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

THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.

Mr. MILNES moved for a select committee to inquire
into the constitution and efficiency of the present diplo-
matic service of the country. The hon. gentleman ob-
served that the part he had taken in the committee on the
consular service had been but of a secondary character;
and that it was to the ex-member for Stafford (Mr. Wise)
that the house was mainly indebted for the investigation
and the settlement of that question. In the course of the
inquiry the committee often came upon questions affecting
the diplomatic service ; and he had formed the opinion that
a similar investigation into the diplomatic service would be
a fitting corollary to that which had already taken place.
The subject was not altogether a new one. In 1850 a com-
mittee upon official salaries was appointed; and the large
range of its labours included the diplomatic service of the
country. In their report they recommended a complete
revision of our diplomatic establishments. They suggested
that the embassies in Paris and Constantinople should be
replaced by first class missions—instead of which, however,
new embassies had been established in Vienna and St. Pe-
tersburg. Another recommendation of the committee, that
a central German mission should be formed, in lieu of the
present missions at Frankfort, Hanover, Stuttgardt, and
other cities. Next they recommended the union of the
mission at Florence with some other Italian one. That
suggestion had been complied with, thanks not to the Fo-
reign-office, but to the progress of historical events which
promised to give them a united Italy. Then the committee
recommended that no diplomatic salary should exceed
£5,000 a year exclusive of any allowance for rent. He did
not believe that that had been complied with. Lastly, the
committee urged a general revision of the diplomatic esta•
blishments, observing that in some cases missions might be
united, and in others consuls or consular agents might be
substituted for missions, and a considerable saving of ex-
pense might thus be effected. He believed that since 1850
great alterations had taken place, and he thought it would
be very desirable that the country should know what they
were—should have an opportunity of judging whether they
were in the direction which had been recommended, or, if not,

what were the reasons assigned by different heads of the Fo-
reign-office for not having carried out more effectually the
report. He was inclined to think that the recent changes had
on the whole increased the efficiency of the service ; and it
might be useful that the public should know what had already
been done in the way of reform. Since 1850 the electric tele-
graph had greatly tended to alter the relations between
our different missions and embassies and the Foreign-office.
He believed that now despatches were written as much
with a view to be laid before Parliament as to give instruc-
tions to our ministers abroad. The attention of the com-
mittee would be well bestowed upon the large unpaid por-
tion of the diplomatic rervice, which was quite an anomaly.
At present young men remained from four or five to ten or
twelve years attached to our diplomacy without receiving
any consideration in the shape of salary or emolument. He
doubted whether that was good either for the public service
or for the career of those young men themselves. The ten-
dency of opinion was now to connect responsibility with
emolument ; and to doubt whether any man would give the
best of his mind and of his talents, unless be received some-
thing solid in the shape of pay. (Hear, hear.) The heads
of missions had frequently told him that under thepresent
system it was difficult either to enforce a due amount of
discipline, or to exact a sufficient amount of labour. There
were no doubt some missions of which the younger mem-
bers were regarded almost as members of a family. He
might particularly instance the mission of a nobleman, now
no more (Lord Westmoreland), who was always looked up
to by those under him as a father and a friend. Another
question that deserved consideration was whether it might
not be possible for the heads of our missions abroad to have
more frequent personal communication with the Foreign-
office. He felt that by living too much abroad:a man might
lose, without knowing it; his power of estimating the force
of public opinion at home, and his appreciation of English
character. For these reasons he (the hon. gentleman) was
desirous to see a committee appointed ; and he had no doubt
that the result would be anything rather than to make us
ashamed of our ministers abroad. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DUFF seconded the motion. It appeared to him
that there were many German courts in which diplomatic
agents might be appointed of the rank which was so use-
fully filled by our minister at Rome. In that way they
would obtain a field for the exertions of younger men in
which the Foreign-office would be able to judge of their
merits. In some countries there was a considerable diver-
sity between ambassadorial and consular opinion ; and he
suggested that a system of periodical visits to the consul-
ships might be established with great advantage. Although
it was natural and proper that the younger members of
missions :should mix in the, fashionable society of the
place in which they lived, there was another society in
which they would enjoy greater means of learning that
which
they Heacquaintancemade
this
remark h
w ot f
Ber-
lin because that
oughthahadto know.one personal
capital ; but he believed that it applied with still greater
force to Vienna and St. Petersburg. Last year he had
proposed as an experiment that one appointment should
every year be thrown open to competition. He was aware
that plan did not meet with much favour, but he thought
that if the candidates were restricted to persons educated at
the universities or the public schools no possible harm could
result.

Mr. B. COCHRANE said he hoped her Majesty's Govern-
ment would concede the appointment of this committee,
which he thought had been proposed at a very appropriate
time. One reason was the entire change which had taken
place in the diplomatic) service, owing to the system of pub-
lic competition by examination having been introduced. He
thought qualities were requisite for the diplomatic service
which it was quite impossible to bring out by examination.
He hoped under the new system the system of unpaid at-
taches would be done away with. He thought that to offer
to the new class of candidates for diplomatic service the
prospect of employment as unpaid attaches would be very
unjust to them. He thought that the whole of the diplo-
matic service was an extremely ill-paid class of public
servants.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he could hardly
consent to this committee without saying that he must
hold himself quite unpledged as to its results. He was
sorry to say at once that he should be very unwilling to
sanction a larger amount of expenditure upon the diploma-
tic service. He was sorry to say of late years it had been
more and more the practice of the House of Commons,
instead of leaving to the Crown the payment of the public
services, rather to consider the means by which the payment
of the public service should be increased. (Hear, hear.)
What he should say was that the diplomatic corps was an
extremely useful one. The information obtained from
them was generally most reliable and valuable. As his hon.
friend had observed, considerable changes had been in-
troduced in consequence of the use of the electric wire
for the transmission of messages and answers. That,
however, did not remove the necessity for the employment
of messengers and despatches, in order to convey the results
of long conversations between Ministers and courts. The
question of unpaid attaches was a very important one ; but
he could not agree that the condition of unpaid attaches
was quite so bad as his hon. friend had represented. He
said that these attaches served sometimes for 10 or 12 years
without pay. But he (Lord J. Russell), on looking over
the list the other day, could not find more than a few who
had served for four or five years without pay. He believed
that his hon. friend would find the arrangements at the
Foreign-office for the transaction of business very complete
—in fact, almost perfection, and that the manner in which
business was carried on, without of course any reference to
the immediate duties of the Secretary of State, presented
.operations which were perfectly satisfactory. Everything
was in order ; there was no confusion, and in agreeing to
the committee, he. (Lord J. Russell) did not admit that there
were any abuses which required investigation. Still, from
time to time improvements might be made, and be was WY

ready that a committee of the house should examine into
every part of the diplomatic service. He certainly could not
agree that a report of the committee on the salaries of pub-
lic officers was auy authority upon this or
_upon any, other
subject. He thought the committee had done its work very
hastily, and with regard to the diplomatic service, he found
that all its inquiries on this subject had been completed in
the course of a few hours.

The question having been put from the chair,
Mr. HENLEY said he wished to point out to the house
the state into which it was getting by reason of these mo-
tions. This was the third branch of the public service which
was being placed in a kind of trust. The Admiralty had
two nursing mothers, and the Cclonial department had to
be inquired into as to the enormous military outlay in our
colonies.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—There
is also the income tax.

Mr. HENLEY said he was very glad the right hon. gen-
tleman had suggested another. He (Mr. Henley) did not
think that its inquiries wore on all fours with the question
of considering the efficiency of a branch of the public ser-
vice. It would be difficult to find any one year in which
three branches of the public service, with the consent of the
Executive Government, have been made the subject of pub-
lic inquiry. All he could say was, he hoped the public ser-
vice would be benefited ; but he must say he had some
doubt upon the subject, more especially as regarded
the case of public servants, who brought their complaints
before committees instead of applying to the heads of their
own departments—the Ministers of the Crown.
The motion was then agreed to.
FIRE INSURANCE.

Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN, after presenting petitions from
eight places for the reduction of the duty on fire insurance,
moved, pursuant to notice, to bring in a bill to reduce the
duty on fire insurances. It was not necessary for him to
trouble the house at the same length as on former occasions,
for he thought the subject was never so well understood as
at present. This was not an abstract proposition, such as was
recently condemned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
but a definite proposal. There was a society in existence
whose professed object it was to sweep away this tax alto.
gether. That was not his object; he wished to show how
the tax might be modified, and yet how the supposed defi-
ciency in the revenue would be supplied. His proposition
was to reduce the duty from 3s. to ls. At the same time he
was satisfied that the country would not consent to this
reduction without being assured that the deficiency would
be made good. The income arising from fire duty amounted
at the present moment to £1,400,000. His proposal would
affect two-thirds of that revenue. One class of insured pro-
perty was that which was called "extremely hazardous."
The ordinary or prudential insurances were effected on
household goods, ships and their cargoes, and property of
that kind. It was out of this class of property, he thought
the deficiency of £BOO,OOO would be made up. Not only
would the number of insurances be largely increased as a
permanent business, but a great number of insurances would
at once take place, which were now ready to be carried out
in expectation of the reduction of the tax. He ventured to
predict that before two years had passed' the amount of
business would be increased threefold. He need not refer
to the well-known case of the Post-office, but he would men-
tion the instance of Post-office orders. From a pamphlet
published by Mr. Riseborough Sharman, entitled " The
Duty on Fire Insurances erroneous in Principle and injuri-
ous in Practice," it appeared that since the reduction of
the charges on Post-office orders, in 1841, the number of
applications had increased beyond all antioipation. It
might be asked whether there was any margin in the
event of a reduction taking place to make up the antici-
pated deficiency. That was a very natural question. In
1845 the national property was estimated at £2,200,000,000,
and now amounted to £3,800,000,000. Reducing that by
£800,000,000, as representing the national debt, there
would be £3,000,000,000 left as representing the personal
property of the country. The real property of the country,
according to Mr. Porter, could not be very accurately
ascertained. But it was estimated that the value of the
real property in 1842 was 2,382 millions, exclusive of Ire-
land, and if they added for the 18 years which had since
elapsed 600 millions, it would bring up the actual value of
the real property of the country to 3,000 millions. A little
work called the "Financial Register" fully confirmed
that view of the case. Then taking the personal property
into consideration, he found that there was about 4,000
millions which might be fairly termed insurable property.
,The increase in the value of that property had been chiefly
in the shape of buildings upon land ; but, besides, there
had been a great deal of additional property created by the
reclamation of land. In Ireland alone, of late years, there
had been an increase in the value of property from that
source to the extent of £3,000,000, and a great deal of land
had also been reclaimed in England. It would be idle for
him to attempt to give anything like an accurate represen-
tation of the value of the national property of this country,
all that he could do was to give some approximation drawn
from Mr. Porter's able work upon that subject. Perhaps,
so far as regarded the increase in personal property, one
criterion would be the vast increase in the exports and
imports within the last few years. Quoting from the
figures in a valuable little work upon this subject by Mr.
Leone Levi, he found that the whole amount of exports in
1855 was 260 millions, whereas in 1857 they were no less
than 334 millions, being an increase of no less than 74
millions. The number of vessels which cleared out that
year were no less than 97,500, with a tonnage of 22,300,000
tons, and if they estimated the value of the
tonnage on the basis which Mr. M'Culloch had
given, namely, £l3, it would give a gross value of
no less than £289,900,000, and he would add to that the
£600,000,600 which he estimated was the increase in per-
sonal property. They must remember that that was almost
all of it insurable property. The practice had hitherto been,
with reference to ships, to insure them during the time
they were loading and unloading, and to charge so much
per month on the insurance. He was prepared to say that
if this daty was reduced it would very materially increase
the insurance of that particular class of property. At pre-
sent a great many shipowners were their own insurers, in-
cluding moat of the shipping companies, and he attributed
that fact almost entirely to the heavy duty now charged
upon fire insurances. This amount of national wealth,
which he had estimated at £6,000,000,000, was small com-
pared with the national wealth of France. There existed in
France 180 milliards of insurable property, amounting to
£7,200,000,000 of English money. That was exclusive of
real propetty. In this country a proportionate increase of
insurance was by no means equal to that of France. In 1835
the amount insures in this country was £500,000,000. In
1855 it had only £800,000,000. The revenue derived from
fire insurance in 1815 was £1,062,000. In 1860 it was
£1,100,000 or thereabouts. In England the habit of in •
curing had existed for 180 years. In France it had existed
for only 34 or 35 years. But whilst we had only insured
1,000 millions out of 4,000 millions, France had insured
2,200 millions. Might it not therefore be fairly argued that
in this commercial country there was some reason for this
non-insurance of property ? (Hear, hear.) The Chancellor
of the Exchequer had argued that fire insurances were not
likely to increase, because no great increase had followed
the exemption of agricultural produce. But the actuary of
the Guardian Insut ante-office had shown that in the first
two years after the change the insurance on farming stock
more than doubled ; that in the following five years it has
increased 80 per cent, more ; and in the next five years, 20
per cent. more. (Hear, hear.) He now came to the un-
just character of the tax, and would instance the case of
a society consisting of 1,000 members, proposing to
insure each of its members to the extent of £l,OOO. Sup-
posing them to have contributed sufficient in premiums to
meet the emergency, before they could hand over the
amount the Government would step in and demand £2,000
for du' y. (Hear, hear.) This was neither more nor less than
a fine on those who desired to take care of that which they
had earned by their labour. It was a bonus to the public
not to insure. On what principle could the Government
claim £2,000 from a society before permitting them to pay
£l,OOO, which was legitimately due ? If the profits of a
company amounted to 20 per cent. the Government stepped
in and took 1,000 per cent. on those profits for doing nothing
beyond restricting its operations. (Hear, hear.) If the
Government were anxious to destroy the national property
they could not pursue a course more calculated to effect
their object. Insured property to the extent of £1,000,000
was annually destroyed by fire, whilst the amount of un-
insured property annually burnt reached £5,000,000. If
tho tax was viewed as a property tax the intentions of the
Government might be understood. In that case let it be
properly assessed. Property which was insured paid its
share of the property tax in the same way as property that
was uninsured, and he did not see why the provident
insurer should be doubly taxed in respect of his property.
(Hear, hear.) Why were the tenants of rich men ex-
cluded ? Why should agricultural property be exempt from
the tax more than any other property of the country ?
(Hear.) He looked upon the tax as a second property tax,
unjustly, and he might also say dishonestly administered.
A great deal had been said on former occasions of the
absence of petitions on the part of the leading insurance
offices of the country; but this evening a petition had
been presented from all the leading insurance offices pro-
testing against the present duty. And this circumstance
had the more force because the insurance offices derived a
large income from the discounting of the large sums which
they paid as duty. They could, therefore, be moved by no
other consideration than this, that if the duty was reduced
their business would be largely increased, and their revenue
greatly augmented. If that was the view of the insurance
offices, the very same consideration should also weigh with
the Government. This was the stronzest argument which
he could adduce in favour of the motion which he had to i
submit to the house. The right hon. gentleman would no
doubt urge two objections to that motion—first, that the
motion was not submitted to the house by a member of the
Government ; and second, that he had not the means to
enable him to assent to the proposal. With regard to the
first objection he had to observe, that since the last war no
Government had attempted to correct this evil, and that all
great reforms had not proceeded from the Government, but
had peen forced on Government by independent members
and by public opinion. But the Government had gone fur-
ther in this very matter, for when a French companymade
an attempt to enable the people of this country to insure
their property without payment of the duty, the paternal
Government into; ,red uud induced Parliament to pass the
19th and 20th Vic., by which those rash persons 09 dare

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, ss 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 entrust .?d 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 incidette't; 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 far 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 corn-
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 straits to which
the hon. member found himself reduced; but I make this
abservation, 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. Amember 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 dutyfrom
3s. to Is., and as that prime facie removes from the revenue
about two-thirds of the amount received from that source
£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—ZBoo,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. £900,000, 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—" T said it
would produce three times 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 anothepo. 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 £901,000 a-year will be replaced. The 22 million tons of
shipping exist nowhere but in his own imagination. (A
laugh.) That is 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
I 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, wo 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 fiance 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 France. 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 henvy fiecel loss that may indeed con-
tinue for a number of years. I do not quarrel
with the hon, member on the general question whether

reduction in this tax may not be desirable, but let it be con-
sidered on its own merits, anti not on expectations not
grounded on experience. I admit with him that in a cer-
tain state of our finances it might ix' just, wise, and expe-
dient to afford a reduction in the dul:y on fire insurances.
But that is not the question now , before us. The hon.
member says I shall object to the interference of a private
member of Parliament in such a matter. No word has ever
fallen from me approaching to such presumptiozr. It is the
duty of every member of Parliament to propose the removal
of any tax that he may consider burdensome to the people.
But there is a mode and time of proposing such reductions,
both for independent members and the Government. If
the hon. member asks " when ought we to object ?" I say
let him make his objection when his claim can be put in.
competition with other claims, and not when he is in igno-
rance as he now is of the expenditure of the country for the-
year, and the means of meeting that expenditure. When
the Government make their proposition to the house it will
be seen whether, if there be a surplus, the mode of giving t.
away proposed V the hon. member is wiser than that pro-
posed by the Gove.-nment. I know it is a popular saying
IL. the house, that if the remission of a tax is suggested be-
fore :he budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that
it is too :we., and if after the budget that it is too late. (A.
I do not know who ever said that—certainly I
nlaltihvger'd)id. I s 11 cite a case which appears to me to have
been perfectly legitiOste and perfectly fair to all parties.
In 1853 my ijeht hon. friend the member for Ashton
moved the repeal o: the adv, ertisement duty ; and after the
budget was produced wd fom'd that the prevailing feeling
on the subject was such that, .although it was only the
proposition of a private member,. 852 d althoughwe ourselves
had proposed entirely different plats, we gave way and
adopted the abolition of the duty. (Hear.) Now, this is
the course which the hon. gentleman eho uld pursue. To
demand £900,000 of annual revenue from' the Finance Mi-
nister of the country, before we know any !..hil.lg about the
probable balance of income and expenditure, ig cb:mainly, to
use the hon. gentleman's own words, a proposal of " stern
and unflinching character." It is really too much for my
nerves—(a laugh)—and I hope it will prove too much, also,
for the nerves of the house. What right, in justice, reason,
or policy, has the hon. gentleman to take the reduction of
this tax out of the category of other claims ? Does he meam
to say that it is a claim of such a nature that we ought to
grant it whether we have a surplus or not ? If so, I hope
the house will beware of committing itself to a deficiency in
the revenue. If the hon. gentleman says wo have the means
to dispose of in this way, I tell him that he does not know.
Till the close of the year, and till I know what the estimates
are to be, I myself cannot presume to lay before the house
any statement which would warrant that allegation. But
then the hon. gentleman asserts that this claim is prior to
all others. I shall be much surprised if the house proceeds
prematurely and in the dark, to affirm that, proposition.
(Hear, hear.) lam glad to have got from the hon. gentle-
man the meaning of his motion. It is that neither the in-
come-tax, nor the paper duty, nor the duty on tea, nor the
duty on sugar, which are the chief claimants on the public
revenue when the time of revision comes, are to be put in.
competition with the duty on fire insurance. (Hear, hear.)
While I think it• most objectionable, except under very ex-
traordinary and peculiar circumstances, to accept any pro-
posal for a iinanciol reduction without knowing what claims
there may be on our liberality and justice, I hold it to be
especially objectionable in a case like the present. The
demand for the reduction of this tax, though favoured by
public opinion, is mainly supported by a powerful organised
combination of wealthy ,bodies. (Hear, hear.) The house
should therefore observe especial caution in such a case.
Let as contrast this claim wit.h, for instance, that for the
reduction of the duty on tea. That is a duty which in-
terests every human being d own to the lowest class of the
community. (Hear.) There is not a single old woman.
—(laughter)—l mean old women of the species whichnature
produces, not that numerous clas.i which on articial but
very substantial grounds receive that appellation ; an I
say that the real old woman is the jtot object of our consi-
deration—(hear, hear)—there is not one .of that class living
on 2s. or 3s. a week doled out by the Board of Guardians
who has not a direct interest in the reduction of the duty on
tea; but there are no powerful companies, no ,-neat wealthy
body of capitalists, to besiege the doors of this house with
a demand for the repeal of the duty on tea. Ti.utt repeal
will be urged on the ground of public interest alum.% Ido
not wish you to pledge yourselves to any question of prio-
rity. I object to taking up one claim before the others. I
object to your taking any step until you know the state of
the probable income and expenditure, I object to your
spending what you do not yet know that you have got.
(Hear.) But above all, I object to your selecting for spe-
cial favour the claim for the reduction, of a duty which
already competes, at too great an advantage, with other
claims of a similar nature, being supported by those orga-
nised means of agitation which wealth has always at com-
mand. (Hear.) I hope that the house will refuse the motion
of the hon. gentleman. It is our obligation as a GONVIII-
ment to bear in mind the condition of all the taxpayers of
the kingdom, and to endeavour so to regulate the taxatiom
of the country as to strike a fair balance between their in-
terests and claims. But it would be impossible to accom-
plish that task if the House of Commons were, as I am
thankful it is not their practice to do, to make a, precipitate
and premature decision at the bidding of a powerful interest
in favour of a claim which is rather for the benefit of a
class than of the public, to the disadvantage of other elahuo
whicb are of more general interest, and may be found to In
of greater weight. To take such a course would involve a.
substantial betrayal of public duty, and would inflict a sub-
stantial injury on the people at large. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MALINS regarded this question not as one con-.
netted with large and wealthy corporations, but as di-
rectly bearing on the middle and poorer classes of society.
and while he agreed in much that had fallen from the
right hon. gentleman, he dissented from the principle that
the fire duty ought to be maintained in its integrity.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUEII said that
he never made any such statement.
Mr. MALINS had so understood the right hon. gentle-
man. If the right hon. gentleman was correct in his prin-
ciples as to the reduction of the wine duties last seasion he
could not be right in maintaining that the fire duty ought
not now to undergo reduction. He had no desire to embar-
rass the Government, and if the hon. member obtained
leave to introduce his bill, for the introduction of which-
he (Mr. Malins) would vote, he should recommend him to
postpone the second reading until the Chancellor of the
Exchequer explained what was the surplus of taxation
which resulted from last year's legislation—(laughter)---
and he believed that the country would rejoice a great deal
more at the reduction of the fire insurance duty than it did
at the attempted fiscal reductions last year. The high rate
of duty had a natural tendency to keep down the amount
of property insured. He therefore agreed with the hon.
member that if his proposal were adopted there would be
a considerable increase of insurances and no falling off
of revenue.

Mr. BLACK said he yesterday presented a petition from
the merchants of Edinburgh against the tax; and on look-
ing over tho signatures he found that he had signed it him-
self. As it was his intention to vote against the present
motion, it would seem inconsistent praying for a particular
measure and then objecting to its introduction, but when he
considered the present state of our finances, he thought he
ought to pause before he voted with the hon. member for
Dudley. Ho, however, was of opinion that this was a very
bad tax, and ono of the very first which ought to be re-
pealed or reduced when the financial position of the coun•
try permitted ; but from the whole tone of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer that evening, it did not appear that there
would be any surplus. Under these circumstances, to vote
for the introduction of the bill and then to reserve their
opposition for another stage of it, would be simply a waste
of the time of the house. (Hear, hear.) He hoped, how-
ever, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take the
tax into his consideration as one of the very first to be
dealt with in the event of a surplus accruing in the Exche-
quer.
Mr. SPOONER said the reduction of the duty would be
a great benefit to the community at large.
Mr. B UCH ANAN said he would vote for the bill, retain
ing to himself the privilege of moving amendments.
Mr. GREGSON-madesome observations, which were in-
aodible in the gallery.
Mr. CONINGHAM said the tax was perfectly indefen-
sible and monstrous in amount. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HENLEY opposed the bill. Taxation was neces-
sary, and this tax was one of those that did not require
immediate reduction.
Lord PALMERSTON said the arguments in support of
the motion were illogical. They had bean told that if the
tax were repealed the whole of it would go to insurers.
Would any one insure him that the whole benefit of the
remission would not go to the insurance offices ? (Hear.)
He recollected when a tax was taken off beer the argument
used for the remission was that the consumers would have
the benefit of it, but experience proved that the brewer, not
the consumer, had the advantage. (Hear.) The country
was not in a position to repeal any tax. It was found ne-
cessary to place the country in a state of security, and for
that purpose there must be taxation. The people of this
country had raised 150,000 volunteers to secure the country
and in that state of things it was not right to call upon the
house to pronouree an opinion with respect to any particu-
lar tax. He hoped the house would not listen to the argu-
ments of the hon. member, or do anything to interfere with
the taxation of the country until the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had made his financial statement.
Mr. SHERIDAN briefly replied, after which the house
divided, and the numbers were—
For the m0ti0n........
Against it .......................... 138
Majority against the motion ....-89
GRAND JURY PRESENTMENTS (IRELAND).
Mr. BU TT rose to move for a select committee to in-
quire into and report upon the effect and operation of
the laws regulating the raising of money by public assess-
ment for the making, maintaining, and repairing of the
public highways, and for the other purposes now provided
for by grand jury presentment in Ireland.
After a short discussion,
The house divided—
For the motion
Agaiust it
Majority --81
The motion was consequently lost.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned at 20 minutes past 12.

LONDON : Printed and Published by 31.URDO YOUNG, at
No. 112, Strand, I=rinta, at THE SUN Oflice, No. 112,Strand,
in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County of Mildleles,
kittmlay, 1)144 0, 1861..