| Revenue. | Expenditure. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| £ | £ | ||
| Customs | 35,350,000 | National Debt Services | 23,500,000 |
| Excise | 39,650,000 | Road Improvement Fund | 1,545,000 |
| Estate, etc., Duties | 28,800,000 | Payments to Local Taxation Accounts, etc. | 9,885,000 |
| Stamps | 9,900,000 | Other Consolidated Fund Services | 1,706,000 |
| Land Tax | 700,000 | Army (including Ordnance Factories) | 28,885,000 |
| House Duty | 2,000,000 | Navy | 51,550,000 |
| Income Tax (including Supertax) | 56,550,000 | Civil Services | 61,084,000 |
| Land Value Duties | 725,000 | Customs and Excise, and Inland Revenue | 4,821,000 |
| Postal Service | 21,750,000 | Post Office Services | 26,227,000 |
| Telegraph Service | 3,100,000 | Balance | 252,000 |
| Telephone Service | 6,900,000 | ||
| Grown Lands | 530,000 | ||
| Receipts from Suez Canal Shares and Sundry Loans | 1,370,000 | ||
| Miscellaneous | 2,130,000 | ||
| Total | £209,455,000 | Total | £209,455,000 |
| Borrowings to meet Expenditure chargeable against Capital | 5,265,000 | Expenditure chargeable against Capital | 5,265,000 |
The Budget was well received by the Liberal and Labour parties, chiefly because of its expected furtherance of great social reforms; the Unionists strongly condemned the new valuation provisions and the increases of the supertax and of the death duties, and argued that it must encourage the policy of doles which, when practised by Lord Salisbury's Ministry, the Liberal party had condemned. Lord Esher, in a letter to The Times, put forward an objection savouring of a familiar economic fallacy, to the effect that it would diminish employment by causing the discharge of servants and others engaged in ministering to the luxury of the rich. Liberals retorted that the Unionists had intended to readjust Imperial and local taxation, partly with the revenue they expected from Tariff Reform; they had also made political capital out of the dangerous financial position of the friendly societies and the grievances under the Insurance Act of the casual labourer, and these evils the Budget proposed to remove. Thus the controversy made indirectly for a renewal of party conflict on the other pending issues.
The general Budget debate was taken on the resolution continuing the tea duty (May 6, 7, 11). Mr. Austen Chamberlain (U.) opened the attack, pointing out the disappointing yield of the new land taxes and the immense cost of their collection both to the State and to individual taxpayers, and also the enormous increase, present and prospective, of national expenditure, on which the Treasury, he said, had ceased to act as a check. In years of less prosperity and any serious complication this would involve great injury to the State—loss of credit, and of elasticity of finance. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had raided the new Sinking Fund, and held that an undue burden of taxation was being thrown on the rich. Let Liberals consider how the line could be drawn between the proposed taxation and that advocated by the hon. member for Blackburn [Mr. Snowden, a Socialist]. "Unearned" income might well be the result of labour and self-denial, and on incomes between 700l. and 1,000l. a tax of 1s. 4d. in the pound in peace time was a tremendous burden. The increase of the death duties interfered with provision for them by insurance, and the abolition of the settlement estate duty involved a breach of contract. An unjust burden must not be placed on the few because they were few. The real interest of the Budget, however, was in the other Bills it would entail on rating, valuation, insurance, education, and housing. The new Valuation Department would be very costly and far less satisfactory than the local assessment committees, and the effect of the Budget on the local authorities was quite uncertain. Its proposals marked the abandonment of the Liberal tradition of the extension of local responsibility and of retrenchment, and left no resources for war taxation.
The Financial Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Montagu) replied that the new taxes mainly went to decrease existing burdens. The debt per head was lighter than it had been since the Napoleonic wars; in 1887 it was 20.11l. per head, in 1899 15.52l., and in 1914 15.37l. Relatively to the estimated wealth of the country it had diminished since 1906. Wealth had many political weapons besides the numbers of the wealthy, and the actual rate of income-tax paid was usually far below the nominal rate. National wealth grew much more rapidly than taxation. The valuation had greatly increased the yield from the death duties; and it was only fair that the Imperial taxpayer should have a substantial control over the expenditure of the money he found.
Of other speakers, Mr. Mills (U., Middlesex, Uxbridge) said, that national debt was being reduced out of national capital, and that the Budget would undermine the international position of the City in finance; Mr. Pretyman (U.), resuming the debate (May 7) bitterly complained of the burdens imposed on agricultural properties by the settlement and estate duties, denounced the treatment of the settlement duty as a disgraceful breach of a contract, made by Sir William Harcourt in 1894, and argued that, as the Bills appropriating the money could not be passed except in an autumn session, which it was officially stated would not take place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a large surplus at the end of the year. Mr. Snowden (Lab., Blackburn) heartily approved the new taxes, and predicted that in 1924 the Budget would have reached 250,000,000l. The nation could never before afford this expenditure so well, and the taxes, by furthering social reform, benefited landlords and employers. The Labour party would renew their demand for the removal of the taxes on food. Mr. Wedgwood (L., Newcastle-under-Lyme) mentioned that unless the local authorities were limited to using the grants for improvements, the Liberals who desired taxation of land values would block all other legislation, and Mr. Steel Maitland (U., Birmingham, E.) said that what was wanted was not control by the Treasury but control of the Treasury.
On May 11, after further criticisms, the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied. He remarked that nothing had been said of Tariff Reform. The criticisms were "muddle-headed and contradictory"; the money raised would help employment in more effective ways than those it was supposed to injure. Grants in aid had been applauded and asked for by the Opposition, and the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896 had been financed out of the revenue from Sir William Harcourt's death duties. He admitted that the taxes on small incomes raised certain grievances, but the difficulty was that allowance on unearned incomes was hampered by collection at source. The case of widows with small incomes and children would be met by doubling the allowance made [under the Budget of 1909] for the children, and in other cases by extending rebates on application—which, however, would involve the establishment of a horde of officials. For incomes under 300l. the tax would be 1s. instead of 1s. 2d. As to the settlement estate duty he promised to consider one case—where a testator left a life interest in his property to his wife with reversion to the children; but as to the other taxes, there was really no criticism. The Government would insist, before the money was distributed, on a valuation differentiating between improvements and site value, and on a statutory provision that relief should be granted only in respect of improvements, not of site; till this could be done—in the second half of the financial year 1915-16—there would be provisional arrangements for distribution. He defended the expenditure as a good investment and spoke of "a 1s. 4d. extra insurance against revolution." His defence was severely criticised by Mr. Long (U.), but the Budget resolutions were agreed to by majorities varying from 81 (in the case of the tea duty) to 102 in the case of the tax on earned income, which was carried by 290 to 188. The members dividing numbered approximately 370 to 400.
Meantime a well-meant effort towards at least a provisional solution of the women's suffrage question was being attempted in the House of Lords by the Women's Enfranchisement Bill, conferring the Parliamentary franchise on those women—estimated at about 1,000,000—who possessed the municipal suffrage. The Earl of Selborne, in moving it (May 5), after condemning militancy as "not only criminal, but stupid," said that there were very few facts in dispute. Many of the most able and highly educated women earnestly desired the franchise, and even if many women did not, that was no reason for depriving those who did. Women would divide along the same lines as men. The anti-suffragists held at bottom that only the fit should vote, but in that case many men would lose the vote, and many women would have it. Instinct and character had to be considered more than fitness, and he thought women generally cared more for their religion and their country than men did. The Bill would therefore add to the stability of the State. The majority of those whom it would enfranchise were poor women—many of them widows with children—who had fought the battle of life and triumphed. Dominion and American experience was treated as irrelevant, but the human nature of women was the same. Women would be on the side of the angels against the political machine. Earl Curzon of Kedleston, opposing, held that the measure would weaken British prestige. Hitherto Bills affecting the franchise had always originated in the Commons. The great majority of the women admitted by the Bill would be unmarried, and if women were to be enfranchised at all, married women were the best qualified. Only 25 or 30 per cent. of the municipal women electors voted, and an insignificant number stood. To give women the vote would entail their admission to Parliament and the Cabinet. The militant organisation was widespread and powerful, and militancy was widely connived at by other organisations, such as the Church League for Women's Suffrage. Would it cease if women got the vote, or be carried into politics? The question was not of equality of the sexes, but of fitness to discharge public duties. The million would eventually be swollen to five or ten millions, and then women might combine as a sex against men. Lords Newton and Tenterden supported the Bill; so did the Lord Chancellor, partly on the ground of the need of women's help in industrial questions and social problems, notably in infant mortality and the decline of the birth rate. Militancy was a bad symptom which showed the need of action. Lord Ampthill opposed the Bill; the Bishop of London avowed himself a convert, in spite of the bomb placed under his throne (A.R., 1913, p. 112). The unrest was caused by a deep-seated feeling of injustice. The qualification for municipal bodies excluded all women but a tiny minority. Housing, the raising of the age of consent, and Sunday closing needed the support of women's votes. The Bishop of Oxford also strongly supported the Bill, eulogising the suffragist women. Next day Lord Courtney of Penwith supported the Bill "as a small experiment," dwelling on the progress made by the women's movement, not yet fifty years old, and dwelling on the action of women in School Board elections, on Royal Commissions, and in political work. Of later speakers, Lord Willoughby de Broke complained that the Press suppressed the public expression of the movement and so misled the public as to its strength; Viscount St, Aldwyn said that the municipal franchise was the least suitable basis for extension, and the Bill would be rejected by the electorate. He deprecated the increasing activity of women in political work. The Marquess of Crewe thought that, while the cause of women's suffrage was making progress, the country was not yet convinced. Amid laughter, he said that, regarding the Bill as a purely Conservative measure, he would give a purely party vote against it. The Earl of Lytton said that separate legislation for women implied their separate representation. There were five million women workers competing with men represented in Parliament. Women, he showed in detail, had given overwhelming evidence of their demand for the vote, and would be satisfied with any removal of the sex disability. The Bill would settle no more than that. He laid stress [being the brother of a militant] on the magnificent qualities wasted in militancy—courage, self-devotion, self-sacrifice—waste which could only be stopped by granting the demand. The Bill was rejected by 104 to 60.
Brief mention only can be made of two discussions on subjects unexpectedly illuminated by the later experience of the year. On May 6 Mr. Morrell (L., Burnley) moved a resolution in favour of negotiation for the abolition of the capture of private property at sea; and the Foreign Secretary specified the terms on which the Government would agree. And on May 13 Mr. Bird (U., Wolverhampton) moved a resolution demanding State provision against the danger of starvation and enforced capitulation in case of war. He claimed that six months' supply of wheat should be ensured, as the actual amount in the country was sufficient for only six weeks, except just after harvest, when sixteen weeks' supply existed, and he advocated a scheme of free storage, suggesting also reduced taxation on grain-growing land and the building of swift grain ships. A scheme of Government insurance of food-carrying ships was suggested in the debate. The President of the Board of Agriculture indicated that such a scheme was under examination, and further that the question of supply had been carefully studied, and that it had been ascertained that there need be no anxiety in war time, provided the arrangements made for distribution were carried out. The chief source of security must be the Navy. Both motions were talked out.
The monotony of the political struggle was somewhat relieved by the state visit of the King and Queen of Denmark (May 9-13), who were received alike by their Royal relatives and by the people of London with all possible honour and goodwill. Both Kings laid stress in the speeches at the state banquet at Buckingham Palace (May 9) on the growth of commercial and friendly intercourse between the two nations; so did the King of Denmark and the Lord Mayor at the entertainment given by the City Corporation at the Guildhall (May 12); the Order of the Garter was conferred on the Danish monarch, the visitors were entertained at a gala performance at the opera, and presented with an address by the Common Council. The visit, however, had probably no great political significance.