The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-14 00:00:00

the question, nor am I aware that any is to be raised. •
(Hear.) I need hardly tell the house that great pu Tic in-
jury and annoyance arises from a discussion which is pro-
tracted beyond all precedent. The revenue of the Customs
is suffering very perceptibly from the uncertainty attendant
on proposals involving changes in our financial system. On
account also of the arrangements which have to be made
for levying the income tax, much inconvenience is caused
to the public service by these delays. It must not be for-
gotten that there are other stages through which the bill
must pass, and that this is not the last opportunity for dis-
cussion. I certainly must, on the part of the Government,
objet to the motion of the hon. gentleman, and I trust that
if he does not withdraw it, the house will show themselves
sensible of the necessity of proceeding with the financial
business without further delay.
Mr. DISRAELI—I think it is not desirable that there
should be any division uron a question of this kind, and
therefore I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that
it will be well for the house calmly to consider, and not to
decide passionately upon, the course which they will now
adopt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that it be-
comes us to consider in a comprehensive manner what has
occurred during the last month with respect to the measures
brought forward by the Government. He tells us that in
no other instance that he can recall, and he has referred to
the case of 1853 and other years, has so great a delay taken
place in the consideration of the financial measures of the
Government. He will pardon me for saying that, with re-
spect to measures of this character, the house has never be-
fore been placed in the position in which we have been
placed this year. (Cheers.) There have, no doubt, been
equally important measures of finance brought forward by
the Government—l will even admit that there have been
more important, larger, and more extensive measures; but
they have never been connected with a combination of cir-
cumstances such as we witness this year, and from which it
arises that this house, and this house alone, can decide upon
the merits of the policy recommended. (Hear, hear.)
Under these circumstances, and considering that the other
house is to have no power of revising the measures
of the Government, it does become this house—the
single house which is to decide upon the policy of
the Government—to proceed with caution and delibent-
tion. (Hear, hear.) There cannot be a situation conceived
in which caution and consideration could be more requisite
I and more urgently demanded. The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer has again mentioned the great inconveniences to
the finances and to the trade and commerce of the country
which may arise from the., delays—delays. let me remind
him, of deliberation. Now, although the right hon. gen-
tleman has more than once touched upon the subject, I
have net been able to realise any clear or precise idea as to
what those inconveniences are. First, let us consider the
income tax. No doubt inconvenience must arise to the
Government from depending on a tax levied under a law
which has become extinct ; but that is not the fault of the
House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) The Act under which
the income tax is raised had expired before these measures
were brought forward, and if it was matter of urgency that
it should be immediately renewed, why did not the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer introduce a bill on that subject, and
ask us to pass it immediately ? (Cheers.) But lam bound
to say, speaking upon such a subject with all diffidence, and
all deference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, from
such slight experience as I have of the consequences of that
Act having expired before the financial exposition has been
offered to the house, no inconvenience can arise from that
circumstance. The action must necessarily be of an ex post
facto character, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has
already announced to the house that he will take care that
no one who has received his last quarter's dividends shall
escape its action. Therefore, practically speaking, I may, I
think, venture to say that the house may dismiss from their
minds the idea that any inconvenience to the public service
will result from the expiration of the income tax act. Then I
come to the great taxes—the great duties upon tea and sugar.
What possible inconvenience can arise from the course which
the house is taking in deliberating upon the measures of the
Government with regard to those taxes ? We all know that
immediately the resolutions with respect to those duties are
passed by the Committee of Ways and Means the Govern-
ment acts upon them. At this moment those duties are
levied according to the resolutions passed in Committee
of Ways and Means. Is it that the Government are afraid
that there will be another attempt to reduce those duties ?
Why, a Government in the proud position which they
occupy with respect to that subject may defy any
attempt of that kind, and I do not suppose that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer will pretend that at this moment
the Government and the house are waiting with anxiety to
see whether another effort will -be made by the Opposition
to reduce those taxes. Although the law under which they
will ultimately be levied is not passed, those duties are paid,
and I do not doubt that this very day a considerable
revenue has been received from them in virtue of the reso-
lutions which we have passed. But, then, I come to
another branch of trade, in which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer will tell me that very great inconvenience and
very great loss will be occasioned, both to the trade and to
the Treasury, by the time which we are taking in consider-
ing what course we ought to adopt—l mean the paper trade.
But does the Chancellor of the Exchequer seriously and
really make that a plea for calling upon the house to come
to a resolution ? (An hon. Member—" He has not said a
word about it.") The other night the right hon, gentle-
man particularly referred to it. He did not dwell upon that,
but he dwells upon the great inconvenience and injury to
trade which will be occasioned by our not passing these
measures. Is it that he real]) refers to the tea and sugar
duties ? If he does not mean it, there are a great many
gentlemen in this house who believe that the paper trade is
very much injured by our deliberating upon these measures.
But I beg the house clearly to understand that that is not
the fact—that neither the trade nor the Exchequer can pos-
si tly suffer by this suspen- e. It is quite clear that the trade
does not believe that it suffers, because of two members of
this house who are intimately connected with that trade,
and who represent different opinions one more extreme than
the other, with respect to the policy pursued by the Go-
vernment, one made a motion the other night which was to
occasion a great delay in the measures of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, and, therefore, the branch of the trade which
he represented, more especially as concerns Ireland, does
not apprehend injury from delay ; and the other, who is a
warm supporter of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the
hon. merrile r for Abingdon (Mr. Norris), has for one of those
nights devoted to independent members, but of which her
Majesty's Government now so much grudge them the
enjoyment—(cheers)—for next Tuesday given notice of a
motion for the appointment of a committee to inquire into
ihe paper trade. Therefore he does not anticipate that our
delay will cause any injury to his trade. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer knows perfectly well that from the
system of drawbacks it is impossible that the Exchequer
can be injured. I beg to remind the In use that the other
night, when the hon. member for Honiton (Mr, Moffatt)
told the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would by
October lose £500,000 or £600,000 upon the paper duty, the
right hon. gentleman, who knew his business, told him that
he was quite mistaken, and that he should not lose a single
farthing. Now, T have gone through all the great taxes,
the income-t ix, the tea and sugar duties, and the paper
'duty. What other interests are there that any ono
can pretend are placed in jeopardy by the House of Com-
mons performing the greatest duty which can devolve
upon it—that of duly considering measures of taxa-
tion ? Is there, then, any foundation for the statements,
the ambiguous and at the same time the menacing state-
ments, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is so
fond of indulging ? (Hear, hear.) What reasons are
there for asking the house to come to a precipitate con-
clusion ? I beg the noble lord the First Minister to con-
sider this. It is his opinion that the other House of Par-
liament is to exercise no judgment upon these questions.
Be it so. I will on this occasion admit the whole case of
the Government. I will enter into none of the controversy
which has taken place to-night upon what is called the
constitutional question. Admit not only that it is the un-
deniable right of the House of Commons to originate Money
Bills, but that the House of Lords must pass them under
all circumstances. Take the broadest view of the case
and what is the deduction, what is the moral—
the inevitable moral—that must be drawn ? That
it becomes the Prime Minister, under these circum-
stances, to bring forward no measures of finance which he
does not believe will meet with the undoubted support of
those who represent the people in this house. If the
will of this house alone is to decide these questions, a
wise and politic Minister would not bring forward measures
which could only be passed by a very bare majority. (Hear.)
Tf the undeniable privilege of our house is that we aro to
have sole authority in these matters, our responsibility
becomes proportionately greater, and proportionate)y greater
becomes the responsibility of the Minister who leads this
house, and advises this great council of the nation.
But what has taken place to-night ? The Chancellor of
the Exchequer says that there is no issue before us. No
issue before us 1 A Minister rises and moves the second read-
ing of a bill which includes the whole of his financial scheme,
and on the first night of the debate says that there is no issue
before us. (Cheers.) Is not the second reading of this
financial scheme an issue largo enough ? And what right
has the Minister to presume that there may be no division
challenged upon the merits of his policy ? What right has
he t o make any assumption of the kind ? (Cries of " Divide,
divide 1" answered by cheers.) Let me remind the house
that we come down to-night to discuss the financial policy
of the Minister. The hon. and learned gentleman who
opened the debate confined himself to the consideration of
the constitutional question. He dealt with that question in
a clear and vigorous speech, well entitled to the attention of
the house, but he sedulously guarded himself against
moving an amendment upon that point, and left the large
issue open. Upon that large issue not a word has been
spoken to-night but by a Minister of the Crown. A Minis-
ter of the Crown has made a speech upon the financial
echeme of the Government, He went into great detail in
his examination of the budget, and called upon me to answer
his reproaches, and state the policy that I intended to pur-
e-en With this challenge still ringing in my cars, which
we have had no opportunity of answering—(cheers)—the
Chancellor of the Exchequer rises and expresses his sad sure
prise that the House of Commons should discuss his budget.
He gave no ground or reason for his objection. The hon.
gentleman may be pursuing a policy that is honourable
alike to the country and to himself, but he is at the same
time taking,if not an unprecedented,at least a very unusual
1
course, and ho ought to be the last wan to grudge us the