HC Deb 17 March 1864 vol 174 cc191-211
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

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.

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN

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?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

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.

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN

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

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

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.

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN

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.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

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.

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN

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

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

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.

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN

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.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

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.

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN

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

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

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?

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN

From the Vice Chancellor.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

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.

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN

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.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

No, for three years only.

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN

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.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

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!"]

MR. ROEBUCK

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.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

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

MR. SPEAKER

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

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

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.