FALLACIES OF FISCAL GOVERNMENT. •
AN episode in the Hop debate, this week, was the occasion for stringing together a series of popular fallacies on the subject of financial legislation. The spokesman was Mr. Cobden ; but he is not individually chargeable with the ideas, since they belong to a very large section of the Liberal party; only they derive import- ance from the fact of being attested by him. Branching away from hops to malt, Mr. Cobden prospectively and speculatively dis- cussed the feasibility of repealing the Malt-tax, to which he de- murred. He put the case thus : he defied the repealers to find a substitute for that particular tax ; and therefore "there was but one way of proceeding, and that was to effect a large reduction of expenditure.' This is a very ordinary Chancellor of the Exche- quer view of the subject—that there is no alternative between abandoning revenue and finding a " substitute " for a tax ; but it is a view which experience has refuted. We need not go into any general speculation on the subject, but only refer to a recent in- stance within the experience of all—Sir Robert Peel's readjustment of taxation. Mr. Disraeli talks of readjustment when it suits him, and it is not to be denied that such a course is open to any financier.
Another objection alleged against the repeal of the Malt-tax, was the " large amount of public feeling in the country opposed to the consumption of malt liquors." Now the whole country is not opposed to the consumption of malt liquors. If it were, the im- position of a tax would be a needless auxiliary to the spontaneous abnegation of "the country." If not, the tastes of the majority— and of the immense majority—with the interests of an important agricultural class, are not to be forced down to the standard of a sect in morals, however numerous and respectable that sect may be. Even if there were reason or justice in such a Procrustean process, a tax is not the proper instrument for effecting it. Taxes should be for revenue, and revenue only. Protection is bad enough, even for corn or " native industry," in any shape ; but fiscal protection for morals !—And who would have expected to find the G. F. Young of Teetotalism in the West Riding ? Pro- tection does not answer even its professed object—it is defeated by the smuggler; and a moral which refers the majority of society to illicit dealing must be desperately in want of wisdom or resources. Surely we need not argue the point further ? It does not surprise us to see Free-traders become Protectionists in behalf of their own sectional dogmas, but it would be deplorable if economists gene- rally were to depart from the sound principles of economy. There is indeed more than economy in question. " Gentlemen sitting for large constituencies," we are told, " know that they may now vote against the repeal of the Malt-tax without giving that offence to their constituencies that they would have given a few years ago." The argument is put as if Members should vote, not according ing to their convictions, but according to their fear of their constituencies ; not according to a sympathy with the convictions
of their electors, but according to an alarm at the prejudices of their electors. In short, the position implies a delegation rather than representation, and a delegation of the worst kind—a delegation of bigotry.
In harmony with the servility implied in that view is the ad- vice that Mr. Frewen should persevere in his motion precisely because the Government is weak : " if he finds that from difficul- ties or the state of parties the Government is shaking, that is the very time to press his motion with the greatest perseverance and vehemenoe." This doctrine is derived from the regime of the Whigs, who, when it suited them, professed to be the mere agents for " the pressure from without," or the lieutenants of King Cla- mour: but it would be lamentable if the mancenvre of an ill-con- ditioned time were accepted as a permanent canon of government. In no constitutional view whatever should a government be deem- ed a thing to harass, coerce, and persecute. A government that needs aey such process to keep it to its work is not fit for its work —is not fit to be the head of a ,great empire. It was the oppro- brium of the Liberal party, that, in the ridiculous timidity lest they should fail "to keep out the Tories," they consented to have, not a government of their own, but a government alien to their views ; which in turn consented to be coerced. It was the opprobrium of the Government that fit accepted the lead of a party whose principles it did not trust but whose mandate it would obey; that it preferred the post of a captain lashed to the rudder by a mutinous crew; that it aspired to the position of a Lucretia whose virtue was based solely on the' fear of responsibility—whose Brummagem billet-doux about "the voice of a nation" and so forth invited the popular Tarquin—whose sole object in life was not to use the dagger, but only to continue that life of prudish Lucretian irresponsibility of licence. The doc- trine, of " pressure from without" was the rule of a low period, When public contempt for rulers was repaid by a shameless sub- mission to necessity and a more shameless evasion on opportunity ; and it is not the doctrine for a great empire which " never dies." A great state, in full possession of all its facUlties, will appoint a government worth obeying : while it is deprived of such a govern- ment, a great state is stripped of some of its attributes, crippled in some of its functions ; and true statesmen will endeavour to re- deem it from that untoward position.
Previous page
