The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-09 00:00:00

to protect their property from fire were subject to fine and
imprisonment. -With regard to the objection that there was
no surplus to enable the Government to get rid of this duty,
he begged to say that there had been a surplus over and over
again since this duty was imposed, and he maintained that no
person had a greater claim to the consideration of Govern-
ment than those persons who showed a desire to protect their
property against accident. If this duty was to be treated as a
tax upon property, let it be dealt with in that light, and he
should be content; but if a tax upon property, it should be
levied equitably, and the property tax collector should
not pass by the shop of the man whose house was unin-
sured, whilst he called at that of the man whose house
was insured. The fact was that the duty was dishonest and
unjust ; and he trusted the right hon. gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer would show the country that he re-
garded the power with which he was entrusted as a trust to
be exercised for the benefit of his fellow countrymen.
Mr. HADFIELD seconded the motion.

Mr. NORRIS said it was usual when an hon. gentleman
came forward with a motion for a remission of taxation, to
appear as the advocate and representative of some oppressed
class of the community, who complained of the oppressive-
ness of a tax, or of the inequality of its incidence. But
they had that night the novel exhibition of the hon. mem-
ber for Dudley asking the house to fetter its independence
by pledging itself to the remission of a tax which was peti-
tioned against by certain insurance offices. He believed it
was the interest of the insurance offices more than that of
the insured that had been brought before the house that
night. He believed that if the Government had introduced
a plan of insurance formed on a firm and satisfactory basis,
which would at once give undoubted security to the assured,
and might bring in a revenue to the Government, those
very persons who now came forward as the advocates of
forethought and prudence would be up in arms against it,
and complaining that Government was about to interfere
with their interests. (Hear.) For all these reasons, he
trusted the house would resist the present proposal.
Alderman SIDNEY supported the motion, contending
that every reduction of duty which had hitherto been made
had recouped the Exchequer, through the immense increase
of trade which it had created. The revenue would not lose
one sixpence by acceding to the proposition of the hon. mem-
ber. It might be a question whether the concession should
be made this year—(hear, hear)—but surely they might
permit the hon. member to bring in,his bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The hon:
gentleman who has just sat down has stated that he never
knew a more simple proposition than this submitted to the
house, and yet it is impossible for its mover to bring it for-
ward in speeches of less than one, two, or three hours in
length. (A laugh.) However that may be, I must apolo-
gise to the house, because I frankly own my opinion that,
as far as argument goes, this is an exhausted subject. I do
the hon. member for Dudley this justice, that I think he has
upon every occasion argued this question with the utmost
ingenuity ; but his ingenuity is totally at fault ; he is com-
pelled to resort to the most extraordinary expedients ; he is
obliged to read to us in full detail a leading article from a
newspaper, and certainly if it had been possible to avert
that necessity the hon. member would have discovered the
means of doing so. Far be it from me to deny that the sen-
timents of that leading article were admirably put; at the
same time it appears to me that leading articles are written
to be read in silence rather than in speeches. (Hear, hear.)
After delivering his own speech the hon. member went on
to deliver mine. I shall make a comment on that by and
by. I only notice it now as a proof of the stieits to which
the hon. member found himself reduced; but I make this
sbservation, that, having delivered my speech, he also de-
livered his own answer to it, and I take the liberty of noting
that, as far at least as I am concerned, the hon. gentleman
has already exercised his right of' reply, and will not be in
a condition to exert it a second time. (Hear, and a laugh.)
It appears to me that my hon. friend the member for Abing-
don has, in his reference to the mode, to the principles, and
to the order in which financial subjects should be treated by
this house, given reasons for the rejection of this motion.
(Hear, hear.) Nevertheless, my respect for this subject, ex-
hausted though it is, obliges me, as the hon. member has
thought fit to state in full detail the important but very
familiar points on which the argument for the repeal of the
tax turns, briefly to advert to them. The hon. gentleman
says that he proposes to reduce the fire insurance duty from
3s. to is., and as that prima facie removes from the revenue
about two-thirds of the amount received from that source
—viz., £1,400,000, what he asks the house to do on the
present occasion is to vote the condemnation of £900,000
of the public revenue. [Mr. Sheridan—£Boo,ooo.] It ap-
pears to me that £900,000 is a fairer statement of two-
thirds of £1,400,000 than £BOO,OOO. The hon. member who
last sat down appeared to think that it was a matter of cour-
tesy to allow the introduction of the hon. gentleman's bill.
I respectfully dissent from that proposition. If it were a
matter of courtesy and nothing else, I am quite sure that I
am speaking for my colleagues as well as myself when I say
that we should be most happy to accord to the hon. gentle-
man that courtesy. But when the nature of a bill does not
in any degree turn upon its structure or form of expression,
when the whole effect and purport of the measure is dis-
tinctly avowed in the title which appears upon the notice
paper, and in the speech of the hon. member who asks leave
to introduce it, it is the ingenuous and straightforward
course for the Government to adopt to state at the earliest
moment its opinion upon the measure. £9110,000, then, is
the sum which the hon. gentleman asks us now, upon the
Bth of March, to determine to deduct from the revenue of
the coming year. He does not make this demand without
holding out to us the most alluring prospect, for he assures
us, upon hie word, that he has the most comfortable belief
that in the course of two or three years the whole of this
sum would be replaced. Nay, more, the hon. gentleman
goes the length of asserting that if we do but accede to his
motion the ultimate effect will be that the tax will realise
three times its present amount. [Mr. Sheridan—" I said it
would produce three Limes the amount of the revenue re-
duced."] No doubt, the hon. member intended to say that
the whole revenue would be replaced. This astonishing po-
sition is one of these specious computations which one man
is as free to make as another. It is difficult to apply a test
to such computations. I heard, however, the hon. member
calculate the value of the shipping of the country. He said
there were 22 million tons of shipping in this country, and
that its value might be placed at £l3 a ton. That being so,
I will give the house a specimen of the trustworthiness of
the calculations on which the hon. gentleman expects that
this £900,000 a-year will be replaced. The 22 million tons of
shipping exist nowhere but in his own imagination. (A
laugh.) Thetis not the amount of the shipping of this
country, but the tonnage that passes in and out of the ports
of this country. [Mr. Sheridan.—" I said so."] The
same vessels may go in and out from five to 50 times in the
course of the year. There are not 22,000,000 tons of ship-
ping in this country, but 4,600,000 tons. Here is the book,
and the hon. gentleman may make his own calculation of
the value of the shipping at £l3 a ton. The difference,
however, is astounding, and it is a bad specimen of the
computations or conjectures of the hon. member. The hon.
member quotes the Post-office, and especially the Money
Order-office. But this is no example, and has nothing to
do with the present case. That was never a tax at all, but
a charge for the transaction of business, and it is a gratuit-
ous assumption that the reduction of that charge was the
cause of the increase of the system. The money-order
system was a perfect novelty. It spread with wonderful
rapidity, and it was a discovery almost equally honourable
with the original system of penny postage. But that re-
duction of charge was only one of the improvements that
produced the effect. But what is the case of the penny
postage in relation to the public revenue ? You made in
1839 an immense reduction in the postage of letters. The
number of letters was stimulated by a variety of means, but
you reduced the postage on letters far more in proportion
than the hon. gentleman proposes to reduce the duty on fire
insurance. We have had that new postal system with its
reductions in use for 22 years, and we have not yet made up
the revenue we lost in 1839. (Hear, hear.) We have
heard it said that the reduction of duties does not impair
the revenue. But can there be a grosser mistake than to
assert as a universal proposition what is only true in
particular cases ? (Hear, hear.) Make your selection
with judgment, take the proper case, and then the reduc-
tion of a duty, nay, I will add the abolition of the duty,
will not always reduce the revenue. Each case, however,
must be judged on its own merits. I will take the hon.
member's own parallel of the Post-office, and I will say
here was a clear proof that while the change was
admirable, while the reduction was enormous, and while the
new system was worked out by the very man who intro-
duced it, we have not yet replaced the revenue that was
taken away 22 years ago, although I admit it was revenue
well sacrificed, and that the benefit was ten times greater
than the money lost. (Hear, hear.) Still, we are now on
fiscal grounds, and that is an issue that must not be changed
or evaded. The hon. member objects to the exemption of
farming stock from the duty on fire insurance. The hon.
member, however, does not come down with an address to
the Crown, or a resolution of this house, affirming that it is
unjust to establish a distinction between farming and other
stock not entitled to take advantage of that exemption. I
recommend the hon. gentleman to make the experiment and
try to get that distinction abolished. But if the Legislature
acted wrongly and rashly in giving away £200,000 by the
exemption of farming stock from duty, is that any reason
why we should give away £900,000 more ? The hon. mem-
ber says there has been a greater increase in the property
assured in France than in this country. Well, no wonder.
The introduction of fire insurance into France is recent.
Here it is 200 years old. As well might the hon. member
suppose that because 12,000 miles of railway were made in
this country last year the same extent will be made every
year for the next 25 years. A grosser fallacy cannot be con-
ceived. The state of the law relative to fire insurance is,
however, very different in Franco. If a particular person
has a house in a block of 12, and if a fire breaks out in his
house and extends to the other 11, the losses of the other
11 are charged on the man in whose house the fire arises.
In this country the risks are not so large, and the propor-
tion between the amount of property and the insurance
is entirely different in the two countries. The hon. gen-
tleman may, from the analogy of the Post-office,
have fair ground for expecting that a gradual and
moderate increase will take place in the event of the reduc-
tion of the duty, but he has no ground for expecting that
we can avert a heavy fiscal loss that may indeed eO7l.
tinue for a number of years. I do not quarrel
VOA thc heR, /minim ou the general queotieP, 1049t4cr