WAYS AND MEANS—INCOME TAX. (Hansard, 13 March 1854)

§ MR. DISRAELI
said he objected to the House going into a Committee of Ways and Means at that hour, to debate the Resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, no notice had been placed on the votes, and he was not aware that it was intended to oppose the Resolution. If it was intended to debate the question, he would not ask the House to go into Committee for that purpose now, but he thought it would be for the convenience of the public service that the Resolution should, in the mean time, be agreed to. However, he was altogether 753 in the hands of the House as regarded the matter.

§ MR. DISRAELI
It will be remembered, Sir, that when the financial statement was made, no debate, properly so called, took place. There was some discussion as to particular points of finance, but none of those observations bore any relation to the general proposition before us, and I stated for myself on that occasion that I reserved to myself the right of entering into such discussion. I wish the House to carry along with it the position in which we stand. The House will, of course, be prepared to support Her Majesty in carrying on the war into which we are apparently entering; but at the same time it does not follow as a necessary consequence that the form in which the supplies are prepared by Ministers is the best that could be approved by the House. Let me recall the recollection of the House to the proposition before it—a proposition which virtually doubles a tax that has been subjected always to considerable criticism, both within and without this House. The income tax is that tax which most of the Gentlemen who now sit upon the Treasury-bench have described as an unjust, an oppressive, and an inquisitorial tax. I do not say that these are reasons why it may not be the duty of the House of Commons to vote an increase of the tax if an exigency demands it; but it is a reason, when statesmen of such high character and influence have described a particular tax by such epithets as unjust, oppressive, and inquisitorial, that we should not come to votes about such a tax without deliberation. But is this all? The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) has paid great attention to this tax, and he moved for a Committee, which sat certainly for two Sessions, to deliberate on the mode by which it could be rendered less unjust, less oppressive, and less inquisitorial. There was a very strong feeling in a great party in this House that there was one means by which that object could be attained—namely, by altering the mode of assessment for the different schedules. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House were accustomed to declare that unless there was an alteration in the assessment of the duty on trades and professions, they would, under no consideration whatever, agree to the renewal even of the Income tax which now exists. The late Government made a proposition, which they 754 thought politic and just, to remove some of the objections in that respect. It was received by many Gentlemen opposite with treat favour and commendation. Unfortunately, however, the late Government were not successful in carrying it; but in opposition they asserted the constancy and sincerity of their convictions, and they gave the House an opportunity of declaring their deliberate, and, I suppose, final opinion upon that question. But what were the arguments that we heard even from hon. Gentlemen opposite who were favourable to the plan which was proposed and supported by the late Government for voting, and avowedly voting, against their conscience and their convictions? I need not remind the House of the peculiar reason that was given. The reason given was, that if they disturbed the present Government, they would endanger obtaining a large measure of Parliamentary reform. Now, I beg to remind them that they have the income tax without that modification which they said was so absolutely necessary—they are also likely to have that income tax doubled, and they do not at present seem to have much chance of obtaining the large measure of Parliamentary reform, which was the condition on which they gave their adhesion to the Government, that being the principle on which the present Government came into power. Well, now, this is the tax which you are called upon virtually to double. It is the unjust, the oppressive, the inquisitorial tax, which you could not tolerate except you obtained a large measure of Parliamentary reform as the price of your unqualified allegiance. It is, therefore, no ordinary impost which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed. It is not a financial proposition which, however grievous, you may feel under the circumstances you have no alternative but to accede to; but it is doubling that particular tax which has been branded by the opinion of every statesman opposite, and with which you are connected by the peculiar influences that induced you last year to vote against a policy which you approved to gain a boon which you have not received. I am not, however, disposed, at twelve o'clock at night, to enter into the consideration of this question. I cannot, at twelve at night, ask the House to consider whether, in the exigency in which we are placed, this is the wisest and best proposition which can be offered by the Government. We must consider the finances and 755 resources of the country in many aspects before we can arrive at that conclusion. We must ask ourselves, also, the question, why is this increase of our taxation demanded, and what is the object of the mysterious struggle in which this country, we are now told, is about to engage? When we were addressed in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech at the opening of Parliament, no wonder there was a ready response to the appeal of the Sovereign, when Her Majesty called upon us for our aid at a great emergency, and told us that she had, with the frankness which became a constitutional monarch, ordered all those papers to be laid upon the table, which would explain the circumstances that had rendered this appeal to us necessary. Her Majesty said:— I have directed that the papers explanatory of the negotiations which have taken place upon this subject shall be communicated to you without delay. But is there any Gentleman in this House who can say that all the papers explanatory of the state of affairs that has brought about this appeal from the Finance Minister really have been laid upon this table? What is the question that I have felt it my duty to ask, even to-day? Does not that lead the House to believe that there are yet documents to be placed upon this table which may throw a new light upon the cause and upon the object of this war? and is it not prudent that we should at least have the opportunity of perusing and considering those documents before, at past midnight, we are called upon hastily to pass a Resolution, which is to double the most grievous, the most odious, the most unjust, and the most inquisitorial impost of any that figure in the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I think, therefore, under these circumstances, the House will feel with me that, it is better this Committee of Ways and Means should be postponed until another day, until Friday next, when you, Sir, I hope will leave the chair at an early hour, and we shall have the opportunity of entering into the discussion of this important question perhaps with the advantage of the supplementary documents promised us to-night, which, I trust, will be given to us in extenso, and which, perhaps, may allow us to form a more correct opinion as to the prospects of the termination of this war, as well as of its cause, than we at present possess. Upon the subject of these documents I will only make one observation to Her 756 Majesty's Ministers. The papers on the table, according to a salutary custom, are copies and extracts of the correspondence which has taken place in respect to the negotiations relative to the Eastern question. When a body of diplomatic correspondence is put before the House of Commons, nothing can be more proper than that passages of a confidential nature should be omitted. But the correspondence respecting which I have addressed a question to the Ministry to-night is of a totally different character. It is altogether and entirely a confidential correspondence. It is a correspondence which, according to the usual rules, according to the ordinary routine, would be altogether and properly omitted, perhaps, from the papers which have been laid before us. But it is a correspondence which, on the other hand, if it be given at all, should be given completely. You cannot have extracts from a confidential correspondence; I trust, therefore, that Her Majesty's Ministers will bear this in mind, and that the whole of that correspondence referred to in the Journal of St. Petersburg, and the whole of those answers referred to in the other authoritative print at home, will be laid upon this table, I hope, before the Chancellor of the Exchequer asks for that important Vote which is now upon the paper.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he proposed to take the regular course in such a case as the present. The House would recollect that at this moment the Resolution had not been proposed, and the only way by which he could propose it was by going into a Committee of Ways and Means. He proposed, therefore, to go into Committee, to have the Resolution read, and then to move immediately that the Chairman report progress and Mr. Speaker resume the chair.