The debate was ended by a speech from the Prime
Minister, in which he tried to make his declaration that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to budget, not for one year, but for several years in advance, fit with the fact that he had committed his country to vast obligations by the Pensions Bill and by deferring naval expenditure to next year, and yet had only made provision for meeting the tiny portion of the new expenditure which will fall within the last quarter of the current financial year. Mr. Asquith, like another General Trochu, darkly hinted that he had a plan for meeting his liabili- ties, but that it would never do to disclose it prematurely. No doubt there are plenty of plans pigeonholed at the Treastuy for raising more money, but we venture to say that the vast majority of them are quite impracticable. In reality Mr. Asquith has no plan except to pay off less Debt than before, and, if absolutely necessary, to increase the Income-tax and the Death-duties. The speech was full of able debating points, like all Mr. Asquith's speeches, but it was one which no sincere friend of the Prime Minister's could read without regret. On a division being taken, the amendment was nega- tived by a majority of 243 (367-124). Several Unionist Free-traders, including Lord Robert Cecil, voted for the amendment, feeling, we suppose, that they might place what meaning they liked upon the phrase "broadening the basis of taxation." We believe the bolder course would have been better; but at the same time, and considering the action of the Government, we are not inclined to condemn them.
Previous page
