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

reduction in this tax may not be desirable, but let it be cone
sidercd on its own merits, and not on expectations not
grounded on experience. I admit with him that in a cer-
tain state of our finances it might be just, wise, and expo..
dient to afford a reduction in the duty 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 presumption. 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 fur 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 it
away proposed by the hon. member is wiser than that pro-
posed by the Government. I know it is a popular saying
in the house, that if the remission of a tax is suggested be-
fore the budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that
it is too sooe, and if after the budget that it is too late. (A
laugh.) I do not know who ever said that—certainly I
never did. I will cite a case which appears to me to have
been perfectly legitimate and perfectly fair to all parties.
In 1853 my right hon. friend the member for Ashton
moved the repeal of the advertisement duty ; and after the
budget was produced we found that the prevailing feeling
on the subject was such that, although it was only the
proposition of a private member, and althoughwe ourselves
had proposed entirely different plans, we gave way and
adopted the abolition of the duty. (Hear.) Now, this is
the course which the hon. gentleman should pursue. To
demand 1900,000 of annual revenue from the Finance Mi-
nister of the country, before we know anything about the
probable balance of income and expenditure, is certainly, to
use the hon. gentleman's own words, a proposal of a " 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 mean
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 we 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 financial 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 us contract this claim with, for instance, that for the
reduction of the duty on tea. That is a duty which in-
terests every human being down to the lowest class of the
community. (Hear.) There is not a single old woman
—(laughter)—l mean old women of the species which nature
produces, not that numerous class which on artificial but
very substantial grounds receive that appellation ; and
say that the real old woman is the just 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 great wealthy
body of capitalists, to besiege the doors of this house with
a demand for the repeal of the duty on tea. That repeal
will be urged on the ground of public interest alone. Ido
not wish you to pledge yourselves to any question of prio-
rity. I object to taking up one claim before the others. I
ebject 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 an, I object to your selecting for spa-
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 Govern-
ment to bear in mind the condition of all the taxpayers of
the kingdom, and to endeavour so to regulate the taxation
of the country as to strike a fair balance between their in-
terests and claims. But it would be impossible to wove'
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 s
class than of the public, to the disadvantage of other claims
which are of more general interest, and may be found to be
of greater weight. To take such a course would involve s
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-
nected 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 EXCHEQUER 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 session be
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. Blalins) 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 og
of revenue.

Mr. BLACK said he yesterday presented a petition fro
the merchants of Edinburgh against the tax, and on look-
ing over the 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. He, however, was of opinion that this was a very
bad tax, and one of the very first which ought to be re-
pealed or reduced, when the financial position of the color'
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. BUCHANAN said he would vote for the bill, retain-
ing to himself the privilege of moving amendments.
Mr. GREGSON made some 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 count*"
and in that state of things it was not right to call upon the
house to pronour.ce 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 EN"
chequer had made his financial statement.
Mr. SHERIDAN briefly replied, after which the house
divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it
Majority against the motion -89
GRAND JURY PRESENTMENTS (IRELAND).
Mr. BU FT 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
ter by grand jury presentment in Ireland.
After a short discussion, •
The house divided—
For the motion
Against it
Majority —Bl
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 MURDO YOUNG, at
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tim Simi Office, No. 112,Strand.
in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County of Atiddlogies.'
Saturday, Ainch 9, i 661.