BRITISH POLITICS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 483, 21 September 1909, Page 3

BRITISH POLITICS.

THE BUDGET.

SPEECH BY MR ASQUITH.

London, Sept. 18

Mr Asquith, the Prime Minister, received a tumultuous welcome from an audience of 10,000 people at Bingley. Fie likened the sensations of the reader of Lord Rose-

bery’s speech to those of an oyersanguine explorer, who, having battled across parallels of ice and fog, reaches the North Pole only to find nothing there, except that the points of the compass had for the moment lost their meaning. ..-He emphasised the fact that the present gathering had met to declare that they were fixed and resolute in the opinion. (1) That the interests of the State should be met by an equitable distribution of the nation’s wealth. (2) That the freely-chosen representatives of the people should have the final voice in settling both the measure, the incidence, and the burden. After summarising the proposals of the so-called revolutionary Budget, he remarked that the working classes as ‘a body had not complained of their share of the additional contribution to the acknowledged necessities of the State. The bulk of the well-to-do citizens were just as ready as their less fortunate fellow-subjects to play their part and do their fair share of patriotic duty in meeting the State’s needs, BURDENS OF LANDOWNERS.

Whatever might happen in the hurly-burly of politics, nothing would disturb the personal affec-tion-between Lord Rosebery and himself. Lord Rosebery bewailed his hard fate and extolled the services of the owners of agricultural land. But the Budget’s land taxes did not touch agricultural land.' Its proposals by increasing the deductions under Schedule .A left the owners of agricultural land better off than at present. The proposal was merely to tax land values created by the social development of the country. Lord Rosebery himself, while Prime Minister, advocated the taxation of ground values. He agreed with Lord Rosebery that the Government was making a new departure regarding the land. The departure was that for the first time principles, the justice of which were admitted by every impartial man who had studied the subject, had recognised and acted upon the responsible government. INHERITANCE DUTIES. Lord Rosebery had discovered in the inheritance duties an intention to wage implacable war < against capital. The same epithets used against Mr Gladstone’s Succession Duty Act, and were ■falsified by the event. The taxes were a very moderate toll. Regarding the alleged depletion and so-called exploitation of national capital, he contended that the money taken In the shape of death duties did not disappear. It went in sanitation, national defence, the preservation of order, and those great schemes of social reform whereon the Liberals were bent. Nobody could say that capital so applied had not been so remuneratively employed as if it had been left in the pockets of Its previous owners, and transmitted to their children. INFERTILE GENERALISA-

TIONS. What was Lord Rosebery’s alternative ? Beyond a few singularly infertile generalities, Lord RoseHsery had nothing to tell us. The tariff reformers were grateful for Lord Rosebery’s aid, but disguised their dssappointmcnt at his lame and impotent conclusions. They felt that it was all very well to abuse the Budget and its authors, “but,” said Mr Asquith, “neither nations nor individuals can live on a diet of blood and thunder. You cannot fill a deficit by denunciation.” Mr Asquith went on to argue that tariff reform had proved no practical alternative to the Budget proposals as a revenue-producing scheme. If any such alternative policy existed it ought to come out in the open. Mr Balfour, on his last visit’to Birmingham, administered to long-suffering tariff reformers, a dose of soothing syrup, which had kept them more or less quiet. A CHALLENGE TO THE . LORDS. The most important part of Mr Asquith’s speech was reserved for the last five minutes. It was a direct challenge to the House of Lords. Speaking solemnly and slowly he declared : “If the House of Lords destroy the Budget, whether by mutilation or rejection, that indeed would be the most formidable revolution si»*ce the Long Parliament. It settled long ago that the hT se of Commons has an absolute, unquestionable, and decisive '•'■’Voice in matters of finance. The Lords are impotent, and the Commons supreme. If that' issue is raised that way revolution lies. It would involve issues far wider and deeper than the right of the House of Lords to meddle in finance. But if it is raised, the Liberal party is anxious and eager to accept the challenge.” PRESS COMMENTS. Commenting on the speech, the -v Times states: “Mr Asquith’s deNbncc in its conclusion, is almost trivial. The opposition to the Budget is provoked far less by . what it takes than its ways of taking it,-and the avowals of. intention and design by Mr Asquith’s colleagues. These avowals he always ignored, and we can easily believe they are far from com-

manding his personal approval. He must be well aware that the House of Lords’ right to reject the Budget is beyond question.

The Times further states that it is practically certain that if the Lords reject the Finance Bill the Government will accelerate the revision of the Electoral Register to November instead of January, and the general election will be held about the end of November.

The Daily Mail states that the speech is “humdrum,” and quotes May’s statement that the House of Lords has a legal right to withhold its assent to any Bill they disapprove of. The Chronicle says : “Mr Asquith’s main thesis is that the Budget is not revolutionist, but its rejection by the House of Lords would be.”

The Daily News remarks ; “The Liberals are prepared to take advantage of the revolutionary policy said to be contemplated by the House of Lords by limiting the hereditary right of veto, and so remove the greatest stumblingblock in the path of national advancement.”

The Telegraph says: “The speech is quite futile as an effort to coerce the House of Lords.”