THE OAMARU MAIL THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1920. BIG BRITISH BUDGET.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XLIV, Issue 14038, 22 April 1920, Page 4

THE OAMARU MAIL THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1920. BIG BRITISH BUDGET.

The Right Hon. Austen . Chamberlain, the Imperial Chitncellor of the Exchequer, has put before the House of Commons a Budget that for bigness and boldness is without parallel in the history of the nation. It is made big by the stupendous character of the figures that it contains—figures that outrun the imagination; it is bold because it proposes to tackle in a whole-hearted manner the task of paying off the enormous debt incurred in the prosecution of the war and the means by which it is intended to obtain .the money wherewith to perform the operation. The Budget is a complete affirmation of a statement I made by the Prime - Minister a shorttime since that Britain isf the only nation amongst the belligerents that- is making an effort to liquidate, its war debt. But Britain is in an exceptionally favorable position to. accomplish such a task, inasmuch as.she is not- hampered by a great outlay upon the reconstruction of a country ruthlessly devastated by a malignant enemy. Her position is vastly different from that of France and Belgium and of Italy in a lesser degree, and Britain would be criminally neglectful if she' did not avail herself of I the means at her command' for the performance of the great,work. ..It is evident, however, that the proposition, does not find favor in certain quarters in England. Mr: Chamberlain clearly foresaw that the proposal . to impose fresh taxation in order to obtain the means required for'liquidating the war debt in a comprehensive manner would meet with strong, for he said that' lie knew that what was proposed "would 1 not bring popularity to the Cabinet." But, with the instinct of a true statesman, he said that, the Government liad not- thought of their popularity. There is a nobleness of mind' and a statement of. high purpose: in his - declaration that "their object had been to rise to the level ,of their great, .siblity, so that when, they left office they would leave their "successors ample revenue, with -the country's credit second to none.", ;SucH a high aspiration must beget admiration in the couritry despite any antagonism ihat may be offered in certain ; directions. It need,not occasion any surprise to read'that the criticism of the Budget emanates from the supporters of tlie Government, for wealth is largely represented upon that" side of the House, and it is upon the wealthy class -that the new .taxes will mainly fall. They are the people who will be caught by the increased tax upon excess profits,' against which the: criticism is directed. We are prepared to . learn that it is • argued that there is an unfairness in a call uponitlie present generations, who have'already had: weighty sacrifices to make, - to 'bear the cost ofji war fought in. the interests ' of posterity, which should " he required, to bear a large part of the burden. : Such I an argument has a surface appearance of plausibility. , But the : ( answ.er is perfectly obvious. Though the nation has. been plunged heavily , into debt .and. is ; oppressed by unparalleled obligations, individuals. have made enormous 'profits. • out of the'war, and their great gains : have put them in a position to go on I

accumulating -wealth. What- is now proposed is that those who profited by the war shall par in part at any rate the cost of tlie^war—-that blood money shall be : applied to liquidation of the 'cost of the . .blood spilling. It is an equitable proposition that- cannot be disputed'with any force of reason. It may' -mean that some may be deprived of of becoming multimillionaires and that others may not lie privileged to attain to the dignity of millionaires. But it is no part of t-ho business of the State "to furnish, facilities for-the making of millionaires and multi-millionaires. Its highest function is to ensure for all its units a ; reasonable measure of comfort in life, and millionaires are obstacles to the attainment of that end. Moreover, the real statesman is not content to look merely to the present 01- the immediate future. He looks farther ahead and shapes his courses so that coming generations may be benefited. It is that attribute that distinguishes the statesman from the timei-serving politician. The one looks for reverential" remembrance in the years to come;, the other is content with the-fleeting popularity of the moment. . In that regard the Budget must b<r viewed as the production of true statesmanship, and it- has the further recommendation that it is not only justified' by existing conditions and the ability of people to find the money asked frir, but is defensible on the ground that it may be a means of giving check to the orgy of extravagance that is the nation and threatening national disaster.