admitted that there would be an almost automatic increase, which would be met by an increase of Parliamentary grants on condition of a parallel increase in local rates. In the same spirit the meeting of the National Union of Teachers in April passed a resolution that an education authority shall be established in each county for the control of primary, secondary, and technical education, and shall be directly elected by the people for this special purpose; that throughout the country there shall be levied a county rate for educational purposes; that all public elementary schools shall receive aid from (a) a Parliamentary grant; (b) a county rate; that the Parliamentary grant shall be largely increased so as to more generally equalize the cost of education. In fact, if a Central Board of Education is to be constituted in such a way as to entail new local authorities, which would only be so many glorified School Boards, the inevitable consequence will be a universal democracy of all education supported by new rates and higher taxes, of which nobody can see the end.

It stands to reason that the higher education should be as good and as open as possible. But to this end there are two means, the private and the public-the Athenian and the Spartan types of education. Private or voluntary effort should always be tried first, because it is voluntary, and freedom is better than force. There is no little injustice in compulsorily taxing one man to give the luxury of the higher education to the children of another. It is objected that private enterprise cannot be entirely relied on. But private enterprise has made our public school system; it has admittedly advanced in the last quarter of a century; it cannot, however, live long against the competition of Parliamentary grants and local rates. On the other hand, whatever may be said for public education conducted under the

immediate management of the State, this is not the time for a further development of it, because it is not the time for increased expenditure. You, Sir, have recently done a timely service in publishing a series of letters pointing out the enormous inflation of the National Budget, and the uneconomical and unequal method of our taxation. England is sliding unawares into that extravagance of democracy which arises from a multitude of wants, an impatient desire to satisfy them all at once, and a conscious power of making the minority pay the bulk of the taxes for the advantage of the majority. The expenditure on elementary education has proved a conspicuous instance. Do not let the higher education provide another instance of this extravagance at the very moment when, instead of new expenditure, we should be setting our existing finances in order. We live in prosperity; but what will happen in those times of adversity which no nation has ever been able to escape? If an individual saves for old age, so should a State.

The practical conclusion is that the Government is right in establishing a single Board of Education, but should avoid a single consultative committee now, and leave no loophole for new local authorities hereafter. I venture to conclude with two practical suggestions. The first that, instead of a consultative committee, there should be consultative committees for advice in the separate departments of education, primary and secondary, male and female; and the second that a clause should be added to the Bill handing the local administration of education to existing authorities with powers strictly limited so as to curtail expenditure and so as to prevent State interference with voluntary effort.



The growth of expenditure and of the public debt at the time of the South African War aroused in Case anxiety in the event of the country ever being involved in a really great war. Hence his insistence on the necessity for a national reserve'.

The second letter on National Economy, the long and important letter of October 13, 1903, was aroused largely by Case's reflections on the campaign for Protection or Imperial Preference, inaugurated by Joseph Chamberlain, who resigned the post of Secretary of State for the Colonies in order to prosecute this campaign in September 1903. At the same time his son, Mr. (now Sir) Austen Chamberlain became Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Case, while favourable to a tariff for revenue purposes, was in other respects, on the whole, a Free Trader. His frequent insistence on the need for national and municipal economy in view of the possibility (even if only in the distant future) of a great war, should be noticed.

FROM The Times, APRIL 9, 1901.

"The want of parcimony in time of peace', said Adam Smith, 'imposes the necessity of contracting debt in time of war.' If we trace the rise of our expenditure during the 30 years preceding the present war, we shall find a painful verification of the truth of this remark, and ground for uneasiness about our financial future, unless Parliament is prepared to retrace its steps in the direction of economy.

It was inevitable, if England is to hold its own, that our expenditure on the Navy should have been more than doubled between 1867-8 and 1898-9, while that on the Army, which rose from 15 millions to 20 millions, ought probably to have been increased in nearly the same proportion. But the real point is that the country, while willing to increase external expenditure to a certain extent, was really bent on spending money on itself. Hence in the same 30 years the internal expenditure increased in much greater proportions. In the first place the expenditure of the central Government on the Civil Service and Revenue Departments (exclusive of the

remunerative business of the Post Office) about doubled itself, and amounted by 1898-9 to nearly 25 millions. Secondly, in the local governments of England the rates rose from about 164 millions in 1867-8 and 19 millions in 1874-5 to 37 millions in 1897-8. Thirdly, under the euphemistic heading 'In relief of rates', the central Government has acquired the habit of handing over to local governments sums which in 1867-8 were about a million, and in 1874-5 about 1 million, but by 1897-8 had risen to as much as ten millions a year, without reckoning lesser subventions to other parts of the kingdom. Fourthly, we have been congratulating ourselves on paying off the 'National Debt', which in 1867-8 stood at 800 millions, but just before the present war had fallen to 640 millions. But really we have been paying with one hand to borrow with the other; for all the time, and all over England, we have been amassing a local debt, which in 1874-5 was 92, but by 1897-8 had risen to 262 millions (of which about 100 millions is remunerative), with a tendency to go on rising at a rate of more than ten millions a year. As the war with its debt has since intervened, it is below the mark to estimate the present indebtedness, central and local, of the British Islands at 1,000 millions.

The upshot is that in the 30 years before the war we have been increasing the expenditure of government at an alarming rate, and both externally and internally, but with a difference. While we were adding less than 20 millions to external expenditure on the Army and Navy together, we have been adding twice as much to our internal expenditure. To take only the three items of Civil Service and Revenue Departments (without the Post Office), of rates, and of local subventions, the increase at the most moderate estimate cannot be put at less than 39 millions. Another way to realize

this extravagance on ourselves is to compare external and internal expenditure just before the war. The annual external expenditure on Army and Navy was in round numbers 45 millions; but the annual internal expenditure, central and local, exceeded 100 millions.

In consequence of the war which has since occurred we shall have to reconsider our financial policy. Are we to retrench in external or in internal expenditure? Between these alternatives no man can hesitate. What with the war and what with the future we are so far from being able to retrench in external expenditure that we are now compelled to spend on our forces sums compared with which the former increases will prove insignifi

Yet we go on burning the candle at both ends by increasing internal, as well as external, expenditure. The Civil Service and Revenue Departments Estimates for 1901-2 (of The Times, March 25) provide food for some sad reflections. It might have been expected that every effort would have been made during the war to save the taxpayer and manage the business of the home Government economically; instead of which we find that since 1898-9 the expenditure on those Departments (without the Post Office) has been allowed to rise by annual increments from nearly 25 to 26 millions, while the business of the Post Office has now become more expensive by no less than two millions a year. Similarly, the latest Local Government returns show that rates have quickly risen to 381 millions a year, and local loans to a total of 276 millions, while local subventions in relief of rates were standing at nearly 12 millions a year. There is no sign of retrenchment anywhere.

Meanwhile, as if nothing else were before them, people go on propagating gigantic schemes for housing, educating, helping, and pensioning the

« VorigeDoorgaan »