SPECTATOR SUMMARY.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 9, 10 July 1909, Page 12

SPECTATOR SUMMARY.

« (Week ending Saturday, May 22.) A PROTEST. In the House of Commons on Monday Mi\ Asquith answered the highly important protest against the Budget by a number of London merchants, bankers, and business men. The protest, which was published in the papers of last Saturday, was signed by many of the best-known English bankers, some of whom are supporters of the Government. It expressed, " irrespective of party," the opinion that many of the finance proposals before Parliament are open to "grave objection." The signatories confine their comments, however, to those questions upon which they can speak from experience. Objection is taken to the alteration of the law as regards the Old Sinking Fund. The piinciple under which the surplus of each year is automatically applied to the reduction of debt is said to be " the only sound one." If the law is altered, the Government will inevitably be tempted to underestimate revenue and to overestimate expenditure in order that it may have surpluses to spend on objects fo* which money -would not have been specially voted. The signatories are further alarmed at the disproportion of the burden placed on a small class of the community. They believe that the great increase of the death duties and of the income tax, coupled with the super-tax, will seriously injure commerce. In conclusion, they urge that if capital is to be regarded as no longer indisputably safe in this country, it may be reduced below the point necessary . for trade. If capital is reduced, employment will be diminished and wages lowered. MR. ASQUITH'S EXPLANATION. Mr. Asquith asked in what way other than that proposed in the Budget the wealth represented by the signatories of the protest could be called upon to contribute its proper share to the national expenditure. In France, under the proposed income tux law, an income of four thousand poutids would pay Is 5d in the pound. Here it would pay Is 3d. In fiance an income of twenty thousand pounds would pay practically the same as here, namely, Is 7d. In Prussia, in the chief cities, the income tax payable to the State and municipality on incomes of five thousand pounds was already 2s in the pound, or 10 per cent. If the new Prussian financial proposals were carried, the amount would increase. He did not think that people with incomes between three thousand and twenty thousand pounds a year would find themselves better off if they emigrated to Germany or France. , The most glaring anomalies in our income tax had been and with an untroubled conscience he now regarded it as a permanent part of our fiscal system. When some further amendments had been made in the law, he believjed the tax would be capable of still- wider expansion in an emergency. It would be a mistake to suppose that ou! income tax was actually Is in the pound, for the average rate last year was 9-^d. Under the new pioposal the average rate would be under lid, and if the super-tax were included it would be ll^d — ' ' an extremely moderate sum." A "PROPER" LETTER. We have refrained hitherto from commenting on the recent disclosure of the letter written by Captain Bacon, "R.N., reflecting on officers of superior rank, and printed privately by the Admiralty for the instruction o£ the Board. But we felt that the First Lord, in deliberately stating that this was a "proper" letter to be written in the circumstances, had assumed a grave responsibility, and the concurrence of the Board of Admiralty has undoubtedly created a painful impression. The further disclosures made by Mr. Carlyon Bellairs, M.P., at Oxford yesterday week, only aggravate these misgivings. Mr. Bellairs stated that a letter from Captain Bacon to Sir John Fisher, printed by the Admiralty and privately circulated to the extent of fifty copies, had just come into his possession. In this letter there is a most injurious reference to Mr. Bellairs as having always been an incompetent officer. Commenting on this attack, Mr. Bellairs pointed out that while he had had the misfortune of standing alone in his party in this fight with the Government on the naval question, he could at least claim to have fought it honourably in the open. On the other hand, the Government had twice, through the action of the Admiralty, sought to assassinate his reputation, first by searching among the Admiralty records and arming a member, for the purpose of attacking him, with the secret report of a court of enquiry held fourteen years ago, and now by printing copies of a libellous letter at the taxpayers' expense. Captain Bacon's letter strikes at the root of naval discipline; this carries the war even against retired officers who venture to differ from the existing regime. ESPIONAGE. Captain Bacon's letters — which were written three 'years ago — led to a somewhat stormy scene in the House of Commons on Wednesday. Mr. M'Kenna, made it clear that Captain Bacon had, no notion when he .wrote »these letters that they would be printed or used in any public way, and, on behalf of Sir John Fisher, expressed regret that the passage relating to Mr. Bellairs had not been deleted. He vigorously denied that the letters had been printed becau&e they reflected on the personal character of Mr. Bellairs. Later on, the Speaker ruled that there had been no breach of privilege ; tho question whether the letter was libellous or not was not for him (the Speaker) but for the law courts to decide. The incident, as the Daily Chronicle observes, has left a disagreeable impression. The Manchester Guardian in a leading article notes that no satisfactory answer has been returned to the question whether Captaip Bacon, who "wrote as he would have written had he been a confidential agent ol the First Sea Lord," was instructed to send those reports on his superior officers :—: — " The furthest Mr. M'Kenna has gone is to say that ' a. system of junior officers reporting upon their seniors would, of course,' meet with the disapprobation of the Admiralty, but the letters in question did not constitute any such report.' We accept the Admiralty's assurance that there is no ' system ' of espionage j but even one special correspondent of the First Sea Lord is one too many. If he was an unauthorised correspondent, he should have been severely censured for writing ' private ' letters of such a character to the First Lord ; if, on the other hand, he was authorised to write, Sir John Fisher has sinned against the laws of discipline in the Fleet as much as Lord Charles Beresford, or any of the officers who instigated a newspaper agitation, against his reforms." That is sound doctrine admirably expressed. The Manchester Guardian notes as a serious feature of the case this leakage of confidential information. But what | can you expect when you print fifty copies when one was more than enough ? The incident as a whole can only be described as deplorable.