TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE PEERS AND THE BUDGET.
" 1)ASSION and impatience seem to be sweeping every one away ; but I think eighteen months' experience of .Mr. Lloyd George's finance would be the most salutary lesson the country could have at present." So writes to us a very intelligent student and observer of public affairs, one who by his profession and by his temper of mind is able to take a detached view of the political situation. For ourselves, we do not doubt the wisdom. of the advice to the House of Lords which is implied in his criticism. That an intense passion of resentment has been roused, not only by the legislative proposals and Parliamentary tactics of the Government, but also by the discreditable appeals to the predatory instincts of mankind made by Mr. Lloyd George at Limehouse and Mr. Winston Churchill at Leicester, cannot be a subject for wonder. The Peers and the Unionist Party have, we fully admit, ample excuse for strong action. When men see the affairs of the country drifting into greater and greater peril owing to the weakness of one section of their rulers and the reckless- ness of the other, there is plenty of ground for indignation and contempt. That, however, does not prove that it is prudent to act in a passion, for passion, even when most natural, is not a condition which produces wise action. Again, impatience is a most natural result of the way in which the Government have pressed and pushed their financial proposals, hedging here and changing there, and yet remaining always fixed in false principle and fallacious argument. Take only one example of the levity, as well as the injustice, of their policy. They propose a tax on " ungotten " minerals, and when it collapses from its own absurdity they light-heartedly turn that tax into one on " gotten ' minerals, with the result that certain people have their incomes, or a portion of their incomes, taxed twice over, without the slightest proof being given, that they ought to bear a larger proportionate share than their fellows of the burdens which the State imposes to meet its needs.
But though we admit the provocation, the arguments for not acting under the influence of passion and impatience, always strong, are doubly strong in the present case. The supreme object for men of moderate views just now should be to get rid of the present Government, and to teach our rulers for the future that the country shall not be governed in the spirit of the Limehouse and Leicester speeches. But if such a lesson is to be given to our politicians, it is essential that it should be given in unmistakable terms, and that there should be no possibility of doubt as to the verdict. Can it said that the action which the House of Lords is being urged to take by the Unionist leaders and the Unionist Press is sure to produce the desired lesson? Further, i 3 it not as certam as anything can be in politics that if those who have planned the new finance, raised so many false hopes, and made so many unfulffilable promises are allowed to carry their schemes into practice, a reaction will set in which will ultimately sweep them away ? First-hand experience of the Budget will very soon teach people that any grievances they may have in regard to the leasehold system in our towns will not be remedied in the slightest degree by the Government sharing the so-called " blachaail " with the ground land- lord. At present a large portion of the country is under the extraordinary delusion that the Budget will somehow or other make town leases cheaper, and will actually improve the position of existing tenants. The Budget is entirely incapable of doing any such thing Indeed, so far as it touches the leasehold system, its action must be in the opposite direction. Hitherto ground land- lords have in most cases not exacted the last penny from their property. When, however, the Government are taking so large a share of that property, and, further, are causing the belief that more and more imposts are to be placed upon the land, we may be sure that the ground land- lord will in future hold that he had better get the full economic value of anything he has to sell or hire before he loses it altogether. Insecurity never yet made people inclined to be generous. Take next the notion that the taxation of undeveloped land is going to bring a great deal of land into the market, and thus make it cheaper and easier for men to acquire their houses, or for the speculative builder to provide them with accommodation. Nothing of the sort will happen. Possibly a little more land may be offered for sale than was offered before, but this will be more than counteracted by the general sense of insecurity which is killing credit and. making speculation in building more and more difficult and precarious. As it is, free competition in the land market has made the acquisition of land for building workmen's houses in most cases easy. What prevents big building schemes is not the acquisition of the land, but the hiring of the capital. The difference between a cheap artisan's house and a dear one depends upon whether a builder can get himself financed at a dear or a cheap rate. But can any one suppose that the present Budget is going to enable builders to get money on more favourable terms than formerly ? It is true that the financiers are not yet affected by the new finance. As Mr. Balfour said, how- ever, the fact that A is being hit now makes B tremble in his shoes, and, he might have added, makes B determine to close his purse-strings, and not to invest a penny more than he can help till things look better. At the best of times it is impossible to raise sixteen millions of new taxation without causing a good deal of disturbance in the country, and without making the tax- payers, rich and poor, complain. This fact, however, has not as yet come home to the electors. Not only have they not begun to pay to any considerable extent, but they are still bemused by rhetorical assurances that the taxation of the rich is a kind of manure out of which prosperity for the poor is bound to grow. Contact with the realities of finance will, however, very soon disperse these illusions and make men realise the true state of things. In other words, patience on the part of the Unionists would. be bound to make their triumph when it came a. great triumph. Therefore, in our opinion, the Lords will do well to let the country actually taste the new finance before it is asked whether it likes it or not. Suppose we asked men to condemn a quack medicine after reading a disingenuous advertisement declaring that the said medicine cures all the ills of life in an instant. Surely it would be better to say, "Take a sip and then decide," than to insist that the decision must be given before tasting, and merely on the merits of the " reading " round the bottle. Another ground for doubting the wisdom of forcing an immediate appeal is to be found in the fact that such an appeal cannot unfortunately take the place of a direct Referendum on the Budget. It is bound to be mixed up with a question capable of being confused with an enormous mass of foolish prejudice,—the question "Will you be ruled by the Peers or the people ? " Such an appeal is, of course, in itself ridiculous ; but in the present mood it will, we fear, catch many feather-heads among the voters.
Previous page
