The Express.
London, England, 1864-04-22 00:00:00

and learned patleman to withdraw Ills notion, and dint*
hie attention to the amendment of the law.

[While the hoe. member was speaking, Gen. Garibaldi
entered the boors, and occupied • rat for a few minutes in
the peers' box, under the gallery.]

The ATTORNEY•GENERAL thought it would be a per-
fectly novel and da•gero•s proceeding for the house to take
upon itself to introdoceame•dmente into the procedurenpoe
election petitions. The care whioh had arise• in 1848 had
been dealt with by legislation, but on that occasion the
error had occurred i• eight oases, besides Chelten-
ham. In this instance legislation would only affect
• single individual, and it might be supposed
to have proceeded from personal or political motives, •
thing above all others to be deprecated. At first he (Sir R.
Palmer) had been inclined to think that a committee might
properly be appointed to consider the state of the law ; but
as there was a bill before the house on the subject, which
might be referred to • select committee, he could see no
advantage in now agreeing to the hoe. member's proposal
even to that limited extent. (Hear, hear.)
_ _ .

Mr. Burr then withdrew hie ►mendment.
THE INSURANCE DUTY.

Os the motion for going into =amino* of ways and
maasti

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said—Sir,
notices basin bees given of motions oa the subject of fire
insurance duty, I wish to make • short statement before
you leave the chair; because in point of fact it is not so
much a question of that duty, sit is of the general princi-
ples upon which financialatatementa shoukl be submitted to
the house, considered, and disposed of. There are two
motions likely to be brought under the consideration of
parliament. One of them is a proposal to be submitted by
the hon. baronet the member for Evesham (Sir H. Wil-
loughby). Am it stands upon the paper that motion does
, not quite fully explain its object; but the hon. baronet
has been good enough to state its intention more fully
to me in private, and I wish to draw the diatioctioo that
exists between it and the motion of which notice has been
given by the bon. member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan). I
understand that the hon. Waist dose sot propose to inter-
fere with the financial arrangements of the government.
He wishes to question the judgment and discretion of the
government in asking the house—being able to propose only
a very limited relief in the matter of fire harnesses—to give
that relief to trade instead of to property. We propose to
five it to stock in trade—the hon. baronet proposes to give
it to houses, buildings, aid furniture. He there-
fore raises the question in a simple form. He
will argue that my proposal is bed; I @hall
take the liberty of arguing that his is bed ; and
whenever the issue is submitted to the hones the committee
of ways and means will have before them a simple question
which can be easily understood, and which it will be in their
power to determine without involving any financial prin-
ciple, or without placing the government in the position of
not being able to defer to the wish of the house, whichever
way their judgment may be gives. The hon. member for
Dudley has given notice of a motion of a very different cha-
racter. The hon. gentleman substantially mays that a re-
duction in the manner proposed is not the mode of redac-
tion contemplated by the house in his resolution of
last year ' • sod that there should rather be • uniform
reductionof Is. per cent. on all property. The intention of
the hoe. gentleman is no doubt to pledge the house to a
vote before going into • committee of ways and means,
which would bind them to make a general reduction on all
property now subject to the duty on fire insurances, as well
es upon stock in trade, to an extent of la per 1004 Now'
I wish to remind the hones of our financial position. Hon.
members will do me the justice to recollect that towards
the end of my speech I distinctly stated that my proposal
was not one that I made in consequence of our isidg-
meet upon what with unquestionable propriet
might have been done, but that it was a propomal
in which we bad gone to the farthest point of our li
for the purpose of meeting what we believed to be a
largely entertained in the house. The house will recollect
that it is the last feather which breaks the beck of the
over-loaded horse or camel ; and the government, which has
gone to the extreme of what it thinks prudence will admit
with reference to the reduction of our finances, is not in a
politica, however it may desire it, to go twice as far as it has
. I stated that upon my present estimate of meows
expenditure, there was • surplus, before making any
reduction, of 2,570,0001. Of that an right to say 500,0004
L not dependent upon any resources which are within our
reach, it being in fact a portion of the taxation of
China, and liable to be affected:by any incidents of disturb-
ance in the condition of that empire. I believe that if it is
in the power of China she will pay it, and also that it will
probably be in her power ; but this item must nevertheless
be considered an element of partial weakness in our financial
position for the year. Again, the house will recollect that
I was told I ought to have provided for the payment of the
second portion of the redemption of the Scheldt dues, the
sum required for which would be 176,0001. We proposed
to make a reduction on sugar to the extent of 1,X30,r1Z1
and another reduction to the extent of 800,0001. on the
Income tax, making • total of 2,130,0004. and leaving a
balsams of 440,0001. Against that it was quite
arguable that the redemption of the Scheldt dues
ought to he'd:anted ; bat the balance as it stood was not
an amount that could be considered an unreasonable one to
leave in our hands; for it ia almost a matter of certainty
that between the month of April and the close of the sa-
sh= demands will be made of some kind or another upon
the public puree. Even since my statement on the 7th
instant new demands have already arisen sufficient rather
materialy, though I cannot state the exact amount, to
affect the limited balance to which I have referred. Still,
with such a balance, and feeling that we might be justified,
in ease of Deoessity, in carrying the Scheldt money over to
sextyear, I did desire to meet the wishes of the house by
offering to them a reduction upon • portion of the fire
insurance duty. The result of that would be a lose
of 192,0001., which, with a small sum lost on lioness
on tea, would reduce our surplus to 7.18,0004
Coder these eircumatitnets, it is proposed that in lieu of

making a reduction of la. 6d. upon hook in trade.we should
make a lets effective reduction, and one less likely to pro-
duce a reproductive action, of Is. upon all deseriptiona of
property insured against fire. I know there is an opines
that home property and furniture would be quite as likely
to become the subject of increased insurance in case of a
reduction of the duty as stock in trade, or even more so. I
dispute that. I think it contrary to experience. But how-
ever it may be, I think it will hardly be alleged that a mi.
form reduction of duty of la. would produce as large •
per onstage of increase upon stock in trade and Moss
property taken together as a reduction of la. 6d.
upon stock in trade dons. Now, sir, I must venture to
impress upon the house this very strong opinion—that it is
quite idle to reduce a duty of this kind by small dnblota. It
was proposed on the first night of the thermals to make a
reduction of 6d. in the duty over the whole. Well, if the
House of Commons wishes to make • distinct present of so
much motley to all who insure, without any view at all to
the extension of insurance, I cannot conceive a better
scheme for that purpose than spreading this 6d. redaction
over all chases of property insured against fire. For my
own part, I am bound to say I have always agreed with the
lion. member for Dudley upon one point at least, that if any
reduction be made it should be a large reduction ; and
I must say, in justice to the honourable gentleman, that
although he now proposes a reduction of Is. in the duty
—out last year, but on the former occasion—the reduction
which he proposed formerly was from 3s. to Is. I think in
that opinion he was right ; and I wish I could have pro-
posed a redaction from Is. to L. upon dock in trade, but
it was not in my power to do so with a due regard to financial
considerations. The reduction to half the duty is the very
smallest to which 1, for one, could be a party to propon g
to the house. The effect of the redaction of la. My upon
all kinds of property would be, as I apprehend, about the
following. I take the duty from fire insurance at 1,700,000/.
One shilling off Is. reduces the amount by 566,000/. I allow
six per amt. for recovery against the reduction of Is., as I
should be disposed to allow 10 per cent. against the
reduction of Is. 6d., and 15 per cent. against the duty of
2a. That recovery of 6 per cent. upon a reduction of Is.
would mitigate the loss upon the revenue by the sum of
34,0004, leaving a loss of 532,0001. That will be the real
amount of revenue surrendered. Bat it would only take
effect for nine months of the present_ year, consequently the
actual lan during the year would be something over
400,0001. Now, inasmuch as I am not able at the present
moment, even without taking any amount of the Scheldt
dues, to place my surplus at more than 200,0001., the ad-
dition to the 192,00 W. which I propose to remit of a sum
exceeding 500,000/. absolutely sweeps away the surplus, and
something more, and makes it entirely impossible for the
government to persevere with the proceeds they have mad,.
If the House of Commons thinks it better to lease the
question &lose, and merely to deal with the stock in trade.
there is a matter for argument ; but as Chancellor of the
Exchequer, although I may regret that a boon should be
withheld, I shall have the consolation of greater security
in my position. If the House of Commons thinks it wiser
and fairer to reduce upon property rather than upon stock
in trade, I shall venture to argue against that propositimi;
but 1 admit that if you do not exteud the area of redaction,
you do not break an elementary principle of finance. But
it Is impoesible for us, with say regard for our own duty,
attar the course we have taken, and the manner in which we
have made our proposals, with a view to meet the presumed
wishes of the house, entirely to sweep away that moderate
amount of surplus which experience, propriety, and decency
require us to preserve. There are mess in which a govern-
ment may go on without a earplzu. Supposing, for example,
you found yourselves, am we found ourselves at the
begin-
niog of the financial year 1862-4 with the estinisted produce
of taxation exactly balancing the estimated charge upon the
country. At that period I Mated to the house, on aspen of
the government, and the house concurred in the view, that
it would not be wise for us to ins any tax upon the
country for the purpose of • surplus, and at a
period when tt was impossible to agnate what the
wants of the country might be, and when therefore it was
better to wait, in order to obtain the revolts of a:peening.
I hope that under the ciscumetanoes we shall not be
asked to adopt that course which I believe, so tsr as I
know, to be unexampled in the history of parliament—
that is, when a government has proposed • provision for the
service of the year, extremely moderate in its character
with regard to the amount of funds ebb& they ask you to
leave in their hand', not for • purpose tor immediate,
but for the general public benefit, that whole surplus
should be swept _ ,away and the Exchequer left to
provide for future domande without the means of making
provision for them. When the government submitted
their proposals they entertained the hope that they would
be acceptable to the bones. With that view they extended
their mansions In the dim:tics I have named, by including
the element al the firs insurance. They bare thus far been
successful, sad the right hos. patients (Yr. Disraeli) has
claimed the satheallip of those proposals. I ea* lab Do

dispute or discuesion with the right hon. gentlem oi as to
that. The government are much too well satisfied to oh.
tain the assent and approval of the house, independently
of distinctions of party, to retard the of these
measuresby any question as to who is entitled to the credit of
their parentage or authorship. But let not the
house be misled into • mistaken anticipation
of the amount of the revenue of the conlieg
year, arising from the fact that the revenue of last
year exhibited a large surplus over the estimated charge.
Mat is a matter which is beyond the control of any path..
meat or say government.lf it be true that last year the
nem.. yielded 2,000,0004 more than the estimate, abd
be also true that in the year 16604 the revenue yielded as
Dearly as possible 2,000,0001. less, perhaps you will say
that is owing to some difference in the principle upon all:, ti
the estimate is made. But there is no such difference. It
was owing to the circumstances of the trade and indurtry of
the country. It is owing, above all, to that grertcoctini-
stance of • good or bed harvest, which operates moat
powerfully upon the state of the revenue. What does a
good harvest mesa? It means this—that some 20, .;0. or
40 millions of agricultural wealth are put into the Lids of
the agricultural producers, which in the cue of a laid har.
vest would not be there. Not only that, it means that
moderate prices rule throughout the country for all articles
of first necessity, and the money saved upon these articles u
spent, in a great part, upon duty-paying commodities. That
is the reason why the revenue of Let year has been so pad,
and why the revenue of the latter part of that year au
better than the first. The house has the power of app3ii.t.
jug • committee to consider these estimates, if it shmdd be-
lieve them to be insufficient; but, io the absence of
any such proposal, I must stand upon these estimate.;
and I take it for granted the house will
stand upon them too. It is impossible to conceive a pear.
ties more dangerous than that, upon vague and p.ml
allegations, not reduced to points or particulars, not resting
upon any responsible authority, that the country is likely to
be prosperous, the house should deprive a goverinueut of
an extremely moderate surplus set aside for the revenue of
the year. Sir, I beg leave to move the resolution of which j
have given notice.
Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN said he agreed with • great maoy
of the right hoe. gentleman's figures, but he differed very
much from his conclusions, He accepted the right hon.
gentleman's interpretation of the object of his resolution,
that instead of a reduction of Is. 6d. upon stock.intrade
there should be s uniform reduction of ls..uponandescriptioes
of property. But he had evidence from insurance othrea
and others that it would be impossible to carry out the pro-
posal of the right hop. gentleman without incurring con-
siderable expense, which would reduce the proposed henefit
to very little, if at all, more than the proposed bene%t
which his reduction of Is. involved. His
(Mr. :Shanties's)
proposal would not encroach upon the financial aringe.
meats of the budget. The right hon. gentleman said truly
that he had • revenue from this source of 1,71.10,000/.
third of that revenue, or 566,000 f. *rote from stock in
trade. the right hon, gentleman proposed to reduce that by
ems-half, b proposing Is, lid. instead of 3s. That uoie
to 283,000/. He then proposed to deduct from
that 70,0004, the amount of the fourth quarter if
the year. That reduced the amount to 213 0O,!.
The right hon. gentleman then suggested that this reduction
would canes an increase of 10 per cent., which would pro.
duos 21,0001., and bring up the amount to 192,000/. Now
he (Mr. Sheridan) proposed to reduce the 3s. duty by Is.
over the whole produce. One-third of the whole was
566,0001. If they deducted from that one-quarter. or
141,0001., they had 424,000/. Now how was that 424,010'.
to be provided for' First, there was a natural increase of
duty amounting to 10,00004 Then there was the proposed
iocreass, which the right hoc. gentleman suggested of 10 per
out., amounting to 50,000/., and the increase of 10 percent,
upon the reduced amount was 42,0004 Then some des-
criptions of insurance offices, which the righthou. gentleman
had not taken into account. paid 21,000/. for the collection
of revenue. That made 330,0004 or near that sum. Thus
' the right hon. gentleman would, have nearly 100,00 of
unappropriated balance, if the house made the concession M.
volved in this resolution. He (Mr. Sheridan) would tot
lean upon the argument that the house could not rely upon
in increased revenue ' • he contended that the right hon.
gentleman had enough to concede this demand, and if he had
not enough, whose fault was it' It was not the fault of
the house nor his (Mr. Shendan's) ; because for
two succeeding undoes • reeolution had been
passed, calling upon the right hoe. gentleman to
make some provision for the reduction of this duty.
The right hon. gentleman based his calculations on the
usumption that two-thirds of the duty would Le derived
from the insurance on property and one-third from stuck
in trade. Well might the right hon. gentleman say this
was conjecture, for it was difficult to know where he bad
got his facts from. Assuredly, the insurance offices could
not have given him the information, for meetings of that
interest had recently taken plans, at which it was urged
that they weld not uoderstsod the Chancellor of the
Exchequer's definition of stock is trade. Not only were
insurance offices in perplexity on this point, but how was
the definition applied to the various elements which entered
into the business of trade, such as the plate-glass
fronts and ornamental fittings of shops, carts,
horses, and harness? Messrs Pickford's vane, an-
oordiag to this theory, would be stock in trade ; and
merchants might say that their ships were stock in trade;
certainly their luxurious fittings, their linen and wine mint
be so. Again, and with stronger reason, the rolling stock
of railways was stock in trade. The right hon. gentleman
left machinery, upon the importance of which the right hon.
fiezitmissoth;
last year,
Drcis,
quite in
t; (Sirtl lurch. Ph.4lr)
worse that the proposition of the Chapman°, of the Exche-
quer should be practicable than impracticable, for it would
lead to upcoming vexation and annoyance if carried out.
What could have induced the right hon. gentleman to
make the distinction he had was • difficult to under-
stand. Two reasons had bees ' The first was the
doubt as to the reproducing power of the duty. All great
writers and statists on this 'object were, however, quite the
other way, and there was overwhelming authority in sup-
port of the view that a moderate reduction of the duty
would he followed by • replacement of revenue. In
support of his (the hon. member's) case he would submit
the illustration that eighty par cent in the insurance upon
houses and property had yet to be insured. The only
=who supported the view of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer was Mr. Goode, the counsel to the Exchequer.
The next argument of the right hon. gentleman rested upon
the smumptlon that taxes on trade and industry replaced
themselves much more sully than taxes upon property.
It was quite amusiag to hear the Chancellor of
the Exchequer say that the amused taxes os
buildings and farms were buss on property.
Why, the erased times were compulsorily levied on all
ascertained property in the country. If those taxes were
reduced it was idle to suppose that the memo would be
benefited by it, but the tax in dispute was • direct tax on
income. It was no more • tax upon property than it was a
tax upon fiddlesticks. In feet, the tax was nee upon the
act of insuring, and the parallel attempted to he set up by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer utterly failed. The right
hot. gentleman, most iafelicitoualy, to cure one evil created
another, for as a set.off to the exemption in the use of
farming stock, he proposed a redaction of one half upoo
stock in trade. The- public had heretofore looked with
jealousy upon this exemption of farming stock, but they
now began to understand that the ootuita7 gentlemen sod
the agricultural intrust were their but friends in supporting
a universal measure for the reform of the tax in question.
The hon. member coacloded by moving the following rasa
lotion:—" That, is the opinion of this house, the reduction
of the fire duty is the manner proposed by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, is not the mode of reduction contemplated
by the resolution of the holies ppaarreedd last session on this
subject, and that as uniform ndsetioa of Is. per cent. on all
descriptions of properly liable to the mid duty would be
more acceptable to the country."
Mr. HADFIELD seconded the amendment.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHNITER maid that a
great part of the usage/eta of the hoe. member for Dudley
were in favourof the motion of the bow. baronet the mm-
' her for Evenhani, but were not relative to the question before
the house, which was a financial gnostic.. The reel points
for consideratioa were two. The hoc. member said first
he did not take away the means of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and that he would have sufficient means remain.
ing and, secondly, he said, • If he has not got means remaio•
ins, whose fault is it?' /be meth ingot that was, that the go-
vernment had done wrong in proposing to reduce the income
tax from 7d. to 6d., and ought to have reserved that moody
for • large and liberal reduction of the fire insurance duty.
That, no doubt, was a propesitioo in favour of which much
might be said, but the arguments against it preponderated.
U, however, the hon. member were in earnest be might to
have moved, instead of the little resolution he had placed
on the table, one to the effect that the government had dace
wrong in proposing to reduce the income tax from 7d. to od..
and that in lieu of thatreduction the fire insurance duty should
iss reduced toushilling. Upon the part of the government he
said that sugar bad the first claim, aad the income tax the
second. (Hear, bear.) With rapid to the fire insurance
duty, they had made a proposal in order to meet the views
of the house, and if ft were a bad one, let them refuse it and
accept the proposal of the hon. karwet it they thought it
beget ; but the hoe. member for Dudley proposed to sweep
away every wreak and shred of the surplus which, out of de•
femme to the wish of the home, they were compelled to re-
tabs, and to land them in the position of Amadei bogprs.
Hi motion was aot so much a monen of fire insurance
duty as • motion of finesse, and it entirely
destroyed the application for this present year of those prin-
ciples which had uniformly been enforced with regard to the
balance of revenue and expenditure, and consequently the
government could not scads to it. (Beer, hear.) If the
government proposal wan bad let it be rejected ; if it could
be improved let that be done ; but do not let the aim and
pretext of improving that proposal be made the excuse for
violating those wider financial principles which were
essenthd for the good administration of the country and the
onaintenomos of its integrity. (Cheers.)
Mr. HUBBARD rase amidst loud cries of " divide," and
oa stating that be would not detain the house more than a
quarter
leuehter othat be resumed
an hoar,
his he was grseeat.eted with such • burst of
Yr. DISRAELI thsught that the prised* laid down in
the amendment of the boa. gentleman, as distinguished
from the proposition of the government, was the right prin.
ciple ; but be confessed that he bad to consider first of all the
resolution which the house had already arrived at on the
=sad he bad to remember the difficulties which be
existed about taxing stock ia trade. Though the
Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think those difficul-
ties light, they weighed much with him ; but at
the aims time he entirely speed with the Chan-
cellor of the Exehiquer that after the anemia statement
of the government and the opinion expressed by the boo"
aoallsoolisa milt to be mods is that ousegoost. (" Ohs

ob."aod " Hear, hear.") They ought to confine themselves
to
approoriatiog the sum, which it was undentood was in f
the palmation of the house, in dismember facet caknistal
to carry out the views which the house had adopted, and
though he should vote for the amendment of the hoe. gen-
tlemen in cam that was carried, he should mom when it
became • substantive motion that the wade " Is. per amt."
be omitted.
After • few words from Mr. T. Baring, Sir & Hartle:ate.
sir H. Willoughby, and the Speaker as to the form of
putting the smeedment,
The house divided—
For going into committee
Against
Me Sheridan's emeortreeot was consequently lost.
The house then resolved itself into committee.
Po the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the FaCHE-
qI" ER, "that in lieu of the duty now chargeable in respect
of tire insurances, the duty chargeable upon insurances on
goods, wares, and merchandise, being stock in trade, or upon
any ma:hoary, implements, fixtures, and utensils used for
the purpose of rotnufacture or weak. Mall be la. &L for
every NW. i
Sir H. WrITITGHBY moved as an amendment to
lame out the wards "goods, wares, and merchandise, being
stock in trade, or upon any machinery, implements,
natures, or utensils used for the purpose of any maculae.
tare or trade," and to insert "houses and buildings." He
stud if there was to be • reduction of the duty, he thoagbt
houses and buildings should have the preference over stock
in trade. Houses, besides paying the house duty to the
government, bore • greet portion of the burden of local
taxation, which amounted to near 20,000,0001. • year. He
believed that Louses and buildings paid four-tenths of the
local taxation. Then if it were a question how they were
to recover the amount of duty remitted, the opinion of the
best authorities was that the largest amount of insurable
property not insured was houses and
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said what
the hon. baronet proposed was a better division of
the sum of from 190,000/. to 200,000/., which it was
proposed to remit this year on the duty on fire insurances.
Now, first of all the hon. baronet's premed would have to be
adjusted to the finances of the country, and there were two
ways of doing that. One would be to postpone the remis-
sion, the other would be to reduce the amount of the re-
misioo. With regard to the postponement of the
re-
moors the house should recollect that already his (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer's) proposal was only to take
three fourths of it this year, so that the full price of the
remission would not be felt till next year, but if he were to
take off la rid., and apply the reduction of Is. 6d. to twice
the amount of insurances, then it was evident that his post.
ponetueut must be of • different character. It would not
be possible to make the reduction till next year. It would
be said with perfect justice, that wishing to do • popular
thing by their constituents, and not having the money to do
it out of the resources of the present year, which alone were
properly at their dimmest, they voted the reduction and got
the credit of it by postponing the burden till next year.
That would be dealing with the finances of next year, a mode
of proceeding which he thought fundamentally objection-
able. He knew of no one in which that had been doom
If that mode of proceeding were objectionable, the only
other mode of remission would be, instead of taking Is. 64
off stock in trade that be mast halve it sad take 98. off
stock in trade and 9d. off houses and buildings. Now,
ought that proposal to be adopted or ought it not! The boes
member for Dudley fairly quoted the insurance offices against
him. They were against him on this point, that they very
much preferred a uniform duty to • differing duty.
Both his proposal and the proposal of the hon.
were for a differing duty, and they consequently
loth fell foul of the insurance offices. Then, again, the
ton. baronet raised the question about the definition of
stock in trade. No doubt there were certain points, not
very numerous, that had to he considered on that questioe,
as to tenants' fixtures and landlords' fixtures, and as to
occupations that were trading occupations and those that
were not. But difficulties of that kind would operate uader
the proposal of his boo. friend as well at under his. If his
proposition were adopted everybody would prove that he
was a trader ; but if the hon. baronet's proposition were
adopted everybody would prove that be was not a trader.
The boo baronet said there was nothing so mach burdened
as houses and buildings. He was not quite sure about that.
What was his hon. friend's opinion on the succession duty?
Dal he think that the succession duty was more severe than
the legacy duty or the package duty! The somession duty
levied on the some pee osotage as the probate duty ; but
whereas the legacy duty was levied on the capital in full,
the succession duty wee levied on the life interest, and
houses and buildings did not fall ander the legacy duty but
under the successioe duty. Freehold houses were exempt
till the succession duty act was passed. They were brought
by the succession duty under the operation of the charge.
but at the same time leasehold houses were taken out of
the category of property liable to legacy duty, and were
made liable to succession duty. Therefore they had a large
concession granted to them in being liable to the me-
mo on duty, which was light as compared with
the legacy duty, which fell upon moveable property.
Was it tree, however, that nothing bad been done for
hones and buildings' Houses and buildings were liable
some time ago to the brick duty. That had been entirely re-
pealed, and the duty on foreign and colonial timber bad been
redu,ol from an enormous to • nominal rate. He doubted
also whether there was any elms in the country, professioaal
men only excepted, to whom the reduction of the lemon
tax this year was so acceptable as to the owners of houses
and buildings, especially with respect to the owners of in-
ferior tenements, upon whom the income tax preened with
the greatest severity, through the payments being made
upon the gross rents, of which 25 per mot
was frequently expended in repairs. The question was
really between • reduction of la bd. on stock in trade and
Od, in houses and buildings. And here he fell beck upon
his old doctrine, that it was mach better not to tooth a tax
at all if they were not able to make a liberal reduction ; that
it was better to give a telling reduction upon • smaller part
than an inappreciable reduction upon a large part. (Hear,
bear.) The boo. baronet had said that in the use of stock
in trade the subject was generally folly insured, while
houses and buildings were only insured in part. No Omni-
ries. however, that be (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
had been able to make showed that there woe • larger
uncovered margin in the come of houses than
stock in trade, but rather the reverse. In certain
trades and amoopt aortae desaijitioas of traders the
stock was not fully insured. S ery large traders in
the higher trades were folly insured, and for the reason
that when • Ire came upon their stock it spared very little,
whereas in the case of houses there was nearly always
something of volute left, and in the case of furniture • good
deal of it was commonly carried out. People made allow-
ance for what they expected to save, and would do so if
there was no duty at all. In the metropolitan district,
from the beet information he had been able to obtain
from the insurance offices and the fire brigade, it appeared
that out of 1,746 properties affected by fire in 1863 there
was only information with respect to 750, of which 682 were
insured and 73 uninsured. With respect to the insurance of
matron, there were known to be insured 963, sad uninsured
517. As to the unknown cases, the best estimate that could
be made showed that about one-half were insured. Sup-
posing the other half to be ell uninsured, the effect would
he that 500 would have to be added to the number he
had mentioned of buildings insured, which would bring
the total up to 1,182, cad 500 would have also to be
added to the number insured, which would thee nand
at 7.73. With respect to the margin in the cam of nook is
trade, the largest traders were commonly fully insured,
bat in the smaller trades the information he bad obtained
Went to show that traders were deterred from

by the amount of the duty. He amid mot concur
with the hooourable baronet the& houses were unfairly
dealt with. He did not say that they were too
fairly dealt with, but our system of taxatioa, with all
the alleviations that had been given, still bore with quite as
much bantams as it ought upon the consumer, and espe-
cmlly the poorer classes of the people. In an interview he
had recently had with the boo. member for Bradford, is the
Presence of the representatives of the Associated Chambers
of Commerce, the hoo. member stated to him th►t from his
own :uowledge he was convinced the reduction of the ditty
to Is. would pay itself in the cosine of three or four years.
lie .the Chancellor of the Exchequer) desired to move
charge, from trade, but be denied that taking • tax off
trade was a concession to a particular class. When. t►x was
taken off trade an obstruction was removed from the chanoels
which united production and oonsumptioo, and it was not the
interest of the trader only, but of the whole oomismaity,
that these channel/ should be free. (Hear, hear.) This was
the broad ground upon which be thought his proposal ought
to be supported. He thought that a reduction of Is. 6d.
was better than a reduction of ffd.; bat still he did sot stand
upon that alone, but upon the ground that, though a relief
to houses and buildiogs might be • very desirable thing, still
it was • relief to a class, while relieving trade was not re-
lieving a clam, but all those who consumed the article that
the trade produced.
Sir F. GOLDSMI.D said that as far as he could learn the
average rate of insurance upon stack in trade was consider.
:Lir higher thee the average rate of insurance upon houses,
and a reduction in the former case was far lees likely to
rim.lace an increase of iasurance than a like reduction in the
latter.

11r. HUBBARD was disappointed at the way in which
the decision of the holies upon the subject of are insurance
•Llts had been treated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
his budget. Reductions of the income tax, and of the
duties. which had not been naked for, were proposed,
1... when they oame to the insnranoe duty, on which a distuict
o.,:sion had been pronounced by the bonne, the proposal
1, de was nothing but • delusion soda snare. Stork in trade
v. subject to considerably higher rates than other
Property, varying from as. in the best docks aod swam-
i `.es to 21s. in the warehouses generally round London.
.1,-, the medium charge, and it would be seen how corn.
,r.tively unimportant a consideration was the whole 3s.
v charged by the government. But whatever money
ssa spent in the insurance of stock in trade was but one
the elements of the price paid by the consumer, and that
so, traders did not abstain from insuring. The
c. ~f stock in trade was not therefore so powerful as
t!•„t of houses and buildings, in the insurance of which :4.
paid to the government for the permission to lay out
• v hereon in the clue of stock in trade 3s. only was
f,ul upon an outlay of at might be 21s. That the tax upon
was a tax upon property was one strong
,u,lemnation of the proposal of the government for a tax
property ought to be au equitable charge upon all
I ierty ; but this tax applied only to such property as
insured. And the houses insured were not the houses
~s f• the rich, for the rich could afford not to insure, and with
‘!..osive property it was cheaper not to jostles. He had
•-• .11 recently that A noble duke had issued orders to his

'A+ t..alKtain.from making any insurances on his pro-
-I,rtv, in Collie;ueoce of which a policies were cancelled,