THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER ON ECONOMY.
WE have nothing but praise for the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt on Wednesday' with the subject of old-age pensions. It is a policy on, which, so far as the general principle is concerned, every one is agreed. The two most tragic figures of our social life are "the man who wants work and cannot find it, and the man who is past work and has to beg for his bread and his bed." But the first business of a Chancellor of the Exchequer is the consideration of ways and means. Any scheme of old-age pensions would commit the country, EL the lowest estimate, to an expenditure of from £10,000,000 to £13,000,000 per annum. The question is, therefore, can we afford it? To create false hopes by promising what we do not see our way to perform is, in Mr. Asquith's words, the "worst form of political quackery." And this raises the whole problem of our national financial position. In the last ten years our annual expendi- ture has risen by £40,000,000. In a time of peace our Income-tax stands at one shilling in the pound. and our total capital liabilities have been increased by. nearly £150,000,000. Hence, however urgent the need of any reform, the question of cost must predominate. Members of Parliament are too prone to forget this. They do lip-service to the cause of economy, but on any matter which deeply interests them they dismiss lightly the con- siderations of expense, and refer the world airily to a graduated Income-tax or the taxation of land values as a bottomless mine from which to extract all the money required. Members are apt to compound for extravagance in which they are interested by damning extravagance to which they are not inclined. The payment of Members has a direct practical bearing upon the interests of many classes of the community, while the Army and Navy are remote things which are more or less taken for granted. It is easy, then, to talk at large against swollen Estimates for defence while urging fresh expendi- ture on homely matters like Members' salaries. The worst offenders, said Mr. Asquith, are not the heads of the great spending Departments, but the Members of the House of Commons. Since the Address they have demanded a return to the old franking system, which was abolished because of its cost and the abuses it entailed. They have carried the second reading of a Bill to provide free meals for underfed children. By enormous majorities they have recorded their view that Members should be salaried, and the expenses of returning officers charged upon public' funds. "A very good week's work for a Parliament elected to promote retrenchment and economy " • The Liberal majority has been obtained largely with a view to social reform, with the proviso that the funds for that reform are not to be raised in one particular way. There Must be no return to "the impoverishing futilities of the days of Protection, when for every penny you get from the foreigner you will be paying twopence or three- pence more out of your own pocket.' The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to reform the national finances by • so adjusting methods as to make our fiscal system more productive, and by apportioning the cost of government with greater justice and equality. He advocates, not parsimony, but economy,—spending where expenditure is needed, but everywhere and at all times seeing that we get our money's worth. That is sound doctrine, which we trust the House will lay to heart. The Army and Navy are cases in point. The defence of the nation and the Empire is the first consideration, and. that, to our mind, is a question of policy, which is independent, to begin with, of any thought of expeuse. But if, consistent with that great end, the numbers of our permanent fighting force and the size of our ship- building programme can be reduced, then such reduc- tion is the duty of the Government, not only as economists, but as the men responsible for de- fence. Efficiency is the first duty, but it is common- sense that it should be obtained in the cheapest way possible. And in the actual administration of Service .Estimates they must see that there is no wastage, no needless outlay on minor details, for a close attention to minutiae is the second duty of the economical statesman. The same spirit must inspire all the other Departments,— the Education Office, the Board of Trade, the Local Government Board. But economy without parsimony de- mands that Members show some sense of perspective. If each Department of Government were to regard its own interests as supreme, and compete with other Departments to' show heavier Estimates and obtain larger grants, then economy would become impossible. So with the reforms in which 'different Members are interested. They must show, in Mr. Asquith's words, " a sense of proportion as between the relative urgency and the relative importance of the different reforms upon which their hearts are set." These all involve an increased expenditure, and funds must first be forthcoming. Unless wild expedients are resorted to, these funds can only be got by judicious saving and readjustment, a work which means time. To clamour for immediate reforms which are inexpedient because expensive is to stultify the whole policy of a Liberal Government, and postpone the reforms themselves to the Greek Kalend,s.
No body of reasonable and thinking men could be deaf to the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has been too much forgotten of late years that economy is not an embellishment, but the primary duty of statesmanship. We do not mean that in itself it is a substantive policy, any more than efficiency. But it is the indispensable condition of all sound policy. Extravagance implies a weakening of moral fibre in any Government which tolerates it. The funds of the nation are a sacred trust, and the trustees are bound to apply them to one purpose Only,—the security and prosperity of the people who con- tribute them. It is a case for uberrima fides, a strict and scrupulous attention to every outlay. Their first business is to frame a policy in accordance with national needs, and their second to see that such a policy be the least costly allowable in the circumstances. Parsimony—the pre- occupation with the saving of money instead 'of with the objects for which money is raised—is a grave fault, but so also is carelessness. Between these two extremes stands economy,—a recognition of • the magnitude of the ends to be attained, and an equal recognition of the importanee of finding the best means. For in public affairs cheap- ness must be an element in the value of any method, since an extravagant scheme shows no security for its continuance. Sooner or later must come the pinch, and the whole policy is jeopardised, not because it is unwise, but because it is unendurable. A statesman who feels the gravity of his trust must have constantly before his eyes the duty of making public burdens as easy as possible, not only on the ground of the well-being of the taxpayers, but because he sees that sooner or later any scheme which involves a causeless sacrifice will be rejected epite of all its merits. "Magnificence," as in Pope's couplet, will only be secured if "by a just expense" it is joined with .economy.
But extravagance means not only an inadequate sense of responsibility, it involves a weakening of intellectual grasp. Statesmanship is a constant effort, a perpetual adaptation of the best means to the best ends. Careless ex- penditure indicates that attention is relaxed, that problems are not fully faced, that foresight is wanting,—in a word, that a Government is drifting. Economy, not pursued in doctrinaire fashion as an end in itself, but made a condition of policy, is the true test of the intellectual vitality of a statesman. It is wholly a relative affair. A hundred millions may be an economical outlay, while twenty may be extravagant. It involves no more than the determination to waste no penny of the national funds, and the belief that money wisely.saved is a gain of power. We may be perfectly certain that in administration the men who are careless about the details of cost are equally careless and incompetent as regards -the great ends of policy. The nation has a right to demand in its leaders a strenuous and conscientious activity in its service, and it may well be suspicious about such activity if it sees them squander the funds it has provided.
Previous page
