The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-15 00:00:00

FIRE INSURANCES.

ISHERIDAN moved the following resolu-
-I,:4;it, in the opinion of this house, the duty now
tion
eable up
that on
fire insurances
excessive in amount,
chaatrgit prevents insurance, and should be reduced at the
earliest
opportunity." Numerous petitions had been pre-
sented to the house from corporate bodies, merchants,
and others, in support of a change in the amount of duty
chargeable upon fire insurances; and that, together with
numerous communications he had received in reference
the
the
subject, was his reason for bringing it under the no-
the house. After explaining the causes which had
too the delay in his not bringing it forward at an earlier
grounds period, he said he was at a loss to understand on what
Per his motion was to be resisted by the Chancellor of
tie Exchequer. Last session he obtained leave to introduce
a
bill upon the subject: but he did not proceed with it be-
cause be understood it was to be taken up as an instruction
to her Majesty's Government that they should take up the
subject, and propose a reduction of the duty. He urged that
a reduction of duty would have the effect of increasing the
ticsled f
revenue by the great additional amount of property which
would be insured. He considered the duty a mistake. At
present the revenue derived from insurances amounted to
if million, and represented one thousand millions of insur-
able property. He proposed that there should be a present
reduction of is per cent. on all insurable property, and at
the end of five years a further reduction of ls, which would
then leave the duty at Is, and there he proposed to stop.
The annual increase of insurable property in this country
was calculated at £50,000 per annum, but it could only be
said to be a minimum of the annual increase of the wealth of
the country. Taking the impulse which would be given to
insurance by the reduction of the duty, and add to it the
£50,000 annual increase during the first five years, it would
more than compensate the loss of the is. duty. So little
did he consider the loss (if any arose), that a little less
money spent in our costly experiments at Woolwich, and
also in the construction of iron ships, would more than cover
it. In support of his proposition the boon, member referred

to the fact that 100 corporations and 70 chambers of com-
merce had petitioned in favour of the reduction, and con-
cluded by expressing a hope that the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer would eventually see his way to the total abolition
of the duty, which was as much a tax on prudence as an
encouragement to the opposite quality.
Mr. COX seconded the resolution.

Mr. HUBBARD supported the resolution, pointing out
that the Government took one-twentieth of the value of the
property to bo insured before an insurance could be effected.
The tax being a tax upon property, it ought to be uniformly
and equally levied ; whereas, not only was it not levied upon
all property, but it was not even levied upon all property
of the same character. The owner of Tyburnia, Belgravia,
or of a whole county had no occasion to insure—he was his
own insurer. The man obliged to insure was the small
man, to whom a fire was ruin. It was evident, therefore,
that the tax was unequal in its incidents ; the poor were
taxed and the rich went free. The hon. gentleman then pro-
ceeded to analyse the blue book, which had been drawn up
by Mr. Coode, and which had been circulated by the Go-
vernment amongst the members, and he affirmed that that
gentleman had attempted to perpetrate an arithmetical
fraud upon the House of Commons. In conclusion, he sug-
gested that a tax might be imposed on the export of iron,
which would enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
surrender the fire insurance duty.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
although thera were two questions brought under conside-
ration, the real and only one before the house was that,
whatever the merits or demerits of fire insuance might be,
the resolution of the hon. member was one which should be
sanc:ioncd by the house. The hon. member was pleased
to quote a declaration of his on a former occasion, to the
effect that a reduction of this duty, like the reduction of
most other duties, would be followed by an increase of re-
venue ; and on this ground claimed his support of the mo-
tion. He was ready to admit that the question was one
proper to be considered in relation to other questions, with
a view to diminution; but beyond this he could not travel
with the hon member. He had occasion recently to make
a computation of the wealth of the country, and,
although he took for his basis the surest data
he could find, yet he was almost afraid lest some of his cal-
culations would rise in judgment against him. But his
calculations looked contemptible by the side of the hon.
member's figures. A thousand millions sterling was the
hon. member's estimate of the wealth of the country.

Mr. SHERIDAN explained that what he said was, that
the estimate of a thousand millions had been made out, but
he was willing to leave it at two hundred millions.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER resumed—
A thousand millions was at least five more than the first
computation, and he could not help saying that it was
a dangerous practice to quintuple estimates in debate.
With regard to the blue- book, about which so much
had been said by the hon. member for Buckingham
(Mr. Hubbard), he could only say that Mr. Coode had
been directed by Sir George Lewis to examine into the
question, and without pledging himself to every statement
in the book, still he thought the report, upon the whole, had
put the question upon a more intelligible footing. But Mr.
Coode was entitled to some favour, for how could it be pos-
Bible for the hon. member to find materials unless he had
ready to hand the 70 pages of this report ? (A laugh.) The
right hon. gentleman, after referring to the fact that the
duty on fire insurances kept pace with the increase in the
actual wealth of the country since 1816, and showing that
the insurance on farming stock, though not equal to that
upon other commodities, had greatly increased, entered into
the consideration of abstract resolutions, such as that now
proposed, and contended that it was a flagrant breach of the
duty of the house to give a preference to any particular tax
for reduction. The hon. member did not deny the object,
which was that the House of Commons should write down
this tax No. 1 for reduction on the first opportunity.
Against this course he should enter his protest ; for abstract
resolutions invariably interfered with the necessary financial
arrangements of the Government. The hon. gentleman
was known to have more than once made the observation
that private members werealways, in the eyes of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, either too soon oritoo late. (Hear,
from Mr. Sheridan.) He claimed the right to say of certain
measures, that they were too soon or too late. There was
always a present between the past and the future, and when
the house was asked to pass an abstract resolution, they
should never forget the memorable instance of paper duty.
All abstract resolutions were bad, and a motion for reduction
of a particular tax should take place when other financial
questions were before the house. He should lay down
that proposition broadly, without beating about the bush
to move the previous question, and would oppose the mo-
tion, becouse he believed it was his duty to the country to
do so.

After a few words from Mr. HANKEY, and from Mr.
►SHERIDAN in reply,
The house divided. The numbers were—
For the motion
Against it 67
Majority ..

(Cheers.)
The resolution was agreed to.
FELLOWSHIP PORTERS (LONDON.)

Mr. AYRTON moved for a select committee to inquire
into the treatment of the fellowship porters by the corpora-
tion of London. They complained that the £12,000 a year
which had been exacted for years from their earnings to pro-
vide a relief fund when they became poor and distressed,
had been squandered by the Corporation cf London.
Sir J. SHELLEY seconded the motion.

Mr. CRAWFORD opposed the motion. The Corporation
had only exercised certain powers conferred on them by the
Legislature. They had no interest in the matter, and the
hon, and learned member for the Tower Hamlets had un-
duly exaggerated the alleged grievance. The Common
Council had inquired into the matter, but it appeared the
result was not satisfactory to a certain few of the fellow-
ship porters. Of 600 of them 400 had presented a petition
against the inquiry as unnecessary. The dissatisfied per-
sons wished to wind-up the concern and appropriate the
fund amongst themselves.
Mr. BRUCE said it was not a fit subject for inquiry by a
select committee, and opposed the motion. It was only a
dispute between the potters and the corporation, and the
most fitting place for investigation was in a court of justice.
Sir J. SHELLEY soid they had no other tribunal to
apply to than a select committee of that house. He hoped
the motion would be renewed next session.
The motion was then withdrawn.
BANDA AND KIRWEE PRIZE MONEY.

Sir S. NORTHCOTE moved that an humble address
be presented to her Majesty, praying that she would be
graciously pleased to give such directions in the matter of
the Banda and Kirwee booty or prize-money as her Majesty
might be advised by the law officers of the Crown or by
some competent judicial authority. He explained, in the
early part of the evening, when be referred to this matter,
that he had no desire to act discourteously towards the Go-
vernment. The booty arose out of the late mutiny, and tee
question was whether the column under Sir H. Whitelock,
who took those towns was a part of Sir H. Rose's force,
and the latter entitled to share with the former.
Sir N. FARQUHAR seconded the motion.
Lord PALMERSTON said the noble lord the member
for Ling's Lynn (Lord Stanley) had already moved for
papers connected with the case, and he therefore suggested
that the house would wait to see those papers before com-
ing to a decision on the question. His own opinion, founded
upon Lord Clive's memorandum, was that the fund should
be divided between the two columns, inasmuch as he
did not consider General Whitelock's an independent
command.

Ultimately the motion was withdrawn, on the under-
standing that the papers would be shortly laid upon the
table, and that no action would be taken in the matter unti'
the house had full opportunity for consideration and dis
cuss ion.