The reply of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach was a telling one,
if rather too Parliamentary, that is, addressed to his opponent's arguments rather than the facts. He maintained, first of all, that his heavy Budget was a war Budget, which Sir H. Fowler, as he approved the war, was precluded from attacking. He denied that he had relied too much on borrowing. The total expenditure on the war and the operations in China as yet had been 2153,317,000, and of this we had borrowed £108,046,000, and raised by taxation 245,271,000. He had so arranged his measures that supposing the war to stop, there would be a surplus of 212,500,000, which could be devoted either to a Sinking Fund or to a remission of taxa- tion. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, of course, defended the Sugar-tax and the Coal-duty, and then glided into a general defence of larger expenditure on defences. We had formerly had to provide against one enemy, now we had potentially four or five. He would never vie with the great military Powers of Europe, but though he regarded the rate of increase with distrust, as menacing the continuance of a fiscal system to which much of our prosperity was due, still the country must be defended. For instance, the possession of South Africa and the defence of the prestige of the Empire were cheap at the price paid. Mr. Redmond continued the debate in an excited speech, declaring that the war was the real cause of the expenditure, and that as Sir H. Fowler supported the war his party would not vote for the amendment.
Previous page
