§ MR. H. B. SHERIDANrose to move the Resolution of which he had given notice—
That in the opinion of this House it is expedient that the reduction of Fire Insurance duty made in the last Session be extended at the earliest opportunity to houses, household goods, and all descriptions of insurable property.There was nothing new in the terms or scope of this Resolution beyond what the House had already adopted. It was only a sort of refresher to the Government, to remind them that the reduction of duty made last Session was not exactly a compliance with the wishes of the House as expressed in the Resolution which it had agreed to—which was to the effect that the reduction should extend to all descriptions of property. So far as the merits of the question were concerned, he might say that they were settled by the Resolution of the House, and he need not, therefore, go into the already fully expounded history of this oppressive duty. To do so would be quite unnecessary, as the subject had been fully exhausted, and the House had, with full information, arrived at the conclusion, and declared it, 36 that the duty upon Fire Insurance was excessive in amount; that it prevented insurances, and that it should be reduced at the earliest opportunity. The question now before them was two-fold:—first, whether the Resolution of the House aimed at a general reduction on all classes of Fire Insurances, or only had regard to a particlar sort of insurance; and second, whether the Government in the reduction it made last Session had given effect to the real aim of the Resolution. Now, there could be no doubt at all that the Resolution passed aimed at the reduction of all insurances, and not one particular class of insurances only. That was the clearly expressed will and wish of the House in the early discussions, and in accordance therewith he had modified the proposals of the Bill he first brought in on the subject. He did not push his Bill, for he considered it more respectful to leave it in the hands of the Government; but the Government did not move in the matter, and then, acting upon judicious advice, he dropped the method of proceeding by Bill arid proposed his Resolution. That Resolution having been adopted by the House, and with the sense he attributed to it, last year the Government, having a surplus, undertook to give effect to the Resolution. But it took the wrong course, and proposed a reduction on one special item only of insurable goods. Now, all he asked was that the House should remedy the oversight of the Government, by drawing its attention again to the fact that the interpretation it placed upon the Resolution of that House was not a correct construction of the wishes of that House, and desiring it to extend the reduction to all descriptions of insurable property. That was the sole object of the Resolution which he had now proposed. The only other question was for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he felt that the condition of the Exchequer would enable him to give effect to this Resolution, he would be not only giving effect to the wishes of the House, but would earn the gratitude of the country; and if he could make it a reduction throughout and uniform to 1s. per cent, he would be not only earning the lasting gratitude of the country, but would be taking such a course as to enable him to replace in the Exchequer the amount which it would temporarily lose by the reduction. If the right hon. Gentleman had not the means, then the Resolution he now 37 proposed would serve as a standing instruction to the Government that its first duty would be to reduce the Fire Insurance duty when it should have the means in hand; and that was, indeed, the interpretation put by the right hon. Gentleman upon the Resolution already agreed to when it was under discussion in the House. He (Mr. H. B. Sheridan) could not for a moment suppose that the Government if it had the necessary means would refuse to give effect to that Resolution, for it had always acknowledged the binding nature of these resolves of the House; otherwise it would simply be ridiculous for hon. Members to occupy themselves for years with particular questions if, when the House came to definite Resolutions on them, their Resolutions were left to remain without life and inoperative by the Members of the Government charged to give effect to them. He would not trespass longer on the House, except to say that if the right hon. Gentleman had any doubt as to what the wishes of the House and the country were, he had only to consult the petitions presented during the present Session on this subject, and principally one from the City of London itself, calling upon the House not to wait for the Budget, but to give its sanction at once to the Resolution which he now introduced. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the reduction of Fire Insurance Duty, made in the last Session, be extended, at the earliest opportunity, to houses, household goods, and all descriptions of insurable property."—(Mr. Henry B. Sheridan.)
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, I rise to move the Previous Question—Without entering into what may be called the merits of the Question, I shall address the few remarks I have to make simply to the Question as to the time at which the hon. Member proposes his Resolution; and I feel bound to say, that the period which he has chosen for his Motion is inopportune. On no occasion that I have known has it ever been considered by the Government compatible with their duty to accede at a period immediately preceding the financial statement of the year to any Resolution of this House binding their hands by anticipation in regard to the proposals they may have to make in respect to the reduction of taxation. The hon. Gentleman has said that 38 some right hon. Gentleman, whom he has not named, found fault with his infantile simplicity for introducing a Bill to effect the reduction of this duty, and told him that if he only proposed a Resolution of this House, that Resolution, if carried, would be potent and effective. For my part, I venture to say, with respect to Resolutions of the House, that in my opinion they are binding, as far as regards the Government, variably according to their subject-matter. I have never concealed my strong opinion that a Resolution of this House, unless relating to a matter of grievance or recommending the reduction of a burden oppressive to the community, does not demand great consideration from the Government; but Resolutions relating to the repeal or reduction of the burdens of the people, though they may not be in precise accordance with the views of the Government, yet do demand the most respectful consideration at their hands, and ought at all times to be a material element in deciding on their financial proposals. I am bound to say, however, that the sanguine mind of the hon. Gentleman considerably overstates the real potency and effectiveness of Resolutions. Has he forgotten that Resolution, by far the most famous, for the repeal of the paper duty. Though hon. Gentlemen who sit on these benches were inclined to attach weight to that Resolution, yet, when in 1861, the Government proposed its repeal, very large minorities, which were almost majorities, made other proposals which they desired to substitute for the repeal of the paper duty. With regard to Motions made in anticipation of the Budget, I am not aware of any single instance in which public good or advantage has resulted from them. A. Motion of that sort has an abvious tendency to excite expectations which, if they are fulfilled, would also have been fulfilled a few weeks later independently of the Motion; so that nothing material is gained by it, and if they cannot be fulfilled, much mischief is done by the excitement of vain hopes. But (his is not the only or material objection to Resolutions of this kind, picking out a single matter of taxation when other matters of taxation are not before the House. These Resolutions are entirely contrary to the principle of our arrangements, which require that annually the entire financial condition of the country should be placed before the House, so that the House, with that financial condition before it, might make a selection as it thinks 39 fit between the different interests of the country claiming relief. Such a Motion is not less hostile, I am bound to say, to the principle which assigns the initiative in these matters to the Government. You give that initiative to the Government, I apprehend, because you think it is for the public interest that they should have it; and I humbly submit to the hon. Gentleman and the House that it is most important that the dividing lines between the essential jurisdiction of the House and the permissive jurisdiction—for such, I grant, it may be deemed—vested in the Government on these questions should be preserved. For look at the injustice of this proposal, to select a particular tax among the various claimants for remission. Only the other night we objected to make any declaration with respect to the Malt-tax on this very ground; we would not let fall from us a single syllable as to the claims which that tax may present for consideration at any given period. And I am bound to maintain an equal restraint and an equal silence on this occasion. But surely it is most unfair to the House, which has rejected one great demand, powerfully supported—and certainly I cannot say that the whole of those who joined in rejecting it rejected it deliberately on the merits; possibly some of them would have been its promoters on the merits—surely it is most unfair to them that a demand like this should now be pressed by those who have another favourite tax to put forward for remission. The hon. Gentleman says, and says with truth, that the House has agreed to Votes in favour of the remission of the duty on Fire Insurance. But it has also come to a vote for remission of the Malt Tax, and has afterwards been called upon to rescind it. I ask the House to, consider the position in which any Administration must be put by the passing of a Resolution of this kind. It is absolutely contrary to the duty of the Government to come to any irrevocable decision as to the repeal or reduction of any tax involving an important branch of revenue until we know within certain limits that our revenue and charge will be balanced. Therefore, if the House were to select this inopportune moment for declaring its views with regard to the duty on Fire Insurance, it would place the Government in a predicament of what I may call compulsory disrespect towards the House. It would still remain just as much the duty of the Government as ever to observe such an absolute silence and main- 40 tain such an entire freedom with respect to their intentions, as the general interests of the country may demand. At the same time it would not be desirable, for the sake of the public service, that they should seem to show any indifference or inattention to the expressed wishes of the House. But if such an apparent conflict, such an apparent tardiness in responding to the wishes of the House in matters of taxation would be highly inexpedient as regards the Government, I am bound to say that it would likewise be disparaging to the dignity and authority of this House. But these, I admit, are all objections of a general character, and I own that there might be some colour for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman if he could show that he had reason to entertain some special mistrust—to presume some foregone conclusion—in the mind of the Government, that under no circumstances were they disposed to give to the subject of the Fire Insurance duty that sort of consideration which, upon its merits, and, I grant also, upon its history, it may demand. The hon. Member devoted a great part of his speech to proving two propositions—the one that the wish of the House and the country apparently has been for an uniform dealing with this duty; and the other, that the last reduction of it was not altogether a compliance with the desires of the House. But, Sir, I agree with him in both of those propositions. He says the last reduction was not altogether a compliance with the wishes of the House. Who ever said it was? Her Majesty's Government did not propose it in these terms. It is an odious thing for a man to quote from himself, but, still, as what I said in these matters was spoken by me as a Member of the Government, I venture to cite a short passage from the financial statement which it devolved on me to make last year. The words then used were—
The surplus, which began with £2,570,000, is now brought down to no more than £430,000. And here it would have been the wish of the Government to stop. There is, however, still another subject demanding our attention. In consequence of the formal intimation given by the vote of the House, we have deemed it our duty, limited as are our means, to consider whether we could submit a measure which, whatever else it might do, would do good as far as it went, and which would indicate at least our desire to meet with deference and respect the convictions entertained by the House of Commons, even although we did not entirely and absolutely share them, if it could be done without a vital sacrifice of the public interests. I refer to the duty on Fire Insurances."—[3 Hansard, clxxiv. 590.]41 Therefore, my answer to the hon. Gentleman on that point is that his argument was unnecessary, because we were perfectly aware, independent of the proof he has given of it to-night, that the wishes of the House—the present state of the law continuing—cannot be and do not remain entirely fulfilled. One word more. The hon. Member says that the former decisions were verdicts. Why, then, does he want another? But I object to his Motion out of his own mouth. This is a Motion not merely indicating a reduction of the duty on Fire Insurance, hut indicating the particular form, manner, and degree in which it should he reduced. Why is the House of Commons on the 21st of March—the financial year coming to its close ten days hence—now to indicate the degree in which the Fire Insurance duty is to be reduced? But the hon. Member himself supplies me with this answer. He proposes a Motion, and though in the same breath he says he knows of a better Motion, he yet asks the House to agree to the first one. He proposes a Motion, the effect of which is a reduction of the duty to a uniform standard of 1s. 6d.; and in his own speech he tells you that one of 1s. would be better. Can there be a more lively illustration of the inconvenience of dealing with these questions before their proper time? ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen say, "No!" Have they read the Motion? It states that it is expedient that the reduction in this duty made last Session—that is to say to Is. 6d.—should be extended to all descriptions of property. But that is not stating that it is desirable to reduce it uniformly to 1s. The hon. Member's speech and his Motion are in conflict the one with the other; for while on the one hand he calls upon the House to vote that the reduction of 1s. 6d. shall be made uniform, he declares in his speech—and with greater reason—that a general reduction to 1s. would be a great deal more satisfactory. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, but if you think that, you ought to join with me in voting against this Resolution, which binds you to a reduction to 1s. 6d. ["No, no!"] The petitioners on the subject of this duty have never indicated what in their opinion is the amount of duty which it is desirable to levy. ["Yes!"] As compared with 3s., or 2s. 6d., or 2s., or even 1s. d6., they may, I grant you, have done so; but I am not aware that the petitioners in favour of the reduction of this duty have ever stated that if they had the whole matter 42 in their hands they would fix it at 1s. 6d., or have ever treated it otherwise than as a fair subject for a compromise. Why, then, should the House not reserve to itself the discretion of dealing with the question at large when the proper time comes, and when it may be able to form some estimate of the means at command for purposes of remission? Why is it to depart from the just and wise usages which regulate the functions of the Government and the House in regard to taxation, when it recollects the fair admissions which I have made in respect of the history of this duty and the view we take as to the just authority of the House in these questions? I venture to say the hon. Member would see that he has really nothing to gain—perhaps less than nothing—by asking the House for a decision at this moment. He leaves us no choice or discretion whatever. It would be an absolute abandonment of our duty for us to accede to this Resolution. If we acceded to it how could we decline to accede to other Resolutions that would come forward, not perhaps at this time, but at another moment, in regard to other duties having excellent claims to remission? We desire, Sir, to pay due respect to this House; and for these reasons I beg to move the Previous Question.
§ MR. CRAWFORD, who rose amid loud cries of "Divide!" said, that he had on a previous occasion supported the hon. Gentleman who had made this Motion, but he was unable to vote with him that evening. He was about to take what he knew to be an unpopular course with those whom he had the honour to represent, but he thought the present Motion was inopportune, and that it would be inexpedient to fetter themselves and the Ministry by an abstract Resolution.
§ MR. HUBBARDwished to know whether this country was to be governed entirely by the Administration, or in part by the House of Commons—because, if the House of Commons were to have any voice in the Government, it surely had a right to express an opinion at some time on such a subject as the present. If the House declared its opinion in regard to the remission of a particular tax before the Budget, it was told it was premature; if after the Budget, it was told it was too late, that everything was settled, and that the Resolution should have been proposed long ago. This was his answer to the advice given to the House by the hon. Member for the City of London. Last year he (Mr. Hub- 43 bard) requested the hon. Member for Dudley not to press his Motion, but to leave the matter in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Remembering, however, the way in which the right hon. Gentleman bad failed to carry out the wishes and instructions of the House in his Budget last year, he should vote with the hon. Member for Dudley, and should strongly recommend him to press his Motion to a division.
§ MR. JACKSON, who also rose amid loud calls of "Divide!" said, he did not often trouble the House, but he wished to be allowed to join in the appeal made to the hon. Member for Dudley by the hon. Member for the City (Mr. Crawford) not to divide the House. He was a supporter of the principle of the measure, but having heard the acknowledgment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the power of that House in such matters he thought the matter might safely be left in his hands. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman, after what he had said, would meet the wishes of the House as far as his means would go.
§ MR. MALINStrusted that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan) would not be led off on the false scent just thrown out, but would divide the House. The idea of leaving the matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a mere delusion. The reduction of the duties on Fire Insurance was not a favourite measure with the right hon. Gentleman. It was a tax for which no man would say a word, for it was s tax of 200 per cent on prudence and forethought. If hon. Members at the time when the Budget was proposed made a suggestion of this kind, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that he could not have his plans disturbed. Whether they brought the matter forward before the Budget, after the Budget, or at the time of the Budget, they were always wrong. What, then, was the duty of Parliament? Clearly to put its finger on such a tax, and express an opinion for the guidance of the Government. The Resolution of the House was not without its influence upon the right hon. Gentleman last year, and if the House affirmed the Resolution now before it the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find it impossible to resist such an expression of opinion. He verily believed the right hon. Gentleman intended to propose the reduction of the duty, and that was the interpretation he put upon his moving the Previous Question.
§ SIR ROBERT CLIFTONhoped his 44 hon. Friend would divide the House. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to reduce the wine duty he said that the reduction would be an advantage to the public. He added that he believed that the Exchequer would soon be replenished. Why should not the same argument be true in this case, when it was stated that there was £800,000,000 of insurable property within a few miles round London, of which 80 per cent was uninsured mainly because there was a tax of 200 per cent upon insurance.
§ MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had charged him with inconsistency in moving a Resolution to reduce the duty to 1s. 6d., when he was really in favour of a duty of Is.; but all he meant to say was, that he had always advocated the reduction to 1s. as the point at which the duty ought ultimately to stand. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reduce the duty to that amount, he would earn the gratitude of the country.
§ Whereupon Previous Question put, "That that Question be now put."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
§ The House divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 65: Majority 72.
§
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the reduction of Fire Insurance Duty, made in the last Session, be extended, at the earliest opportunity, to houses, household goods, and all descriptions of insurable property.
| AYES. | |
| Adam, W. P. | Crossley, Sir F. |
| Annesley, hon. Col. H. | Dalglish, R. |
| Astell, J. H. | Dickson, Colonel |
| Bagwell, J. | Duke, Sir J. |
| Baines, E. | Dunne, Colonel |
| Barnes, T. | Edwards, Colonel |
| Bazley, T. | Ewart, W. |
| Beresford, D. W. P. | Ewart, J. C. |
| Blake, J. A. | Fane, Colonel J. W. |
| Bowyer, Sir G. | Farquhar, Sir M. |
| Bramley-Moore, J. | Fellowes, E. |
| Bridges, Sir B. W. | Fenwick, E. M. |
| Brooks, R. | Ferrand, W. |
| Browne, Lord J. T. | Fitzgerald, W. K. S. |
| Butler, C. S. | Forster, C. |
| Cave, S. | Gard, R. S. |
| Chapman, J. | Gaskell, J. M. |
| Cheetham, J. | Gavin, Major |
| Clay, J. | George, J. |
| Cobbold J. C. | Gower, G. W. G. L. |
| Cogan, W. H. F. | Greenall, G. |
| Collins, T. | Greene, J. |
| Cox, W. | Greville, Colonel F. |
| Craufurd, E. H. J, | Gray, Lt.-Colonel |
| Griffith, C. D. | Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J. |
| Grogan, Sir E. | Palk, Sir L. |
| Hadfield, G. | Papillon, P. O. |
| Hassard, M. | Parker, Major W. |
| Henderson, J. | Pilkington, J. |
| Henley, Lord | Ponsonby, hon. A. |
| Hennessy, J. P. | Powys-Lybbe, P. L. |
| Hibbert, J. T. | Redmond, J. E. |
| Hodgkinson, G. | Repton, G. W. J. |
| Horsfall, T. B. | Rogers, J. J. |
| Hubbard, J. G. | Rose, W. A. |
| Jolliffe, H. H. | Russell, F.W. |
| Kelly, Sir F. | Salomons, Mr. Ald. |
| Kendall, N. | Schneider, H. W. |
| Knox, hon. Major S. | Selwyn, C. J. |
| Lacon, Sir E. | Seymour, A. |
| Langton, W. G. | Shelley, Sir J. V. |
| Lanigan, J. | Sidney, T. |
| Leatham, E. A. | Smith, Sir F. |
| Lee, W. | Somes, J. |
| Legh, W. J. | Stanley, Lord |
| Lewis, H. | Stuart, Lieut.-Col. W. |
| Locke, J. | Taylor, Colonel |
| Lopes, Sir M. | Taylor, P. A. |
| Lyall, G. | Tollemache, hon. F. J. |
| M'Cann, J. | Tollemache, J. |
| MacEvoy, E. | Turner, J. A. |
| Mackie, J. | Turner, C. |
| M'Mahon, P. | Vance, J. |
| Maguire, J. F. | Vandeleur, Colonel |
| Malins, E. | Vansittart, W. |
| Martin, P. W. | Verney, Sir H. |
| Miller, T. J. | Walcott, Admiral |
| Mills, J. R. | Waldron, L. |
| Mitchell, T. A. | Waterhouse, S. |
| Montagu, Lord R. | Watkin, E. W. |
| Moor, H. | Westhead, J. P.Brown- |
| Moore, C. | Whalley, G. H. |
| Morris, W. | White, J. |
| Morrison, W. | Wyld, J. |
| Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R | Wynn, C. W. W. |
| Murray, W. | Yorke, J. R. |
| O'Conor Don, The | |
| O'Donoghue, The | TELLERS. |
| O'Ferrall, rt. hn. R. M. | Sheridan, H. B. |
| O'Loghlen, Sir C. M. | Clifton, Sir R. |
| Paget, C. |
| NOES. | |
| Ayrton, A. S. | Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. |
| Baring, rt.hon. Sir F.T. | Hankey, T. |
| Baring, T. G. | Hartington, Marquess of |
| Bellew, R. M. | Headlam, rt. hn. T. E. |
| Bonham-Carter, J. | Ingham, R. |
| Bruce, Lord C. | Jackson, W. |
| Bruce, rt. hon. H. A. | Jervoise, Sir J. C. |
| Bruen, H. | Kingscote, Colonel |
| Bury, Viscount | Kinnaird, hon. A. F. |
| Caird, J. | Layard, A. H. |
| Cardwell, rt. hon. E. | Marjoribanks, D. C. |
| Childers, H. C. E. | Martin, J. |
| Cowper, rt. hon. W. F. | Moffatt, G. |
| Crawford, R. W. | Moncreitf, rt. hon. J. |
| Dunbar, Sir W. | North, F. |
| Dunlop, A. M. | Paget, Lord C. |
| Enfield, Viscount | Palmer, Sir R. |
| Fortescue, rt. hon. C. | Palmerston, Viscount |
| Gallwey, Sir W.P. | Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. |
| Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. | Peel, rt. hon. F. |
| Gilpin, C. | Peto, Sir S. M. |
| Gladstone, rt. hon. W. | Pollard-Urquhart, W. |
| Glyn, G. G. | Potter, E. |
| Goschen, G. J. | Pritchard, J. |
| Pugh, D. | Walpole, rt. hn. S. H. |
| Robartes, T. J. A, | Whitbread, S. |
| Robertson, H. | White, hon. L. |
| Scourfield, J. H. | Winnington, Sir T. E. |
| Smith, M. T. | Wood, rt. hon. Sir C. |
| Stansfeld, J. | Wyvill, M. |
| Steel, J. | |
| Tracy, hon. C. R.D H.. | TELLERS. |
| Vernon, H. F. | Brand, hon. H. B. W. |
| Villiers, rt. hon. C. P. | Knatchbull-Hugessen, E. H. |
| Waldegrave-Lealie, hon. G. |