'THene has been considerable criticism of Sir Michael Hick-Beach's Budget, and as might be expected, very diverse views are expressed by the Conservative and Radical papers, but on this occasion the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer have intensified the contrary views held by them. Mr. 4. J. Wilson, the Editor of the Investors' Review, denounces the Budget, and opens with a very long article it headed *¢A Sorry Show," regretting that the day on which his paper is published prevented him dealing with the subject the previous week, and adding that he is sorry to have to doit at all, because "it is a production in all ways unworthy of a man of Sir Michael's intelligence and character." Then comes the following, which is well worth readin; In round figures, the Tressury requires £113,000,000 for the current year, and the' revenue received for the year just closed was came in from taxes, the Post Office, and other sources this year than last, the deficit to be met would have been about'£4,600,000. But Sir Michael contends, notwithstanding the rush of tobacco manufacturers to clear stocks and the push given to income tax collectors to whip in all the money they could, that the revenue for the current year will' prove so progressive as to give him about £1,920,000, more than it did last year without touching taxation at all, He then proposes to put on certain peddling, vexatious imposts in the shape of additions to the wine duties of extremely little value, but highly provocative of ill-will between this country and France, as well as vexatious to our already grievously handicapped Australian colonies, and additional stamp duties calculated to hit sharply one important branch of Stock Exchange business. Grant that both proposals had been good, there is something unworthy in the pettifozging way in which they are g about. The stamp duties, particularly, already in such a chaotic state that it is almost an economic crime to increase th anomalies of which they are full. Had Sir Michael bent his mind to the endeavour, and proposed a thorough re-arrangement of all stamp duties, whereby, amongst other things, more equitable charge might have been made on hills of exchange, we should have rejoiced; but to simply letvo things as they are, adding a new and irritating stamp of 5s. per cent. upon a class of securities not held here for investment so much as dealt in between our market and Continental and American markets, is to exasperate those struck by it without doing any appreciable good to the Treasury, for he expects to no more than £450,000 by it, and from his additional wine duties, as set forth by us last week, ho looks for no more than another £420,000 this year. It was not worth while causing so much disturbance to the wine trade and to Stock Exchange business for a sum aggregating less than £900,000.
Adding the product of these new duties to the expected natural increase in the other branches of revenue, we arrive at rather more than £3,750,000 towards the estimated deficit. Another £2,000, C0) Sir Michael proposes to grab from the sinking fund, and so a surplus" appears like pies from a conjuror's hut. Some years ago, before Unionist finance yot the upper hand in our affairs, the total amount devoted to the service of the National Debt for interest, terminable annuities, and redemption was nearly £30,000,000. Indeed, as long ago as the year 1845 we devoted almost £31,000,000 to' our monster debt, at a time when the entire revenue of the country was little more than £58,000,000. But even within the last twelve years the total has been out down first to £26,000,000 and then to £25,1100,000 and now it is to be reduced to +£23,000,000, at a time when the income of the nation from taxation alone is close upon £100,900,000, including the money handed out of the taxes to the landowners and other privileged classes. A more heart-breaking, story of national decadence and disregard of the highest public interests could scarcely be told. It is pitiful, and must end in a serious sot-back to the salian's prosperity, The article then goes on to deal at length with the National Debt, and as Mr. Wilson always takes a pessimistic view of the condition of the national finances, he winds up, "Tt is vain to lament, of course and we need not prolong the wail in the cars of our readers, hut the day is not so very distant, unless we much misread the igns of the times, when we shall bitterly et the manner in which we have dra ned away our resources and dissipated our wealth b-yond recall, For all the tens and hundreds of millions that are now being spent on furniture of war, decade after decade, we have nothing to show, nothing whatever; neither—improvement in trade nor enlarged powers of offence aga ust possible enemies. Every year sees us essentially weaker by the scattering of our resources. It is a shook: ing story for the mind to dwell on."
Then those who do not agree with the above can console themselves with the fol lowing from the Spectator:—
We have dealt at length with the Budget elsewhere, and can only say here that, in our opi it is a wise and sound Budget, though not in any sense original or capable of being described asa contribution to the science of finance. In spite of Sir William Harcourt's tantrums and Sir Henry Fowler's more discreet criticisms, we hold that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly right to review the operations of the new Sinking Fund, and that in reducing the amount annually expended on cancelling Debt from. nearly £8,000,000 to not very much under £6,000,00) he has not too greatly reduced the amount devoted to redemption,—especially as at the same time he is going so largely'to stimulate the reducing of Debt by the use of terminable annuities. In regard to the fresh taxation, we feel also able to express approval, though it must be of a slightly qualified kind." We do not suppose that the new and increated Stamp-duties will do much harm; but we think it should be remembered that it is quite possible to strangle commerce by using too many fiscal ligatures, and that, therefore, the Siampduties must not be overdone. As to the duties on wine, we also see objections, and would have preferred an extra tax on beers but then we admit that there are valid objections to every increase of taxation, Taxation is necessarily a choice of evils, and, on the whole, we most heartily congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the way he has met his difficulties.
One of the most interesting things in Michael Hicks-Beach's speech was his account of the way in which Consols are now held. There has been a remarkable change in the last fifteen years. In the year 1884-85 there were in the hands of the public £529,986.000 worth of Consols. There were in the hands of Government departments, and, therefore, practically out of the market altogether, for the Government is a buyer and not a seller of Consols, £8 ',75,000. In that year a sum of £6,852,000 was devoted to the redemption of the Debt, and the average rate at which Consols were purchased for that purpose was 1003." This year" said the Chancellor, "1 find that there' are no more than £358,000,000 of Consols in the hands of the public, and, therefore, liable to goon the market} whereas the amount, of Sousols held br Government departments has nearly doubled—jt amounts to £162,000,000. And we have £7,736,000 to devote to the purchase of Consols, probably at a rate of something like'I per cent. premium." But. of the Consols in the hands of the public large part is never likely to come on the for it is held by banks, financial institutions, insurance companies, and by jous other persons who desire to possess nest-eggs. The market, then, in which the Government must operate when it buys for king Fund account is even a narrower one than the figures given above would seem to indicate.
In the House of Commons, on the 18th of April, there was a somewhat acrimonious debate on the National Expenditure, about the Daily News remarks The prodigious growth of the national exnditure was the subject of a rather perjunctory debate in the House Unfortunately it is much eas effective statements of the increased expenditure than to suggest means of retrenchment, Mr. Buchanan, who introduced the subject, pointed principally to naval expenditure, and seemed to suggest that we should no longer maintain our naval supremacy, but should allow other nations to outbuild us if they choose... Where is the motive force for retrenchment to come from? There are two things which bring about a desire for national retrenchment—new taxation and bad trade, But trade is good. The prosperity of the country has increased simultaneously, though not in the same proportion, with increased expenditure. We spend vastly more than ever, but it may be doubted whether the {nation ever paid the bill so easily. There has been new taxation, but—thanks to Sir William Harcourt—it has fallen for the most part on those who are abundantly able to pay it. From this point of view, it is a true paradox to say that Sir William Harcourt has been a groat enemy to retrenchment, He has provided his successors with so many surpluses as utterly to demoralise their financial
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.