§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ MR. DISRAELISir, I think it would only be fair to Her Majesty's Ministers and to the House that I should take this opportunity of stating the course which we propose to adopt with reference to the financial policy of Her Majesty's Government. After this House had arrived at that most important decision with respect to the income tax by which they agreed to renew it only for one year, I felt that the financial policy of the Government, which has been introduced to us under totally different circumstances, assumed necessarily a very different position—that we were called upon to view that policy in a different aspect—and that it might lead to very different consequences from those originally anticipated by its proposers. I could not resist the conviction that the financial arrangements of this country, by that important vote, had become essentially provisional, and being provisional it was a question whether it was just and justifiable, whether it was prudent and politic, under such circumstances, with a due regard to the maintenance of public credit, and to the exigencies of the public service, to agree to the diminution of any permanent source of the national income. I have been extremely anxious not to take any precipitate step upon this subject. I have given it the most painful and anxious consideration; but I am bound to say that I cannot incur that responsibility which, as a Member of this House, would propor- 784 tionately devolve upon me, if I allowed the financial policy which Her Majesty's Government seem, notwithstanding that Vote of the House, determined to pursue, to pass unchallenged. Under these circumstances I shall certainly deem it my duty—unless, indeed, I can induce, as I hope I may be enabled to do, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stamford (Mr. Herris), to undertake that office—I shall deem it my duty to ask this House to reconsider those measures, which were introduced to our notice under circumstances so totally different from those under which we are now called upon to decide as to their merits. What I wish the House to do is, to have a calm, dispassionate, and strictly financial discussion. I have already, on more than one occasion, intimated to Her Majesty's Government what was passing in my own mind upon this question, and I might perhaps have been justified in asking the opinion of the House on this occasion upon it. But I am at all times extremely loth to take a course which has an air of surprise, and therefore I would rather on this occasion permit these measures to pass the present stage, that the course of public business might not be interrupted, and on a subsequent stage call upon the House for their opinion upon the general financial policy which is expressed in these two Bills, the Customs Bill and the Inhabited House Duty Bill, which are now upon the table of the House. I should, under these circumstances, be obliged, probably necessarily, to ask the opinion of the House on the Customs Bill; and I hope the House will permit me to take this opportunity of saying that I am most anxious that no commercial considerations should enter into the discussion, which should he strictly confined to the financial position and policy of the country. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider it convenient, if we agreed to allow these two Bills to pass this evening, under our protest, but without any opposition, to take the proposed debate on going into Committee on Monday night. In that case, if agreeable to Government, I would undertake in the course of the week, to lay on the table of the House a Resolution which we shall propose as an Amendment to the Motion of the Government.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLBefore the Whitsuntide holidays, I fixed the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, which is now in Committee, with the view of proceeding with 785 that Bill for some days, and of finally-passing it through this House; and certainly, with regard to other considerations, it would he inconvenient to alter the arrangements I then made, and to have another day in that Committee, and then take the Customs question. We have, in fact, fixed these questions of the Customs Bill and the Inhabited House Duty Bill early this day, with the view that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) might take such a course as he thought proper. I do not know that Monday next will be convenient for this discussion, but I will endeavour to state on Thursday next what course I will take with respect to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, though it is certainly inconvenient, after having fixed this day for the discussion of the Bills, in consequence of the notice of the hon. Gentleman that he meant to oppose them, that we should be asked to fix another day for it.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, he had made the proposal as much for the convenience of the Government as of himself. Let them fix any day they pleased, and he was prepared to meet them. He did not think the Government could justly complain of being put to any inconvenience on the present occasion, seeing that not the slightest delay was caused to public business.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had, before the holidays, objected to the bringing in of these Bills for two or three nights in succession, and had contended that reasonable time should be allowed, in order to give the parties affected by the measures an opportunity of opposing the second readings. Now that the arrangement had been made, it would not be convenient to fix another day, as the hon. Member required.
§ MR. DISRAELIdid not exactly understand what the Government complained of. They were going to move the second reading of two Bills, which, as he had before said, he was not about to oppose. He and his hon. Friends had not in any way caused the slightest delay in the public business, or the least inconvenience to the Government. All he had said was, that it would be convenient to the House if the noble Lord would fix a day to go into Committee with these two Bills, and then he had given notice that on that day he should propose to take the sense of the House on the financial policy of the Government. He thought that in so doing 786 he was acting quite in consonance with the usual practice.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI understood that this day was fixed for the discussion of any Amendment the hon. Gentleman might think fit to propose.
§ MR. DISRAELII did not intimate that it was my intention to move an Amendment; and it would not be respectful to the House to move an Amendment without notice.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLI do not complain of the hon. Gentleman's not making a Motion without notice; I only say that this day was fixed for the second reading of these Bills, and he might have given notice long ago of his intention to move a Resolution.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that it was his intention to oppose the Bill, and he therefore recommended the Government to appoint a day for taking a discussion on the principle which was involved.
§ MR. HUMEsaid, there was a rule of the House, which the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) did not seem aware of. Did the hon. Gentleman, by his notice, intend to object to the principle of the Bill? because, if he did, the discussion ought to come on now, on the second reading, which was the proper time for an opposition on the principle of a measure. He had heard the Government blamed for allowing so important a matter to be so long delayed. The hon. Member ought to state whether his objection was to the principle or to the details of these Bills. If to the details, the Committee was of course the proper stage on which to bring it forward; but if to the principle, the hon. Member should bring forward his Amendment at once.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, if he had any complaint against these Bills he might object to them on the Motion for going into Committee, which would be the proper time. But he did not wish to oppose these Bills upon any commercial principle whatever. He merely wished to ask the House to arrive at this conclusion—whether it was expedient that the financial arrangements of the country should rest upon circumstances which were now purely provisional, and whether in such a case it was prudent economy to diminish the permanent sources of income? Therefore, what he should ask the House to consider was purely financial and not commercial.
§ Bill read 2°.