The Press. FRIDAY, AUGUST 2, 1895. PUBLIC ECONOMY.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 9173, 2 August 1895, Page 4

The Press. FRIDAY, AUGUST 2, 1895. PUBLIC ECONOMY.

It is very striking how much time is occupied by Ministers and members of Parliament in devising additional burdens for the public, and how little time is devoted to the consideration of means to alleviate those burdens. We are not going to point a moral by any particular reference to the present Government for the moment. All Ministries are more or less to blame, . all Ministries are far too extravagant. The feature of the present Government is that it is an example of a Government which positively glories in imposing taxation. Ministers desire chiefly to be remembered as the Government which has imposed crushing taxation on the landholders, and which hopes, before it dies, to impose crashing taxation on the consumers through the Customs. However, that is taxation which is imposed for special punitive purposes. What we are more concerned about at the moment is the taxation brought about by extravagance in ordinary administration. Here it is the House which is responsible quite as much as the Government and the public quite as much as the House. Unless there were a considerable revulsion of public feeling, we venture to say no Government would live a week which reduced the cost of the administration of the Public Services to the point to which it might easily be reduced if economy were regarded as a really necessary thing. Seeing that the people are now as a whole, and have been for some years, practising the very strictest economy in their private affairs, it seems unnatural that extravagance should be forced on the Government so largely by public opinion. If the Government did their duty they would be constantly in an attitude of defence of the public purse from the attacks of members. To do them justice, we believe the natural instinct of every Government is to refuse additional demands for expenditure. But the instinct of self - preservation is the strongest of all the instincts of a Ministry. This makes them regardless of the interests of the public if a demand for the expenditure of public money can only be refused at the expense of the loss of a vote to the Government. Members talk largely about economy in the abstract, but what member is there who, when he thinks it necessary to do so in order to stand well with his constituents, will refuse to make claims for public money for public works or any other purpose which is demanded by a section of his constituents ? The public must be got to understand that we shall have extravagant expenditure, bloated estimates, and grinding taxation unless the public are prepared to do with fewer conveniences of one sort or another. If railways and public works are to be constructed when wanted, if members of. Parliament and Ministers are to be paid handsomely, if juries are to be batter paid, if this and that object—worthy enough, no doubt—is to be subsidised, well it can be done, but the public must pay for it. The State, the Government—what are they but the people ? When the Government spend money they spend money which belongs to and comes from the public. • Yet most people seem to think that it is not so, and they speak and act as if the State had other resources. It is a thousand pities that in lieu of some of our indirect taxation we have not more direct taxation, which should reach every person in the community and compel him to contribute according to his means, however small the contribution. Then we might hope to have a keener watch kept by the public on the expenditure of the Government, less pressure on members and on the Government, and, as the final result, more economy and less wastefulness.