TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE NEW MINISTERS.
WE dwelt last week upon the general position and. policy of the new Cabinet. At the present juncture we desire to say something as to the results which the new appointments are likely to have upon the actual administration, and still more upon the legislative plans, of the Government. That the change at the Educa- tion Department foreshadows an alteration of direction as regards the policy of the Government can hardly be doubted. With Mr. McKenna goes Mr. McKenna's Bill, and also, we trust, the policy of harrying the Church and the Church schools through the Training Colleges. As to what are Mr. Runciman's views on the educational problem we have no means of knowing, but all who have watched his career at first hand seem to agreethat he is essentially a man of sane and sober judgment, and that he is not at all likely to think it possible that the education problem can be carried by storm. The failures and difficulties of his pre- decessor, as well as his own temperament, will, we trust, make him inclined for a reasonable compromise. Certainly the moment is auspicious for such work. If, as we are assuming, Mr. McKenna's Bill is dead, the Bishop of St. Asaph's Bill, though in suspended animation, may be said to hold the field. It presents, we believe, all the essentials of a national settlement, and we do not see why the Govern- ment should not adopt its main provisions in a measure of their own. It is true that the Bill is strongly opposed by the extremists on the Church side, and. also by the extremists among the Nonconformists ;• but this is not a defect, but rather a proof of the moderation and. good sense of the scheme. Just as it may be said that a Bill which fully satisfied either extreme section would be certain to be a bad Bill, so we think it may be said that a Bill which satisfies neither is likely to be sound. In any case, we do not see why the Government should be deterred from supporting the Bishop of St. Asaph's compromise because of the opposition of the Bishop of Birmingham and his supporters. What Ministers should concern themselves with is the opinion of moderate Churchmen, lay and clerical, and such moderate opinion is, we are convinced, strongly in favour of the Bishop of St. Asaph's measure. Possibly the Government may be inclined. to say that this support is not enough, and that if they are to disoblige their extremest supporters they want more,—namely, the endorsement of the compromise by the Leader of the Opposition. If this is to be the Government's attitude, we venture to say that it is not a wise one. Mr. Balfour is, we fear, too keen a player of the party game to agree to help the Government out of the great difficulties into which they have no doubt got themselves over the education question. But though Mr. Balfour in the abstract is not likely to help the Government, we feel sure that if the Ministry persevere in a moderate settlement on the lines of the Bishop of St. Asaph's Bill, public opinion throughout the country will prove far too strong for Mr. Balfour, and will oblige him to acquiesce in the settlement. Though it May not suit him to let the Government out of a tight place, it would suit him still less to see a national settlement carried over his head, and to have it remembered against him that he tried. for party reasons to defeat a sound measure. In fine, we do not believe in Mr. Balfour's power to wreck the Bishop of St. Asaph's Bill in the Lords provided the Government really mean business in regard to'that measure.
The Admiralty must always be a matter of grave concern to thinking men. Will Mr. McKenna be able to give us that strength and efficiency at sea which are vital to the essential interests of this country ? Mr. McKenna, is regarded as an economist and financial expert, and for this reason some of the newspapers have assumed that he will wait to reduce the strength of the Navy. As to whether Mr. McKenna's financial reputation is or is not deserved we can pronounce no opinion; but of one thing we are certain. If his financial ability is as great as is asserted, he will be likely to improve, not weaken, our naval power. It must never be forgotten that in administration economy and efficiency are far more apt to go together than efficiency and lavishness. Therefore' we should welcome rather than deprecate the application of sound financial principles at the Admiralty.. As our readers know, we hold that what is now most wanted at the Admiralty is careful inquiry in the nature of a national stocktaking. We ought . to know exactly how things stand in the Navy, and what has been the net result of the revolutionary changes that have taken place in the last three or four years. In our opinion, such an inquiry can best be carried. out by a Committee of Investigation. If, however, this is decided against, we trust that the new First Lord will at any rate make a searching inquiry upon his own account, and insist upon satisfying himself that our Navy is being administered on sound. and safe lines, and that not only are we not dropping behind in the matter of new construction, but also that there is no dangerous retrenchment in the matter of repairs, or, again, in that of stores. It is so obviously ruinous not to keep pace with our rivals in the matter of new construction that we have no very great fear in this respect. What is much more to be feared is the neglect of repairs and a tendency to live upon capital owing- to the wastage of stores not being made good. Only those who are conversant with the inner working of. the Admiralty can really tell how we stand in these respects. Yet if war comes suddenly—and war will come suddenly if it comes at all—the question of repairs and stores may mean the whole difference between success and utter ruin. If, then, Mr. McKenna is wise, he will not rest until he has the most absolute assurance in regard. to these two points. What Mr. Winston Churchill may. do at the Board of Trade remains to be seen. That he will be eager to show his mettle we do not doubt. He must remember, nevertheless, that- sensationalism and commerce may prove a very dangerous combination. It is true that for the moment Government interference,_ Governinent patronage, and Government control over, British industries appear to be the fashion. Such fashions, however, are apt to work themselves out rather quickly, and. Mr. Churchill will be well advised to reflect that there is a good. deal of old-fashioned individualism still, left in British human nature, and especially in the nature of the British trader.
It remains to consider how Mr. Lloyd-George is likely to deal with the national finances. Even if, as is asserted, Mr. Asquith introduces the coming Budget, Mr. Lloyd- George will no doubt, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, take a leading part in the final modifications of that Budget. Let us hope that he will remember that an easy optimism, and a belief that a great deal more may be done in the future than has been done in the past in the way of taxation, are always the dangers of the Minister who controls the Treasury. As a matter of fact, a British Chancellor of the Exchequer should take as his motto the wise words of Sir Thomas Browne : "It is too late to be ambitious." The best- Chancellor of the Exchequer is he who keeps the most prudent supervision and control over national expenditure, and who does not yield to fads and fancies in fiscal matters. This being so, we confess to a certain anxiety,. caused us by the tone of the interview between Mr. Lloyd- George and the correspondent of the Paris Temps published. in Monday's papers. For example, Mr. Lloyd-George, while. declaring that the Old-Age Pensions Bill would shortly. come before Parliament, dealt in the following words with the objection so often raised in these columns that we have not enough money to carry out the scheme :—" Our Budget shows a balance on the right side, and we are steadily decreasing the National Debt, and we will easily find money for our old-age pensions scheme." If Mr. Lloyd-George really thinks that he will find it easy to go on decreasing the National Debt, and yet to obtain money for an old-age pensions scheme of which the ultimate result must be an expenditure of thirty millions a year, he is far too great an optimist to make a safe Chancellor of the Exchequer. Again, we cannot say that we feel reassured. by the obiter dictum. in the course of the same interview in which Mr. Lloyd-George once more betrayed a hankering after the nationalisation of the railways. After stating fairly enough the great difficulties caused. by wholesale direct employment of labour by the State, Mr. Lloyd- George proceeded : "From an economic point of view State purchase of the railways would possess, in my mind, more advantages than disadvantages.' Mr. Lloyd-George also said : "'Perhaps in certain circumstances- the State might be induced to lend. its guarantee to the interest on. the .debenture capital." We - are bow4c1 to fug. that ,them statements strike us as exceedingly unfortunate, for they seem to show that Mr. Lloyd-George is still in the condi- tion of mind which marks all amateur financiers. Such persons are always struck by the low rate at which the State is apparently able to borrow at times when it is not wanting to borrow—the tune changes quickly when it wants to borrow on a large scale—and they therefore fill their minds with wonderful visions of the great things that may be done through State guarantees. As a matter of fact, nothing is more dangerous than such wholesale guaranteeiug. It undermines the most precious asset of the State—its credit—and with it the capacity to borrow at reasonable terms when a real necessity arises. One of the great arguments for a steady reduction of the National Debt is the effect upon credit caused by the diminution of national obligations. It is no good, however, to pay off National Debt with one hand, and to run up guarantees for interest with the other,—guarantees which are in effect nothing but additions to the National Debt, even though they may be balanced by a compensating source of revenue. A Chancellor of the Exchequer who believes in the Fortunatus'-purse notion of the State under any of its aliases is likely to prove a national danger. We do not go so far as to say that Mr. Lloyd-George does this, or, again, that he will not learn a great deal after he has been a year or two at the Exchequer. Still, the two remarks we have quoted in regard to old-age pensions and the railways are not altogether reassuring.
No doubt one of the first practical points which will come before Mr. Lloyd-George will be the demand for the reduction of the Sugar-duty, and a very strong case he will find it. If he is prudent, he will assent to the reduction of those duties by at least half, and will tell his colleagues that even if this means a postponement of old-age pensions, they will be wise to assent to such postponement. As regards the obligation which rests upon the Government and the Liberal Party for dealing with the sugar question, we cannot do better than quote from our contemporary the Economist, a paper which under its present management cannot be accused of any want of sympathy with the Government, but is, on the contrary, one of its most loyal supporters. It wrote last week as follows :— " Now that we are so near the Budget, interest in the sugar duties is naturally revived, and the many Liberal members who have pledged themselves to repeal must be feeling rather anxious about the Government proposals. It is difficult to see how any Government that has expressed so deep and disinterested a hatred of the tax on sugar can go through the third year of its life without abolishing it, and it is even more difficult to see how the private members who scooped in votes at the General Election from sugar consumers can give their vote, Budget after Budget, in favour of the duty. At the present moment it is particularly desirable to have the duty repealed, because the price has been rising from natural causes, and seems likely, if the current estimates are accurate, to rise even higher.
A Government that has suffered more than one defeat at by-elections on the cry of dear food would be wise to take those facts into consideration and do something to counteract the natural rise by removing the artificial burden. Unless the tax is repealed in the Budget there will be some awkward divisions for the Ministry in the next two or three months."
That is surely sound. sense. Though the Government may not care to take good advice from the Spectator, they might at least listen to so friendly a critic as the Economist.
Previous page
