have a tendency to bring within the protection of Insurance a large amount of the present uninsured property of the Country, and that a further reduction of the Duty should therefore be made at the earliest opportunity."-(Mr. Henry B. Sheridan.) abroad, ought to be the parties to whom the people should look for protection against fire instead of actually making a profit out of insurance. This question had always been brought forward by the hon. Gentleman with great ability, and he had always supported him. Still, he could not but think that it was not opportune so soon after the appointment of the Committee on Fires to have brought it forward now, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not ask the House to divide. He MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE said, that the hon. Gentleman had acted most consistently in bringing this question before the House, and he had done great good on former occasions by bringing it forward. He regretted, however, that the hon. Gentleman had brought the matter forward on this occasion; because, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, a Committee had recently been appointed to inquire into the whole of the system pursued by insurance companies, and as to the best means of securing property from fire. The property in the metropolis was worth £900,000,000. Only about onethird of that was insured. The insurance companies were the only parties who protected property in the metropolis. That cost them £25,000 a year. If the owners of the uninsured property could be induced to insure it, the insurance companies would then be able to expend £75,000 a year in protecting the property of the metropolis. He thought the Government ought to protect the property of the country against fire, as the French Government protected property in France. The French Government protected not only the property but the lives of the people against fire. Last year he believed there were 1,200 or 1,300 fires in the metropolis, attended with great loss of life! Therefore this was an important Imperial question, which materially affected the Government, and which must be carefully investigated by the Committee on Fires. They might as well put a tax on fenders and fireguards MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, my hon. as upon insurances against fire. The in- Friend who has just sat down has made surance rate was so high that he had known an appeal to the hon. Member for Dudley cases in which it was found that the de- to withdraw his Motion, and has founded struction of property by fire caused less that appeal upon the conviction he enteroutlay than the insurance of it would have tains that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cost. He spoke of farm buildings in his will make provisions for complying with own county. The small amount of pro- the wish which the hon. Member says this perty insured in this country proved at House has repeatedly expressed that the once that there was something wrong in tax upon insurance shall not continue. I this tax. He thought the tax ought to be do not think the hon. Gentleman is accuabolished altogether. Whatever it pro-rate in his declaration that the House has duced to the revenue, he thought it was a vicious tax. It would be as just to tax the arms by which a man defended his life, as to tax insurance against fire. The loss of life by fire in the metropolis and in many large towns was lamentable; and he thought the Government, as in great cities MR. HUBBARD said, he was not only opposed to the duty on fire insurance, but also to the duty on marine insurance. He would venture to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion, not because the subject required investigation, but because it had been so often investigated. thought the obnoxious nature of this tax had been fully acknowledged by public men on both sides of the House, and the House itself had repeatedly expressed a wish for its abolition. The total abolition of the . tax was a mere question of time. It was due, however, to the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that at this moment the proposal should not be forced upon him. He could not doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was exceedingly desirous of meeting every fair claim, and of redressing every grievance that might be brought under his notice. Not long since the right hon. Gentleman had yielded to the representations of Irish Members in reference to the extension of time for the repayment of loans to Irish railways; and no doubt in the matter of the tax on insurance he would be equally ready to listen to the views that might be pressed upon him. more than once expressed a desire for a reduction of this tax. I do not think such an opinion has been expressed since the reduction of the tax to 1s. 6d. I shall be glad if the hon. Member for Dudley withdraws his Motion; and the opinion that I shall express in reference to the tax is not sent year--after the vast operations performed on it-will be almost larger than in former years. But this is not true with respect to taxes upon property. I know no case in which loss caused by the reduction of taxes upon property has been recovered. Let us not, therefore, entertain expectations that cannot be realized, but look to the case as it stands. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has distinctly shown to us two things: first of all, that this is a tax upon property; and secondly, that it is a bad tax upon property. Still, in the present relative position of the taxes upon property and upon labour, it is a serious matter to abandon taxes upon property without obtaining compensation from other taxes upon property. I own, and I will even urge, that the tax upon insurance demands, upon the first convenient opportunity, the consideration of the Government; and that the object of that consideration should be, in the first place, to reduce that tax itself to a point so low that it cannot be a sensible restraint upon insurance. We might, perhaps, meet the objection to relieving property from taxation while taxes press so heavily upon labour which has so much higher claims to reduction by finding another means of taxing property in lieu of it-means that would be equal instead of unequal. It should not be a tax upon the virtue of one which ought to deter him from that course. I would object to any Motion the effect of which would be to fetter the discretion of the House in forming its impartial judgment when the revenue and Estimates are before us, as to whether we have any means of granting remissions, and if so, what those remissions should be. Both in office and out of office I have uniformly contended for that principle. It is a very disagreeable office which the Finance Minister has to perform, in interfering with the very natural, reasonable, and often very legitimate desires of hon. Gentlemen with regard to particular taxes. That Minister has to hear many representations of grievances, those who come to him caring only for their own particular grievances; and, as happened at the doors of Westminster Hall on Monday morning, those who came to hear the Minister tried to outrun each other, and none of them cared what became of those who were left behind. I do not wish that the repeal of this tax should depend upon the energy or activity of the Members who are the advocates of such repeals; but that it should depend in part upon the judgment of the Government, who must take the initiative, and supremely upon the judgment of the House. To make it satisfactory to the country it is in general necessary, though there may be cases of exception under extraordinary circumstances, that that judg-prudence, but should be entirely indepenment should be formed by the House when it has the opportunity of considering at once and comprehensively the whole state of the finances, and of balancing one claim against another. Upon that ground I hope that the House will not accede to the Motion. In any case, I feel it my duty to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the discharge of a disagreeable duty, from which I understand he does not intend to shrink. The principal error-if he will forgive me for using the term respecting one who has so deeply studied the question-into which I think the hon. Member for Dudley has fallen, is, that if the tax were reduced the revenue would be recovered through the augmentation in the number of insurances. That, I contend, is an entire delusion. The reduction of taxes on articles of consumption affecting the masses of the people enormously widens the field of consumption; and we know from experience that those reductions great as they have been-result in a positive increase of revenue even on the article itself. The Customs revenue of the pre dent of it, leaving that virtue to operate thoroughly in its own field. We should leave the whole community to insure their buildings, and everything requiring to be insured, I will not say without a tax, because our condition requires us to tax those transactions of trade and industry that are the life and vigour of the community. I would not, therefore, propose a total exemption, for that would strike at the root of the whole system of taxes, with which we cannot dispense; but we might go down to something so near the nature of a nominal rate as to make insurance easy, but couple with it the condition that we ought not to make that the opportunity for relieving property, the taxes upon which at this moment are anything but extravagant, and which have been lightened by the reduction of the income tax. Leaving property to bear its burdens, we should accede when possible to the reduction of the tax to a low point, analogous to some of the small taxes which are so low that they do not interfere with the transactions to which they relate. I strongly support the Go MR. HADFIELD said, he should support the Motion, the adoption of which he thought would induce a larger number of persons whose property was now uninsured to provide against losses which would result from fire. He did not see that there was any difficulty in the way of the Government giving a pledge that at as early a period as possible the tax would be reduced. He considered the tax immoral, injurious, and intolerable, and could not long rest on its present footing. vernment in refusing to give a pledge that venient, and I think disadvantageous to will fetter the future discretion of the the public service, that upon the eve House, while I hope that in a proper man- of a statement of the general condition of ner, and in conjunction with other colla- the finances of the country, and the conteral arrangements, the existence of this sequences of that condition, the House tax, with the evils it produces, will receive should be called upon to pledge itself to the early attention of those competent to a Resolution of this kind, which must not deal with it. only be a source of great embarrassment to the Minister, but also to the House. The House has had experience of the inconvenience of Resolutions of this general character as, for example, that in regard to the income tax; and I trust the House, recollecting that, will not sanction further a course which every one connected with the finances has found to be inconvenient. The hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity of placing before the House his views upon the matter. It is a question which he completely understands, and always expounds with great ability; and if, after mature consideration, the House should agree with him, it will be due to the information which he has placed before them, and which may influence their judgment. But what I ask the House to do is, that they should keep themselves perfectly free as to the course which they may see fit to sanction when they are in complete possession of the financial condition of the country. It is said that the House may, by waiting for the financial statement, lose the opportunity of expressing its opinion on what should be the financial policy of the Government. That, however, hardly applies to existing circumstances. When the statement is placed before the House it will have sufficient power to control any course which it may think fit to suggest. Such course will depend upon the wisdom and expediency of the recommendations which I may offer. I trust therefore the hon. Gentleman will not press his Resolution to a division. As I do not wish to give any opinion upon the merits of the question which has been brought before us, I must, if the hon. Gentleman does not yield to the requests of his friends and supporters, move the Previous Question. MR. THOMSON HANKEY said, he should support the Motion. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. H. B. Sheridan) had to contend with the usual obstacle which beset private Members when pleading for the remission or reduction of a duty-the inconvenience which the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being would be sure to insist would result from choosing so inopportune a time for the proposal. But for the perseverance of the hon. Member for Dudley, there would have been no reduction of the duty. He was right in enforcing the consideration of the subject again on the House; because, from the reduction having been insufficient, the question had not had a fair trial. The effect of the tax at the present time was that a vast amount of property was uninsured; the owners being deterred from insuring by the excessive tax they would have to pay for so doing. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire had stated that he had never known a case in which the reduction of a tax upon property had been followed by recovery; but the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten the case of the income tax. When a high rate prevailed there was a great amount of evasion of the tax; but when the rate was lowered a greater amount in proportion was received. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I do not intend to enter into the merits of the question, and I must reserve my opinion upon it until the proper time arrives; but I must ask the House to support me in resisting the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. It appears to me that it is extremely incon MR. H. B. SHERIDAN said, he could quite understand the argument which the right hon. Gentleman had addressed to the House. It was the usual argument which was addressed by Gentlemen placed in his position who did not like the House to make any suggestions to them as regarded the disposal of their surplus finance. He quite differed with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that there was anything in this Resolution which could be construed | clear the way at the outset by the remark, into an embarrassment. The Resolution which will be easily understood by those was nothing more than the expression of who are conversant with the subject, that an opinion that a further reduction of the the Bill which I shall have the honour to fire insurance duty would be very desir- propose will in no way affect the interests able. There could be nothing in such a either of Ireland, or of Scotland, or of Resolution which would dictate to the right South Wales. Ireland, indeed, is a step in hon. Gentleman. He had to congratulate advance of England in this matter; since the House upon the speech of the right the year 1857 her tolls have been abolished, hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), who had and the repairs of her roads borne by the to-night frankly admitted for the first time rates of counties and baronies. Scotland that this was a tax which could not be de- has a system of valuation of her own, fended on any sound principle, and which differing from that of England; and if any ought not to be maintained if there could alteration in her road laws is required, it be any mode devised by which it could be may safely be left to her own represenreasonably got rid of. The noble Lord tatives, who have always shown themselves (Lord Stanley), in a speech at Kings Lynn so competent to manage Scotch legislation. made on the 20th of October, said the And as to South Wales having courted worst tax beyond exception which we had legislation by a series of popular protests was that on fire insurance; that it dis- against turnpike tolls, which are known by couraged prudence and encouraged gam- the name of the Rebecca riots, South Wales bling. Fortified by such an opinion as this, has been since the year 1844 under a Conand believing that there was nothing what-solidation Act, by which the extinction of ever in the Resolution which had to do with the position of hon. Members on either side of the House, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon the Resolution which he had moved. Whereupon Previous Question put, "That that Question be now put.' (Mr. Hunt.) her debt was provided for by an advance out of the Consolidated Fund, repayable by Terminable Annuities of thirty years. It is therefore with England and North Wales alone that I have to do. I have to show that the present system is a bad system, and further, that the alterations which I propose may be adopted to the advantage. of the public without being attended with The House divided:-Ayes 156; Noes such hardship or injustice to localities as 215: Majority 59. MR. TURNPIKE TRUSTS BILL. would, in any material degree, neutralize or counterbalance such advantage. Select Committee of the House of Commons which sat in 1836. They say Now, Sir, that the present system is a bad system is an opinion which, rightly or wrongly, has been entertained by ParKNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: liament for the last thirty years, so far as Sir, I rise to move for leave to bring in a Parliament has expressed any opinion upon Bill to alter and amend the Law relating to the subject. I can hardly sum up the obTurnpike Trusts. In attempting to legis-jections better than in the words of the late upon this question, I know that I am undertaking a task which is not unattended with difficulty-there are so many conflict- "The great proportion of the witnesses appear ing interests to satisfy, so many different nearly unanimous in their testimony that the opinions to reconcile, that no man could hope system of exacting toll from the public for the use of the roads is vexatious and expensive in the to frame a measure which would not ne- collection, by the number of collectors and tollcessarily be subject to much criticism and gates kept up, and from a combination occasionally much opposition. Moreover, this is a sub-found amongst the lessees of such toll-gates in the ject which would more fitly be dealt with by the Government of the day than by a private Member; and it is not until I had ascertained by inquiry from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) that there was but little probability of his dealing with it during the present Session, that I ventured to give that notice for which I now bespeak the kind indulgence of the House. And, perhaps, it will be well to vicinity of large towns, by which, in some instances, "the abolition of tolls throughout the Kingdom would be beneficial to the community," and this opinion was fully endorsed by the Committee which sat in 1864, under the Chairmanship of the hon. and learned Member for Hereford (whose name is with my own on the back of the present Bill), and which summed up its opinion upon the point in these words "Tolls appear to your Committee to be unequal in pressure, costly in collection, inconvenient to the public, and injurious as causing a serious impediment to intercourse and traffic." which shall be inserted in the schedule of the Act to expire on the 1st November in the then next year. The consequence is that one Home Secretary, taking a different view from another, and acting upon a different principle, the operation of the law is uncertain, and therefore unequal and unfair. When I had the honour of succeeding Mr. Baring, the present Lord Northbrook, as Under Secretary at the Home Office last year, I found that this subject was one which had been intrusted to him by the right hon. Baronet the MemNow, Sir, if I took these words for my ber for Morpeth, and I succeeded to the text it would be easy for me to found upon charge. To this and to every other questhem a somewhat lengthy argument. But tion with which he had to deal Mr. Baring it will probably be more convenient to the brought that acuteness of intellect and House that I should assume, for the mo- careful attention which I venture to say ment, that the opinion of these Committees, constituted him a valuable public servant. adverse to the present system, is a correct He had sat upon the Select Committee of opinion; that I should endeavour to state, 1864, and, acting in the spirit of the Reas clearly as I can, the present condition port of that Committee, had turned his of the question, the alterations which I attention particularly to the cases of those propose, and the advantages which I be- trusts which, being out of debt, were anlieve would be derived from those altera- nually continued. Early in February last tions. The House will, of course, be aware year a circular was sent from the Home that the great majority of turnpike trusts Office to all trusts which were out of debt, have their origin in local Acts passed asking in each case full particulars of the within the last century, limited at first for circumstances of the trust, and whether a term of years, and subsequently renewed there were any special reasons for its conby Parliament from time to time. In the tinuance. It fell to my lot to receive and year 1850, when the system was in a state consider the answers returned to these cirof great confusion, an Act was passed culars. Now, Sir, the number of trusts, which enabled the Home Secretary, on re- according to the last statement of turnpike ceiving from the trustees of any trust noti-income and expenditure in possession of fication of the consent of two-thirds of the the House-that for the year ending 31st mortgagees, to issue a provisional order, December, 1864-had been 1,055 at that reducing the rate of interest and extin-period. In the schedule prepared by Mr. guishing arrears. This has been done in the case of upwards of 160 trusts; but there are many cases which, the consent of the mortgagees not having been either asked or obtained, will not come within the power of the Home Secretary until their Acts expire. You may, in fact, divide the turnpike trusts of England and North Wales into two divisions-1, those whose local Acts have not expired, or have been renewed; 2, those whose local Acts, having expired, are continued by the Annual Continuance Act. And, again, there is another important division which may be made-namely, trusts in debt and trusts out of debt. Baring in 1865, eighteen trusts had been marked for abolition, freeing from tolls 476 miles of road. This left 1,037 trusts, of which 534 were under the operation of the Annual Continuance Act, and 114 of this number were trusts out of debt, to which the Home Office Circulars applied. Having obtained the consent of my right hon. Friend at the head of the Department to the principle upon which I proposed to act, I carefully considered each case, and finally inserted in the schedule for abolition 83 out of the 114. Out of 420 trusts in debt, I found special circumstances which enabled me to place in the schedule upwards of forty more, so that if the right Now, Sir, the arrangement of the An-hon. Gentleman opposite had maintained nual Continuance Act is to my mind not a very satisfactory part of the duties of the Home Office. There is no definite principle clearly laid down to guide the decision as to which Acts shall be continued and last year's schedule in its integrity, the 1st of next November would have seen the termination of about 130 trusts, freeing from tolls some 3,000 miles of road, and only leaving in existence thirty-one trusts |