FIRE INSURANCES.—RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 6 April 1869)

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
, in rising to ask the House to assent to a further reduction of the Duty on Fire Insurances said, he regretted that his Motion should be brought forward on a day so close to that on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to make his Financial Statement; but the Notice was placed on the Paper for the Thursday before the Easter Recess, when he, in common with others, had to give way in order that the important debate in connection with the Irish Church might be continued. He did not, however, expect that the right hon. Gentleman's financial arrangements would be affected by his Resolution; all he hoped was to receive from the Chancellor of the Exchequer an intimation that, as soon as he had the means at his disposal, he would consider the claims of this question and would endeavour to give effect to the expressed wish of the House upon the subject. It was un-necessary for him to go into the merits of the question after the discussions in that House on the subject of the duty on fire insurances, and the very largo number of Petitions that had been presented in favour of a reduction. Considering the claims put forward for a reduction or remission of other imposts, the reduction of the fire insurance duty by the present First Lord of the Treasury from 3s. to 1s. 6d. was a large one. The promoters of the movement in favour of reduction looked with satisfaction on what that right hon. Gentleman had done as a first step. The last year during which the duty stood at 3s., it produced £1,600,000; and, though it was impossible at present to speak with accuracy on this latter point, he believed that in the year that had elapsed since the reduction the duty had produced £1,100,000. He might observe, how- 306 ever, that the promoters of the reduction had not supposed that a reduction to 1s. 6d. would be sufficient to cause such an increase in the number of insurances as would completely recoup the Exchequer. They believed that if there was a reduction to 6d. per cent the latter object would be completely effected. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not compel him to take a division, but would give a favourable consideration to the question.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
When I consider the difficulties that beset the path of any private Member who wishes to bring any Motion before the House, I do not feel disposed to complain of the hon. Member for Dudley for taking the opportunity when it is offered to bring forward this subject, with which his name is so closely connected. I think it very natural he should do so. He will therefore understand me as not speaking with any disrespect of him, or complaining that he places me in a position I do not wish to occupy. Within less than forty-eight hours from this time it will be my duty to make, and the misfortune of the House to listen to, the Financial Statement for the year; and I may tell the House so much of a secret as that I have resolved upon the recommendations which I shall feel it my duty to make. Under these circumstances the hon. Gentleman invites me to give an opinion on the policy of further reducing the duties on fire insurance. Now, I think it would not be treating the House with proper respect if I were at this moment to give expression to any opinion I may entertain on that question. It will be my duty, within a very short time, to express my opinions as to our financial policy: and therefore it would be trifling with the House, and not acting rightly towards myself, if I were to attempt to play with a subject of this importance, or if I were to give an opinion which might lead to guesses as to anything I may say or do when I come to make my Financial Statement. If this 307 Motion were brought forward at an earlier period or a later one I might state what I thought ought to be done; but as it would be impossible for me to do so now I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to press his Motion.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he hoped the hon. Member would not divide the House on the question. At the same time he thought that the mere fact of the former reduction in the duty on fire insurance not having answered, so far as the revenue was concerned, could not fairly be looked upon as an argument against the present Motion of the hon. Member for Dudley. If, for instance, the rate of postage had been reduced to a considerable extent, but yet not to the amount at which it now stood, we should, in all probability, never have received the revenue which the country derived from the penny postage. If they had touched this subject boldly they would have increased their revenue much more. This course of proceeding reminded him of the lines— Gently, gently, touch a nettle, And it stings you for your pains; Seize it like a man of mettle, And it soft as silk remains. And if they touched this question boldly they would reap the benefit.

§ MR. D. DALRYMPLE
said, he would mention a single instance which was entirely opposed to the view taken by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. Sir Robert Peel some years ago entirely abolished the duty on agricultural insurances; and he could state, from his experience as a director of a large insurance office, that since that time the extent of agricultural insurance had not increased in anything like the proportion which the hon. Gentleman seemed to contemplate as the result of the reduction of the duty on fire insurance from 1s. 6d. to 6d.

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
said, he thought it was scarcely necessary to remind the House that agricultural insurances were of a character which was very soon exhausted, and that all those which were likely to take place had already been effected. The case, however, was altogether different with the profits of commercial industry, which were perpetually increasing. He was sorry to have to add that, not deeming the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be 308 satisfactory, he should feel it to be his duty to divide the House on his Motion. He did not ask the question with a view to its affecting the forthcoming Budget in any way, but in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would consider it sooner or later.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sheridan) had placed a construction upon his right hon. Friend's statement which it did not deserve. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had simply observed that he felt himself precluded from discussing the subject within forty hours of the production of his Budget. Now, that seemed to him to be a very moderate way of putting the case, and as the hon. Member for Dudley desired an expression of opinion on the part of the Government with respect to his Motion, not so much with reference to the present as to future financial years, he could not see why he should be so anxious to press it at once. If the hon. Member pressed the House to a division, he (Mr. Gladstone) thought it ought to be after a discussion in which the right hon. Gentleman should have an opportunity of announcing his sentiments, and therefore he should take the liberty of moving the adjournment of the debate to that day week.

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
assented.