TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE BUDGET DEBATE.
WE are rather glad that the Government was not defeated on Thursday, and this not for tactical reasons, about which, in truth, we do not profess to care. This is a dangerous Government, and will, we hope, be defeated both in the House of Commons and at the polls, but the debate has not convinced us that the Budget is a bad one. The fight over the slight increase to the liquor- duties involves no principle at all, not even the one quoted by Mr. Balfour, partly, we suppose, in jest. He said that to tax a trade because it was prosperous was "Oriental finance," but he answered himself the next moment, when he admitted that the new tax on land might not be so objectionable if the landed interests were prosperous.
The very keynote of our finance, even as it stands, is to tax the prosperous, even the taxes on liquor and tobacco resting on the theory that those luxuries are not purchased except by men with some small sur- plus to waste. That the equalisation of the Death- duties on land and personalty involves questions of extraordinary complexity—the whole question of the security for old mortgages, for example—and that it may, in certain cases, ruin burdened estates, was amply proved in the debate, but that is matter for argument in Committee and not for the second reading. The principle of the in- novation must be right, unless the landlords are prepared to assert, like the Socialists, that land is not property at all, but only a trust individualised in the interest of the community. They could not say that, even if it were true—which it is not—and until they can say it the exemption of the landlords is indefensible in logic. This may not be the time for making the reform, and we do not blame the Unionist party for defending the most important section of their supporters ; but it is a reform for all that, and inevitably must come. It is too absurd that the great London estates should be treated "tenderly," while the small savings of professionals are subjected to the full rigour of the law. The argument against graduation is a better one, because it is true that a democratic Parliament would be tempted to carry it too far, but even that is only an argument against the extent of the graduation, not against the principle of it. If comparative means are to be considered at all—on which subject we still entertain certain abstract doubts—it is mere common-sense to say that the millionaire can spare most. His heir is , sure of enough, anyhow, and if the living owner is afraid of the tax, let him insure his life against it, as the poorer people do against the loss of their professional incomes. There is a point at which the tax would become legalised. plunder, but it is not reached by a maximum probate-duty of 8 per cent. Curiously enough, a great many Unionists rejoice that the Government was not defeated, for a reason which we believe to be entirely unfounded. They say they do not want to go to the country while resisting a popular Budget, and we see the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees with them. Now it seems to us that the whole course of events since the Budget was introduced, shows that the constituencies as a mass care nothing whatever about the Budget, that it is neither popular nor unpopular. The House cares, and the interests affected care, but the con- stituencies do not. The liquor trade is so powerful in Ireland, and especially in Dublin, that the Parnellites were able in safety to vote against the Radical Govern- ment, and we doubt if the brewers who " deserted " will greatly offend their influential constituents. But the people neither desired that extra sixpence, nor objected to ' it, regarding it rather as a bit of financial legerdemain, like some of Mr. Gladstone's cleverest proposals, which • everybody accepted, and about one man in a thousand • understood. If the tax had increased prices, there iniiht have been a fuss ; but it falls on brewers and • middlemen, and perhaps a little on the quality of the liquor, and the masses do not care. Nor, as we believe, do they care about the rearrangement of the Death-duties. They ; are net going to pay them, or to be exempt from them, - arid • they .look on unconcernedly, scarcely even reading the discussion. They are not displeased that the rich should pay, but as it will not relieve the rates, they do not see that it matters much to them ; and as to the gratifica- tion of envy, the very rich will be very rich still. Owe class—the small Income-tax payers—ought to be, grateful,. but we do not know that they are. They certainly never thanked Mr. Gladstone for offering to take off the Income- tax altogether, and in Hackney, which is choked with the class, they flung Sir William Harcourt's benefae- tions back in his face, a thousand more of them voting for his dismissal. We believe the plain truth of the matter to be that the effect of Budgets on the mass- vote is infinitesimal, that the "Queen's taxes" are not felt by them, and that they look on the arrangements for raising revenue with a dull certainty that it will be raised without altering their position. Even Sir kitafford North- cote's enormous gift, the remission of the sugar-duties, excited no gratitude, and secured no votes. The masses care about rates, not taxes • and we venture to say if a. Tory Ministry were to abolish rates altogether, and pay local expenses out of taxes, that excessively dangerous proposal would be met by the " masses " with a roar of applause. The old feeling about taxes is nearly dead. We do not like the change of sentiment in the least, for we can see that it has produced, and will produce, a tendency to State extravagance, and will run up Budgets by another twenty-three millions—the increase of the last thirty years—and will tempt the faddists into wild experiments at the cost of the Treasury ; but there it is, and Chancellors of the Exchequer will have to reckon with it. Look at the facts. Sir William Harcourt produces a "Democratic Budget," and the Democratic majority drops one-half, while the only Unionist who refuses to. denounce the Budget does it, notoriously, because he thinks the proposals pretty just. Does Sir William Harcourt imagine that all Unionists are flying in the face of their constituents on a matter of taxation ? That would be a foolish supposition, yet, if they are not, what becomes of his claim to ponularity ? He does not understand how completely Sir -Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone have released the people from the 'sense of the burden of national taxes, or how completely they have transferred their antipathy from the tax-collector, whom they never see, to the rate-collector, whom they want to kick. Ask any charitable organisation in the country, or any of the smaller dissenting ministers, where the popular anger against taxes comes in, and they will, to a, man, give the same reply. We do not want to see the Budget resisted, but only improved in Committee ; but the Unionists may resist it, if they please, without the slightest fear of any popular outcry. If the Cabinet really framed it only to catch votes—which is not our belief—they have, as the people of Hackney have told them, missed their spring.
Previous page
