The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-11-04 00:00:00

MR. FAWCETT ON THE BUDGET.

Mr. Fawcett, writing in the Fortnightly &tint, on
the position of the Government, makes the following
observations upon the Budget of the year
Within four days after the Budget hod been introduced,
in the moighbourhood of the Mouse of Commons there was
witnessed a scene as unusual as it was instructive. When
Mr. Lowe first announced the match tax, he raised a pre-
judice against it by stating that he had burrowed it from a
country which possesses one of the worst of all systems of
taxation this prejudice waa furtheir increased by an im-
pression he created that his selection of this particular
impost was influenced by -the opportunity it gave him
of making a mild classical joke. This tax would not
only have brought distress to thousands of the poorest
Inhabitants of London. but they were excited to a
state of almost revolutionary fury by the heartless way
in *Melt they justly thought the tax had been imposed. Mr.
Lowe was so absorbed by hia classical pun, that he could not
bring himself to speak one word of regret or sympathy in
reference to the suffering the tax would cause. The match-
maken and matchaellera assembled In thousands on the
Thames Einbankment, and the demonatration so alarmed the
, Government that they surrounded St. Stephen's by au army
of policemen. and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. afraid to
face the crowd, and protected by a bodyguard, came down
as it were in secrecy to the Ronne Conunons. Who could
imagine that a Ministry could hive as blundered as in two
years to produce such a change as this ? Not only
had the match-tax to be abandoned, but the whole
Budget was virtually withdrawn and then was en-
acted one of the most discreditable things ever done
in Parliament. The whole of the additional taxation re-
mitred for the expense involve I in reorganizing the army
en thrown upon one class—the payers it income tax.
Mr. Lowe had only a week previously in the strongest pos-
sible language condemned such a policy, and declared how
essential it was that increased expenditure should be borne
partly by direet, partly by indirect taxation. Did the House
of commiens ever witness such inconsistency before? Here
was the great apostle of the dangers of Democracy: here was
the very man who had again and again predicted that an
extended suffrage would bring with it this peril, that the
majority would relieve themselves at the expeuse of the mi-
nority. And yet he did not hesitate to allSiet his country with
the very evil about which lie had uttered so many eloquent
'Warnings. Those who attempt to defend the Government by
saying that only Mr. Lowe was responsible for the Budget,
really increase rather than lessen the blame whb-h is justly
due to the Ministry. It is itupossible to enter too earnest
a protest against the doctrine of individual responsibility.
lithe Budget is not ta be considered a joint Ministerial act,
the countly is not governed by a Cabinet, but by so many
separate heads of departments. If, however, the Ministry
were consulted, we might as well attempt to unravel a mys-
tery of the sphynx, as to suggest how it came to pass that
financiers like Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Cardwell ever per.
mated r. Lows to bring forward such oppositions.