8 
Question No. 2. 
Accepting Mill’s principle that our internal Debt could be 
abolished by a rearrangement in the ownership of the Nation’s 
Capital Wealth, and leaving for the time being the considera 
tion of a plan for effecting this, let us discuss next the second 
question of our series, “ What would be the resultant economic 
gain ? ’ ’ 
At the outset, we must remember that conflicting views 
have been and still are very generally held concerning the 
advantage and disadvantage to a Nation of a National Debt. 
During and after the Napoleonic wars even poets became 
engaged in controversy on this subject, and Byron—if I recol 
lect aright—satirises the statements of his fellow-poets ‘ ‘ who 
call Debt blessing.” It is urged that a Debt benefits the 
Nation by affording an outlet for safe investment by the 
thrifty; that the indirect benefits derived from the capital 
outlay of the Debt greatly exceed any loss to the Nation; 
that interest being raised within the Nation by taxes and 
spent within the Nation, it follows that no real loss to the 
Nation is involved. Now, each of these contentions is in the 
nature of a half-truth. The answer to the first is that thrift 
in the individual, by the individual, for the individual, does 
not necessarily involve the benefit of the Nation; and that the 
provision of a safe investment for capitalists is not the direct 
concern of Government, as the capitalists are only a section of 
the Nation, and Government is trustee for National not 
Sectional interests. 
The answer to the second contention, that indirect gains 
may offset direcE losses, is only applicable where the Capital 
outlay of the Debt has been for works of utility, like Harbours, 
Roads, etc., etc., and even in this case, if such works be 
needed, and the wealth of the Nation will allow, it is arguable 
that taxation for such purposes is preferable to borrowing,