The debate which followed was remarkable for the anxiety of
Liberal Members to avoid any appearance of disloyalty to their pledges, while supporting the Government. Some, however, stated that their pledges must take precedence even over the convenience of the Government. The Nationalists announced that they should vote against the Government, and so did the Independent Labour group, on whose behalf Mr. Snowden declared that old-age pensions were no excuse for the Sugar-tax, and that the Budget had caused the defeat of the Liberal candidate at Jarrow. The Government Whips were uneasy about the results of the division, but in the end the Government had a majority of 137. For ourselves, we have only to say that we do not see bow, in existing circum- stances, the Government can raise money less objectionably than by the Sugar-tax,—though we understand, and in a sense sympathise with, Mr. Cox's desire to make old-age pensions impossible by cutting away one of the supports on which they would have to rest. All indirect taxation is objectionable because it is expensive to collect and because it is impossible to make it fall in true proportion to the ability to pay of those who contribute. Since, however, it is useless to suppose that we can get on without indirect taxation, it is essential to impose such taxation by duties the whole product of which will go to the Treasury. The duty on sugar fulfils this condition. Mr. Asquith was, we think, very rash in holding out hopes of getting rid of it. We cannot leave the debate without recording our deep regret at the sudden death in the House on the same day of Sir Alfred Billson, the Liberal Member for North-West Staffordshire.
Previous page
