BoletiÌn mercantil de Puerto Rico. (San Juan, P.R.) 18??-1918, 1902-05-01
SANJUAN, MAYO J
The British Budget

Inc 6rltlSIl Duugel
The imposition of tax on torelgn |
grain and flour announced by S1r MI
chael Hicks-Beach in his budget speech
is a revolutionary departure which VII
shock the British believers in free trade,
no matter what attempts may be made
to reconcile them to it. It is not avo-
wedly protectionist, of course, and
amounts to only three pence per hundred
weihht on -four, but it repudiates the
economic professions Of most British
statepmen since the abolition of the corn
laws in 1896 and it will sharply revive
the issue between protection and free
trade. The remaining features OF the
budget do not call for special comment.
The income tax payers had responded
so promptly to the levy of last year
that the chancellor of the exchequer
has asked them for another penny in
the pound, while the penny stamp on
checks has been doubled and a similar
tax on dividend warrants has been in
posed Tobacco, tea, spirits and beer
were left undisturbed, and it was not
thought expedient to increase the sugar
tax
The estimated deficit for the coming
year, including an addition OF more
than S8o,ooo,ooo for war expenses, is
about $22o,ooo,ooo, and the new taxes,
including the saving resulting from sus-
pension of the sinking fund, only pro-
vide for $5oooo,ooo of that amount,
leaving the balance to be made up by
a loan of SI6ooooooo and by exchequer
drafts. The proposed taxes on grain
and flour amount to S2555oooo, and
taken in connection with the loan OF
$I6o,oooooo will inevitably raise the
question as to why SO contentious and
disturbing tax was not avoided when
the amount to be realized from it could
have been added to the loan. The fact
that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach will not
need the loan if the war ends at once
does not su pport mis- excuses for max
ing another inroad upon the free trade
policy. Forsif he really thought the
present negotiations would result in
peace, he could have raised much
smaller loan and left the grain and
-four taxes unmentioned. He has, how
ever, pat aside from his budget ealcala-
tons all hope of peace, and the new
taxes, therefore, stand for the unavoid-
able course of the Conservative party
on the supposition that the war is con-
tinued That the opposition will, under
the leadership of Sir William Vernon
Harcourt, vigorously oppose any tax on
grain goes without saying; but no op-
position has been ssown on the govern
ment side of the House, though free
trade is supposed to be practically ac-
cepted by both parties, and it is not
very long ago that Lord Salisbury re-
fused even to receive deputation that
proposed slight preferential duties in
favor of he Colonies.
If the Conservative party has in mind
the slow but sure revival of protection,
it has pro ably taken the line of least
resistance in makinh q beginning. The
sugar tax has had no alarming efect,
and there is no such outbarst of asto-
nished indignation from tie british
press as might have been ex ected. It
is noticeable that Sir Michael Hicks
Beach did not promise removal of the
grain tax in case of peace he would
tighten the income tax first, and the
opposition will not fail to note that fact
and from it argue set led determina-
ton to return to pro ection. 1t was
pointed out, however, that until 1869 a
similar tax had remained on foreign
grain, and that its removal had not re-
suited in cheapening the workingman's
loaf. In the coming budget debate it
is doubtful whether that historic loaf
viii figure so prominently as it would
have done few years ago still-lessl
would it be phrase to conjure with
before the constituencies. The British
workingnan of today is not the half
starved and angry proletariat that
emerged from the corn law struggle
with only one bias he is in part a
convert to i'm 1erialistic principles, and
one of his most reno gned leaders is
now in a Conservative cabinet There
fore, he nay be ilduced to listen while
MIR Chamberlain explains that the new
tax viii MT hurt MIN, but in fact ma ,
lead to some hing large and reassuring
in a 5lan 4or preferring the colonies
and getting from them cheap food
waile furthsring the unity of the en-
pire. 1t is hgasged with some show of
reason that Mr. chamberlain himself is
supporting the new tax SO as to lend 2
c1lorable pretext Tor the colonial con.
ference next Inc at which preferen-
tia1 rate viii be the chief topic IF dis
cussiou
It is not ex oe ted that the tax will
haze any effect upon American grain
exports. It VIII not apprs sciably h tighten
the Price Of bread IA Great Britain, and
American grain is necessity. There
IS no delusion among Englishmen as to
who win pay the tax, slight though II |