TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE BUDGET.
THE lovers of statistics may be very well satisfied with Mr. Hunt's Budget speech. It bristles with every kind of arithmetical detail. The Estimates of last year are compared with the result ; the result again with that of the previous
year ; and both with the Estimates for the year which has begun. The expenses of the Abyssinian Expedition are also the occasion of more than one arithmetical comparison. To add to the complexity, Mr. Hunt explains with the utmost precision the effect of slight changes in the taxes, and in the form of the Estimates and accounts. The speech thus be- comes a very useful document for reference, but it will not be acceptable to the majority of readers. In point of state- ment Mr. Hunt has failed to do his work effectively, and that is a grave defect in a Chancellor of the Exchequer who has to deal with a popular assembly. But there are more serious defects in the Budget itself. For the proposals made, of course, the Government, as a body, are responsible, but responsibility, nevertheless, falls heaviest on the Finance Minister, to whom we look for the correction of his colleagues' extravagance, and the suggestion of sound proposals. If he has not weight to secure the economy which is needful for good finance he ought to resign, and Mr. Hunt shows no sign of independence or authority. He may plead the exigencies of fate which doom him to bring in an " unambitious " Budget, but a Chancellor of the Exchequer is not wholly at the mercy of fate. Any Government and any finance minister should have hesitated to submit the balance-sheet which Mr. Hunt laid before the House. The facts are that last year, including the Abyssinian Expedition on one side and the additional income-tax on the other, there was a deficit of 1,636,0001., and that this year, including the same expendi- ture and another increase to the income-tax, there is an estimated deficit of 278,0001. The two deficits amount altogether to nearly 2,000,0001. The State Treasurer, in short, sets down so much to the bad as the net result of two years' finance. Something should perhaps be deducted on account of the sum appropriated for the Terminable Annuities' scheme, but the appropriation was made as a normal measure, and in strictness a Chancellor of the Exchequer is bound to provide for it, as for any other expenditure. We admit that there is an appearance of hard- ness in thus reckoning with a Government. Direct taxes must always fall behind in the collection, so that there is some reason for the plan proposed, that of borrowing now in the hope of being recouped next year by the produce of the taxes now proposed. But in reality Mr. Hunt only expects 1,100,0001. of his newly im- posed taxes to remain for collection next year ; and there is thus in the two years a deficit of about 1,000,0001., only covered by reducing the balances in the Exchequer or by loan. Mr. Hunt affirms that only 650,0001. of the Abyssinian expenditure will go to diminish the accumulations of general revenue; the rest is met by the temporary additions to the income-tax. But putting together the whole expenditure of the two years, the result is what we state. The worst of the matter is that there can be no confidence in the Abyssinian estimates. The Government have taken the most optimist view possible of the time when the expedition will be over, and there is but too much reason to believe that in any case a total of 5,000,0001. will be far within the mark.
In several other respects the Budget is good enough. The estimate of revenue for the current year, compared with last year's estimate and results, is moderate. Mr. Hunt has every reason to reckon, as a chance in his favour, the elasticity of the revenue. A good harvest, or a harvest not so deficient as the last, will go far to put everything straight, and there is now little cause for apprehension that the commercial depression will descend below last year's level. And the proposal of an addition to the income-tax, in preference to any other plan for adding to the revenue, is entirely to be commended. It is out of the question making temporary additions to the Excise or Customs for a temporary purpose like this. The course of business, as stated by Mr. Hunt, would be twice disturbed, both in imposing and taking off the duties. As a rule, those who pay income-taxwould sufferfar more bythe interruption to busi- ness than by contributing another twopence in the pound of their incomes. There is another reason why Parliament should be careful in adding even temporarily to Excise and Customs' duties. We depend too much already on these indirect taxes, and if the question were fairly raised, those who pay them would have a good case for shifting permanently some of their burdens to those who pay the direct taxes. It was not to be expected that in a case of difficulty a Tory Government would resort to the instrument at the disposal of some future Chancellor of the Exchequer—an equalization of the succession duties on land and settled estates with those on personal property. The next Parliament may be trusted not to lose sight of the expedient. The measure suggested would have provided as effectually for the Abyssinian expenses as the increased income-tax ; and permanently applied as it ought to be, would furnish the means for reducing our indirect taxes.
The great blot of the Budget, however, is that which Mr. Gladstone hit so hard—the large addition to our ordinary ex- penditure. That we are spending 41,000,000/. now for Army, Navy, and Civil Service in place of 38,165,0001. two years ago, is a fact to be gravely pondered. The difference is nearly three millions—a sum more than sufficient to cover the deficit of the present year. Had our ordinaryexpenditure not in- creased, the present ordinary taxes would have sufficed to meet the Abyssinian charge. To the accusation of extravagance the Government make the usual reply of the Departments that people cannot show what items of expense might have been retrenched. It is difficult to do so, but it is none the less a sound rule, that Governments, like individuals, should look to the scale of their expenses. People like many things, but none can escape the necessity of counting how much they can afford, an& Governments must do the same. It is primarily their busi- ness to find out where retrenchment can be made, and for not doing so they are censurable if the scale is too high, although objectors cannot challenge particular items. Nor were the Government very happy in their argument= ad hominem to Mr. Gladstone and the Opposition. A deliberative assembly cannot be fixed with the same responsibility as an Executive by merelypassing the Estimates. Silence and acquies- cence may not be consent ; and in point of fact Mr. Gladstone was not silent last year. He then drew attention to an increase of 2,000,000/. in the ordinary expenditure, and reserved his right of objection, in words which might have been framed expressly to meet Mr. Hunt's speech :- "It is not upon an occasion like this that this augmentation can be duly analyzed, or that the grounds of the claims for such increased estimates can be discussed. Far less would it be upon an occasion like this, so far as I am concerned, that any endeavour should be made to. impart a political aspect to such a discussion. Speaking generally, I own I do not think the circumstances of the country such as to warrant this very serious additional outlay. I know that on many points it is impossible to question those charges without joining issue in the most serious manner with ber Majesty's Government, and there are par- ticular reasons at the present moment in the gravity of the political issues that are pending why every man must desire not to multiply, but rather to reduce and diminish, those points on which the House, or any portion of it, may be in conflict with the advisers of the Crown. Certainly, in view of these circumstances, I, for one, should be and am disposed to examine more slightly those particulars than I should be disposed to do in the circumstances of an ordinary year. Some of these augmented charges have reference to purposes of great import- ance, and I would oven venture to hope there are among them items in respect to which discussion in this House may lead to a diminished demand. For the present, however, it is not my intention to go beyond those general observations."
The Opposition are thus not estopped by any act of theirs from objecting to this growing expenditure, although past neglect, by the way, would be no excuse for refusing now to deal with the subject. Mr. Hunt used a more logical argument in form in maintaining that the late Liberal Government had spent too little, which was the reason why their successors had to spend more. But substantially, we believe, this argument is no better than the other. The Abyssinian Expedition has not been a bit less costly because the Tories have repaired the neglect of their predecessors. The Liberal party are quite prepared to maintain that they did not reduce establishments below the mark of efficiency, and that economies are still practicable. We trust Mr. Gladstone will soon avail himself of the power he has reserved, and invite the House and the country to consider " whether the course on which we have embarked is a wise and prudent one."
Previous page
