The Sun.
London, England, 1864-04-12 00:00:00

Carragh .................... 18, 19, 20
STEEPLECHASING FIXTURES FOR 1864,

APRIL.

Abergavenny .................. o
NOVEMBER.
Leamington and Warwickshire Hunt 22

MR. WILLIAM CHAMBERS has long been engaged
upon a history of his native county of Peebleshire, in which
his estate of Glenormiston is situated. The work will be
extensively illustrated with woodcuts prepared from origi-
nal drawings, and promises to be one of general no less
than of local interest, particularly as regards the early
British hill forts, border towel a, and other antiquitiet.

Lord CAMPBELL called the attention of their
lordships to the correspondence presented 'to Parliament,
and moved that in the opinion of this house a conference
upon the Danish question in order to lead to a practical
result ought to be accompanied by such steps as may
seem calculated to inspire confidence in the resolution of
her Majesty's Government to adhere to the treaties in
which the Duchy of Schleswig had been guaranteed to
Denmark by Great Britain, He believed that the Confer-
ence about to be held abounded in the elements of failure,
and asked whether it was to be supposed that the obligations
of this country would be satisfied by an unsuccessful Con-
ference. Already our diplomacy had undergone a series of
reverses on this subject; and surely we could hardly afford
another that would be so cruelly disappointing to the Danes.
If the Conference separated without any satisfactory result,
there could not be a second, and the peace and tranquillity
of Europe would be placed in imminent danger. The noble
lord also observed that he thought a British fleet might be
usefully employed in the Little Belt for the purpose of
guarding the island of Fuaen from aggression.
The Duke of ARGYLL was at a loss to know how the
Government could have prevented war by threatening to
take part in it : yet that was what the noble lord meant, if
he meant anything. He apprehended that if they had taken
that course, instead of preventing they might have in-
creased the bloodshed. It was true that Great Britain
held a high position and had vast influence in Europe, but
she was not the arbitrator in all the quarrels of continental
nations. Our obligations towards Denmark were contained
in the treaty of 1852, which was not a treaty of guarantee
but of recognition, and had not been signed by England
alone. He regarded the bloodshed in the present war as
altogether unjustifiable, inasmuch as every object could
have been attained by negotiation. We should go into the
Conference, in the first place, to restore peace to Europe ;
secondly, to secure as far as possible the local
liberties of the two Duchies ; and, thirdly, to re-
concile with that the integrity and independence of Den-
mark. He admitted that all the obligations of Den-
mark towards the Duchies had not been adhered to ;
still, it should be remembered that the promises made by
Germany to Denmark had also been disregarded.
Earl GREY was not such a partisan of Denmark as to
say that she had the whole of the right on her side. So far
from that, he believed that if since 1852 she had governed
the Duchies in a wiser and more conciliatory spirit the pre-
sent crisis would never have arisen. Perhaps, however,
there were faults on both sides, and that, therefore, some
Conference was necessary. At the same time he was con-
vinced that there would have been no war had the English
Government pursued a firmer line of policy. The noble earl
also deprecated the manner in which the war had been con-
ducted by Austria and Prussia, and characterised it as a
barbarous, savage, most wanton, and gratuitous outrage
upon the feelings of the Danish people.
Earl RUSSELL—It now appears, I think, clearly from
my noble friend's speech, that we are arraigned, not for
not having prevented a war between Prussia and Austria
and Denmark, but that we have not really engazed in war.
The real subject of my noble friend's attack is, that we
are at peace. As I go on I will show how the proposals
of my noble friend would have failed, if they had been
adopted. My noble friend began by saying that ho would
not enter into the Schleswig-Holstein question; but at the
same time, without entering into the question of Schleswig-
Holstein, it is difficult to see under 'what circumstances
those powers are now at war. In looking at the history of
this question, it seems that the arrangements of 1851, made
between Prussia and Austria, were most unfortunate and
complicated. They gave not only Austria and Prussia, but
the Powers of Germany, either the right of, or at all events
the pretext for, interfering in the domestic concerns of the
two duchies, which could not but lead—unless there was
the greatest good temper and the greatest wish for concilia-
tion on both sides—to discussions of a most angry kind, and
finally to the breaking out of war. That has been the his.
tory of the transactions of the last 10 years. For my own
part, I will say, with regard to those matters, as they are of
great importance, I felt it my duty, holding the post of Se-
cretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to divest my mind of all
partisanship—(hear)—and to endeavour to meet that ques-
tion between the Powers with a fair and impartial mind, so
as, if possible, to form a clear and just judgment with re-
spect to them. Nothing I think is more discreditable to any
statesman than to rush at onee into a strong decision on the
one side or the other, without carefully investigating the
bearings of the question. With regard to tilts treaty the
Danish Government promised, in 1851, that it would keep
Schleswig very much as a separate State; that it should
have separate provincial Estates for its own affairs; that it
should have a representative body, and that it should have
a Minister; and that its administration should be con-
ducted solely in Schleswig. It was a very difficult matter
to keep those engagements when foreign troops
occupied a part of her soil. I will not now, in these times
of her distress, point out in detail where her promises, I
think, were not fulfilled. But Germany, on her side, took
a most unfair advantage of what was done by Denmark ;
and on every occasion she put forward propositions which
it would have been impossible for Denmark to accede to,
because they would, m fact, have made a German majority
at the very seat of the Government, and thus have de-
stroyed, not nominally the integrity, but really the inde.
pendence, of Denmark. The dispute went on until, on the
I.t of October last, Germany resolved on Federal execution,
Whatever may have been the difficulties, they were aggra-
vreed tenfold upon the occasion of entering Schleswig.
Those in favour of German pretensions might well suppose
that the late King, having been governed by councillors of
Danish principles, and having himself not only a great love
for his country, but strong prejudices in favour of it, would
be partial in these matters. But the new King was not
liable to any suspicion of that kind, and I am persuaded,
even at this moment,that if Germany had temperately urged
the claims of Schleswig to certain rights and privileges
which Denmark had agreed to give, that the King of Den-
mark would have so regulated the provisions of the govern-
ment of his provinces that all real grounds of complaint
would have been done away with. But the conduct of
Germany was very different. As we wished, above all, to
prevent war in Europe, at the same time it was
our object so to counsel both as to come to scme
conciliatory end. Surely it was our part to see
that in our opinion Denmark was in the right. We,
however, proposed, that the constitution should be re-
voked. My noble friend found fault with our making
that representation without our being able to follow it
sip with hostilities. If we had great interests there,
and these were neglected, I allow we must defend
them ; but where there is only a benevolent desire
to maintain peace in Europe, and to see that each state has
its own rights, I cannot see any humiliation, but I think
there is comfort in thinking that we have urged over and
over again, by friendly advice, that peace should be pre-
served, and that these Powers should not injure each other.
In doing this it appeared to me that unless we were to
make ourselves alone the defenders of the liberties of Eu-
rope—unless we were to take a course that none of the great
statesmen who have adopted a European lolicy for England
evouli have advocated, we were bound to endeavour to ob-
tain allies. Now, the allies to whom we naturally looked
were Franco and Russia. I maintain that it would have
been unwise for the Government of this country to commit
itself to hostilities without having the assistance of the
other rowers of Europe. I wrote a despatch to th 6 French
Government, and I wrote a similar despatch to the Russian
Government, saying that there was a project in Germany
for depriving Denmark of Holstein and the Duchy of Schles-
wig, and supposing that project is persevered in will you,
France, go with us in giving material aid to Denmark ?
will you, Russia, go with us in giving material aid to Den-
mark? That answers every part of my noble friend's re-
proach. The answer of France was to this effect, that she
was not opposed to nationality, hut that it might be that
some change in the provinces would be of advantage to the
maintenance of Denmark. The reply then went en to say
that war with Germany was a serious question for France,
and she preferred to keep herself at liberty ; but future mea-
sures she must take if the balance of power were really
in danger. The answer of Russia was that she wished to
preserve her liberty, wished to know what the position of
England was, bat did not feel how far policy would
Justify her in giving material assistance. Then the ques-
tion came to this, that England, France, Russia, and
Sweden having made a treaty by which they did not agree
In guarantee the integrity of the Danish monarchy, but
Agreed to acknowledge the principle, ;whether we alone,
without France and Russia, should take upon ourselves the
burden of supporting Denmark. The balance of power in
Europe is clearly of consequence to France and Russia, as
well as to England. Therefore it was not the interest of
England to undertake alone this defence. Only consider
what the state of Germany was. A state of violent enthu-
siasm prevailed for having Schleswig and Holstein sepa-
rated from Denmark. They did not care much about the
Prince of Angustenb
lirg, but put him up as a Prince who
would be the instrument of Germany for that purpose.
According to the views of ray noble friend, if we were to
defend Denmark we should have Venetia making war in
the Adriatic; we should have Hungary delighted to
see England at war with Germany; and all this disturb-
ance of Europe, all this great war was to be undertaken
in the name of peace, and to prevent Schleswig being taken
(Cheers.) That is the prospect he proposes, but I rejoice
that we have not thrown a firebrand into Europe,
and we have not caused the extensive conflagration
the noble lord wanted. Well, then, my noble friend
says it would have been much better if England had
done what France did, and sail we do not mean
to interfere in any way on behalf of Denmark.
Now it is necessary to consider what has been effected.
If the representatives of the Government did not prevent
the war breaking out, they had pr educed this effect, that on
the 31st of January, before they went into Schleswig,
these Powers informed England, France, and Russia
that they held to the treaty of 1852, and respected
the integrity of
Denmark. That is a great point
gained. It appears to me that we can now go into the
conference, and clearly consider the Powers bound to re-
spect that treaty and, the integrity of Denmark, It is

by the firmness and moderation of our language that we
have obtained from them a determination to maintain that
treaty; and we consider that is the object we always keep
in view. I recollect perfectly well hearing Mr. Canning
say we must have war sooner or later. If that be the case)
I say let it be later; but my noble friend says just the re-
verse. He says, "We must have war BODE er or later, and
I say sooner." I say, with Mr. Canning, " later," and I
am quite content to abide by that. As the Conference is to
meet on the 20th of this month, I need not enter—nor
would it be right for me to enter—upon the questions which
are now before the house. It will be the endeavour of Eng-
land to modify the extreme pretensions, and prevent, if pos-
sible, the animosity of the different nations. In that view
I am not going to lay severe blame on the different parties
in this war. It has already been characterised by my noble
friend at the head of the Government as an iniquitous ag.
gression. Nothing stronger could be said, even by my
noble friend opposite; With regard to the whole subject,
I must consider the many interests which we have spread
over the whole face of the globe, and the danger, if we were
at war with Germany, that other wars would spring up out
of it, and that our commerce might be intercepted by pri-
vateers under many different flags, and scouring the ocean
to destroy our commerce. It may be an unworthy consi-
deration in the eyes of my noble friend, but when I refloct
on the exposition made the other night of the magnificent
situation of this country, I am not inclined to hazard that
situation without a clear case of honour or of great and
mighty interests that called for armed intervention. Also
we must consider that, besides, if that exposition
of flourishing trade, and the improvement of our
finances, and all our material interests, there re-
mains the fact that we have no less than twenty-six millions
of interest of debt to pay, which was caused almost entirely
by the last two wars in which this country was engaged.
In 1764 the interest of our debt was £4,600,000, it is now
£26,200,000. May we not fairly be unwilling and cautious
before we add to that debt ? There was one of those wars

—the American war—which no man in these days will
defend. The other of those wars the father of my noble
friend (Earl Gray) most eloquently opposed as unjust and
unnecessary. Whether these wars were justified or not,
the cost and burden of them have been immense. While
that is no reason why we should desert any cause in which
we are bound to go forward, or why we should abandon
any friend whom we have any obligations to support, there
are reasons why we should pursue a pacific and not a war-
like course. I adhere to the policy of seeking alliances to
maintain the balance of power, and while I agree with the
great man to whom I have referred, that the destruction of
one of the States of Europe would be not only a great out-
rage, but a peril to the independence of the other States of
Europe, at the same time I do think that the policy the
least hostile we can make it ought to be pursued by this
country. I cannot, therefore, agree with the motion of my
noble friend, nor do I believe that the house will agree with
it, With regard to the treaty of 1852, it is our object to
maintain that treaty, and to have it again recognised by the
Powers of Europe. I trust that will be the result of the Con-
ference. The noble earl then referred to the policy of France,
and stated that their sympathy had always been the strongest
in favour of the Poles, while the sympathy of England
was strongest in favour of the Danes. The refusal of Eng-
land to join France in favour of the Poles, and the refusal
of France to join England in favour of Denmark, were due
to those sympathies. We have no reason to find fault with
France on that subject; but still if we are to defend Den-
mark on the grounds of the balance of power and the in-
terest of Europe, the Powers of Europe ought to go toge-
ther, and not leave us alone to undertake that great task,
The Earl of DERBY said he apprehended that the ob-
ect of the noble baron, in bringing forward his motion, was
to give his own individual opinion, and to enable other
members of the house to express their opinion of the policy
and conduct of her Majesty's Government. He doubted
whether that policy was not more likely to lead to serious
complications than a more resolute policy. They explained
that her Majesty's Government held out menaces and re-
monstrances of every description to foreign countries, while,
at the same time, conveying to those foreign countries the
conclusion that nothing would induce us to give material
aid, or take any other part than remonstrance Referring,
then, to the general question,the noble earl traced the course
of Prussia and Austria to mutual jealousy, acted on by the
democratic feeling in Germany, acting through the minor
powers. He would not repeat what had been said in the
evening in regard to the manner in which Germany had
availed herself of the difficulty caused by the death of
the late King to press upon Denmark conditions which
she could not possibly accept, He thought that course
was wholly ungenerous, but the question with which
they had to deal was not only the clangor to Denmark,
but the effect of the course pursued by her Majesty's
Government for mitigating that danger, and the position
in which our interests stood in regard to Europe at the
present time. In looking through the documents he
found that to almost every country we had addressed suc-
cessively representations, remonstrances, and threats, and
used language going to the very verge of declaring that an
invasion of Schleswig would be regarded as a ground of war.
He did not assert that we had actually said that, but we
had gone to the very verge of it. Would it not have been
more generous and fair and candid to have said to Denmark,

" We advise you as friends to take such and such a course,
but recollect that from us you must expect no more than
our moral influence ?" It must be admitted that, according
to the terms of the treaty, we were not bound to come for-
ward to protect Denmark, and to take upon ourselves the
task of maintaining her integrity ; but then we had no right
tc hold out to Denmark such representations as had been
held out by the Prime Minister of this country in his place
in Parliament. From the moment that declaration was
made, the Danes said, and they had a right to say, " We
know the power of England; we have the pledge of the
Prime Minister of England that that power shall be exer-
cised in our defence; the honour of England has hitherto
been held inviolate in this case." (Hear, hear.) His lord-
ship then read from the despatches several passages show-
ing the representations made to the different Powers by the
noble earl the Secretary for War, and the replies which he
hal received. Just after the noble had quitted Berlin, Sir
Andrew Buchanan was instructed to make several represen-
tations in the interests of peace to the Prussian Minister,
but all the points he urged were rejected, and he wrote home,
"There is an absolute persusion that England will not in-
terfere materially, and our counsel is regarded as totally im-
material, and of no weight." A few weeks before the meet-
ing of Parliament, the noble earl had declared that the mem-
bers of the Cabinet had not consulted together as to the
course they should pursue in the event of a military occu-
pation of t-.:chleswig, but that his personal opinion was that
the feeling throughout the country would be such, that her
Majesty's Ministers would think proper to recommend the
active interference of this country. To Denmark the noble
earl held out expectations that if they complied :with cer-

tain conditions they would have material aid from us--
while to Prussia he held out that in the event of Schleswig
being occupied, he could not doubt that the friendly Powers
would assist Denmark in resisting such invasion.
Throughout the whole of the transactions measures
which were protested against in the strongest possible
terms had limn ultimately acquiesced iu by her Ma-
jesty's Government. Step after step had been taken,
converting the Federal execution into a material guarantee,
and lastly into an invasion and occupation of a country,
without a declaration of war, but accompanied with scenes
of barbarity and ferocity unparalleled in the annals of war.
He regretted to say that the Prussian army did not apil
pear to have overcome that feeling of ferocity which gave
so much difficulty to the Duke of Wellington in 1814.
(Hear, hear.) The bombardment of Sonderborg was an
act of unparalleled atrocity if it were true, as he had
lately heard, that after the town had been laid in ruins a
pause ensued, and the inhabitants—having been induced
to go back to search for their goods among the ruins of
their homes, found themselves in a trap—the bombard-
ment was renewed. (Hear, hear,) He wished he could see
in the proposed Conference any great probability of a proe-

porous issue. That Conference would not assemble under

the most favourable auspices, because the parties who were
coming to it had declared views in total opposition to each
other. He wished to point out that the engagement of 1851-
2 was limited to Austria, Prussia, and Denmark; but the
Treaty of 1852 was entered into by all the great Powers, and
did not make the slightest reference to the previous engage-
ments, to which, consequently, the great Powers were no
parties. He was glad to hear that the noble earl did not con-
fine himself to securing what is called the integrity of Den-
mark, but that he alluded to the integrity and indepen-
dence of that country, for plausible arguments might be put
forward to secure the integrity of Denmark, and yet by some
means to entirely sacrifice its independence. (Rear, hear.)
Ile did justice to the motives of the noble earl (Russell) ;
but he could not conceal his conviction that, by the course
he had taken, he had confirmed the impression which was
already too prevalent, that England had ceased to be a great
Power—that her political and military position was to be
made subservient to her trading and commercial interests—
and that. however, she might bluster, there was not the
least danger of her interfering materially to exercise the
slightest influence or control in the affairs of Europe.
Lord IVODEHOUSE stated that when he represented
this country at Copenhagen he constantly endeavoured to
impress upon the Danes the fact that they were not likely
to receive material aid from Great Britain. He believed
that it would have been far better for Denmark to have
made timely concessions than provoke war, but. unfortu-
nately, all ;he concessions she had made came too late.
Earl GRANVILLE observed, with respect to the Con-
ference, that most of the great Powers who were parties to
it, including Austria, were agreed that the first act of the
assembly must be the immediate establishment of an

armistice.
Lord CAMPBELL then withdrew the motion, and
The house adjourned at a quarter to eleven o'clock.

HOUSE OP COMMONS--Last Evening.
The SPEAKER, took the chair at four o'clock.
NEW MEMBER.

Mr. CARDWELL, the newly appointed Colonial Score-
taiy, took the oaths and his seat for Oxford, on his re-
election.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following tills were read a third time and passed :
The Caledonian Railway—East and West Junction Rail-
way—Holborn Valley Improvement—and North Eastern
Railway (Meckleford Branch),
THE DANO-GERMAN QUESTION.
Mr. HORSM.IN asked the First Lord of the Treasury

whether, if it should be a result of the conference that Eng-
land was about to undertake new engagements with refer-
ence to Denmark and the Duches, her Majesty's Ministers
would be prepared to submit those engagements to the con-

aiderationof Parliament before they advised their ratifica-
tion by the Crown.
Lord PALMERSTON said that, in a mixed constitution
like that of this country, it was almost impossible to draw
a line in reference to important questions like the present.
(Hear, hear.) There was not the slightest wish on the
part of the Government to prevent Parliament from consi-
dering this question fully.

THE ARMY ESTIMATES.

The Marquis of HARTINGTON, in reply to a ques-

tion, said that if he were not able to get into a committee
of supply on the Army Estimates this evening, he would
bring them on to-morrow,
GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BILL.
Mr. A Y RTON, in resuming the adjourned debate on the
bill, deprecated Government interference with friendly
societies, urging that there should be a searching inquiry
into the real character of the bill. He supported the
amendment of Sir M. Farquhar to refer the bill to a select
committtee. •

Mr. HUBBARD observed that, although upon principle
it was undesirable for the Government to undertake func-

tions of this character, there were offices of this kind which
it might fairly take upon itself—and that on the face of it
this was a measure which the house might entertain. He
suggested modifications of the scheme, and supported the
proposal for referring the bill to a select committee.
Colonel SYKES likewise supported the amendment,

Mr. HANKEY objected to the principle of the bill and
opposed the amendment.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
effect of the motion of his right hon. friend would be
that the house would proceed to name a competent num-
ber of gentlemen as a select committee. They woald
meet in a room upstairs ; the house would probably ap-
point him, as the author of the bill, a member of that
committee, and he should have an opportunity of giving
them all the information which it was in his power to
afford, having the assistance of such officers of her Ma-
jesty's Government as he might ask to aid him, on his
own responsibility. At a subsequent stage another ques-
tion would arise, as to whether the committee should have
power to send for persons, papers, and records. (Hear.)
Upon that would arise the question whether the committee
was to be on the clauses of the bill, or whether it would be
a committee of general inquiry into the subjects of the bill.
Therefore he could not agree to that method of proceeding.
It was right that they should have a clear understanding on
the subject. If they sent for persons, papers, and records,
those persons would give their views, and then the com-
mittee would very justly say they were bound to hear all
parties who were opposed to the bill, and champions of op-
posite views. (Hear, hear.) Well, that was a kind of in-
vestigation which it was impossible to undertake. He must
say it would amount to a regular abnegation of th 3 duties
of his office as a Minister of Finance were he to conduct an
investigation of that sort. It would be impossible to sepa-
rate that investigation from a great deal of controversial
matter. The mode of operation of the bill on existing
societies would essentially involve an inquiry as to how
those societies were conducted. They would, in effect,
become a committee of investigation and inquiry into such
societies, and for the result of such investigation her Ma-
jesty's Government were not prepared to be responsible.
He was bound to say he did not think he had ever known a
case of any measure which was met by a very powerfully
organised opposition—he meant nothing discreditable—he
had never known of a case until this, of a bill, the object
of a powerful opposition out of doors, which gained by a
long delay in that house. Generally such delay was fatal
—but he thought in this ease the effect had been to lead to
a remarkable development of public opinion on that
bill. (Hear, hear.) In a very singular degree the opinions

of the press had been declared in favour of that bill,
independent of party interests or feelings. In his corres-

pondence, in the whole course of his public life of over
thirty years, he had never received so many letters of
approval, and even gratitude, from all classes of the
community, and especially from those who had strong
philanthropic interest in the question. At the com-
mencement of the discussion a great many petitions bad been
presented against the bill, but now petitions were coming in
in favour of it, many of them from working men who could
have no interest in upholding the scheme apart from a sin-
cere belief that it would be advantageous to their welfare.
A great meeting was held in Exeter hall in opposition to
the bill, but the independent working class mustered so
strong that my hon. friend (Mr. Ayrtcn) who was in the
chair, could not determine which was the majority and
which was the minority, though he was informed that, if a
gentleman more friendly to the measure had been in the

chair, he would have had no difficulty whatever in deciding
the point. (Hear, and a laugh.) Lastly, he must say,with

great satisfaction, that not only public meetings but boards
of guardians were giving their assent to the measure as
likely to prove a great bocn to the working classes. He did

not wish on this occasion to return to any of the controversies
to which the measure had gives rise. He had not a word to
say, either of accusation or reproach, against any living so-
ciety such as the Royal Liver or the British Prudential.
lie did not presume, nor should he be justified in attaching
to any one of these societies a fraudulent character. What
ho had meant to say of them was that those societies had
adopted a claim of ability to fill the unoccupied field of as-
surance amongst the working classes to which they were not
equal, and he had thought it necessary, by a reference to one
or two of the most stable and highly respectable companies,
to show that these societies were not in a condition to set
up so high a claim, or to give the working classes the same
undeniable and perfect security which was given• to the
wealthier classes when they wished to insure their lives
and made a judicious selection of an office fer that purpose.
He had used language which, he was sorry to say, he was
not prepared to retract, with respect to'the mess of heart-
less intrigue which had been and which possibly was still
at work in certain quarters, in connection with life assurance.
But he did not wish the house to understand that the
language was applicable to any societies of the class he
had mentioned. With regard to the Professional Society,
in which the shareholders had suffered severe losses, thoagh
he believed that the statements he had made were correct,
no one would be bettor pleased if he could be assured that
the construction which he had put upon that case were
erroneous, and that though there might have been rashness
and want of prudence, still no corrupt intention had been
at work. Ho had been told (and he hoped it was true) by
the hon. member for York, with regard to the Professional
Society, that that was so, and he was glad to accept the as-
surance of his hon. friend—(hear, hear)—that there had
been atotal absence of fraudulent intention,though a case of
the most reckless and hazardous, and therefore unjustifiable
speculation. Reference had also been made to his observa-
tions with regard to the conduct of the working classes in
connection with trades' unions. On a former occasion he
had adverted to a meeting held under the presidency of Mr.
Potter, at Exeter Hall, and he had stated that the name of
Mr. Potter had been very much connected with that sort of
agency and those proceedings on the part of trades' unions
which were believed by the public at large to be employed
to coerce the minority of the working classes by a majority.
He hod been since assured that his statement was not a true
description of trades' unions in the present day; that there
bad been a good deal of such coercion in former times, but
the real progress of the working classes not only in intelli-
gence, but in their means of subsistence, and in their views
of social duties, had effectually and essentially altered the
character of their trades' unions. He believed that to this
hour in certain parte of the country there wore instances of
portions of the working classes still tyrannised over by its
own members. Those instances, he rejoiced to think,
were of a character alien from the views and feelings of
the trades' sooietiea of London at the present moment. He
was, therefore, very glad to believe that there was no
foundation for the reference he had foruierly made to
them. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member (Mr. Ayrton)
had mentioned two other points to which he had referred;
first, that the whole difficulty in life assurance lay in the
want of proper tables; and that if Government did but
propose to the house to make a certain set of tables compul-
sory, all difficulty would be removed. In his opinion that
was not so. The great distinction between private and Go-
vernment insurance lay in the advantage of the private
societies in investing their funds. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer, on the other hand, couli only invest in Govern-
ment securities at £3 or £3 5s per cent. The hon. member
wanted the house to enact tables for the use of friendly
societies, calculated at the rate of 503 per cent. ; but that
would inflict a great hardship upon private societies, and
would absolutely preclude them from adopting any other
investment, and would place them in hopeless competition
with the Government. His hon. friend anticipated great
danger from the successful working of this plan. He ap-
peared to think that if the time ever came when there was
a vast sum of money in the Post-office savings banks, and
it happened that the rate of interest was high, there would
be what was called "an ugly rush," and the country would
be called upon to disburse deposit funds at 21 per cent., in
order that the depositors might reinvest on more advanta-
geous terms. In the first place, he (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) did not undertake to say that the interest would
never be higher. Some addition might possibly be made
to that rate, compatible, of course, with the essential requi-
site that the public should not subsidise those banks to the
extent of a farthing, but that, on the contrary, it should
reserve a margin of funds in order to its own full secu •
rity. The right hon. gentleman illustrated the high
opinion of the public in the Government securities, by
stating tat when the Birmingham savings bank deter-
mined to close on account of the passing of the Post-
office Savings Bank Bill, at that moment the rate of dis-
count was 8 per cent., and the depositors might have
got 5, 51, or even 6 pot cant. for their money, yet three-
fourths of them in number and amount had invested in the
Post-office savings banks at £2 10s per cent. He felt there
fore perfect confidence in the political security of those
banks. The objection of the hon. member for the Tower
Hamlets was bad, and could not apply to the present mea-
sure, because if persons chose to place confidence in the
Government, so far as to assure a sum of money payable
only on death, it would be very difficult for them to embar-
rass, as they could not fulfil the necessary and preliminary
condition for claiming the money, till they had ceased to be
denizens of this lower world. (Hear, and a laugh.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reply
to Sir M. Farquhar and Sir F. Kelly, explained that at the