The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-17 00:00:00

termination of these discussions might be peaceful and satis •
factory; but up get the right hon. member for Stroud, and
throws the torch of discord into our hitherto comparatively
peaceable debates. My right hon. friend wants to set every
body by the ears. (Laughter.) First of all he endeavours to
sow dissension in the Cabinet, then he endeavours to set the
two houses in collision, and, not content with that, he car-
ries his disturbing intentions so far as to try to get up a
war between members of the House of Commons and their
constituents. I beg to assure him that he will entirely fail in
his first object. (Cheers.) He will not succeed by any taunts
of his in creating dissensions in the Cabinet. (Hear.) With
regard to his second object I am convinced he will be equally
unsuccessful, as we have heard to night from persons com-
petent to speak, in creating hostility between the two houses.
That is a very satisfactory consolation. With regard to hos-
tility between members and their constituents—(laughter)—
,speaking generally for the house as a body, I am equally
convinced that his endeavour will fail ; but as far as his
assertions may be founded on any local knowledge which
he may possess u ith regard to any particular electoral body
of course I cannot pretend to give an opinion. I refer that
entirely to him. (Loud laughter.) I will only say that it
is an established maxim " Blessed are the peacemakers ; "
but what may be the fate of those who are sowers of dis-
sension, instigators of discord, and promoters of quarels, is
not so clearly defined. (Laughter.) Whatever it may be,
I am afraid my right hon. friend is determined to share in
it. (Loud laughter.)
Mr. DISRAELI—The agreeable but unexpected obser-
vations of the noble lord appear to me to be, generally speak-
ing, founded on an entire misconception of what has taken
place during the last week. (Hear.) The first statement
of the noble lord was that we now admit a surplus, which
we formerly denied. I think the noble lord will find on re-
flection that there is no foundation whatever for that state-
ment. (Oh, and cheers.) What has most struck me in the
course of these discussions has been the strength of convic-
tion manifested by hon. gentlemen opposite, who, however,
have prudently abstained from rising and expressing it in
debate. (A. laugh.) Some hon. members have groaned at
and dissented from the statement I have just made. All
have admitted—the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself
has admitted—an enormous deficiency for the year ; all have
admitted—it cannot be denied—that we have been obliged
to meet that deficiency by renewing taxes, mainly war taxes,
to a vast amount ; and the simple question before us was
whether we should renew those taxes to an amount that
would satisfy the demands of the service, or whether we
should renew them to an amount that would create an arti-
fic'al surplus. That is the whole situation. If you had
followed what I believe to be a prudent course, you would
have lightened the burdens of the people to the largest ex-
tent of your power, and you would have renewed the war
taxes only to the amount that was necessary for the public
service. (Cheers.) But when you refused to adopt that
policy, when you chose to follow a caprice of finance, and to
renew the war taxes to an amount that gave you a surplus of
£2,000,000 above the demands of the public service, then
we said, "Do with the whole of that what you proposed
to do with a half—namely, apportion it to the reduction of
the war taxes which you are renewing." You agreed with
us as far as the income tax is concerned, and we proposed
that the same process should be applied to the war tax on
tea. That is the whole question. It may not have been
understood at one time by the house, though it is now, but
it has always been thoroughly understood by the country.
You have created an artificial surplus, in order that you
might perpetrate a financial caprice. (Cheers.) 'We tried to
bring you into a more healthy and advantageous position.
Yet you seem proud of the triumph which you have ac-
complished I What is that triumph ? In a house of more
than 600 members, by a bare majority, a majority of 18, a
majority in a certain degree supplied by members who sit
habitually opposite to you, and who voted for your ram-
sure, not because they approved your policy, but because
they shrink from the responsibility of disturbing your Go-
vernment—you have to this moment, and only to this mo-
ment, succeeded in the first step of carrying your policy
into effect. (Cheers.) What is the situation of the noble
lord—of this wise and experienced Minister ?He is forcing
by a bare majority, not furnished by his legitimate sup-
porters—(cries of " No," and cheers)—a financial policy
upon the country through this house, and telling you at
the same time that that policy shall not be submitted
to the consideration of the other house of Parlia-
ment. I say the noble lord, in thus forcing a finan-
cial policy upon the country by a bare and illegiti-
mate majority, avowedly furnished by ambiguous means, is
straining the Constitution. (" Oh," and cheers.) Then we
are told that we have shifted our ground—that we have
brought forward a great constitutional question, and shrink
from the issue which we ourselves selected. (Cheers from
the Ministerial benches.) Who said so ? I think it was the
hon. and learned gentleman who represents the borough of
Southwark. He has favoured us with a speech of choice elo-
quence, in which he imputed motives pretty freely, and
commented up on our conduct in that grotesque style which
I have no doubt suits the hustings he has just left. (Laugh-
ter.) The hon. and learned gentleman says I set up my hon.
friend the member for Stamford as a kite in order to dis-
cover the temper of the house. Why does he say so ? Oh,
precious reason ? He is well acquainted with my hon. friend;
he has observed his conduct, and he remembers his speech
on the Reform Bill of 1858. He says he listened with in-
tone interest to my hon. friend when to. spoke oa that oc-
casion, and more than six times he believed he was going to
say I was about to accept the resolutions proposed by the
noble lord the member for London. Six times did he believe
that ? I should rather have thought he believed that the
policy recommended to us at that time would be accepted
and acted upon by the noble lord himself. (Cheers.) That,
I think, would have been a little more satisfactory to the
electors of Southwark than the precious story aoout kites
we have heard to-night—a story suggestive of considerations
and circumstances which should have restrained the too
exuberant zeal, and taught some discretion to the tongue of
the hon. and learned gentleman. The Reform Bit' of 1858,
coupled with what has since occurred, was not exactly the
subject which an ardent and prudent supporter of the pre •
sent Ministry would have chosen as an instrument of attack
against us for our conduct in the matter of the budget.
(Cheers) But what is this great constitutional ques-
tion? It is much simpler than we at first supposed,
though its simplicity cannot be surprising to those who were
members of the committee last year, iucluding the noble
lord himself. The fact is, I believe, there is no right
of the Commons which, if you search their journals, you
cannot prove. On the other hand, there is no right of
the Lords which, if you search their journals, you cannot
also prove. That is the whole state of the case as regards
precedents. It is the natural consequence of dealing with
an ancient Constitution that has gradually risen and gra-
dually adapted itself to the wants and necessities of a great
people. (Hear, hear.) You have in the archives of the
Lords the haughty records of restriction : you have
in the journals of the Commons the rude annals of privilege
In either mighty code you will find sufficient authority for
what a factious Minister or an excited Parliament may think
proper to undertake. We flattered ourselves, however, that
we had not to deal with a factious Minister, but with a man
who has had great experience of public affairs, and who,
by his temperate conduct and moderate counsels, bas gene-
rally been acceptable to Parliament. (Hear.) What was the
conduct of the noble lord when he had to do that which he did
honestly, plainly, directly, and skilfully last year—when he
had to accommodate modern circumstances to ancient pre-
cedents ? He gave us temperate counsels, and if the resolu-
tions passed last year had been followed in their spirit by the
House of Commons—if they had been followed in the spirit
which was expressed in the speech of the noble lord when he
introduced them—a speech which was accepted by the
house as an explanation of their meaning—there could have
been no misunderstanding on the subject. I believe, in-
deed, that at the beginning of the session it had never en-
tered into the mind of the noble lord that there could be
any misunderstanding on the subject. (Hear, hear.) But
then another influence began, as last session, to appear and
to give a colour to public events and the conduct of Minis-
ters ; and what we complain of is that the policy which
arose from this second and sinister influence is not
one that is dictated by high considerations of State, by a
due regard to the spirit of our constitution, or by a due re-
spect for the privileges of the other House of Parliament,
but has arisen from accidents, from circumstances, from
private understandings, and from private pique. (Cheers.)
Hence the difficult and• dangerous position in which this
house now finds itself placed—a position far beyond consis
derations of party, far beyond the mere interests of indivi-
dual members—a position which may result in the most
ruinous consequences to the constitution of the country.
We are, in consequence of these occult influences, brought
to this condition—that we are straining the constitution, we
are unnecessarily and wantonly bringing into possible col-
lision the privileges and powers of co-ordinate branches of
the Legislature. Under what circumstances are we acting
thus ? When, in the very House of Parliament which, ac-
cording to the view now advocated by the noble lord, can
alone benefit by that policy, parties are evenly balanced, or
rather a bare majority is obtained by the Government by
means the most factitious. That is my answer to the noble
lord. I say, as I said last year, that to object to the mere
form in which a budget is produced would be to offer an
objection which I admit is not technically valid. But why
did you not bring forward your measure last year in the
form which you now prefer ? I should have been glad to
see the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme of last year
in one measure. But if it was not expedient last year to in-
clude all your measure in one bill, why, I would ask, is it
necessary now ? In order to find a reason for this change we
must look back and see what has occurred in the interval.
Taking that retrospective glancosve are led to perceive that
it is to the conduct of the House of Lords that this course
of procedure is advisable. Well, and what has been that
conduct ? It is conduct which has been pronounced by tbP,
right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle—a great autho-
rity—as being perfectly legal and constitutional. It is
not, therefore, because of its illegality or unconstitutional
character that you object to the step which the House of
Lords took last year. What, let me ask, was the policy of that
step P The House of Lords were of opinion that, as the finan-
cial scheme of the Government was sent up to them, there
would, if they sanctioned it, be a deficit for the year which
has just terminated, and therefore they used their legal right
—aright not contested in this house by any one but the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, I believe—and prevented a branch
of pet ,anent revenue from being abolished. (Hear, hear.)
What has been the resul , ? You had at the expiration of
the last thattuei(tl year a deficit pt' X 2,500,000, whielA deficit ►