The Sun.
London, England, 1864-03-08 00:00:00

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER placed
himself in the hands of the house.
Mr. SHERIDAN understood that the hon. baronet the
member for Hertford would move that the bill be referred
to a select committee, and if that were done a great deal of
time would be saved.
After a few words from Sir W. M. FARQUHAR,
Lord PALMERSTON—I think the most convenient
course would be that the house should go into committee
on the bill, and that in the committee my right hon. friend
should make that statement which can be most conveniently
and most regularly made in committee on the clauses of
the bill. My right hon. friend would not press the house
for any decision on that point to-night, but postpone it for
some future day.
Lord JOHN MANNERS, with reference to what had
just fallen from the noble lord, said that if the course he
proposed was pursued his hon. friend's (Sir W. M. Far-
, quhaes) wishes would be entirely frustrated, as he desired
to refer the bill to a select committee.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I was
not at all aware that it was intended to make a motion to
refer this bill to a select committee, for 1 certainly concluded
that if that had been the intention of the hon. gentleman he
would have given notice.

Sir M. FARQUHAR—I gave notice this evening.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Well, I
am sorry it was not made known before. That being the
ease, I presume it will be better for me to suppose that I
have the permission of the House to make a statement
now. (Hear.) Then I must beg the House to observe
that I am in the peculiar predicament of having to make
a statement, not upon the bill, not upon a particular
clause of the bill, but on the Speaker's leaving the
chair, and that consequently I, being the framer of the
bill, am also of necessity in the position of not being
able to offer any explanation, after I shall have spoken, in
answer to the inquiries of hon. members. With these few
words by way of preface, I will just state to the house the
history of this proposal. The Legislature has thought fit
to appoint a public officer whose business it should ba to
register from time to tieae certain facts with regard to the
condition of friendly societies. It is the duty of that officer
to make annual reports on the subject. In the autumn of
last year that admirable report was presented at a time when
Parliament was not sitting. It recorded a great number
of failures on the part of friendly societies. It recorded
very gross abuses, and it was filled with multitudes of
complaints from persons in all parts of the country with
regard to the position in which they found themselves
under the operation of the rules of many of these
societies. It has often been suggested to me that
the subject of small life assurance, having already
received in principle the sanction of Parliament, was in such
a state, under present circumstances, that it ought to re-
ceive the fresh attention of the Government. I must con-
fess that, upon adverting to the nature of the facts which
had been laid before the country through the medium I have
referred to, and, I am sorry to say, through many other
media—judicial proceedings and otherwise—l came to the
conclusion that it was the duty of tae Government to en-
deavour to make the provisions of the law, which now inci-
dentally is rendered inoperative by a peculiar provision not
intended for that purpose—to make the inoperative provi-
sion an operative and real one. lam anxious to call atten-
tion to the circumstances attending the introduction of the
bill. I introduced it at the opening of the session, thinking
it most likely that the leisure of hon. members would
allow them to give it attention ; but more particularly
that I did it in a manner which was unpresuming and
not aggressive. (Hear, hear.) I thought it my duty to
avoid painful discussions with regard to the condition of
many institutions which solicit, and to a certain extent re-
ceive, the public confidence. I did not apply a single word
—or at all events, if I did, it was in very general and few
words that I made allusion to the state of facts as being such
as required the attention of Parliament. If I say this, it is
not to recommend myself, but it is that I may request the
house to observe the difficult position in which I am now
placed. There is no one, so far as I am aware, who has ever
thought that either savings-banks, Post-office savings-
banks, annuities for the people, or assurance for the people,
are matters with which it is abstractedly desirable for the
Government to deal. If it could be said that the operations
of the great laws of supply and demand are generally satis-
factory, and that the defects which occur are incidental
to the principles upon which commerce must be con-
ducted, that in my opinion would be conclusive condemna-
tion not merely of the proposal which I now make but of
the law which was passed two years ago for Post-office say-
u lavu. tn. Ll= UtiLIKLIJ
business of this country, and of the law you passed before
with respect to the Annuity Laws, and with regard to the
old savings banks. Replying briefly to the alleged hurrying
forward of the bill, the right hon. gentleman said—l wish
to put asiee, before I discuss the particular provisions, two
point which are of importance in themselves, but which
are purely collateral, and for which due provision will be
madellt was asked, when the bill was first printed, Do you
propose to compete with the assurance societies, and avail
yourself of the large circle of legal exemptions from duty,
which will be in the nature of a premium on the business
you are to do, and of course a penalty on the business they
are to do ? My answer is, that we make no such proposal.
We make the proposal that we shall be compelled to do
any business we may do under the precise conditions under
which it is done by independent assurance societies. Ex-
plaining the mode in which the premiums paid for the pur-
chase of annuities under the present bill would be applied,
the right hon. gentleman said that the national debt stock
which might be purchased by those premiums would not be
extinguished, but would be held, and therefore no present
relief would be obtained at the expense of future liability. I
do not deny that the assumption by Government of the
transaction of any business whatever on behalf, nut of the
State, but. of individuals, is a proposal justly open to ad-
verse presumptions, and one which calls for the careful
and even the jealous scrutiny of the House. (Hear.) It
is a proposal for which cause must be shown in the double
form,—first of all that there is an evil to redress, and
secondly, that the means proposed for its redress or for
its mitigation are means which are in themselves practicable,
and not open to objection. (Hear.) Government interfer-
ence is a matter with respect to which I must confess that
my own prepossessions are as strong at least as those of most
members of this house. The highest form in which it has
been adopted has been that of positive regulations requiring
this thing or that thing to be done in the course of private
commercial arrangements, for the sake of obviating social
moral, or political evils. This is the highest form of Go-
vernment interference. You have an instance of it in some
of the clauses of the Factory Act and in sanitary arrange-
ments. This is a very great interference with the liberty
of private action; but I am bound to say that I believe its
operation has been beneficial. (Hear, hear,) By the Go-
vernment interference now proposed you enjoy nothing and
prohibit nothing ; but you offer to such members of the
community as choose to avail themselves of your proposal
certain facilities for what I may call self-help. These are
the precise limits of the plan which I have now to explain
to the house. Ido not deny that it requires justifying and
apology, but I do deny that we are to be frightened and
terrified by clamours respecting centralisation. All that is
requisite in such a case, I apprehend, is to show that all
that the Government is proposing to do can be done safely
and done justly. (Hear, hear.) A notion has gone abroad
that this preposition is novel—that Parliament is
about to take upon itself responsibilities where at
the present moment we have no responsibilities at
all. Is that so ? Thie bill has grown, not out of con-
sideration of the case of assurance societies, but out of
consideration of the case of the friendly societies, and
of the wholesale error, and not error only, for along with
error, deception, fraud, and swindling are perpetrated
upon a helpless portion of the community, who are with-
out defence. Referring to the nature of the friendly
societies, which he said had been represented to him by
deputations as private trade and private enterprise, the
right hon. gentleman denied they were so, and said that
they were virtually and substantially subsidised by the
Government, for all instituted before 1828 received from the
National Debt Office interest at the rate of £1 Its, for every
£l00; while those instituted up to 1814 received £3 16s. for
every £lOO. That excess of interest, the right hon. gentle-
man contended, could only be looked upon as grants. So,
also, societies ander the Friendly Societies' Act were exempt
from the payment of income tax stamps, and in Borne cases
probate duty. Under those circumstances he contended
that Parliament was justified in looking into the condition
of these societies, to see whether it was possible to mitigate
the evils which at present appeared to exist. I think, he
continued, we have chosen a very mild interven
-
tion, a remedy precisely thatanalogoustomanner
maWnhiCr of
was
h t
with regard to the Post- office savingsdto consider w
banks. In
sh theis. P
Theost-
Post-
office savings banks what we had
country was overrun with loan societies offering most attrac-

live terms to the people, promising them interest which
could not be paid under any sound and honest manage-
ment, and then ending in loss, disappointment, and ruin.
We did not attempt to set about the foods work of prescrib-
ing laws by which loan societies should be regulated, and
under which alone people should be permitted to lend their
money. Every one knew that was totally impracticable
—that you could n.t possibly defend poor men against
abuses and dangers into which they run headforemost and
with their eyes open. But we held that it was just, expe-
dient, and politic, and discharging in the highest sense the
duty of the Legislature to give to the poor man, the owner
of small savings, the advantage of a scheme which offered
no meretricious attractions, which held out nothing like a
high rate of interest—on the contrary, it wag low—but
which offered him that to which he was entitled—absolute
and certain security. (llear.) That is precisely the basis