IMPERIAL POLITICS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2208, 4 June 1908, Page 3

IMPERIAL POLITICS.

A TERRITORIAL ARMY. IRISH PLANTERS’ BILL. United Press Association—Copyright LONDON, June 2. In the House of Lords Lord Lucas, in reply to Lord Raglan, said the number of men required to complete the establishment of a territorial army was 193,790. In the House of Lords .Lord Crewe introduced the Irish Planters’ Bill, the terms of which were cabled > - n May 22nd. The Agricultural Holidays and .Small-Holdings Allotment Bills were read a third time. NATAL CENSURED. D INI ZULU’S SALARY. United Press Association —Copyright LONDON, June 2. In the House of Lords Lord Crewe censured Natal for stopping Dmiau Ill’s salary without- Imperial assent to the stoppage. He declared it was a breach of the conditions,whereon Dinizulu was permitted to return to Zululand, ancl indicted hardship on the prisoner, who fivas also involved in much expense owing to the prolongation of the "trial, but inasmuch as'legal points were involved, and tho matter had been referred to the Supreme Court, its decision must be awaited. In tho House of Commons, Lieu-tennnt-Colonel iS'eely, in reply, to Sir H. Cotton, said Natal was contented to arrest Dinizulu as a Government induna, with,a view to criminal proceedings. This implied suspension <h Government service and suspending his salary. Tho Natal Government has authorised lie liter to explain that Imperial sanction to Diiiizulu’s removal from Zululand was interpreted as covering the suspension of his salary. The suspension was in accordance with civil service, as regards either blacks or whites. THE FINANCE BILL. CONTINUATION OF DEBATE. United Press Association—Copyright (Received June 3, 10.24 p.m.) LONDON, June 3. 11l the House of Commons Mr. Hardy’s amendment, favoring. the broadening of the basis of taxation, was rejected by 3G7 to 124. Continuing -the'debate, Mr. Bonar Law said that nobody proposed prohibitive duties on imported goods with a view of manufacturing everything ourselves, whether able to compete with rivals or not. He was not •a protectionist in the crude sense ol tho Patents Act, which withdraws the patent unless the articles aro made here. He desired to give manufacturers and workmen preference in the homo market, thus enabling them to compete better with foreign rivals there. Ho rebutted Mr. LloydGeorge’s criticisms on German finances. Tho fact was that unification and centralisation wero not complete, and particular taxes were only pos-* sible with tho consent of the different German States. ’ We should know, he gaid, what that meant if wo had Home Rule all round. He emphasised tho fact that Germany was spending borrowed money in naval construction. Tlio Board of Trade figures showed a rise in wages in Germany for two decades preceding 1900, which exceeded any other country, and there had been a great fall in the cost of living. Mr. Churchill replied that since a patent was a restriction on freetrade, tho Patents Act was a reversion to freetrade.. He contended that taxation on food, and manufactures went together. Tho Government protested against so broadening taxation and making it press moro heavily on the threadbare shoulders of the poor. Mr. Balfour expressed disappointment -at the attitude of Ministers. Even if he did not believe in establishing some bond with the colonies land safeguarding British manufacturers against illegitimate forms of competition, ho would still consider the broadening of the basis of taxation necessary and inevitable. The situation wherein tho country was faced ,by vast expenditure for which no provision was foreshadowed was unprecedented. Regarding .food, if the country’s financial necessities demanded it ho would not shrink from reimposing a corn duty, but lie would, be no party to increasing the working classes’ proportionate burden. He added that if the Government intended to use the income tax and death duties in the way their authors never intended, it would be inflicting a gross injustice on a few and. what was more important, would be a serious injury to the industrial interests of the many. Mr. Asquith said, while the amendment a Hacked the Budget, his two cardinal proposals, the reduction of the sugar duties and the establishment of pensions,-were not contested. What had become of colonial preference? The colonial Premiers having gone, had the Opposition so soon forgotten them ? Nothing had been said regarding the tax on wheat, meat, and dairy produce. If the Government foreshadowed their revenue plans for 1909 tlieir expectations would be defeated by astute anticipations. He strenuously denied recklessness and improvidence. rree trade finance had produced conditions of stability whereon they were entitled to pride themselves, enabling to more than, meet ail coming charges. The Bill was read a second time, three Unionist freetraders voting for the amendment. THE PENSIONS BILL. United Press Association —Copyright (Received June 3, 11.26 p.m.) LONDON, June 3. The text of the Old Age Pensions Bill is criticised on the grounds that it is introducing inquisitorial machinery and numerous restrictions.