HC Deb 14 July 1863 vol 172 cc798-815
MR. H. B. SHERIDAN

, in calling the attention of the House to the question of the fire insurance duty, said, he regretted that circumstances over which he had no control had prevented him from bringing it on, as he had intended, at an earlier period of the Session. Several Petitions had been presented to the House from chambers of commerce in reference to the subject, and he had received a great many letters, asking him how it was the question had been so long delayed. He would answer that question in this way:—Private Members had only one night in the week out of the six—namely, Tuesday in each week—for the discussion of those questions which in their opinion required consideration; and the fact was, that after deducting a week or two at the beginning, and a week or two at the end of the Session, there were not above ten or twelve Tuesdays available for Motions. Early in the Session he fixed on one of these Tuesdays, understanding that it was an open day, but he never was more miserably deceived. That was the day appointed for the marriage of the Prince of Wales, and the House did not sit on that day. He put his notice down for another day, when he was induced to postpone it because, it being St. Patrick's night, many Irish Members who would have supported him were engaged elsewhere. Upon the next occasion be was again unfortunate, the House adjourning immediately in consequence of the lamented death of a distinguished Member of the Cabinet. He fixed upon another day, when his notice stood second, but the preceding Motion—that of the hon. Member for Berkshire upon education—occupied the whole evening, and again upon the last day for which he gave notice, and when he again stood second, the entire evening was occupied with a discussion upon the first Motion—one relating to the condition of Ireland. He did not propose to ask leave to introduce a Bill, believing that at that period of the Session no private Member could hope to interfere with the arrangements of the Government respecting the surplus of revenue which they possessed. He therefore only proposed to submit a Resolution conceived in such moderate terms that he could not understand upon what grounds the Chancellor of the Exchequer could object to it. As, however, he feared he could not expect the cordial acquiescence of the right hon. Gentleman, he would give a few arguments in support of his proposition. He would, in the first place, remind the House that last Session he obtained leave to introduce a Bill to reduce the duty on fire insurance. That Bill was read a first time, but he did not press it, because he took the vote of the House to imply rather a recognition of the policy of the principle of reduction than the empowering a private Member to interfere with the financial arrangements of the Government. But that Vote was an encouragement to him to propose a Resolution— That in the opinion of this House the duty now chargeable upon fire insurances is excessive in amount, that it prevents insurance, and should be reduced at the earliest opportunity. He submitted that Resolution because he believed that a reduction of this duty would benefit the revenue by bringing into the area of insurance a vast amount of property that was not then insured, and also because the present high rate of duty interfered with the prudent insurance of national property. The revenue derived from fire insurances was £1,600,000, representing £10,007,000,000 of insurable property. He proposed to reduce the duty, then 3s. per cent, by 1s. for five years, at the expiration of that period to reduce it by another shilling, leaving the ultimate duty 1s. per cent. Although he believed any duty upon fire insurance was impolitic, he did not propose to go further. Neither did he limit the proposal to any particular amount of premium. He had said that he believed the reduction he proposed would really augment the revenue derived from that source. The natural increase of the revenue for duty upon fire insurances was £50,000 a year, which was supposed to represent the annual increase of the national wealth, but to which in reality it bore a very small proportion. But, adding to that yearly increase the increase of £100,000 a year that might reasonably be expected to flow from a reduction of the amount of duty, there would be £150,000 a year to compensate for any immediate loss the revenue might sustain from a reduction of the duty. Taking the increase of £150,000 annually for five years, it was clear that at the expiration of that period the first loss of £530,000, consequent upon a reduction, would be far more than made up. Besides, even if that were not so, an experiment or two less in art and science, or at Woolwich, would enable the Government to concede a boon which the country had been anxious to obtain for years. He had consulted some of the most eminent actuaries and statists in the kingdom, and they considered that £100,000 a year was the minimum which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might expect from a reduction of the duty by one-third. But if the reduction should be greater, the boon which would be given to the country would be of such a character as would more than compensate the right hon. Gentleman for the small ad valorem loss which the revenue might sustain. A new feature had been added to the question since it was last discussed. In 1856 the Government actually employed counsel to defend the insurance duty, and the gentleman they selected for that purpose was Mr. Coode. He should be content to leave Mr. Coode's blue-book, however, to the statistical and scientific societies, who dealt very severely with it when it appeared. He need only refer to the very talented and conclusive arguments of Mr. Samuel Brown, which were supposed to have cut to pieces the reasoning of Mr. Coode, and the House had also expressed its opinion of it by the support which it had given to his Motion. But, nevertheless, a revised edition of it was published during the Easter holidays, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had cited it as an authority on the subject. Mr. Coode asserted that property to the amount of 400 millions was not insured, because, as he said, the insurance offices were disinclined to receive small sums of money on account of the stamp duty imposed by Government. Now, in point of fact, the companies did not charge the stamp duty in certain cases; but if, as Mr. Coode alleged, a tax of 6d. prevented insurances, was it not reasonable to suppose that a Government tax of 200 per cent upon the premium itself would have the same effect? Another statement made by Mr. Coode was that the insurable property of the country was exhausted, and, that consequently, no hope need be entertained of an increase to the revenue from that source. He estimated the insurable property at £1,141,000,000, but he omitted from his calculations the whole of Scotland and the whole of Ireland, all our ships and our cargoes, all our railways, all the tools of industry, and all the machinery with which we carried on our mercantile and commercial transactions. In France all the railways were insured, and he believed that the railway property in this country might be valued at £600,000,000. He estimated all the various descriptions of property which Mr. Coode excluded as amounting to £1,500,000,000. Mr. Coode argued, that as it was proved that the average amount of the property lost in cases of fire did not exceed one-third of the amount insured, a prudent man would not insure for more than one-third of his property. It was, however, absurd to suppose that in individual cases men would insure only one-third of the insurable property they possessed merely because by the law of averages that was found to be the proportionate amount actually destroyed taking the whole of the losses by fire throughout the country. But upon Mr. Coode's figures alone he maintained that there would be a sufficient return to the revenue to make up for any reduction of duty which the adoption of his Resolution might involve. Mr. Coode had said a great deal about agricultural insurances; and, indeed, the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year turned principally upon that point. The right hon. Gentleman argued that the farmers had not adequately responded to the liberal manner in which they had been treated. But Mr. Coode's own figures should answer the right hon. Gentleman. From 1835 to 1846, while other insurances had increased 25.2 per cent. agricultural insurances had increased 28 and 1–6th per cent. In May 1850 the offices raised their charges, and the agricultural insurances immediately fell. In December 1853 they reduced them again, and the insurances rose. Mr. Coode argued that the duty was a tax not upon prudence, but upon property, because it could not be said that insurance added to the general wealth of the country. Surely, however, to insure was an act of prudence with reference to the individual, and in that sense at least the tax fell upon prudence. Mr. Coode had discovered that the tax was not only wise, but deserved support; and that its effect was not to discourage insurance. Mr. Coode said that the profits of the companies were 50 per cent of the premiums; but if that was so, it followed that the Government tax was really one of 400 per cent upon the cost price of insurance. If assurance companies were nothing but so many nests of swindlers, what must be said of the Government, who insisted on being partners in every transaction? For every £100 taken by an insurance company, the Government took £800 as its share of the swindle. That was the sum and substance of Mr. Coode's conclusions. He therefore thought it would be a waste of time to follow his argument further. Mr. Coode was not an actuary, a statist, or a financier; he had nothing to do with chambers of commerce or the great commercial body. He had been retained to defend the duty, and he had done so to the best of his power. Mr. Coode relied on theory, and the Government relied on Mr. Coode. It had been said that a scruple of fact outweighed a pound of theory; and he relied on the evidence of practical men. There were 100 Petitions presented to that House from corporations, all urging the reduction of the duty on the ground that it would in- crease the revenue. There were 17 from chambers of commerce and the associated chambers of commerce, 100 Petitions from inhabitants of towns and cities, 130 from village societies, and 100 from miscellaneous places, all numerously signed. In fact, there was no other fiscal subject on which so many Petitions had been presented during the Session, as for the reduction of the duty on fire insurances. Then, if he took the opinions of the great thinkers on statistical subjects, he might quote Mr. Leoni Levi, Mr. Porter, The Times, and Mr. Newmarch, who stated that the duty on fire insurance was a duty against fire insurance, and to that he attributed the fact that about 80 per cent of the insurable property was uninsured. In addition, he (Mr. Sheridan) had scores of private letters showing how the tax operated in preventing insurances. One letter, from a gentleman who acted in the country as agent for a first-class insurance company, stated that he found the farmers almost universally insured their farming stock, but almost as universally refrained from insuring their household property, on account of the duty. He might, in addition to these letters, quote Mr. Sharman's very able pamphlet to show how seriously the amount of the duty operated in restricting fire insurance and the benefits which might be expected to result from a reduction of the duty. In the year 1862 the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted that the reduction of duty would produce an increase of insurance. Despite all that the right hon. Gentleman had said to the contrary, he maintained that the duty operated as a punishment or fine of 200 per cent upon all those who insured. The Government did nothing for the tax. Not only did it offer the insurance offices no guarantee whatsoever in return for it, but it even took no part and rendered them no assistance in the extinction of fires. The Resolution which he asked the House to adopt was only a re-affirmation of that to which it came last year, when it gave him leave to introduce a Bill upon this subject. The right hon. Gentleman might say that its adoption would amount to a declaration that the tax was the first that ought to be repealed, and might dwell upon the inconvenience of such a declaration. For his part, he could see no inconvenience in the adoption of such a course, because there was no tax of which the incidence was more unfair or the abolition or reduction of which was more nesessary. He did not desire to re-impose the tax on farming stock, although Mr. Coode appeared to favour such a course; and he warned hon. Members that if Motions like his were defeated, the Government might be inclined to take that step. He believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in his own mind sensible of the objection to this duty, and he hoped that he would not oppose the Resolution. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving— That, in the opinion of this House, the Duty now chargeable upon Fire Insurances is excessive in amount, that it prevents Insurance, and should be reduced at the earliest opportunity.

MR. COX

seconded the Motion.

MR. HUBBARD

said, he had hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have thought fit to say a few words in answer to the Motion of the hon. Member for Dudley, the more so since a Report on Fire Insurance Duties by Mr. George Coode, prepared by order of the Government, had been circulated to the Members of both Houses; and he was anxious to learn whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer did or did not adopt its facts, arguments, and general reasoning. If he did not, he should like to know why the Report had been circulated. If he did, its contents must be considered, not as the work of a private individual, but as a State paper. He should apply himself to those arguments in the Report bearing directly upon the question in the order in which they arose. One of the complaints against the present fire insurance duty was the large proportion that it bore to the property insured. How did Mr. Coode meet that complaint? Why, thus—"No house is wholly destructible by fire," said Mr. Coode; few properties are insured to their full value; and assuming two-thirds only to be insured, the duty of 3s. per £100 amounts to the insignificant tax of 1s. per £1,000; and then, concluded Mr. Coode, "it is a tax that can be condemned only in common with alt other taxes on permanent property."

Now, it ought to be obvious to every one that the complaint referred to the pressure of the tax upon the property insured, and not to the proportion it bore to property uninsured. The duty on property worth £100 fully insured is 3s.; but the 3s is an annual tax, and the proportion between the tax and the property is shown by the investment of which the annual interest would provide the annual tax. The sum of £4 13s. invested in Consols at the present price would yield an interest of 3s.; so that £4 13s. per £100, or nearly 1–20th part, is the proportion of any insured property absorbed by the tax. And then this tax—this property tax, as Mr. Coode calls it—on what property does it fall? An equitable property tax should fall on all property; but this can fall only on insurable property, and does not fall equally on that; it falls on property which the owner could only lose to his inconvenience or ruin; it does not fall on the property of the rich. The lord of half a county, the proprietor of a whole town parish, becomes his own insurer, he need not insure; he altogether escapes this novel property tax, which takes the twentieth part of the possession of his poor neighbour. Again, the magnitude of the tax in comparison with the premium paid for the risk insured against is a complaint. What is Mr. Coode's defence? "You complain," says Mr. Coode, "that the 3s. duty is double the 1s. 6d., which you assume to be the natural cost price of the insurance." But you are quite mistaken; the natural cost price is infinitely less than you imagine—half of the premium is required to meet fraudulent and dishonest claims—a quarter more is taken for the profit of the insurance office; and, in fact, "the premium is at least four times the natural cost of the insurance." He (Mr. Hubbard) had never heard that the business of fire insurance was a monopoly, and the insurers are satisfied to consider the risk balanced by the charge of the insurance office; but how does this argument affect the complaint Mr. Coode is answering? Why, in this remarkable manner—that, upon Mr. Coode's own evidence, the cost "price of the ordinary risks" should be not 1s. 6d. but 4½d., and that the duty of 3s. enacted by the State, in proportion to the risk, is not as 2 to 1, but as 8 to 1. Mr. Coode is not satisfied to treat this question in a dry fiscal view—he raises an important moral consideration; he charges the present practice of fire insurance as being one "which for every shilling paid to an honest insurer gives another to reward fraud or arson—another shilling to tempt or reward those who practise the most alarming and destructive of all crimes." If this were so, the Government should not let the scrutiny stop there—they should take steps for the repression of a system so full of danger to property and life; and he would add, they should abstain meanwhile from any participation in gains from such an immoral source. Another objection to a heavy duty on fire insurance is that it becomes a tax on prudence. The objection," replies Mr. Coode, "is in truth merely rhetorical. It is of the very nature of taxation that it must be mainly derived from the exertion of all the moral and physical excellences productive of wealth; for industry, enterprise, fortitude, temperance, and prudence are the main producers of revenue, public and private. We have no alternative but, in the same rhetorical sense, to continue to tax 'prudence' and all the other productive, frugal, and profitable habits of men. Without stopping to inquire whether a tax on spirits and tobacco would be classed by Mr. Coode with taxes on prudence, he (Mr. Hubbard) might at once point out that Mr. Coode wholly misunderstands or wholly misrepresents the argument. He ignores the influence of the tax upon the taxpayer, and looks only at the taxpayer's property. Doubtless prudence and industry are the producers of the taxpayer's property, which may be taken either by the income tax or the insurance tax; but while one tax shared the products of his prudence, the other prohibits acts of prudence. The complaint against the insurance duty is, not that it taxes the products, but that it taxes the exercise of prudence.

The last of Mr. Coode's arguments which he would notice is one which its author considers conclusive evidence against any reduction of the duty— Commencing with 1834," writes Mr. Coode, "the value of farming stock insured was thirty-seven and a quarter millions sterling; in 1862 it had risen to sixty-fire and a half millions; but in 1834 property subject to duty was insured to the amount of four hundred and eighty-three millions, and in 1862 the amount had increased to one thousand and seven millions. Thus showing an increase in farming stock of 76 per cent, and on other property of 108 per cent. So that while agricultural "property, exempt from tax, has increased only at the yearly rate of 2.7, all other insurances without bounty or exemption have advanced nearly three times as fast, at the yearly rate of 7.3 per cent." There is great arithmetical inaccuracy in this statement. The amount of taxed insurances in 1862 was not 1,007 millions, but 941 millions, and the real results are these—that between 1834 and 1862 the insurance of farming stock increased 76 per cent, or 2.7 annually, and the insurance of other property increased 96 per cent, or 3½ per cent annually. But taking these rectified results, did they truthfully exhibit the relative progress in insurances of taxed or untaxed property? Nothing of the sort. It had been said that few things were more fallacious than figures, and he would show to the House that this statement of Mr. Coode's was an arithmetical fraud. If they were told that Bath was vastly inferior to Brighton in sanitary intelligence, for that in Bath vaccination had increased only 10 per cent in fifteen years, while in Brighton it had increased 100 per cent, they might accept the facts, and believe the assertion. But they would find they had been egregiously misled when they discovered that during the period in question the population of Bath had been stationary, while that of Brighton had doubled. And so with regard to the argument of Mr. Coode—he told them what was the positive increase of insured property of either kind, but he omitted to state what were the respective areas from which the increase arose. He (Mr. Hubbard) would supply the omission. In 1834 the population was 17,000,000; in 1862 it was 23,500,000. In 1834 the population consume 17,000,000 quarters of corn, of which 1,000,000 were imported and 16,000,000 home grown. In 1862 the consumption of corn was 23,500,000, of which 7,500,000 were imported, leaving, as before, 16,000,000 as provided from our home growth. Judging from these figures—and he had taken an average of the five years' importations in order to be more accurate—it would seem that the increase in value of farming stock must have been very small. But he would apply another and a more definite test. In 1453 the value of lands assessed to the Property Tax was £40,167,000, and in 1860 it was £42,940,000, showing an increase of £2,773,000, equal to 7 per cent, or at the rate of .375 (less than one-half per cent) per annum. In 1843 "Houses" (representing taxable insurable property) were assessed at £35,556,000, and in 1860 at £48,779,000, showing an increase of £13,223,000, equal to 37 per cent, or at the rate of 2.061 per annum. The proportional increase in property taxable if insured had therefore been more than five times as rapid as that of property exempt from taxation if insured; and combining in the computation the increased insurable value and the increased value insured of either class, it will be found that since 1834 the proportional increase in exempt agricultural insurance has been four-fold as rapid as in other insurances subject to the tax. So much for the irresistible facts and logic of Mr. Coode; and here he might leave this "Revised Report on Fire Insurance Duties"—a tissue of mystification and deception, "presented to both Houses of Parliament" by Her Majesty's Government; but he could not resist the challenge thrown out in the last page of this official document for the proposal of "any other tax as productive, as little burdensome, to industry or property, and as little annoying in collection;" and he therefore would suggest a means by which some £300,000 might be gained to the country, at a moderate cost of collection, and without any sensible obstruction to our commerce. He meant an export duty upon iron. Our export of iron is about 1,400,000 tons, of the value of £12,000,000; and on this quantity a duty of 5s. per ton would yield £350,000. Such a duty would be paid wholly by the foreign consumer; for no foreign iron could approach British iron in the way of competition; and as the price of bar iron had varied over a period of ten years from £5 to £10 a ton without materially affecting the amount exported, it might safely he assumed that an export charge of 5s. a ton would not diminish the foreign demand. We were unfortunately precluded by the French Treaty from levying an export duty on coal for six years to come, but we were still at liberty to turn to the advantage of the national revenue our special and unrivalled capacity for the production of iron. This, however, by the way: for, to return to the question before the House, no inducement but its own demerits, need be pleaded in favour of a reduction of the fire insurance duty. He trusted the House would not hesitate to express its opinion upon that question, for at this period of the Session such an opinion could not embarrass or obstruct the measures of the Government. His hon. Friend (Mr. H. B. Sheridan) had wisely submitted the question to the House in the shape of a Resolution, and the House by affirming that Resolution would, in the most convenient form, furnish the Government with an instruction to be followed by the Finance Minister who might prepare the Budget of 1864.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

There are two subjects, one of which is I think before the House, while the other has formed the staple of the remarks which have been made in this debate. The speeches of my hon. Friends have entirely turned upon the merits of the fire insurance duty—but that is not the real question before the House. The question before the House is whether the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member is a Resolution proper to be adopted. On the merits of the fire insurance duty itself, if I say anything, it is that I may not be supposed to concur in all the exaggerated statements which have been made by the hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the House. The hon. Mover of the Resolution states that an admission has been made by me which places me upon his side—namely, that the reduction of a duty of this nature would, in all probability, as in most other cases of a reduction of an indirect tax, be followed by increased consumption. I do not deny that at all, or that there is much to be said, under different circumstances and at a proper season, in favour of the repeal or diminution of this duty, in competition with other duties. But I am sorry my hon. Friend proposes an abstract Resolution in condemnation of this particular duty. The hon. Gentleman's estimates are some of them so positively astounding, that I could hardly credit my cars when I heard them. It was with considerable misgiving, and after much investigation, lest there might be any error in the figures, that I ventured to give an estimate of the increased wealth of the country. But my computations are not only modest and humble, but absolutely contemptible by the side of those of the hon. Gentleman. A thousand millions sterling a year is the hon. Member's computation of the augmentation of the wealth of this country; but then, with an enormous liberality of deduction, he admitted that it ought to be reduced to £200,000,000.

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN

said, that making allowance for various reductions, he had stated the augmentation at about £200,000,000, but he dismissed that point from his argument.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

But the hon. Member could not shut it out from his argument. Quintupling figures in this way is a most dangerous practice in debate, because the hon. Member thus involves his calculations with a kind of golden halo, so that it is hardly possible to resist his propositions, even when most questionable. Mr. Coode, a gentleman of great ability, had been chosen by a man of great ability, whose loss we all deplore, the late Sir George Lewis, to consider this question; and I think Mr. Coode's report has led to a thorough investigation of the subject, and has been pro- ductive of much good. I think the hon. Member ought to be very grateful to Mr. Coode, for I do not know how he could have been supplied with materials for his speech to-night without Mr. Coode. But I do not think he quoted Mr. Coode with accuracy. [Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN here rose to explain.] The hon. Gentleman has got his speech and his reply, and I think he may dispense with incessant speeches in the middle of my remarks. The hon. Gentleman quoted a number of persons whom he calls "practical men," and one of these "practical men" states, in the most confident manner, that any reduction, no matter of what kind, the Government may make in this duty, would be made up in the increase of insurance. But that, to my mind, has very much the appearance of an off-hand judgment, and one which the House of Commons, responsible as it is for the income and expenditure of the country, would not be very safe in acting upon. The hon. Gentleman has quoted, as an authority, the declaration of a "practical man" that the farmers generally would not insure their stocks. [Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN: I must say I said no such thing. I said their household furniture.] Well, then, I will not insist upon that point. With respect to the case of agricultural property, the argument of my hon. Friend was of such a nature, that I could neither give my assent to it nor withhold it. But let us take the figures as they stand. According to him, the annual increase upon farming stock is 2.7 per cent per annum, and the annual increase upon other commodities, subject to duty, 3½ per cent per annum. It may be true that farming stock has not increased in the same proportion as other insurable commodities; but, for all that, farming stock has increased, and is increasing, enormously, and that is a fact which materially qualifies the extreme assertions sometimes made. In the case of the paper duty, I used to resist the conclusion to which hon. Members leaped, that because the duty was an increasing one, therefore it could not be a bad duty. But the paper duty was an impost on an article essentially connected with other articles. But that is not the case with fire insurance, and to think that the maintenance of the duty leads to a diminution of other articles is like supposing that a high duty upon mustard would limit the consumption of beef. In the year 1816, when the 3s. duty was first imposed, it produced £543,000; in 1848, £1,130,000; and in 1862 it produced £1,609,000. The increase, therefore, has apparently been more rapid than the increase of the general wealth of the country, because I do not think that the increase of the wealth of the country, considerable as it has been since 1816, can be said to have increased threefold upon any such estimate as I should like to rely upon or to be responsible for. The hon. Gentleman's calculation, that the duty, if reduced, will be replaced to somewhere about £100,000 a year, is, I must say, of the most sanguine character. It is difficult to argue dogmatically on a question which affords us so few data of a positive character, but experience shows us that the reduction of duties which are not direct taxes, but which are taxes falling on property and on classes having property, is attended with a very much smaller effect in the way of recovery than the reduction of duties on articles of general consumption by the great body of the people. In 1840, when 5 per cent was laid on the Customs and Excise duties, and 10 per cent on the assessed taxes, while the 5 per cent was almost entirely absorbed by the increased pressure on the consuming power of the country, very nearly the whole anticipated 10 per cent was obtained from the assessed taxes, though it was a time of distress. Again, in 1858 the assessed taxes were modified and simplified and their amount very much reduced, and yet, though that is ten years ago, they have not recovered from that reduction.

I will not trouble the House by answering the hon. Member's speech, as he has done me the honour of answering my speech of last year. I prefer to go to that which is the main point before us—the merits of the Motion. It is a Motion which invites us to give a certain abstract opinion on the merits of the fire insurance duty. It asks the House to declare— That, in the opinion of this House, the duty now chargeable upon fire insurances is excessive in amount, that it prevents insurance, and should be reduced at the earliest opportunity. I want to know whether that is a proper course for this House to take, which is charged with imposing burdens on the people and relieving them whenever it is possible? Is it right to pronounce an abstract opinion—written in the air, as it were—on the merits or demerits of a particular duty without taking any step to remove it? I protest against such a step, and I say it is in direct contradiction to every true conception of the duties of this House. The hon. Member told us that it was a kind of instruction to the Government, signifying that some day, and that an early day, the duty is to be removed. What is meant by some day, and above all by an early day? You will answer me, that must depend on circumstances. Well, then, let us wait for the circumstances, and then we shall be able to judge whether we can remove it or not. We are told, on high authority, "In vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird." The hon. Gentleman has spread his net; and if the birds go into it, it is their own fault. He makes no concealment of his object; he tells us fairly that his object is to secure a preference to the fire insurance over all other duties, and that the fire insurance duty is to stand No. 1 for reduction. [Mr. HUBBARD: Hear, hear!] I perceive my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham cheers that, and I certainly thought from his speech that he was going to make some addition to the Motion. I could have suggested to him a very appropriate form of words which would have formed an admirable conclusion to his speech. He should have moved to add, after expressing an opinion that the tax should be removed at the earliest opportunity, "and this House is prepared to provide a substitute by means of a duty on the export of iron." I certainly did not expect to hear a Gentleman connected with the commerce of this country stand up in his place in Parliament and recommend as an unexceptional tax the imposition of a duty, and a rather heavy duty too, on the export of iron. My hon. Friend puts the price of pig iron at from £5 to £10 per ton. If he has any pig iron for sale, I should be sorry to deal with him; but, for his sake, I hope he may find a customer. [Mr. HUBBARD: It was bar iron I meant.] My hon. Friend means bar iron, but he certainly said pig iron. The hon. Member wants to put this tax No. 1 for reduction, and there I join issue with him. I am not prepared to write down any duty as first for reduction, and I say it would be a gross breach of duty in me to give countenance to any attempt to forestall financial arrangements which it is impossible to foresee, and when, for all we know, it may be our duty to impose new taxes instead of reducing old ones. We are not without warning as to abstract Resolutions on these subjects. What occurred on the paper duty ought to be a warning to us all. I will give a slight outline of the facts. In 1858 the Government of the day, as I think unfortunately, acceded to a general Resolution condemning the paper duty. In 1860 the then Government had to consider whether it would propose to reduce the tea duty or to abolish the paper duty. They determined to propose to abolish the paper duty, and a material element which guided them was the fact that the House had recorded its condemnation of that duty. But when they came down to the House with a proposal to repeal the paper duty, they found that one-half of the House was entirely indisposed to admit that any weight was to be attached to that Resolution. I am not going to say who was right or who was wrong, but there is a clear proof of the danger of those abstract Resolutions. Of such resolutions I have never at any period been enamoured; but unquestionably, after what occurred on the paper duty, I should think it most unfortunate if we fell into the same error again. The Resolution, so far from being calculated to produce a mitigation of burdens, must exercise a most misleading effect with respect to the financial state of the country. It was stated to-night by the hon. Member that Chancellors of the Exchequer are accustomed to say, when the repeal of a tax is proposed, either that it is too soon or too late. Well, I am right in saying it is too soon when it is soon, and that it is too late when it is too late. But there is a suitable time; and that is, when the financial plans of the Government are proposed. Then an hon. Member may put up a tax, which he thinks ought to be repealed, against another which the Minister thinks ought to be repealed. In that way the repeal of the paper duty was opposed, for it was said that the tea duty should be repealed instead, and there was a fair fight between the advocates of the one remission and the advocates of the other. That is the manner in which such matters should be brought to an issue; but do not let us adopt a system which evades a fair issue and sets up an issue altogether indirect. If we are to deal fairly with respect to the people in matters of taxation, we must consider the various claims for reduction together. The other evening the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk might have drawn forth enthusiastic cheers, when the House was filled with Gentlemen from the barley-growing counties, if he had proposed a Resolution to the effect that the malt duty restricted the consumption of a wholesome beverage, interfered with trade, and should be reduced; but the hon. and learned Gentleman took a more straightforward course, and proposed an inquiry, without attempting to prejudge the opinion of the House. Nothing is easier than to move an abstract Resolution in favour of the reduction of a tax; but the House should receive with great caution and circumspection these separate propositions, for the House is not in a condition to decide whether it can part with a particular tax, until its comparative claim for remission is considered in connection with the claims of other taxes, at the time when the finance of the year is to be determined. That is the principle on which I take my stand, and I do not, therefore, go about the bush to move the Previous Question, for that implies that the Motion is fit to be put at another time, whereas I do not admit that an abstract Resolution like this is fit to be put at any time. Against these abstract Resolutions, condemnatory of taxes, I, for one, after our previous experience on the subject, am determined to take every opportunity of registering my most decided protest. If we think that we have the power to reduce this tax, and that it is one of the best taxes to be reduced, then let it take its place for consideration, but it is essential to public justice that the tax should not be dealt with in the dark, and in a corner as it were, when other claims are not under view.

MR. THOMSON HANKEY

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had entirely repudiated the book of Mr. Coode, though he could not imagine that the order for its reprint in 1863 had been given by any other person than the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. Greater rubbish was never put forward as an official document by any Government, and they ought in fairness to have published Mr. Brown's report, which contained an answer to every word in Mr. Coode's book. He was not prepared to say that the fire insurance tax should be the first to be repealed, but he thought it desirable to have the opinion of the House that it was a bad tax. It was only by what the right hon. Gentleman called an abstract Resolution that a private Member could bring a question like that under consideration before the House; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted that the repeal of the paper duties was practically owing to the abstract Resolution to which he had referred.

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN

said, that he had been in one part of his speech misunderstood by the right hon. Gentleman. What he had stated, quoting from a letter, was, that farmers, in nineteen cases out of twenty, did not insure their household property.

Motion made, and Question put, That, in the opinion of this House, the Duty now chargeable upon Fire Insurances is excessive in amount, that it prevents Insurance, and should be reduced at the earliest opportunity."—(Mr. Henry B. Sheridan.)

The House divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 67: Majority 36.