Had France at the commencement of this year, been able to obtain possession of the Duchy of Luxemburg there would not have been an absorption of postage stamps, as those in use are Dutch.
But, apart from political considerations, France has had a very fortunate escape, in one respect, by not obtaining the desired annexation. In the canton of Diekerch there are three rather picturesque villages, the names of which are respectively, Schindermanderscheid, Oberschindermanderscheid, and Nederschindermanderscheid. What the French, with their dislike to consonants, would have converted those words into it is impossible to say. Even “Nantzig,” when they got possession of Lorraine, was changed to “Nancy,” and Metz, instead of retaining its original German pronunciation, is invariably spoken in France as if it were written “Messe.” Although the Annuaire des Postes for 1867, gives the names of upwards of 19,000 foreign post offices in Europe and North America, it has not ventured to include in it the above named Luxembourg villages; yet, there are among them several Welsh, Polish, and Russian towns, with many names totally unpronounceable except by natives, and even they must, at times, experience difficulty; witness—Solnychewsku, Wysselok, Domojirowe, Oiaskoe Sermanske (Russian); Jjewsku, Zawod, Wjätka (Poland); Yaysymudw, Llanfairpwllgwyngyll, and Llanfairynghornwy (Wales).
[52] The Furies have the faces of women; their looks are full of terror, they hold lighted torches in their hands, snakes and serpents coil around their necks and shoulders. They are sometimes called in Latin Furiæ, because they make men mad by stings of conscience. They are the offspring of Nox and Acheron, and are esteemed virgins, because, since they are the avengers of all wickedness, nothing can corrupt or pervert them from inflicting the punishment that is due to offenders. There are only three Furies; some add a fourth, called Lisso, that is rage and madness, but she is easily reduced to the other three. The office of the Furies is to punish and torment the wicked by frightening and following them with burning torches.—Tooke’s Mythological Systems of the Greeks and Romans, 36th edition, revised, corrected, and improved. London, 1831.
[53] The following is a statement of the traffic receipts and dividends on unguaranteed stock, for 1865, of the leading English railways. For their mileage see page 107. London and North-Western, receipts £6,312,056, dividend 6⅝ per cent.; Great Western, £3,585,614, 1 per cent.; North-Eastern, £3,529,288, 3 per cent.; Great Eastern, £1,690,269, no dividend; North British, £1,309,865, no dividend; Midland, £2,728,131, 5⅜ per cent.; London and South-Western, £1,477,843, 5 per cent.; Caledonian, £1,432,475, 5¼ per cent.; Lancashire and Yorkshire, £2,150,643, 5⅞ per cent.; Great Northern, £1,064,799, 7⅛ per cent.; London, Brighton and South Coast, £1,055,116, 5¾ per cent.; London, Chatham and Dover, £446,896, no dividend. It is a fact worthy of notice, that some of the smallest lines pay the largest dividends. Thus the Whitehaven, Cleator and Egremont (10 miles), paid 10 per cent.; the Whitehaven Junction (13 miles), 10 per cent.; the Furness (53 miles), 10 per cent.; Taff Vale (76 miles), 9½ per cent.; Blyth and Tyne (36 miles), 9¾ per cent. In Ireland, the Dublin and Kingston 7½ miles long, is guaranteed nearly 9 per cent. by the Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Company. The reverse and black side of the picture is, that there were no less than ninety-one railways in England, twenty-eight in Ireland, and eleven in Scotland, which paid no dividend at all.
[54] Statements have recently appeared in the newspapers to the effect that the per centage available for division upon the whole capital invested in English railways is 4, in Scotch 4½, and in Irish 3½. This, no doubt, is correct, but the average is diffused over both debenture and share capitals.
[55] The National Debt was diminished £3,994,102 in the year ending the 31st March, 1867. Its amount then was £800,848,847, composed as follows:—£769,541,004 funded, £23,351,043 annuities capitalised, and £7,956,800 unfunded. The interest and management were £151,510 less than in the previous year.
[56] Our American cousins do not exactly agree with us in notions respecting Free Trade. A worthy writer in the New York Times, of September last, under the nom de plume of Monadnock, writes thus:—
“The correspondents of English papers give melancholy accounts of dull business in commerce and manufactures in America, but the remedy for this is so easy, as pointed out in a Times’ leader, that it is only necessary to call an extra Session of Congress and adopt it. You have only to remove all restrictions upon Free Trade. Repeal all duties upon imports, and every shipyard would be alive with workers, every factory in full operation, and the whole country prosperous and happy. But the trouble is that nobody in America knows anything about political economy. Under the actual tariff it is said that American manufacturers are undersold by those of England and Germany, and Free Trade would bring all right again. It happens, however, that England, with Free Trade, is scarcely building any ships, and that she is in serious danger from Continental competition. How is this muddle to be disposed of? With Free Trade, half the labouring population in England lives upon wages just above the point of starvation, with no resource in sickness or old age but the workhouse, and Ireland is in a state of chronic poverty and discontent. With Free Trade there is a perpetual war between capital and labour, and the enormous burden of pauperism is increasing. Americans may be ignorant of political economy, but I cannot see that the English are overburdened with wisdom, or that the practical results of their system are of a very enticing character. The working men of England believe in Protection, and the English Colonies practise it to the great annoyance of the theorists at home.
“After all, Free Trade is a proved impossibility. Parliament is constantly interfering with what, according to our philosophers, should regulate itself. The Poor Law system is itself a Protective measure. So are all the laws limiting the hours and ages, and regulating the conditions of labour. There are Acts of Parliament forbidding the employment of women in coal-pits, where a few years ago they worked naked like brute beasts; Acts forbidding the employment in factories of children of twelve years; and during the last Session laws have been passed for the protection of children in the numerous trades and in the agricultural gangs which would disgrace Dahomey. There is need of abundance more of such interference. In the black country, north of Birmingham, there is a large population engaged in making nails by hard labour, especially horseshoe nails. On an average, three females are employed in this work to one male. I wonder if in all America there is one female blacksmith. Even the strongest-minded of the advocates of woman’s rights have not claimed for women the trade of a blacksmith. But here little girls from seven to nine years old, are set to work and kept to work, as long as they can stand, hammering at the anvil, roasting by the forge, blacked with soot, never seeing schoolhouse or playground, but employed their whole lives making horseshoe nails for a bare subsistence. Absolute Free Trade sets women and children to work at forge and mine, and reduces wages to the lowest possible standard, and that is the system against which humanity protests, and with which Parliament, in spite of theories, finds it necessary to interfere. Free Trade, as ultimated in England, is the most debased ignorance, the most abhorrent cruelty, the most disgusting vice, and the most heartbreaking misery that can be seen in any country calling itself civilised and Christian. There is too much freedom of all kinds in England, and especially a great deal too much in Free Trade.”
The Times, of the 5th of October last, replies at great length. Having fully explained the reasons why the United States adhere to Protection, the writer proceeds:—