that it would bestow no real benefit upon working men, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer applied his proposal to relief in sickness as well as to a sum paid down at death; but how was this to be done by the right hon. Gentleman? In the Report on Friendly Societies for 1862 it appeared that a member of one of these societies had, after joining it, taken to keeping pigeons, and that he had had a severe fall when going on the roof in the snow to tend his birds; and Mr. Tidd Pratt was consulted whether payment should be made to the sick man "after him meeting with his accident with his own foolish excursions after his pigeons." Let the House only imagine the right hon. Gentleman adding to his already multifarious occupations the duty of sitting as supreme arbiter in cases like that of the unlucky pigeon-fancier. Yet the Life Assurances of those societies were only a subordinate part of their business; and therefore a measure applying only to insurances could not possibly check the main evils arising from abuses connected with such institutions. He thought that no sufficient case had been made out for departing from the great general principle, that the Government ought not to undertake business which the people were capable of conducting themselves.

said, he should support the Bill as he believed it to be essential for the security of the working classes. At present they did not know where to go if they wished to insure their lives—did not know which of the small offices were sound and which unsound. The Bill would supply that want, and allowing the premiums to be paid by small instalments it would give a great incentive to Life Assurance. He agreed with the hon. Baronet who had just spoken, that the position of existing societies would be much improved if compelled to publish their accounts. He declined to follow the hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Goldsmid) into the question of the clergyman's view of sick pay, or into the hypothesis of the pigeons, because there was no necessary connection between Life Assurance and sick clubs. When Life Assurance Societies were first established, some seventy or eighty years ago, the principle of them was so little understood that the same premium was taken for all ages. But the principle was now understood, and that class of business could be conducted with perfect safety. As to the examinations, he did not attach much importance to them. He had often found in his experience of Life Assurance that the most robust persons died the soonest, simply because they thought they could take liberties with their constitutions, whereas persons whose health was less robust took more care of themselves and lived the longer. If, therefore, a great number of lives were insured, and the date of birth, the occupation, and the habits of the insurers were ascertained, he would just as soon take those lives as others selected with more care by the great Insurance Companies. It was well known that men entered these existing societies generally when young, and when they arrived at the age of sixty or seventy years they found themselves utterly disappointed in their hopes of receiving a substantial benefit from them in their old age. He therefore hailed the measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a great boon to the industrial classes, who knew very well that, if they availed themselves of its advantages, they would have the most unquestionable security for their money. He objected altogether to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. All the circumstances were known, and a Select Committee would delay the Bill to another year, which would be very undesirable. The effect of the Bill would be, in his opinion, largely to increase the appreciation of Life Assurance in this country. Persons insured their houses, though these might not be burnt down, while they did not insure their lives, though they were sure to die. He believed that the Bill, while interfering with the large offices or the substantial provident societies, would largely increase the number of insurers, and so tend greatly to the welfare of the community. In his opinion it was a wise and a sound measure, and he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would persevere with it, and would decline to refer it to a Select Committee.

said, I think, Sir, that the main object of this Bill appeals to the feelings of all men, and that if we were only to listen to our feelings we should at once declare ourselves in favour of the measure. But if we listen for a moment to our judgment, and consider the means by which it proposes to carry its object out, I am afraid we cannot assent to the Bill. If I have rightly collected the intentions of the hon. Gentlemen who have addressed this House in favour of the proposition, I believe I have expressed what was in the mind of every one of them. The object of the Bill commends itself to the benevolence and kindness of every gentleman, but I doubt whether the means which are proposed to effect that object are such as we can approve. I certainly listened with attention to the eloquent statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and so far as my humble tribute of admiration goes I willingly tender it to him. But however great my admiration, of the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman, I confess my admiration is far greater for the courage which he manifested in attempting to deal with so hazardous and difficult a subject. I cannot help thinking, however, that if the right hon. Gentleman had been less courageous he would have been much more successful; and that he has raised up a great amount of opposition in the work he has undertaken by the mode in which he unfolded his story in introducing the Bill. Upon one point I entertain a strong opinion. I think that this Bill, if carried into law, will do little or no harm to Friendly Societies properly so called. If I venture, then, to criticise any of the details of the measure, I wish to say that it is not because I anticipate any sort of opposition will result between the offices it proposes to establish and those institutions in which for many years I have taken a great interest. I repeat, I do not think that this Bill will interfere with the existing Friendly Societies, and for several reasons. It is perhaps enough to give one reason, and that is—I do not believe that the working classes, scattered as they are over the face of this country, will take advantage of the Bill if it should become law. I do not believe that those classes enter into Friendly Societies or clubs for the sake of the benefits of such societies so much as companionship. And of the benefits which they offer to them, the only one I think they much care about is the provision in time of sickness. I have also read in the public papers the letter which has been referred to in the course of this debate. That letter was written by a worthy clergyman, a neighbour of mine, and he, while approving the object of the right hon. Gentleman, says—"the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do nothing at all unless he introduces some mode of amending sick clubs." That gentleman, I am sure, speaks the opinions of the greater part of the clergy of this country. But no Chancellor of the Exchequer, nor any Member of this House, will venture to undertake so gigantic an operation as that of dealing with the sickness of the working classes. Why, it is as much as any of the ordinary clubs can do, with all their local and personal knowledge, and all the local checks and restraints exercised by those who manage the club, to prevent imposition in the matter of sickness. How then would it be possible for the Government, without any such local knowledge or local checks, to prevent fraud? There is another view of this matter deserving attention. If this Bill comes into operation it will to a certain degree affect all the working men in this country, and unless it is more guarded in its provisions than it is at present, it will greatly interfere also with the independence of individual action. This was the point raised the other day by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), and I entirely concur in the conclusion to which he arrived. I believe that the only safe mode in which his Bill can be brought into operation will be to limit it with due regard to the amount and character of its operation, to that species of business which is not profitable even to solvent societies. If you trench upon the field of profit you will do harm to those institutions already established, and to that extent interfere with the self-action of the people for whose benefit the Bill is intended. But if you had an opportunity of moulding the clauses of this Bill in such a manner as to avoid that difficulty, all would be well. You ought so to draw your Bill as neither to run the risk of interfering with the independence and self-action of the people, or of interfering with the real business of Assurance Offices. But if you take the Bill in its present shape, you will have no guarantee against the evils to which I have called attention. I think it will be more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer can expect that we should pass this Bill in its present shape. The Bill on the face of it gives us very little information of its object. It is drawn in such technical language that any person reading it would suppose that its object was to amend the Act passed seven or eight years ago giving the Government the power of granting annuities. The whole language of the Bill from first to last bears reference to that former Act. Now, if we are able to do that good which Gentlemen opposite expect from carrying out the professed object of the Bill, assuredly it would be better for the character of the House and the Government, and for the good of the people, that that object should appear plainly upon the face and in the Preamble of the Bill. Our object, I believe, is this—that whereas, not annuities only, but assurances of a sum of money to be paid on the occurrence of death, form the business of certain societies, many of which are insolvent, we are desirous of affording the working classes the offer of a secure payment however long the day to which such benefit may be postponed. I think it is far better that the Government should go further in this direction, and that the principle upon which it is to act should be distinctly enunciated in the preamble. It should also be distinctly stated, that it was not contemplated by the Bill to carry on any business of a profitable nature which might be conducted by a solvent company. If they were to go beyond the point where profit began, wherever that point was, then, assuredly, they would do harm. There is one evil which I think is likely to arise from the discussion of last week and perhaps of this evening. I am afraid it will be supposed that the observations of those who have pointed out certain glaring defects in certain existing societies will apply to existing solvent societies; and, partly in order to set this right, my hon. Friend (Sir Minto Farquhar) proposes to send the Bill to a Committee. I do not know how far he proposes that reference to be extended; but I should object to the Bill being sent to the Committee if the reference would allow a committee to take evidence upon the conflicting claims of different societies. That would introduce not merely a temporary delay, but would cause the entire postponement of the Bill. I am entirely with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his object to afford the working man a security which he cannot obtain otherwise. So far I am favourable to the Bill. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will succeed in carrying it; but I hope it will receive considerable alteration before we are called upon to pass it. I understand it is not the intention to ask permission to take evidence. If the intention is to give the Committee a reference to the other matters, of inquiry into the solvency of a number of small Insurance Societies, I should object; but no doubt we shall have this fully explained. In giving my consent to the Select Committee, I wish that the order of reference to the Committee should be a simple direction to amend the Bill. For what is the alternative? It is either to agree to that proposition, or to pass the Bill in its present shape. Many Amendments have been suggested. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke has an important Amendment to propose—to fix a maximum for the operation of these Government annuities. There is no proposition — I think there ought to be a proposition—to fix a minimum, because it was most important that they should not transfer to Government the furnishing of the expenses of burial. I think it is impossible to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on these points in this House. I think it is a question that fairly ought to go to a Committee, and therefore I shall vote for that proposition. I have heard no answer to another point not admitting of easy solution, namely, the great risk which the Government is about to undertake. That, I think, has not been fairly considered or satisfactorily explained by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Observe, now, what is his position. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing is to place himself in the position of a young actuary, who proposes to set up a large Insurance Office. The first few years will probably seem years of success and triumph. You do not know the risk that you run till after many years of business—perhaps the whole of the present generation may be swept away before you find out your risk. You cannot fairly say that because your Post Office savings banks have been a great success the like result will attend your annuity scheme, as if the one were germane to the other. In the savings banks you at all times know the amount of your liabilities. The risk in the savings bank is of a different description, and altogether unlike the risk of an Assurance Office. There was a sum of £40,000,000 belonging to the old savings banks, and supposing that in a few years there should be £40,000,000 in the new savings banks, then, with regard to the last £40,000,000, the risk was that the Government might be called on at any moment to return the amount received in gold; but with regard to the repayment of the other £40,000,000, notices were required and delay intervenesd; besides, the name and character of the managers, known in their own locality, would act as a buffer in case of a panic. But whatever the risk is you know the amount of it. But when you come to insurance it is a case of estimate. The liabilities of to-day may not be in proportion to what you have received. You may have received a premium of £3 or £4 and be called on to pay an assurance of £100. Therefore, this is a new career on which the Government is entering, and it will have difficulties and liabilities of a more extended kind. If it is to be a boon to the country, it is of the greatest importance that all these points should be well turned over in the Committee upstairs. I do not at all despair of seeing the Bill put into a shape in which it will realize the anticipations of the hon. Member who last addressed the House. The Bill is fraught with difficulty. I do not see the mode of getting over it; and I do not think we have heard any satisfactory solution of the difficulty. Grant us the permission to discuss the matter in Committee, and we may arrive at the conclusion not only that by means of Government agency the working classes may have the opportunity afforded them of providing for themselves and their relations an annuity in old age, and furnishing them with what some of them so much want—but which many of them, I am afraid, will not avail themselves of—a provision for their wives and families after their decease. By means of this Committee you may get rid of that important objection to the Bill—namely, that you may seriously interfere with the independent action of the people; and, in the next place, you may avoid the danger which at present stares you in the face, that while you seek to do good you may do great injury to the Friendly Societies and Insurance Societies spread all over the country.

said, that he felt himself unable to give a silent vote on that occasion, though personally he had every reason to be silent; for he was not only a director of an Assurance Company himself, but he probably represented more directors and managers of Assurance Societies than any other Member of the House. But so convinced was he of the wisdom and policy of the measure, that he felt it to be his duty to do the little he could in answering the objections to it which had been raised. It was universally admitted that the bearings of the question had been scarcely exaggerated—that it was a measure of the greatest consequence and importance; and no one could suppose that the great anxiety that was felt and the strong opposition which was manifested in certain quarters to the Bill was entirely owing to the efforts of those who fancied it would deal a blow at their own private interests. The Bill, no doubt, had some strong and weighty objections to it, and they must, be fairly met; but he thought that they might be fairly disposed of, and that the Bill would be one which was well worthy of the character of the right hon. Gentleman and of the House, and leave a mark upon the history of the Session. Although the Bill was laid on the table at the commencement of the Session, it was not till the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was made that the House saw that a great measure was about to be proposed. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so luminous, so complete, and to his mind so exhaustive, that the House, notwithstanding the novelty of the proposition, saw the full extent of the question, and the points on which the measure rested were accurately understood. No argument had been used in the course of the discussion which had not been shadowed forth and anticipated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. The Bill was opposed on five different grounds. There was an objection to the principle of the Bill; there was an objection to the practicability of the Bill; there was an objection to the necessity of the Bill; there was an objection to the evidence on which that necessity was grounded; and there was an objection that it clashed with private interests. He did not propose to enter into the objections raised to the evidence, and he was glad that the discussion had latterly lost the somewhat personal character it assumed in the beginning of the evening. He did not think that the evidence with regard to the existing Friendly Societies and Insurance Companies should be too rigorously sifted. It was not so much a question as to which of these societies was solvent; that was an important matter for the societies themselves; but the passing of a necessary Bill ought not to be made dependent on particular evidence respecting particular Friendly Societies or Insurance Offices. The question was, whether it was possible to find that absolute security and honesty in Friendly Societies to which every man who made a painful sacrifice of the present for the sake of the future—for such it was to the working man—was entitled. He did not propose to go into the question of the insolvency of these Friendly Societies. But he proposed to deal with the objections on other grounds, There were two points which he would mainly deal with — the objection against Government interference and the argument against the practicability of the Bill. He thought it perfectly natural and legitimate that hon. Members who thought as he did, that the interference of Government should be jealously watched, should require that most satisfactory evidence should be brought before they sanctioned any unwarrantable interference with private enterprise. It was quite natural, also, that hon. Gentlemen acquainted with the difficulties of administration should feel rather anxious lest the State should prove unequal to the task about to be imposed upon it. But these two arguments were in themselves quite distinct. No one had spoken with more force about the anticipated loss to the revenue than the hon. Member for Dudley, whose imagination was so excited at the idea of a loss to the revenue, that he talked of an addition of £200,000,000 to the national debt. Sharing the belief of the hon. Gentleman that every possible encouragement should be given to insurance, and that not even considerations of Imperial taxation should be placed side by side with it, he voted in the majority against the Government on the question of the Fire Insurance duty. Now, however, the hon. Member and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had changed positions, and while the latter was the patron of insurance the former was the champion of the revenue. He himself held that they ought, as far as they could, to foster the tendency of all classes to insure. Every policy taken out by a working man was a guarantee, not only to himself but to the community, upon whom otherwise the care of his family would fall. As long as the Poor Laws existed in their present state, and every parish or union was bound to provide a minimum support for those who had no other means of existence, so long every working man who bought an annuity or insured his life was doing a service not only to himself or family, but also to his parish, his county, and even to the nation at large. From self-interest, therefore, as well as from philanthropy, they ought to support this measure. It did not force anything on the working classes, and that was quite right, for they ought not to be regarded as mere clay in the hands of the potter. Without, however, interfering with their liberty of action in any way, it gave them help to be self-helpful. The opposition to the Bill had rested, in a considerable degree, on the probable loss to the revenue which would result from it. Now, the elements on which the success of a system of insurance would depend were these — the scale of premiums, value of lives, rate of interest at which the premiums were invested, the expenses and the profits which accrued to the shareholders. Assuming, in the present case, that the scale of premiums of the Government would be identical with that of the Insurance Offices—although it was fair to argue that if the risk, as was said, was greater, the premiums should be higher—and that the value of the lives would be the same, then the Government would lose on the rate of interest, but would gain the commissions paid to agents, and the 10, 12, 20 per cent, or whatever it might be which constituted the shareholders' profits. Thus the Government would have advantages as well as disadvantages to deal with, and if they were put together it would be found, on the whole, to have a margin in its favour. The average of lives, not of working men, but of general policy-holders in the offices was, he was told, about fifteen years, and he would assume that the Government invested at 3¼ per cent, and the companies at 4½. Meanwhile the Government saved at least 6 per cent, in commissions paid to agents, and had besides the margin of at least 10 per cent, which he had been told by persons of experience was the minimum rate of profits on insurances paid to the shareholders. Balancing these profits and savings against the loss of interest, it would be found that on policies running fifteen years there was a margin of 6 per cent in favour of Government to cover any increased expenditure. In an adverse statement which had been circulated and seen by many hon. Members, it was estimated that the Government were likely to issue 1,000,000 of policies, and these would require 1,000 additional clerks. Now, 6 per cent on a million policies, bearing £3 premium each, would give Government £180,000, which, if they even knocked off £80,000, would leave £100,000 saved. They had already 3,000 post-offices which were savings' banks, and he believed that on the average a third of a clerk additional at each post-office would be sufficient to meet the demands of the case, and the margin he had referred to would be amply sufficient to cover the increased outlay as well as that for the medical officers. Fears were entertained that the postmasters would not be competent for the work. He saw no reason why postmasters should not be as efficient in the discharge of the duties as the tradesmen who often acted as agents of Friendly Societies. Even if they were not very competent, all they would have to do was to keep the accounts, and the other duties might be left to the medical officers of the union, and partly to the Guardians of the Poor. It seemed to him that the Government could exercise greater supervision than the agents of the offices, who were, moreover, personally interested in bringing lives to the offices for which they acted. With regard to identification, there was a vast number of persons in the country receiving pensions for service in the army or navy, but there was no particular difficulty in identifying them, and fraud happened but rarely. There must be regulations, and those regulations must be enforced. It was said that the working classes would not be able to understand them. That he could not believe, because he knew that the working classes were able to understand the most difficult and intricate questions of settlement better than many hon. Gentlemen who were then listening to him. A working man knew his rights as well as possible, and he would not find more difficulty in mastering the simple regulations which Government must impose with respect to identification of policies than he found in acquainting himself with all the details of settlement. Nor did he think that the valuation of the lives of working men would present greater difficulties than that of the lives of persons moving in a higher sphere. The disorders of the working classes were more simple, and Union officers would, in their cases, be more reliable authorities than London physicians who pronounced upon the value of lives after a brief conversation with the persons proposing to insure. It had been said that the present Bill had a centralizing tendency, that it was new, that it was un-English. Why, even in Anglo-Saxon times, the people were compelled to insure, not only their properties against theft, but their souls against eternal perdition. But he did not wish to rest upon an antiquarian argument, though, at the same time, he hoped the doctrinaire argument would not be pushed beyond its due limits. He agreed that the Government ought never to interfere so long as private enterprise could do the business as well. He quite accepted that proposition, but he doubted whether Friendly Societies could do that as well which the Government proposed to do. The Government proposed to give something which no one else could give—absolute security. He did not wish to say a word against Friendly Societies, except that he would not insure his own life in one, and why should they not try to give the working classes every advantage in the way of insurance that hon. Members would desire for themselves? But it was said to be quite easy for work- ing men to discern between a good and a bad society. For his own part, however, he did not see how they could possibly distinguish between the two. ["Divide."] He trusted the House would allow him to proceed. They had already had one personal discussion that evening, and it was only human nature that they should desire to proceed to the other which they were expecting; but the Bill before them was a most important one, and he trusted they would not vote against it upon arguments which they did not wish to hear refuted. There was one other point on which he desired to offer a few remarks. He considered that the measure before the House involved no real interference on the part of the Government. A man that took out a policy would be no more under the control of the Government than one that bought Consols. [Cries of "Divide."] He must yield to the feeling of the House, but, in sitting down, he might be allowed to add that the Bill had this further advantage, that it would create among the working classes a numerous body of State creditors, who would have a not less deep interest in the national welfare and tranquillity than those who, at present, were too apt to regard themselves as the only persons who had what was called a stake in the country.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

The House had an understanding at the commencement of the evening, that this debate should be brought to a conclusion in time for another matter to be discussed, and therefore I comply with that understanding by assenting to the adjournment of the debate. I wish, however, to say one word in justice to a respectable body of men. A deputation from the working men of London waited upon me this morning under the presidency of a gentleman of the most distinguished philanthropy, to assure me that those trades' unions, to which I referred on a previous occasion as involving in their system a principle of coercion towards the minority of their own body, were working themselves out of what they—or at all events those who came to me—seemed to feel to be a vicious system. I cannot refrain from taking the earliest opportunity of expressing the very great gratification which I feel at learning that such was the case. As to what fell from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt), my right hon. Friend stated— and he appeared to express the opinion of many hon. Gentlemen sitting near him—that he was not disposed to connect this Bill with a general inquiry into the condition of Friendly Societies and Insurance Offices; but that he thought that it would be better considered in a Select Committee on clauses, as such committee is generally understood, and as distinguished from a committee to inquire into the subject. If we had been debating this as a contested matter, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir Minto Farquhar) will admit that his Motion, though in terms only it is a Motion to refer the Bill to a Committee, yet that his speech and the speech of the hon. Member who seconded it, proceeded entirely upon the supposition that it was to go to a Committee in order that various societies should be examined into and investigated. To that proposition we entertain the most insuperable objection. Nothing would induce me to encounter the responsibility of undertaking to carry forward this Bill in such a shape. I do not say that there may not be a Committee on Friendly Societies, but I am aware of no analogy or precedent that will warrant the appointment of a Committee to call before it an insurance officer, even though the rules on which they act may not be altogether such as can be approved and endorsed. They enjoy no exemptions, they take no special benefit from the law, they are acting upon the privileges of British subjects, and I am not prepared to be a party to calling them before a Committee, and to examining into the state of their concerns. We should consider such a Committee entirely foreign to our object. As to a judicious inquiry into the question of Friendly Societies, apart from this Bill, that is a different character, and upon it I do not wish to give any opinion whatever. If I understand from my hon. Friend (Sir Minto Farquhar) that he is satisfied to prosecute elsewhere, or in any other way, those inquiries in reference to these Societies in general, and that the desire entertained by many gentlemen is for considering the clauses of the Bill in a Committee upstairs rather than in a Committee of the House, I can only say that if we could conclude at present upon a Motion of that kind, and be able shortly after the financial statement to go into that Committee, I should be very willing to close on those grounds. I wish the House to very clearly understand the position in which I stand in reference to existing Societies. I quoted the cases of various Societies, and of those which I cited, I think there were four which I mentioned only for the purpose of commendation, I quoted several other Societies, the British Prudential among others; but I did not presume to take upon myself to say that they were insolvent societies. I pointed out facts connected with their balance-sheets, and merely went to the point of saying that they were not societies which carried with them sufficient evidence to guarantee the minds of the public, and entitle them to say to the Government "Don't enter upon our field, which is satisfactorily occupied already." I admit that I quoted the case of societies not existing, which had not been solvent, and that I said one was a case of a fraudulent society. As regards the present question, I hope that what I have said is distinctly understood, that to a general committee I have an insurmountable objection, but that if the desire is to go into a committee upon the clauses, not taking evidence upon the general question, I am willing to accede to such a proposition.

said, that it would be for the convenience of the House, and would save time, to adopt the course proposed. The proposition now made by the right hon. Gentleman was a very fair one, and he trusted that the House would agree to it.

said, that he could not vote for sending the Bill to a Committee, because he objected to the principle of it. There was no evidence to satisfy him that the business was such as could be safely undertaken by the Government; and he did not wish to see the Post Office have another heavy business annexed to it.

I entirely understand the objection to inquire into the general question of the constitution and solvency of Friendly Societies in a Committee upon this Bill. Such an inquiry would be one of almost interminable length; it would render impossible the passing of the Bill in the present Session, and there are other reasons which would make such an investigation difficult in the present Parliament, if it is meant to be complete and thorough-going. There seem then to be but two alternatives. We must either proceed with the Bill after a continuance of the debate, or else accept the compromise of the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer and go into Committee, not upon the subject of Friendly Societies but upon the clauses of the Bill. I confess that, for my own part, I should be very glad if that compromise could be arranged. Obviously, however, it is a thing that can only be done by the general consent and understanding of the House, and it is impossible not to see that there are a number of hon. Members who wish to postpone the debate in order that they may have an opportunity of expressing their opinions. I, therefore, think it better that we should accept the proposition for adjournment, and that the question should be again raised at the earliest opportunity after the House meets. The right; hon. Gentleman may then be able to carry: his Bill without the necessity of sending it upstairs.

I have no objection to the adjournment of the debate, but it must be understood that if the debate is adjourned the Government will be entirely free to; take their own course.

In introducing the motion which I have placed upon the paper for to-day, I do it as an individual Member, and because I feel that the dignity of this House has been assailed in consequence of information having been withheld by her Majesty's Government upon a serious question, which affects not only the Government but also the country at large, and certainly concerns the dignity of the House. I wish the House distinctly to understand that the task I have undertaken is to me by no means an agreeable or a pleasant one, and I do it purely as a matter of duty. I am surprised, however, on looking along the front bench opposite, not to see that Member of the Administration who is chiefly concerned in this question. It is far from my disposition to take any advantage of any Member of the Government, or to take him by surprise; but is it not singular that the Government itself should not have taken care that that Member was present? I think that to the House and the country it will be surprising indeed that that Member should not himself have taken care to be here. Nevertheless, I repeat I am influenced by no animus whatever against him. I have not the honour of his personal acquaintance, and I cannot therefore have any feeling or wish but to support in my humble capacity the dignity of the House, in which, though unworthy, I have a right to feel as much interest as any other person. It will be in the recollection of the House that the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox), put a question to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), well worded, temperate, and well judged, but the question was not answered in that satisfactory way which I am sure the House required to be answered. [Mr. Stansfeld here entered the House.] But that answer introduced that which, at any rate so far as the question was concerned, appeared to be perfectly superfluous, and which I saw very clearly astonished the hon. Member who put the question. It introduced a considerable eulogy and a great panegyric of M. Mazzini. This surely was uncalled for, but if it be in accordance with the views and opinions of the hon. Member he felt that he was called upon to make this defence of Mazzini, to make this kind of eulogy and panegyric upon him—if he entertains those Mazzinian opinions honestly and fairly, all I can say is that, however erroneous I know them to be, and however wrong as fatal to good order and government I believe them to be, I nevertheless respect a man who feels honestly and sincerely the opinions he professes. But the hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, when this question was put to him by the hon. Member for Finsbury, said he felt great astonishment, mingled with indignation, that his name should be mentioned in association with that of an assassin. Well, now, why should this extraordinary indignation and astonishment have occurred to the hon. Member? I allude merely to reports and what I have also read, for which those who publish it are answerable. But the House is bound to receive those statements if they are not contradicted. All I can say is, I beg to ask the hon. Member whether he forgets—and I am sure he will not deny it if he remembers it—that his name was mixed up with certain conspirators in the year 1857? Does he forget that in a certain conspiracy, called the "Orsini conspiracy," in 1858, his name was also mixed up? These periods are only a few years antecedent to the present, and so one does not see under these circumstances why he should be so affected with extraordinary astonishment and indignation. Now, Sir, in the year 1857 there was in the courts an acte d'accusation, and in it I find the following words:—"Two other names are still to be cited: that of the Sieur James Stansfeld, brewer, of London, who was also made the banker of Mazzini," &c. In fact the term is made use of—I say no more—"Two other assassins," for the acte d'accusation went on to say that two "other" assassins were proposed by Massarenta at Genoa, where he was; and Campanella and Massarenta were invited to call for money at the brewer's Stamfield (Stansfeld). It finished by saying that, at the same time, the authorities seized in the portfolio of Tibaldi the address of the "brasseur Stansfeld." Now, I only mention this as having read it, and I put a question to the hon. Gentleman, has he forgotten those trials of Tibaldi and Orsini in 1857 and 1858, because if he has not forgotten them, why should he be so wonderfully surprised, and feel such indignation as he showed the other day? Still, as I said before, if the hon. Member honestly avows and participates in those opinions, I can only find fault with him for an error in judgment. Now the hon. Member said upon that occasion, in reply to the hon. Member for Finsbury, that he believed his friend of eighteen years' standing to be incapable of assassination. Upon my word I do not mean to say that he is capable of assassination, and I think it very possible on that point the hon. Member may be right. But that is not the question. Does he not instigate to assassination? That is the question. Does the hon. Member for Halifax remember the name of Gallenga alias Mariotti. If the name does not remain in his memory I will take the liberty to call his attention to an account given in the Révue des Deux Mondes—an unsuspected Liberal authority—of December, 1856, wherein it was said—

"As to the home politics of Piedmont, they are summed up in an incident merely personal to all appearance, and yet of some significance. A man mixed up in political life, a writer and a deputy, a whilom friend of M. Mazzini, and subsequently an adherent of the Monarchy of Savoy and of the existing Government, M. Antonio Gallenga, wrote some time ago a history of Piedmont. M. Gallenga does not show himself altogether favourable to the sect of Young Italy; more particularly he relates a fact which dates more than twenty years back. At that time a young man named Mariotti, furnished with a dagger received from the hands of the Chief of Young Italy, is said to have arrived one day at Turin, with the fixed design of slaying the King, Charles Albert. The regicide was overtaken by weakness, or did not find in his friends the support which he expected, and the enterprize failed. M. Mazzini, no doubt, was far from content with his old pupil's method of writing history, and published a letter, not, of course, to blame the idea of the crime, but to relate that the narrative was all the more exact, inasmuch as Mariotti and M. Gallenga were only one and the same person. M. Gallenga has himself confirmed this identity. The revelation has produced an extraordinary sensation. The result has been that M. Gallenga has been obliged to resign his place as deputy, to replace in the King's hands the Cross of SS. Maurice and Lazarus, which he had received, and to retire from political life."

I will now read a letter, which is really very interesting, from Mazzini, but which having been published, may have been met with by some hon. Members—

"Not long" says Mazzini, "before the expedition to Savoy, after the shooting down of our friends in Genoa, Alessandria, and Chambery, towards the end of 1833, there came to me one evening at the Hotel de la Navigation at Geneva, a young man whom I did not know. He brought mo a note from L. A. Melegari, now a professor and ministerial Deputy at Turin (then one of us) [some committee], who recommended his friend to me with words more than warm, as one who was bent upon doing a lofty deed, and wished to come to an understanding with me about it. The young man was Antonio Gallenga. He came from Corsica. He was affiliated to the "Giovane Italia." He told me that from the moment the proscription commenced, he had resolved to avenge the blood of his brethren, and to teach tyrants, once for all, that guilt was followed by expiation; that he felt himself called to strike down, in the person of Charles Albert, the traitor of 1821, and the butcher of his brethren; that he had brooded over the idea in the solitude of Corsica, until it had grown gigantic and too strong for him. And more besides. I raised objections, as I have always done in similar cases, discussed the matter, and put everything before him that might change his purpose. I said that I thought Charles Albert deserving of death, but that his death would not save Italy; that in order to assume the ministry of expiation one should be free from every low feeling of revenge, and from everything unworthy of that mission; that one should feel himself capable, after accomplishing the act, of folding his hands on his breast and giving himself up as a victim; that in any case he would die in the attempt; that he would die branded by men as an assassin; and so on, for a good while."

Well, now, why did Mazzini do this? I think I shall show that he had his object in so doing, as he said he had done on similar occasions. It was for nothing else than to try the steadfastness of these young men, and see whether they had courage and nerve enough for what they proposed to take in hand. The letter continued—

"He replied to all, and his eyes sparkled while he spoke,—Life was nothing to him, he would not retreat a step; the act being accomplished, he would cry Vive l'Italia! Tyrants were too audacious, because secure through other men's cowardice; that barrier should be broken through. He felt himself destined for the work. He had kept a picture of Charles Albert in his room, and by constantly looking at it had given more and more predominance to his idea. He ended by convincing me that he was one of those beings whose purposes are a matter between their own consciences and God, and whom Providence from time to time lets loose upon earth (like Harmodius of yore) to teach despots that the limit of their power rests in the hand of one single man. And I asked him what he required of me? 'A passport and a little money.'"

Well, what did M. Mazzini give him? He said—

"I gave him a thousand francs, and said he would get a passport in Ticino. While passing the St. Gothard he wrote me a few words full of enthusiasm; he had prostrated himself on the side of the Alps, and had turned towards Italy, swearing to do the deed. He got a passport in Ticino, in the name of Mariotti. Arrived in Turin, he had an interview with a member of the committee of the association, whose name I had given him. The offer was accepted. Projects were decided upon. The deed was to done in a long passage at the court, through which the King passed every Sunday when going to the Royal Chapel. Some persons who got a special ticket, were allowed there to see the King. The committee was able to procure a ticket. Gallenga went with this, without arms, to study the ground; he saw the King, and was more determined than ever—at least he said so. It was decided that the act should be accomplished on the following Sunday."

Then came a passage which the House will do well to bear in mind—

"Then being afraid in those moments of organized terror to look out for a weapon in Turin, they sent a member of the committee, Sciandra, a merchant now dead, through Chambery to Geneva to ask me for arms and notify the day to me."

The House ought to understand that M. Mazzini, according to the hon. Member for Halifax, is incapable of assassination. But the hon. Gentleman did not also add that he is incapable of instigating to assassination; for what I have already read proves, that the hon. Gentleman's friend is not incapable of instigating to that deed. But let the House be good enough to mark the next passage—

"A poniard with a lapis lazuli handle, a gift which I cherished much, was on the table; I pointed to that. Sciandra took it and went away."

With reference to the work on "The Dagger," which was alluded to the other evening by my hon. Friend the Member for the King's County, I understand that M. Mazzini has written a letter to The Times, in which he spoke of something being intended to be the moral dagger. The House will however, I think, agree with me, that that poniard with the lapis lazuli handle was certainly not meant to be the "moral dagger." The letter went on—

"But the committee, learning that the Carabineers were posted two doors from that of the regicide, and knowing nothing of Angelini, concluded that the Government had been warned of the plot and were in search of Gallenga. They therefore made him leave the city, and sent him to a country house outside Turin, telling him that the attempt could not be made on that Sunday, but that if things got quiet, they would call him in for one of the Sundays following. One or two Sundays afterwards they sent for him; he was not to be found; he had gone off, and I saw him again in Switzerland.… He put his name to circulars printed in Turin, intended to magnify the Piedmontese Monarchy. He was selected by the Government for some petty embassy in Germany; later he was, and is, a deputy."

I really think that if confirmation he wanted of the disposition of M. Mazzini to instigate to assassination, none could be supplied of a stronger kind than that which I have just quoted. If further confirmation, however, be needed, it is only necessary to refer to the correspondence to which my hon. Friend the Member for King's County had also alluded, between Daniel Manin, the ex-dictator of Venice, and M. Mazzini, in which M. Mazzini defends and glorifies on principle the acts which, in the case of Gallenga and King Charles Albert, he had sanctioned in practice. There was another point which I shall be obliged to the hon. Member for Halifax if, in his reply to me, he will be good enough to answer. M. Mazzini, in his letter to The Times of the 16th, states that a speech which was delivered in this House on this subject was unsupported by legal evidence. Now, Sir, the Members of this House are men of honour in every respect, and do not require legal evidence on all occasions. Moral evidence, and strong probability, will in general be enough for us. I think I may state in this House composed of Gentlemen of honour, that we do not want legal evidence upon all occasions, but that moral evidence is enough for us. I will take the liberty of putting another question to the hon. Gentleman. The leading journal mentions a bank note which was issued in the name of the Italian Liberation Society, and at the foot of that note there is given a London agent, and that agent is James Stansfeld; and there is also given a direction to 2, Sydney Place, Brompton. Now it will be satisfactory if the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he ever lived at 2, Sydney Place, Brompton, or if he ever had any connection with that address. It is not an old matter, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman may have had an opportunity of referring to it; because, according to The Times, not only this note, but others emanating from the same source, can be produced. Under these circumstances, I am not wrong in feeling that the Motion which I now submit is not altogether superfluous. In those remarks of the Procureur Général which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) the other night, the name of Mr. Flower was given. Now we have never had a straightforward or direct answer. The only direct answer which has been vouchsafed has come from him who is the reputed instigator of plots to assassination—M. Mazzini; but from the hon. Gentleman, one of the Ministers of the Government opposite, I do not think there has come any explanation in answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury. But the explanation which we received from the instigator of conspiracies himself, M. Mazzini, is that certain letters were sent for him to the hon. Gentleman's house, and that they were sent with various others by his (Mazzini's) friends. A question was put by my hon. Friend the Member for King's County (Mr. Hennessy), who wished to know whether Mr. Flower was in truth M. Mazzini, and the hon. Member for Halifax answered, "I can have no knowledge of that. I know nothing of it." Afterwards the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone (Lord Claude Hamilton) put the following question, to which no reply was given. The noble Lord said, "I should like to know from the hon. Member for Halifax whether M. Fuori is not an intimate acquaintance of the hon. Gentleman, whether he has not visited at his house, and whether he is not in fact the secretary of Mazzini." I have further to ask whether M. Fuori is that Mr. Flower mentioned by Greco, and to whom the letters were to be addressed, and I have no doubt when the hon. Gentleman gets up he will give us an answer to these particular questions, and further to say whether "Mr. Flower," to whom letters were to be addressed, was the "Mr. Flower, of 35, Thurloe Square." But, in the absence of explanation, the strange silence observed with respect to such direct questions as have been put, creates the impression either that the hon. Gentleman has not the power or the means to clear up the mystery, or else his lips are sealed by friendly feeling for this instigator of conspiracies. The hon. Gentleman indeed said that he "had not been the medium which some gentlemen seemed to imagine." Well; that is a very easy way of answering, but it is not an answer as direct as the House has a right to expect. It is not by showing indignation that Members of this House are to be satisfied. I may take the liberty of saying that generally when a man is afraid to answer a particular charge—that nine cases out of ten, when the matter will not bear probing—that man will put himself into a rage. That is a general feeling. This much is clear, I think, that with respect to Greco—who was, doubtless, an enthusiastic patriot in Mazzini's estimation, but of whom latterly he was rather ashamed, and, perhaps, when his diabolical designs were promulgated to the world he endeavoured to shake off—that when questions connected with so serious a plot were addressed to the hon. Member for Halifax and the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, instead of "repelling such remarks with contempt," or declaring it "unworthy of the Government to notice such insinuations," they would have acted more worthily in speaking out plainly like honourable men. Members were sent to Parliament by their constituents to sift and inquire into public matters of every kind, to investigate everything concerning the welfare of the country, and it was unbecoming in gentlemen filling high official positions to return evasive or other than straightforward answers. I cannot help thinking it would have been more becoming on the part of the hon. Member for Halifax if he had expressed his regret to this House, instead of putting himself into a defiant attitude and adopting an irritable manner, and, if I may make use of the term, a swaggering tone. Allow me to say, sir, that the Emperor of the French having shown so friendly a feeling and exhibited so generous a disposition towards this country, Englishmen generally felt he ought to have been treated with greater courtesy than has been manifested in the silence and indifference with which the remarks of the Procureur Général were received. Surely it was incumbent upon Her Majesty's Government, for the sake of their own dignity, to ask for explanations as to the right of the Procureur Général to make these remarks, and rather to compel him to substantiate his charges, or at once openly and straightforwardly to refute his statements. But who has given any information at all? Certainly not the Government as represented by the hon. Member for Halifax, nor by the hon. Gentle man the Tinder Secretary for Foreign affairs. I beg to say that, so far as my opinion is concerned—and I have consulted others upon the subject — I believe that the conduct of the Government will be looked upon neither as English-like nor straightforward, nor will it add to the respect in which we are held abroad. On the contrary, I fear it will add to the load of humiliation which we are suffering in foreign estimation. Now, sir, were there any just grounds for the remark of the Procureur Général? Let us think for a moment. A letter is found which belongs to a man convicted of a conspiracy to murder—there is a letter found amongst his papers that directed him to apply for money at the house of an English gentleman, now a Member of this House, and now one of Her Majesty's ministers. That gentleman has himself acknowledged that he is the intimate friend of Mazzini—that he is a friend of eighteen years' standing. Surely, sir, with such a chain of evidence was not the Procureur Général justified in making these remarks? I was sorry to hear the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs deny that he had had any correspondence with France upon the subject, and I only trust that such correspondence may be thought to be more necessary in the future than in the past; and I also trust that the hon. Member for Halifax will in point of candour take a lesson out of the book even of this instigator to murder. I prefaced my remarks with those with which I desire to conclude, and I hope I have not trespassed a moment longer than necessary, but I beg to assure the hon. Gentleman that these remarks are not made with any kind of animus on my part. It is, I assure you, a painful duty to me to make them, because they reflect upon a man whom I may call young, and who has shown considerable talent in this House, and who is, at any rate, ascending the ladder of advancement, and has reached a certain distinction—and I cannot but feel that I may by this Motion—for a time at least—imperil that advancement. [Laughter.] It may be a laughing matter to some gentlemen of unfeeling principles, but I do not treat it as a laughing matter, nor do I think it is so felt by the hon. Gentleman himself. I introduced this question because the replies which have been made have been most unsatisfactory. I think the dignity of the House has been compromised, and in consequence the dignity of the country. I will state nothing further, but will only beg leave to move,

"That the statement of the Procureur Général on the trial of Greco, implicating a Member of this House and of Her Majesty's Government in the plot for the assassination of our ally the Emperor of the French, deserves the serious consideration of this House."

seconded the Motion.

Sir, it is not my intention to say one word in reply to the strictures of the hon. Baronet upon the character of Signer Mazzini. I have already fulfilled that which I believe to be a duty in bearing my testimony to the character of a man whom I have known for many years. As far as I am concerned, I do not think it fitting that that discussion should be continued, and as far as I am concerned it is now at an end. I will now address myself to the Motion of the hon. Baronet so far as it concerns myself and my character. The very terms of that Motion appear to me to justify the course which I pursued when this question was first introduced to the notice of the House. The hon. Baronet taking up this statement of the Procureur Général, moves that "that statement, implicating a Member of this House and a Member of Her Majesty's Government, in a plot for the assassination of the Emperor of the French, deserves the serious consideration of the House." Now, Sir, right or wrong, I put the same construction upon the statement of the Procureur Général which has been put upon it by the hon. Baronet. I hold in my hand a copy of The Times of the 1st of March, and in it I find the statement of the Procureur Général given in these words—

"I searched in the London Commercial Almanack and in the Post Office Directory to ascertain who could be the person placed in correspondence with Greco. At page 670 I found the answer, and it is not without sorrow that I recognize the name of a Member of the English Parliament, who already in 1857 had been constituted by Mazzini treasurer to the Tibaldi plot which was directed against the Emperor's life."

I must say, Sir, that it appeared to me then, and it still appears to me, that an imputation so odious, and, as I shall presently show, so utterly unsupported by the evidence adduced upon this trial, was one which I could only fittingly meet by a denial which, although general, I believe to have been complete, and which I do not think the House will consider it unnatural should be accompanied by some expression of indignation and contempt. What, Sir, was the evidence adduced upon this trial? The hon. Baronet has supposed—I cannot believe that he has read the evidence—but he has supposed that it was to this effect,—that Greco was directed to apply to some person at my address for money for the purpose of this plot. Why, Sir, even supposing the letter which was found upon Greco's person to have been Signer Mazzini's production, that letter did not refer him to my address, but to another address, for money. Upon him was stated to have been found a slip of paper on which was written — it does not appear in whose handwriting—"Mr. Flower, 35, Thurloe square." Now, that is the whole extent of the evidence from which the Procureur Général chose to draw these extraordinary inferences. The Procureur Général also refers to Tibaldi's plot in 1857, and states that I had been constituted by Mazzini treasurer of that plot. What was the evidence with respect to that, not brought forward in this trial, but quoted by the Procureur General? It was two supposed excerpts from notes of Signer Mazzini, referring persons in vague terms to my address for money if they required it, That was the whole extent of the evidence as far as the Tibaldi plot was concerned. Now I am perfectly free to admit that with that evidence before the Procureur Général, he or his Government would have been perfectly justified in asking for explanations upon a question of that kind; but I cannot admit for a moment that any wan accustomed to consider evidence and inclined to fair play would have been led to the conclusion which the Procureur Général was induced to express upon that occasion, [Cries of "Deny, deny!" and "Order, Order!"] I am about to deny. I am about to say that I did not think it fitting that I should give any other but a general denial to a statement of that kind. But the circumstances are now entirely changed. The whole subject is before the House by virtue of the Motion of the hon. Baronet. I have, therefore, no longer any hesitation or any difficulty. I feel it, of course, no indignity to offer to the House any explanations which the House may think requisite or fitting, or to answer any questions which the House may think it desirable that I should answer. Let me take the statement of the Procureur Général. He states that I was a person placed in correspondence with Greco. Now, Sir, neither directly nor indirectly, neither by letter nor personally, have I ever had any communication with that person. I never even heard his name, nor knew of his existence, until I saw in the papers the report of his arrest with his accomplices I for the late conspiracy. [An hon. MEMBER: That is not the question.] [Cries of "Question!" and "Order! "] To go back to the case of Tibaldi. Signor Mazzini has already voluntarily written to the press, stating that no such supposed fund or plot ever existed, and that, of course, he never asked me to act as treasurer to any such fund. It is hardly necessary, I hope, for me to say that which I now do say very distinctly, that I have never held any funds, that I have never advanced any money, for any such purpose or for any purpose whatever, to the persons who were named in connection with that conspiracy. It is one thing to have had a long personal intimacy with a man, and another thing to be implicated in his undertakings, whether of a character which will bear investigation or of a character; such as those which have been attributed to M. Mazzini. The hon. Baronet has referred to the trial of Orsini, and has suggested that my name was connected with that trial. I do not know how to reply to that assertion, because it is the first time that I have heard that my name I was ever connected with it. If the hon. Baronet, or any other Member of this House will adduce any evidence or make any statement in corroboration of that assertion, I shall be ready to answer it. Then the hon. Baronet has referred to certain notes—and here he approached the region of something like facts. In the year 1850, immediately after the fall of the Roman Republic, I was requested to allow my name to be placed on the back of these notes as a reference in case persons might apply to take them, their object being to aid in the accomplishment of Italian unity and independence. I am perfectly ready to admit that I assented to my name being so used, but very shortly after giving my consent—I believe within a very few weeks—I saw reason to question the propriety, and even the legality, of that step. I thought I was justified in taking the counsel and opinion of a very old friend of mine, a very eminent member of the legal profession, Mr. Serjeant Manning. I took his opinion, and, acting upon his opinion and advice, I requested, and my request was, of course, immediately complied with—that my name should be withdrawn from those notes. These are the simple facts—I have nothing to state to-night but simple facts—these are the simple facts, as far as I know them, in which the House can be interested in this matter. I have no objection if any other question occurs to the mind of any hon. Member to answer it. [Cries of "Flower, Flower."] I can have no hesitation in answering any questions which may be put by the House. I therefore now leave the subject. ["Flower, Flower."] I should add this if the House will allow me. I have omitted to notice one important part of the matter — the use to which my house has been put. Well, of course the natural consequences of the intimate personal relationship with M. Mazzini, which I have never for a moment hesitated to acknowledge, accounts for that. M. Mazzini's letters, as the House will easily understand, have not for many years been able to reach him through the foreign post if addressed in his own name. He has, therefore, very naturally asked his various English friends—of whom I am one—to allow letters to be addressed to their houses. Letters for him have in that way been addressed to my house among others. Those letters to him have been addressed to my house under a name which has been mentioned here. They have been addressed to my house under the name, among others, of "Signor Fiore." I need not say, that of the contents of those letters I have always been entirely ignorant. The name Flower is, as the House of course understands, the translation of the word Fiore; but I do not believe that any letter was ever ad- dressed to my house for M. Mazzini in the name of Flower. I entirely admit, at the same time, that it is not advisable, that it is not fitting, whatever may be the nature of M. Mazzini's correspondence, that it should be addressed to the residence of a person occupying the position which I have the honour to hold. It has not been necessary for me to make any suggestion of that kind to M. Mazzini—he has himself volunteered to state that he has taken measures to prevent his letters being addressed to my residence. I have contented myself with a simple statement of facts. I repeat that I have no knowledge of any of those transactions to which the hon. Baronet refers, and I now leave this question without any further remark in the hands of the House.

Sir, I am one of those who have heard with regret some of the explanations which have been just offered by the hon. Gentleman. I certainly think the House will admit that the explanations which the hon. Gentleman has given us to-night is of a more satisfactory character than that which we heard the other night. What he stated the other night was no explanation at all. It was simply a defence of the character of M. Mazzini. Now, we have nothing to do here with the character of Mazzini. Certainly, it is not our duty to defend it. We have no right to go against the whole moral sense of Europe. We are not called upon, and we ought not to set ourselves against the opinions of united Europe. I say, without fear of contradiction, that in every part of Europe—among all classes—among all ranks—among all men of honourable feeling, there is but one feeling, but one sentiment, with respect to the general conduct, feelings, principles, and actions of M. Mazzini. It is a mistake to suppose that that opinion with respect to him is confined alone to the Imperialist party in France. I speak from personal knowledge, and from a large acquaintance with the people of France. I have discussed this subject elsewhere. I know that of men of all sides, of all principles, of all colours, except, perhaps, the remnant of the party of 1793, including even the republicans, who were supporters of General Cavaignac, all condemn the principles of M. Mazzini. There is no one whose ideas and whose name are now held in such abhorrence throughout Europe. No one ever suspected that the hon. Gentleman himself has been guilty of participation in the horrible plot which has been referred to. But no one can deny that the hon. Gentleman has been guilty of great imprudence in allowing, according to his own admission, letters to be addressed to his house in order that correspondence might be carried on from the Continent with M. Mazzini. The hon. Gentleman not having had cognizance of the exact nature of the correspondence, how was he to answer for the consequences? I say that the French Government, the French people, and the French Chamber, have a perfect right to complain of the conduct on the part of an Englishman, who having the honour of a seat in this House should, by his feelings for Italian liberty, have been betrayed into such an act of imprudence—and I do not impute any more serious fault to the hon. Gentleman. But nothing could produce a more unfortunate effect on the Continent than the statement he formerly made; but I am happy to think he has now altogether admitted that he has broken off all connection with M. Mazzini. The hon. Gentleman may remain the permanent friend of Mazzini—may even sympathize with him in his opinions, but he has no right to found upon these opinions acts that tend to compromise this House—or to compromise, as I think he has compromised, the Government with which he is connected—and even, in my opinion, the English people. When a man in a situation like that the hon. Gentleman occupies acts as he has done, opinions are naturally imputed to him which he does not entertain. Certainly, he has unwarily made himself the agent of doctrines and opinions which he should be the first to repudiate. I am happy he has given us his explanation. Knowing the effect elsewhere, I think the matter is in many respects to be deplored. I hope, however, the hon. Gentleman has had a lesson for the future, and that he will show more prudence than he has hitherto exhibited.

No one is more averse than I am to enter into any controversy in this House which can be considered of a personal nature. But there are some questions which, though immediately personal in appearance, are of great and paramount interest to the country, and I venture to say that the question now before the House is of that kind. The hon. Gentleman has stated that, on the first occasion, he expressed his feeling of indignation and astonishment at the speech of the Procureur Général. His in- dignation can well be felt and sympathized with; but I own the astonishment of the hon. Gentleman astonishes me. Until I heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman to-night, I was not aware that this was the first time he had learnt that his name had ever been implicated in any of the attempts of M. Mazzini. ["Mr. STANSFELD: I said Orsini.] But I hold in my hand a statement, which I copied from a newspaper of the day, in which the facts are narrated — the acte d'accusation, which translated into English, may be called the bill of indictment against Orsini in August, 1857, and in which the name of Mr. Stansfeld occurs. It is an extract—I translate it from the Moniteur—

"Two other names more ought to be cited—that of Mr. James Stansfeld, brewer, of London, who has made himself banker of Mazzini. Enfin, two new assassins were to be proposed by Massarenti at Genoa, where he was. Mazzini charged Campanella to judge in his place if they ought to be admitted to assist in their detestable design, and in case Campanella accepted them, he invited him, as well as Massarenti, to get money from the brewer Stansfeld. At the same time, the address of the brewer Stansfeld of London was seized in the portfolio of Tibaldi."

The prisoner, according to the French law, is examined and allowed to criminate himself. Tibaldi was asked—

"In your portmanteau was found the address of a brewer (le Sieur James Stansfeld) known as being the banker of Mazzini?"

The answer was of a very peculiar nature. It was this—

"Yes, but because he was to introduce me to some English opticians for the sale of my goods."

That was the answer given in that solemn inquiry. I have no further knowledge than I have derived from the public journal of the day; but I agree in the general principles touched on by the noble Lord. There can be no doubt these events have produced a most painful effect on the mind of Europe. I am one of those who think that it is a great disgrace to this country, that when any trial occurs for some detestable crime upon the person of a foreign Sovereign, it is always said to be in England, in London, that the plot is hatched and the money obtained. The Motion, therefore, of the hon. Baronet I think well timed. We should recollect that, on a previous occasion, the great cry was — This House can do nothing, because there has been a pressure put on it by a foreign Government. We are now told, "Oh, you are discussing a question here which has been forgotten in France," but I beg to assure the House that such is not the case. I have had letters from countrymen of our own residing in Paris, who inform me that the feeling there is most deep on the subject, and that nothing but the strong hand of the Emperor has been able to suppress such public ebullitions of feeling as would greatly endanger the peace and good understanding which it is so desirable should continue to exist between the two countries. I can assure the House that I have it from Englishmen, and not from Frenchmen, or from men whose sympathies are Imperialist, that the feeling in France is deep set, and that nothing, as I said before, but the power of the Emperor could keep it in check, ready as it is to burst forth under this renewed proof that plots and assassinations have their nest and original hiding place in this—I am happy to think—abode of freedom for the people of all nations.

said, he thought the House would scarcely be likely to receive any increase of dignity from the fact of its becoming the sounding board for the scandalous tittle-tattle of the police courts of Paris. For his own part, he had no hesitation in stating that he had, for many years, been the intimate friend of Signer Mazzini. He stood, therefore, in some respects, in the same relation to that gentleman as his hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, and wished to explain to any further extent which might be necessary, in order that the House might thoroughly understand the matter, the question of the way in which letters to M. Mazzini, while in this country, happened to be addressed. It would be easily comprehended by all those who were acquainted with the relations which subsisted between the Post Office and the Governments of Europe, that any one engaged, as M. Mazzini had been, in politics and political conspiracy against tyranny, might as well have any letters posted to him from Italy burnt as expect that they would be delivered to him in London, if addressed in his own name. He, therefore, was ready to acknowledge that, in common with other friends of Signer Mazzini, he had for years past placed his address at that gentleman's disposal. Hon. Members would, however, he had no doubt, have the candour at once to perceive and to admit that that circumstance not only did not imply the slightest possibility of conspiracy for assassination on the part of those who thus granted the privilege which he mentioned, but not even the slightest knowledge of what the letters so addressed might contain. For his own part, he had had letters for M. Mazzini addressed to his house under a variety of names, and had sometimes smiled at the simple means used to avoid suspicion, means which would be of little avail if the writers had the English Post Office to deceive. If anybody asked him whether any of the letters which came to his house for M. Mazzini were addressed M. Flower, he could not undertake to say whether such was or was not the case. He had letters addressed to himself which contained certain indications inside to show that they were meant for M. Mazzini. Some were addressed in Italian, which, he was sorry to say, he did not understand, and those he had forwarded to M. Mazzini, stating that being written in Italian, they were probably intended for him, adding, "If not, you will return them to me and tell me what is in them." He was not at all astonished to find that surprize was expressed that English gentlemen and Members of Parliament should have such confidence in a person such as hon. Members opposite believed M. Mazzini to be; while he regretted extremely to hear the observations which had been made by the noble Lord who had spoken, and to find the House of Commons made the vehicle for the miserable calumnies of the reactionary party in Europe. He might add that to those who knew M. Mazzini only from the calumnious reports of the press for the last twenty years, the respect, esteem, and affection which those who had the honour of his aquaintance entertained for him were, no doubt, matter of astonishment, but for that it was easy to account.

I will detain the House but a very few moments. I should be very glad if I could avoid intruding on its attention at all, for during my not very short experience in this Assembly, the present is one of the most painful occasions which I can recollect. I cannot agree with the noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord Harry Vane) in the opinion he has expressed, that the explanations which we have heard tonight from the hon. Member for Halifax may be regarded as satisfactory, while I do concur with the noble Lord in thinking that the language and explanation which we first heard from the hon. Gentleman were both unsatisfactory and ill judged. That being so, I cannot see how what has fallen from him this evening has very much altered the position of affairs. I speak, I am sure, with no prejudice against the hon. Gentleman. I recognize the ability which he has displayed in this House, and I quite agree with the noble Lord, that there is not a man among us who would for a single moment think of imputing to the hon. Gentleman any intentional complicity with assassins. But what are the facts of the case as they stand? Signor Mazzini is the avowed associate and adviser of the assassin Greco. He is the avowed associate of the assassin Gallenga, and for years the hon. Gentleman opposite has been the intimate friend and associate of this friend and adviser of assassins. These are the plain facts of the case, and I cannot help thinking that something is due to the dignity of this House and to the feelings of our French allies, who are naturally irritated and angry at finding these foul plots one after another brought to maturity in this country. It is painful to us, and must be painful to our neighbours, to learn that a person holding the high position of a Member of Parliament and a situation in Her Majesty's Government has now lived for years as the intimate associate of Mazzini. On this subject, however, I do not wish to dwell at greater length than simply to address an inquiry to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. I think the statement made by the Procureur Général at the trial of Greco, implicating, as it did—whether rightly or wrongly I do not now stop to inquire—a Member of Her Majesty's Government, required that some communication should be made and some explanation offered by the head of the Government of England to the Government of France with respect to a circumstance of a character so singular and unsatisfactory. I wish, therefore, to ask the noble Lord the First Minister whether, on the part of the English Government, he has taken any notice in communicating with the French Government of the statement in question; and, if not, whether it is his intention to do so? It must, in my opinion, depend on the answer of the noble Lord to that inquiry what part this House ought now to take; and if the noble Lord's reply is not satisfactory, I am sorry to say that, in my opinion, it will be the duty of my hon. Friend to press his Motion to a division.

Nothing, no doubt, can in general be more painful than personal discussions in this House. I cannot at the same time express any regret that the hon. Baronet opposite has brought this subject to-night under our consideration, because it has drawn from my hon. Friend beside me an explanation which, differing from the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I think perfectly satisfactory, conveying as it did an absolute and total denial of the only charge which has been insinuated against him—that of having any cognizance whatsoever of the plot against the Emperor of the French which had recently been the subject of investigation in France. The right hon. Baronet asks me whether Her Majesty's Government have deemed it right to make any communication to the Government of France with respect to a passage in the speech of an advocate at the trial. Well, Sir, my answer is "No." We have no right to take cognizance of what takes place in a court of justice in France. If there was an opinion that anything which passed upon that occasion amounted to a charge against my hon. Friend, that he had any connection, direct or indirect, with that assassin, an answer to the imputation, to the insinuation, was given by my hon. Friend to this House, and publicly to the world—a complete refutation even to suspicion. But I will fairly own that I should have felt humiliated if I had been a party to a communication to the French Government to tell them that an English gentleman, a Member of Parliament holding office under the Government, was not connected with an infamous plot against the Emperor's life. I congratulate hon. Gentlemen opposite upon the feelings and sentiments which seem to actuate them: upon the present occasion. We have been; told that the imputations—false as they were—of the Procureur Général have excited the indignation of the French nation, and that something is due to the feelings of France to remove the impression which they entertain, that something or other has taken place in this country which is equal to—if not an acquiescence—at least to an absence of disclaimer of any participation in the attempt that was to have been made. We have been reminded of the Orsini conspiracy in the year 1858. Then there was an attempt upon the life of the Emperor, not suspected, not intercepted, but actually made. What did the Government of that time do? We spontaneously proposed to the House a measure which was intended to prevent a recurrence of similar attempts. Hon. Gentlemen oppo- site formally, publicly expressed their approval of the step and promised their support. But when they found that, by a combination of circumstances, a dereliction of their promises and the absolute abandonment of their own opinions might lead to a change of Government, they threw over their promises, they cast their indignation to the winds, and joined in condemning that of which before they had expressed their approval. In point of fact, they refused to grant the satisfaction which they now say is due to the French people. I say then, Sir, that the language they hold on the present occasion, directed against a Member of the Government, needs no explanation, except by referring to the events of that time. With regard to my hon. Friend, I say that if I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend could have had the slightest participation in the transaction to which this discussion refers, I should have represented to him that it would be more becoming that he should cease to be a Member of the Government. I have not done so; and I have not done so because I know my hon. Friend to be incapable of participation in any such abominable and atrocious a transaction. Therefore, I say I do not regret the Motion of the hon. Baronet, because it has afforded to my hon. Friend an opportunity of repeating the disclaimer which, I think, he sufficiently made upon the former occasion; but as that is not considered to have been sufficient, then I think what he has said this evening ought to be conclusive reason to the House and to the country why the Motion of the hon. Baronet should not be deemed acceptable.

Sir, I confess I am disappointed at the tone which has been adopted by the noble Lord. I think the noble Lord to-night had an opportunity—a golden opportunity—of extricating the House from a painful position, and to place it in relation to an ally of this country in one which would have become him, and in which he might have done justice not only to his colleagues but to the character of the House in which he has sat so long, and in which he must take a deep interest. The noble Lord, instead of taking the line which my right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington), animated by the most proper spirit, indicated as one he believed the House expected the noble Lord to follow, unfortunately seems to have taken refuge in that vein to which he is too accustomed to resort. He said they had not applied to the French Government because they could not submit to the humiliation. The noble Lord, however, forgets that he is the head of a Government who when, they have felt it to be their duty have not permitted the word "humiliation" to induce them to refrain from a course which they deemed to be expedient. I thought it was very unfortunate that the noble Lord, after telling the House that he would submit to no humiliation—the act of humiliation being a friendly representation to a friendly foreign Government—I thought it very unfortunate that the noble Lord should immediately recal to the recollection of the House the circumstances of 1858. I think some regard to the feelings of the President of the Board of Trade should have restrained him. I think he should have shown some regard to the feelings of one "absent" Member, Earl Russell. The noble Lord should be ashamed of attacking by innuendo an absent man. But, says the noble Lord, with heedless rhetoric, What had we to complain of? Are we to apply to a foreign Government, because one of my colleagues has been accused by some foreign official of that which he did not perpetrate, and which he has openly denied? Why, Sir, this leads us, after all the noise of the noble Lord, to recur to the real question before us. The statement of the noble Lord proved that he did not understand the very point upon which of all others he should have directed the judgment of the House. Let us see, in the first place, what occurred. The Procureur Général, the Attorney General of a foreign country, makes a public statement in a court of the highest consideration in France, and what is the statement? He says that a Member of the British Parliament—and what, perhaps, he was not aware of at the time, a Member of the Administration—had been, he was sorry to say, the medium by which Mazzini communicated with the conspirators against the life of his Sovereign. Did the hon. Member for Halifax deny the statement? Why he admitted it, and he explained it. He told us the letters came to his house—he, sitting by the side of the noble Lord who has misstated his whole case, does not deny that letters did come, and that his house in Thurloe Square was the medium for communication between Mazzini and his correspondents. Does he deny that? [Mr. STANSFELD: What correspondents?] What correspondents? You know them better than I do, I suppose. "What cor- respondents?" asks the Member for Halifax. Why, the assassins of Europe. "What correspondents?" asks the Member for Halifax. Why, the advocates of anarchy throughout the Continent. "What correspondents?" asks the Member for Halifax. Why, the men who point their poniards at the breast of our allies. Why, Sir, this is the most unfortunate movement on the part of the noble Lord I have ever witnessed. Still smarting under the successful combination of his present Colleague the President of the Board of Trade in 1858, labouring under a confused idea that the course he then pursued towards a foreign Power was a great blunder, he is now positively inert, and will not perform the first duty which civilization, if no other reason, demands. Why, the charge made by the highest legal authority in France against the hon. Member for Halifax is one which the hon. Member has himself admitted. It is that his house was the medium of communication between Mazzini and his correspondents, and yet the noble Lord says the hon. Member for Halifax has denied the charge, and Under Secretaries of State and others have treated with contempt this charge which is now admitted. I am willing to give to the hon. Member for Halifax, or to any Gentleman who sits in this House, the most favourable interpretation of their conduct. I say that, even to those who have listened with scandalous levity to charges of so grave a character. But nobody denies that sufficient has occurred to require on the part of the Government a friendly, temperate, dignified, and, if necessary, confidential communication to the foreign Government. Take our own case, Supposing the Attorney General here had made a statement, after an important State trial in this country, that he regretted to find that one of the most eminent members of the Chamber of Deputies in France had made his house the machinery of communication between foreigners and conspirators against our Sovereign, would you be surprized if the representative of the French Emperor were to ask for some explanation of such statement, and if proof had been given of the accuracy of such statement, as has been so lavishly admitted by the noble Lord, would it not have been his duty to have expressed his deep regret that such circumstances should have occurred — that such incidents should have happened? Judge by your own feelings what you would have expected the representatives of your Sovereign to do. But what is the course which the Government now wishes us to follow? It is the universal feeling of this country that the dignity of this House is compromised, and I am sorry to say, after the speech of the noble Lord, that the dignity of the Government is also compromised. What my right hon. Friend suggested in no spirit of unfriendliness would have avoided division, and would have afforded the noble Lord an opportunity, while vindicating the dignity of this House, to come forward and take those steps, so easy for a person of his great position, which would have removed the extreme apprehension and disquietude which this affair has occasioned. After the speech of the hon. Member for Halifax he had only to come forward and say that, from this evening, he should feel it his duty to make communications by which regret should be expressed, that even unconsciously the house of one who is considered to be a Minister of the Crown should be made the medium and machinery of the communications of conspirators and assassins. The offer has been refused—the noble Lord will not assert the dignity of the House of Commons, and I think the House of Commons ought to assert its own. The noble Lord has rejected the proposition of my right hon. Friend, made in a becoming spirit, and it is for the House of Commons to conduct itself in a spirit equally becoming. After the rejection of our proposal by the noble Lord, I see no course to take sufficient to maintain the dignity of this House, and to place it in its proper position before Europe, but to support the Motion of my hon. Friend.

Sir, I wish I could persuade myself that the excitement manifested by hon. Gentlemen opposite to-night had so good a foundation as might be built upon a strong anxiety to preserve friendly relations with France, and to maintain the honour and dignity of this House. But I think I discern in the temper which they have manifested very different motives, which make me believe that they are not in a condition to take a very impartial and just view of this case. What is that which we are now called upon to consider? I do not say that the circumstances which have arisen are not such as to excite some surprise and some dissatisfaction. But let us in considering them not be unjust or ungenerous to a Member of this House. We all sit here by equal right, I confess—and I do so with much pleasure—that during the twenty years I have had a seat in this House, although there has been temporary passion, yet in the end, and sometimes after only a few minutes' consideration, the House has been willing to do justice to every one of its Members. Let us not, then, treat this question, in which the hon. Member for Halifax is so deeply involved, and in which his feelings, no doubt, have been greatly excited—let us not discuss it in a spirit which is unfair and ungenerous to him. What are the facts? We know that in this country and for many years past, there has been a great enthusiasm amongst certain persons, sometimes amongst considerable classes of the people, in favour of political refugees—refugees here sometimes from the oppression and from the wrongs of the Governments from which they fled—refugees sometimes, it may be, for offences against those Governments that could not easily be defended. We have had the questions of Poland, of Hungary, and of Italy. Who is there in this House who was here ten years ago that does not recollect the late Lord Dudley Stuart? He was a man of the most amiable character, but he had a burning, an unquenchable enthusiasm with regard to the Poles. Take the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the King's County, who during the last twelve months has made himself distinguished by his advocacy of the claims of Poland. We have had a very eminent man in this country who for several years was connected with the politics of Hungary. He had zealous friends amongst us—and we have had also refugees, and not a few, from Italy. Who is there who will say he never felt any sentiment of sympathy with some at least of the Italian refugees? Now, I am one of those who on the whole rather discouraged the course which has been taken by some English enthusiasts in this House with regard to those exiles from abroad. I thought that their conduct was likely on some occasion to embarrass the Government, to embarrass Parliament, and to embarrass our diplomacy abroad; and therefore I have given generally very little favour to the enthusiasm I have seen. But still, if I did not feel sympathy for the refugees that have been driven here I would despise myself; and if there be any man in this House who will stand up and say he never felt a particle of sympathy for the refugees that have been driven to our country, I say I despise him. Take the precise case of the hon. Member for Halifax and Mazzini. I believe there is no man acquainted with Mazzini who will not acknowledge that, so far as can be known of his character from personal association with him, he is a man of the most profound devotion. [An hon. MEMBEII: "To the dagger!"] That devotion may not be to the principles of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, but he has a profound devotion to the principle of the unity and independence of Italy. Every one who has been associated with him will admit that he is a man of a character powerful and fascinating, and that he obtains over those with whom he associates a singular influence. There are few persons that ever were acquainted with him who, apart from this special question we are now discussing, would not express for him the highest admiration. One of the statements that the hon. Baronet opposite read refers, I believe, to thirty years ago. I don't know Mazzini's age, but I believe that he might be at that time five and twenty. Consider what his compatriots in Italy have suffered. I think I have read that the right hon. Gentleman who just sat down, in one of his early writings, expressed opinions—it may be merely to excite a sensation amongst his readers—but still opinions very much like those to which the hon. Baronet has alluded to-night.

There is not the slightest foundation for that statement. I give it the most unequivocal contradiction.

Doubtless, then, those who quoted writings said to be the right hon. Gentleman's were in error. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement freely, but I was not about to blame him. It is that kind of writing that comes often in youth from great enthusiasm and from an acquaintance with what at school we are taught to regard as the heroic deeds of ancient days. I did not rise for the purpose of saying a single syllable in defence of Mazzini. The observations I have made in regard to him are for this purpose—to explain, and if it be necessary, in some degree to justify the friendship that has existed between the hon. Member for Halifax and Mazzini, and many other eminent foreigners, for many years past. But, Sir, there is not a man in this House who believes now that the hon. Gentleman on any occasion has ever had the slightest intimation that any plot of this nature was being concocted, or about to be carried into effect. I undertake to say that if Mazzini were connected with any of those plots he would himself feel it was utterly impossible that he could discuss them with the hon. Member for Halifax, or with any person of his intelligence, or occupying his position in this country. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may feel differently, I am willing to show to the hon. Member for Halifax that fairness and justice which if I were in his place I would ask for myself. I am not defending—understand me—the enthusiasm under which any Englishman allows himself to be so intimately and personally connected with a gentleman who is the soul of conspiracy throughout the various countries of Europe. I always discouraged it—I condemn it now—I think it full of embarrassment; and my hon. Friend at this moment feels the embarrassment. The embarrassment is not confined solely to himself, but affects, of course, to a certain extent the Government of which he is a Member. But making all these allowances—granting everything that has been said on the other side—I do not mean about Mazzini, because I admit nothing on his account, and say nothing in his defence—but admitting everything that has been said in regard to the hon. Member for Halifax, and everything that he has said—considering that his friendship began with Mazzini when he was a very young man, and through the enthusiasm to which young men are liable—and I should be ashamed of myself if I had never felt it—I ask the hon. Gentlemen opposite whether the course they are taking is one worthy of a great party. Do you believe that your leader, now practising upon the House with simulated horror, really tells what he felt in regard to this transaction in Paris? I do not believe that you wish to become the helpers of the police of Paris. Do not suppose that I differ from any of you who have expressed disgust and horror at the attempt on the life of the Emperor of France. I believe there has never been a ruler on the throne of France who has been so friendly to this country, or more anxious to preserve peace with this country. I have said it when some of you said the very opposite. I look with indignation and horror at attempts coming from any quarter, and under any provocation whatever, to plunge that great nation into the anarchy from which it is possible his life only saves it; but, at the same time, it is not necessary to make yourselves in this House the instruments of adding fuel to whatever fire may exist, thus exasperating the state of things that now prevails in France. Have you another object hardly less worthy—that of worrying the existing Government? I need not tell you that I am no partisan of that Government—that I never have been—that I have never, since a short time after its formation, looked forward with dismay to its dissolution; but if I were as hungry as the hungriest person to place myself on that Bench, I would be ashamed to make my way to it over the character, the reputation, the happiness, and the future of the last appointed and youngest Member of that Government.

The hon. Member who has just resumed his seat accused this side of the House of a number of unworthy motives. Among others, he has charged us with showing excited feelings, directed apparently by motives which we will not avow in supporting the Motion of the hon. Baronet. I will venture to say, for hon. Members on this side of the House, that there would have been no excitement, no vehement prosecution of the charge, if it had not been for the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who tried by topics totally irrelevant, and by the repetition of the merest claptrap, to draw away the attention of the House of Commons from the real gravity of the charge brought against his Colleague the hon. Member for Halifax. We have travelled over a great variety of subjects, we have been brought back to the Conspiracy Bill, we have had allusions to the French Treaty—there have been a great number of insinuations of all kinds, but very little from the opposite side has been said with respect to the actual Motion before the House. The point is this:—If the documents read this evening by the hon. Baronet are true, and if the documents quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for the King's County the other night are true, Mazzini is, in intention, a murderer. These publications were before the world, and the hon. Member for Halifax trusted Mazzini as few would trust another. He allowed him, knowing he was an agent for sowing discord in every country—knowing he was the prime instrument of every revolution that was being organized in every nation in Europe—he allowed him to make his house an instrument for the prosecution of his schemes. He has a right to any sympathies he may think fit to indulge in, but it was his duty, when trusting M. Mazzini to such an extent, to make him- self acquainted with his views and with the schemes which he was likely to pursue. He ought to have known as well as any hon. Member in this House, that Mazzini was the advocate of political assassination; but knowing the force of extracts quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for King's County — knowing the doctrines of M. Mazzini — he allowed him to make his house the instrument of schemes which he did not know—allowed him, for aught he knew, to make his house an instrument for promoting a scheme of political assassination. Unless he was certain of the schemes in which M. Mazzini was engaged, he ought not to have permitted him to have his letters directed to his house. The question now is, whether he can undo what he has done. No one accuses him of complicity in the crime, what we accuse him of is imprudence which is deeply culpable, and which may seriously compromise this country. An imputation has been made abroad that schemes of this kind are encouraged in this country, and for that imputation the imprudence of the hon. Member for Halifax has given ground. It is open to the Government to refute the charge; it is open to them to disavow in a particular manner any connection or sympathy with schemes of this kind. They have refused to do so; they have gone back on subjects totally irrelevant; they have endeavoured to blind the House of Commons and the people; and the duty of the House of Commons is to declare by its Vote to-night that it has no complicity in such schemes as those with which the conspirators have been charged, and that it deeply deplores the culpable conduct of the hon. Member for Halifax.

Sir, I apprehend that the duty which we are now performing—whatever way it turns—is of a judicial character, and therefore at the risk of being exceedingly dull, I shall endeavour to confine myself, as far, at all events, as good intention goes when beginning a speech— which I know is not always carried out in the course of it—to a treatment of the question in that spirit. With regard to M. Mazzini, I am not in the position of the hon. Gentleman who has been acquainted with him for many years. I never saw M. Mazzini. I do not partake in his opinions with regard to Italy, and those whom I have been accustomed to look upon as authorities on Italian politics have differed vitally from M. Mazzini as regards his views and measures. But I am bound, at the same time, to say that I never knew one of those men who did not accord to M. Mazzini on the one hand great talents and force of character, and on the other hand the most perfect truth and integrity. That is an important point in the present discussion; and therefore, until the contrary is shown to be the case, I shall assume that M. Mazzini is to be believed on his word. How does that apply to the case which the noble Lord who has just addressed the House stated with considerable fairness? He threw overboard very fairly the idea that it is our duty to inquire very minutely as to who has intercourse with every one that comes from a foreign country. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham has pointed out the difficulties that arise from such an intercourse. The noble Lord stands up for perfect freedom of action. He does not complain of the Member for Halifax, because he was in friendship with M. Mazzini; but he says, if my hon. Friend allowed M. Mazzini to make use of his house, it was his duty to make himself acquainted with M. Mazzini's views, and to ascertain that he was not applying his command over the hon. Member's house for the purpose of concocting schemes of assassination. If M. Mazzini is a man to be believed, it is not necessary for me to say that my hon. Friend is to be implicitly believed; and that being so, I say that my hon. Friend has done precisely what the noble Lord says he ought to have done. My hon. Friend has told the House that he believes in the truth of M. Mazzini's declaration in the newspapers, and knows this to have been the feeling of M. Mazzini during all the years in which he has had a friendship for him. Therefore, he has brought himself to as high a certainty as a man can possess, according to his own conscientious conviction, that M. Mazzini never has made, and never could make, use of his house for the purposes which the noble Lord has justly denounced, because he thinks he knows that M. Mazzini is incapable of entertaining these views. That is with respect to the general ground stated by the noble Lord. It is not enough for us in a case of this kind to have a general impression that my hon. Friend has acted indiscreetly, and therefore to adopt the Motion which is proposed without examining its terms. For what are its terms? We are invited to vote a Resolution that the statement of the Procureur Général on the trial of Greco, implicating a Member of this House, and of Her Majesty's Government in a plot for the assassination of our ally the Emperor of the French, deserves the serious consideration of this House. Now, I put it to this House that a statement by the Procureur Général does not deserve, and cannot fitly become, the basis of consideration by this House. What is the Procureur Général? He is the distinguished advocate who pleads the cause of the Crown in the court where Greco was tried. What is his duty? His duty is to raise the case to the very highest against Greco, against Mazzini, and against every one he can touch. It is not the obligation of the Procureur Général to take a calm, unbiassed, and dispassionate view of the merits of every individual with whom he may deal. His duty is to state the case at the highest point; without any disrespect to him or imputation on the French Government, his statement is essentially an ex parte statement, which ought to be subjected to the full and searching scrutiny of a judicial procedure before it can, with propriety, become the subject of consideration here. If the hon. Member is content to wait until the finding of the Court of Justice in France shall establish any such charge as the hon. Baronet thinks the Procureur Général has established, then, I grant you, is the time when the state of things described by my noble Friend behind me would altogether have passed away; because it is one thing to take notice of the statement of counsel, whose duty it is to bring out one particular side of the question, and it is another thing to take notice of the solemn judicial finding of a court in which I think we, as a friendly Government, irrespectively of the high character of French Courts of Justice, should be bound to place the utmost confidence. Upon that ground, therefore, it is not fitting that the statement of the Procureur Général should become the subject of consideration by this House. But that is not all. I am not now entering into the question whether the statement of my hon. Friend was perfectly sufficient or not. The feelings of gentlemen differ so much with regard to parties on the Continent, that there is room for much difference of opinion on this point. Let us look, however, at what the Procureur Général has said, and how it has been met. And now I come to what I think is the issue placed before the House—stated in the most positive manner that I can possibly state it. Here are the words—I think they are correctly given—of the Procureur Général:—I searched in the London Commercial Almanac, and in the pages of the Post Office Directory, to ascertain" —what? "to ascertain who could be the person thus placed in communication with Greco." What is the charge of the Procureur Général? Not that my hon. Friend's house was used for the reception of M. Mazzini's letters. Upon that subject my hon. Friend has told you he is convinced that M. Mazzini was incapable of writing such letters or of entering into such plots. But that is not the matter in issue. That is not the charge made by the Procureur Général. His charge is, that a certain person was placed by M. Mazzini in communication with Greco. By looking into the London Directory he finds, as he thinks, that that certain person is my hon. Friend. Well, is this true? I am sure that my noble Friend on the back bench will not say that my hon. Friend's explanation was unsatisfactory. Was it possible for my hon. Friend to have given a more distinct and uncompromising denial to this charge. I unhesitatingly appeal to the candour of a body of English Gentlemen to say whether my hon. Friend is not entitled to the benefit of this denial? [An hon. MEMBER: No!] The interruption of the hon. Member is far less creditable to himself than to my hon. Friend, and is a somewhat unmannerly proceeding. I say that my hon. Friend has met the specific declaration of the Procureur Général with a denial as specific as a man can give; and, under these circumstances—the House having received this direct denial from one of its own Members — a man of unimpeached honour and integrity—you are invited to vote that the declaration of the Procureur Général deserves our serious consideration. Those are the circumstances under which you have to vote. God knows that if I thus speak it is not because I am indifferent to the feelings of irritation which subsist, if they do subsist, in France. On that subject, I confess I have great doubts. I believe that there is a growing intimacy and cordiality, and increasing relations of friendship between these two countries. I believe that every day of extended communications and friendly intercourse is laying deeper, and widening more and more, that strong basis of reciprocal confidence between the two peoples which, in my opinion, forms the only effectual security for the peace of Europe and the world. I say, that if I thus speak, it is not on account of any indifference in that respect; it is not on account of insensibility to the many claims which the Emperor of the French possesses not only upon the forbearance, but upon the respect and cordial goodwill of this House. I have not forgotten his many good offices, and at no period have I been slow to recognize them. I will not enter into the question whether all parties and persons have been equally forward to pursue a similar course, but this I will say, that I am very glad to see this feeling towards the French Government prevail in this House; and it is not because we do not share this feeling that we decline to adopt the Motion. It is because, called upon to take a course essentially judicial in its character, we find the allegations upon which the Motion rests entirely fail, inasmuch as a full denial has been given to the statement of the Procureur Général by the speech of my hon. Friend.

said, he could not rest silent under the unjustifiable imputations of the hon. Member for Birmingham, who had deliberately charged the Opposition with being actuated by most improper motives and by party objects in bringing forward this Motion. What right had the hon. Member to interfere in a proceeding which, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, was of somewhat a judicial character, by casting such unworthy and wholesale imputations? He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman in the chair, whether such imputations were not forbidden by the usages of the House. For himself, he disclaimed any such motives; but he had a painful feeling that it was the duty of the House to purge itself from the unfortunate position in which the hon. Member's indiscretion had placed it. The hon. Member had had more than one opportunity of making a full explanation of his conduct. Instead of doing so he had risen and delivered a bombastic declaration against assassination, but he had denied nothing. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of candour, but he could see nothing candid in the conduct of the hon. Gentleman. He himself had asked the hon. Member a distinct question, which he hoped might have elicited a satisfactory explanation, but in vain. Two days afterwards Mazzini, through The Times, published to all Europe the real facts of the case, and that evening, the hon. Member had confirmed the statement. The hon. Gentleman had admitted an acquaintance of eighteen years with the notorious Mazzini, and had openly expressed an admiration for that person. He therefore stood before the country and before Europe as either the dupe or the accomplice of Mazzini. The House knew he did not stand well abroad. There was a time when the name of England was a tower of strength, but since she had left Denmark in her present position all that was changed. He believed the hon. Member to have been the ignorant dupe of Mazzini. He should at some future time feel it his duty to put some questions to the hon. Gentleman which he hoped would be explicitly answered.

said, he had only two or three words to say. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the hon. Member for Halifax had denied the charge of the Procureur Général. To his (Mr. Cox's) mind, he admitted every word of it. These were the words:—

"He, Greco, if he were in want of money, was to apply to an address in London. That address was 35, Thurloe Square, Brompton. I turned to the London Directory, and at page 670, I am sorry to say, I found the name of a Member of Parliament."

Seeing that statement, he (Mr. Cox) thought it his duty to put a question to the hon. Member, and he was by no means satisfied with the answer. He therefore once more, in seconding the Motion of the hon. Member for the King's County, put a question as to letters addressed to Mr. Flower, and the hon. Gentleman replied, "I had no knowledge of them." And when he wished to know whether this Mr. Flower was not the true Mazzini, the hon. Member replied, "I have no knowledge of that. I don't know anything about it." He should like the hon. Member to explain which was the true answer—was it the answer he gave the other evening, or the admission which he made that night.

What I said was this—that M. Mazzini had letters addressed to him under the name of Fiore, and I said that Flower was the translation of that name; but I added that to my knowledge no letters had been received at my house in that name.

I have to make an appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard, who has given notice that to-morrow evening he will call attention to the affairs of Denmark. The papers bringing down the history of the question to the latest period will be delivered only to-day. As I am able to tell my hon. Friend that negotiations are still pending, it is the opinion of myself and of my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office, that there would be considerable inconvenience to the public service if the matter were brought under discussion in the House before that question is finally decided. I would submit to my hon. Friend, therefore, whether it would not be better that he should postpone what he has to say upon the subject until the other papers are in the hands of hon. Members, and until after the recess. In making this appeal I must again repeat that in my own opinion, and in that of my noble Friend, it would be inconvenient, and, indeed, injurious to the public interests, that the discussion should take place with the imperfect knowledge which the House has of the transactions which have taken place.

Of course, I am always anxious to forward the in- terests of the public service, and on this occasion I place myself entirely in the hands of the House. Entertaining however, as I do, a very strong conviction that this House ought not to separate for a recess of three weeks in the present juncture of affairs in Denmark without some discussion, and some definite expression of the views of the Government as to what their proposed action is to be, I can hardly think that the House will be of opinion that the noble Lord has assigned sufficient reasons for me to give way to him. If I understand the noble Lord rightly, he grounds his request on the fact that conferences are about to ensue. On that point I take a very different opinion, perhaps, from some hon. Members. I cannot but regard these conferences, which failed when coupled with an armistice, but appear to be coming off now without one, to be very much in the nature of a Parliamentary manœuvre, more for the amusement of the people who live on the banks of the Thames than for the advantage of those in the neighbourhood of the Eider. Holding that view, dissenting totally from the policy pursued by the noble Lord's Government to the unfortunate inhabitants of the Duchy of Schleswig Holstein, and believing that these people have been sacrificed by an iniquitous and unjust treaty conducted by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, unless I am moved by other hon. Gentlemen, I do not feel inclined to give way on this occasion. If I am told by the noble Lord that he has very good reason to suppose that by the mystery which is being used he will promote, not a temporary and patched-up peace but a permanent peace, then I think I might conscientiously give way; but as at present advised, unless I hear some strong reasons to the contrary, I do not think sufficient motives have been assigned why this debate should not come on, or why some more definite explanation of the views of the Government should not be given. But, as I said before, I am in the hands of the House, and if hon. Gentlemen on both sides are of opinion that I am bound in honour to withdraw, I shall cheerfully consent to whatever course they choose to point out to me.

The hon. Member asks me whether we expect to be able to arrange a permanent peace. Of course, our desire is to make an arrangement that should be permanent, but as the arrangement, whatever it may be, depends, not upon us only, but also upon the other Governments who will be parties to the Conference, I can only state what the views and wishes of Her Majesty's Government are. It is impossible that I can say what the result of the proposed negotiations may be.

Will the noble Lord state what is the basis of the Conference?

I have already stated that we have not yet got an official answer from the Danish Government. Of course, therefore, it is impossible to say what basis may be adopted. Until we get a formal answer from Denmark, we must remain in the same state in which we have been for the last week.

My own opinion is, that it is much to be regretted that the early period at which Easter falls this year, and what I think is the very bad custom which we have fallen into of late years of having very long holydays at Easter, render it necessary that Parliament should adjourn at the present moment. It is highly expedient that a discussion should take place upon the recent negotiations conducted by Her Majesty's Government; but what we have to decide to-night is, whether it is more convenient that a discussion should take place with ample information or with scanty information. Now, I do not myself think that on the last night of our meeting — that is, tomorrow—we could really do full justice to the subject. It must be, comparatively speaking, a brief debate. Many hon. Gentlemen who are anxious to address the House would not have an opportunity of speaking, and probably it would end without an expression of opinion on the part of the House of any decided character upon any definite point. What would happen then? We should have to recommence our discussions after the recess on a greater scale; and if that be the case, is it not better that we should not to-morrow begin an imperfect debate, but should at the earliest convenient opportunity commence the discussion with the advantage of that information for which I myself have asked before, and which it is desirable should be in the hands of hon. Members? The negotiations, though spread over a considerable period, are all connected together, and it is of great importance that we should have a clear conception of the motives and views with which Her Majesty's Government have favoured this plan of a Conference. That it is impossible we can have to-morrow, and although I am always unwilling to interfere between hon. Members and the opportunities they have obtained, still I think, considering the position of the hon. Member for Liskeard, the importance of the subject, and the very brief space of time that can be given to the discussion, that on the whole it would be better if the hon. Member did not proceed with his Motion to-morrow.

said, he trusted that if the hon. Member withdrew his Motion he would secure a very early day after the recess for bringing it forward, again.

said, he believed a Motion was to be brought forward in another place to-morrow on the subject. However, as he had put himself into the hands of the House, he would bow to their decision.

said, he had to move a Vote of £1,256,000, on account of the Civil Service Estimates. It was absolutely necessary to pass the Vote before the House separated for the Easter recess.