HC Deb 06 February 1857 vol 144 cc253-9
LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to what appeared to him to be a departure from a usage which had been observed for some years past, to the great convenience of Members, and also of harmony in the House on the first day of the Session. It had been the practice, in answer to the Queen's Speech, to put the Address in such general terms as not to commit the House to matters which might afterwards become the subject of discussion, especially as the House was not usually called upon to give an opinion without having received information on the subject. He concluded, without attending, as he ought to have done, to the words of the Address agreed to on Tuesday, that a similar course had been pursued. He considered so the more because the hon. Mover of the Address had shown great judgment not only in the topics which he discussed, but in those which he avoided. He heard the Hon. Gentleman say that, with regard to the affairs of Italy, Persia, and China, the House would probably suspend their opinion until the papers were laid before them; but he found, on looking at the Address adopted by the House, these words,— We assure your Majesty that we participate in the expression of your regret that the conduct of the Persian Government has led to hostilities between your Majesty, and the Shah of Persia, and that the Persian Government, in defiance of repeated warnings, and in violation of its engagements, has besieged and captured the important city of Herat. It was perfectly natural for the Ministers of the Crown to say that. They had all the papers before them. They were entitled to form their judgment when they adopted hostile proceedings, but he did not think it was right to ask the House of Commons to affirm that the conduct of the Persian Government had led to hostilities. He was not aware that the Shah of Persia had besieged any possessions of England, or captured any of Her Majesty's ships; and he did not think the House was aware of "repeated warnings" and "engagements" with regard to the important city of Herat. All that, he had no doubt, might be proved by the papers; but he submitted that the House ought not to be called on to pronounce a very decided opinion on a matter with respect to which they had not any information. He only wished to guard against the inference of his being a party to the affirmation, and to state that he should form his judgment free and unbiassed upon the papers which might hereafter be produced.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, it was far from the intention of the Government to commit the House, by the form in which the Address was drawn, to any opinion on foreign policy. The right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) pointed out that one paragraph had the appearance of expressing an opinion with regard to the events in China, and the noble Lord at the head of the Government, acceding to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) at once substituted a mere expression of thanks. The Government would not for a moment take advantage of the terms used in the Address with regard to the Persian Government, and if those observations had been made when the Address was under consideration he felt assured that his noble Friend would have acceded to any suggestion whereby the possibility of committing the House to an opinion would have been avoided.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he thought the moral of these observations was that very great care ought to be taken in the preparation of these Addresses. It was not consistent with the patience, or rather the impatience, of the House that the Address should be heard either when read by the Mover or when read from the chair. He had, among others, anxiously strained his powers of hearing to catch some words of the Address, but such was the general inattention that it was in vain. By peculiar vigilance the discovery of an error was made by the right hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. M. Gibson), and his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) had now detected another error. It only showed that in a matter of such delicacy greater care in turning the paragraphs of the Address ought to be taken before the House was called on to assent to it.

SIR F. BARING

said, he quite concurred with his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) in thinking the paragraph in question highly objectionable. Even with regard to the case of China the Address committed the House in a manner in which it could hardly have been intended. Turning to the Address he found that not only did the House thank Her Majesty for information, but "we concur with your Majesty in trusting that the Government of Pekin will see the propriety of affording the satisfaction demanded, and of faithfully fulfilling its treaty engagements." The House at present had no possible means of knowing what those demands were, and consequently they had given an opinion upon a matter of which they had not the slightest official knowledge. He would recommend that more care should be taken in future in the framing of the Address.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that after the strong feeling which had been exhibited throughout the country on the subject of the war tax, he considered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to produce his financial statement before he took any Vote in Supply. If he did not, it was to be hoped that the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) would persevere in his Motion, in which case Go- vernment would perhaps find themselves in a position different from that which they would have occupied had they done as he suggested. He remembered a case in which a Chancellor of the Exchequer had submitted three different schemes of taxation to a dissatisfied House.

MR. DISRAELI

Sir, I can assure the hon. Member for Lambeth that it is my intention to proceed with the Motion to which he refers, whatever may be the course pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to the financial statement. I think that the object of that Motion has, perhaps, been misunderstood, and that it will be seen to be quite independent of the course which Her Majesty's Government may think proper to take. I observed that great agitation prevailed throughout the country in the autumn, in consequence of a belief on the part of the people that they were suffering under a grievance imposed upon them by an Act of Parliament. I examined into the circumstances of those allegations, and it appeared, to me that it was a grievance justly complained of. All that I shall propose to do is to obtain the repeal of the Act of Parliament that entails this grievance. In the agitation of this question, however, as in all agitations of this kind, very many dangerous opinions have been circulated with respect to the principles of taxation with regard to this particular law, and I thought it more judicious, not only to remove the grievance, but to assert those sound and just principles on which I thought the income tax ought to rest so long as it is permitted to remain in existence. I thought, that if I attempted to remove the grievance without arresting attention to the principles of the tax, I should pursue a course which would be injurious to the public good, and should only half perform my duty. I shall endeavour, in the Motion I shall make, to accomplish both these purposes. I am not about to bring forward any financial scheme myself, nor do I want to stand in the way of the financial scheme of Her Majesty's Ministers. I think that the House of Commons is acting in the discharge of its first and highest duty in redressing a great grievance which has been complained of, and in asserting and strengthening those principles of legislation which I think it of advantage should be maintained. Whatever Estimates, therefore, may be brought forward in this House, and whatever may be their nature and amount, Ways and Means will, I doubt not, always be found in order to sustain the public service of the country.

MR. CARDWELL

I hope, Sir, that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat, will confirm my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the good resolution that he has announced, although more faintly than I could have wished, to give us the financial statement at the earliest possible period. At the same time, I do not understand how it is possible for the House to give an opinion upon one part of a great financial case without having had the whole of that case laid before them. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) would first begin by repealing that which he calls the war income tax, and he would then proceed to vote those Estimates which the public service demands. I should be glad to vote the remission of that portion of the income tax which the war imposed, and then to provide the necessary Estimates, but I apprehend we shall do that with more confidence and satisfaction when we know that, after providing for all the necessary expenditure, there will be a balance in the Exchequer at the end of the year, notwithstanding the remission of that tax, or else the House will find itself in this predicament. The Crown may have to come to Parliament and say, "You have repealed a portion of the taxes, and voted larger Estimates than the public money provides." Now, Sir, I will ask what course would the House then be compelled to take? Why, you must either sanction a loan in the first year of peace, or levy those taxes on articles of large consumption which for years it has been the policy of this House to repeal. By the other plan we may proceed with confidence, and I trust we shall be enabled to repeal the war income tax as soon as it is seen that the amount necessary for the independent requirements of the present year leaves the whole of that sum open to the representatives of the people. That knowledge we shall not satisfactorily possess unless we are first placed in possession of all the views of the Government with regard to the requirements of the year. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has correctly stated that it is the practice to adhere to precedent in these matters. There have been two remarkable precedents upon this point. In 1845 Sir Robert Peel, having then a balance in the Exchequer upon the income of the year larger than the whole produce of the in- come tax, felt it his duty to ask for an entire readjustment of the Army and Navy Estimates, and followed up that readjustment by a renewal of the income tax. The course he adopted was not to take a Vote upon the Estimates, but he came forward as early as the 14th of February, and in a Committee of Ways and Means stated the whole views of the Government, and concluded by asking the opinion of the House on the renewal of the income tax. In 1848 the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell), had to propose another readjustment of the Army and Navy Estimates, and an alteration in connection with the income tax. Unless I am mistaken, the course then pursued was to make the financial statement as the earliest step in the financial history of that year. We have now not to impose taxes, but to remit taxes and diminish Estimates. And I submit that the proper course is that we, now readjusting the Estimates and the taxation, should follow the precedents of 1845 and 1848, and learn from the Crown what its opinion is upon the sum necessary for the coming year, and that we should form our judgment whether that is necessary or not. I think we ought to have before us the whole financial statement of the year, and that we should not be called upon to form an opinion on only a portion of that statement.

MR. MALINS

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had misapprehended the meaning of his (Mr. Malin's) right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli). They all concurred in calling upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make his financial statement at the earliest possible period of the year. But the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) appeared to suppose that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) was about to ask the House to take into its consideration the mode in which the Ways and Means were to be raised. But that was a misconception. A mistake had been made in an Act of Parliament of which the people of England complained; for, while under that Act it was intended that the war income tax should be levied for a year after the termination of the war, by an accidental wording of the Act of Parliament it seemed about to be levied for two years. He had pointed out the mistake last year, and had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government intended to avail themselves of it, and to levy this most burdensome tax up to April, 1858. He expected that the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer would have said then, what the Government would be obliged to say now, that they did not intend to avail themselves of that accident. He believed that the Parliament and the people of England had made up their minds on this subject; and that, although it might be necessary to double the income tax, yet that it could not be done under the existing Act of Parliament. He desired to keep his mind free as to the Ways and Means, believing as he did that, whatever the necessity of the country might be, the means would be found to meet the expenditure. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could satisfy the House that the next year could not be got through without the additional 9d. income-tax, he did not pledge himself to vote either for or against it; but the Government were certainly bound to forego the advantage they had gained by the accidental wording of the Act, and to throw themselves upon the generosity of Parliament and of the nation.

Motion, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair, agreed to.

House in Committee. Mr. FitzRoy in the chair.

Lords Commissioners' Speech read:—

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

then moved, that a Supply be granted to Her Majesty.

Resolved, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."

Resolution to be reported on Monday next.

The House resumed.