In the general debate that followed, Mr. Haldane was in-
clined to regard the Budget as an electioneering Budget, and complained that five times more relief was going to the Income-tax payers, and so to the supporters of the Government, than to the heavily burdened indirect-tax payer. [We wonder how far this assumption that the vast majority of Income- tax payers are Unionists is correct; possibly the very rich are, but these very rich men are certainly not the majority of Income-tax payers, but only a small minority.] Mr. Chaplin accused the Government of riding for a fall because of the repeal of the Corn-tax, which would disgust many of their supporters. Mr. Gibson Bowles, however, declared the Budget to be simple and courageous, though he asked whether the Government were not contemplating a Disso- lution. The Sinking Fund, he also declared, was not sufficiently large. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wound up the discussion by an able defence of the abolition of the Corn- tax. It was impossible to declare that it had not raised the price of bread, for it had admittedly raised the price of flour. That is a most important admission, and of very special significance when coming from a statesman who was once a strong Fair-trader.
Previous page
