IMPERIAL POLITICS

Otago Witness, Issue 2896, 15 September 1909, Page 19

IMPERIAL POLITICS

' THE FINANCE BILL. LONDON, September 8. Tn the House of Commons clause 30 of 'the Finance Bill was closured and passed. The Opposition sharply criticised the Government for its treatmtnt of the hotels. Mr Herbert Samuel said he agreed that genuine hotels and restaurants were entitled to relief. Glause 31 ' was carried with the help of the closure after a 12-hours' bitting. September 10. The House of Commons has passed clause 39, thereby completing the licensing clauses of the Finance Bill. The Government has introdnctd an .amendment "~to the Finance Bill which permits the State to accept real property in payment of estate duty. The Opposition members criticise tKis proposal as the first. step in the acceptance of the principle towards the Statb ownership of .land, which,; they say, ought to have been secured by way of special legislation, and not by the way of a money bill. A deputation of cricket, football, and golf clubs, headed by the' Marylebone Cricket Club, the Rugby Union, and the Football Association, requested the Government to exempt land used for sporting and recreative purposes from the Finance Bill. Mr Maeterman, Under-secretary to the Local Government Board, on behalf of 'Mr Lloyd-George, promised to exempt boria fide clubs from the increment tax. The Government proposes to exempt works of art bequeathed to the nation from the succession and legacy estate duties. The Times states that a deputation from the Committee of the Stock Exchange has- conferred with Mr LloydGeorge. ItNis understood that the present duty on share transactions, ranging from 6d to 2s, is to be withdrawn in 'favour of a scale from 6d to £1, thereby reducing the burden on transactions of average magnitude. September 11. Lord Jtosebery, addressing a meeting at' Glasgow against the Budget, said he had long been an independent politician, but he believed it to be his duty to show why it was not in the best interests of the nation that the Finance Bill should become law. Mr LloydGeorge had proclaimed it a Budget of war against poverty, but it was a war which depleted capital, increased unemployment, and produced universal insecurity. He (Lord Rosebery) was unaware of the actual' amount of the deficit. Sir .Robert Giffen had declared 'that he believed there jsvas no • real deficit. TBc new taxes- were not for national defence, but to raise vast sums for' the use of the Central Government without parliamentary control. The Budget had no adequate preparation. It contained material for sixBudgets, and" the complementary developments of the bill were the most novel and formidablfc' proposals presented to Parliament for many years. The Budget put Britain into the melting, pot. It was a revolution without any mandate from the people. At a time when it was difficult to make both ends meet the Budget ' took as much and harassed as much as possible. It placed new taxes on land, -besides expanding the 1 income tax -and the death duties. It was a distinct step towards land nationalisation, which Mr Lloyd-George eaid must come. Land was selected because its taxation could not be evaded. Taxation of the unearned increment co^ld be applied to every other kind of property. No exertion was needed by the holders of consols or i*ailway stocks. He warned the country to consider^the contagious influence of the principles raised by the Budget. Personally- he ; found land a harassing and Tin-remunerative form of property. The land laws might be improved and more people ' of the yeoman class settled on the land, but the landlords should be justly treated. They were usually human beings in difficulties. In 1896 the return showed that the capital value of land had fallen a thousand millions in, 30 years. Yet this was the, industry which the Government

sought to tax out of existence. The landowners seemed to be damned, and doubly damned, for holding property in larfd. Many millions of working men's money were invested by the prudential and i temperance societies, and the friendly societies might soon be touched. He conI sidered the enormous increase in the , death duties a danger to capital. They ought to be reserved for war purposes. I The Government's enormous taxation of : capital was strangling in peace the goose which laid the golden eggs in wartime. The Government boasted that it had paid off forty millions and did not borrow but it proceeded to spend sixteen millions annually. The transference by the enhanced death duties of masses of capital from the individual to the State injuriously reacted on commerce and employment. It destroyed the nation's reserve power. Scores of millions were lying idle in the banks or going abroad to develop other countries owing to apprehension of the Government's financial policy. What • feelings would Gladstone have had for euch j a Budget? Liberalism and liberty used ito go together ; the Budget established a j tyranny and inquisition never previously j known. He denounced the Government's ;' bureaucratic Socialism. Bureaucracy was 1 almost strangling France, yet our Government created staffs' of well-paid officers for small holdings, ' factory inspection, pensions, housing, etc. A superj tax would be administered by commis- ; sioners from whom there was no appeal. This soft of tyranny was not Liberalism, ] but Socialism. For five years before their J death men would be ghosts. During that ■ time they could give nothing to their I childi-e.n without it being reckoned part of their estate. He declared that Cobden, Bright, or Villiers never dreamt of levying such a vast sum as that now asked Iby indirect taxation. He urged retrenchment, but not of national defence. Why should Ireland cost £1,200,000 more yearly than she produced in taxation? He would conduct the State as a private business. He was sorry the Government had taken sides with the Socialists. Some Ministers were conscious Socialists, the least worthy working men being taught not to exert themselves, and his Liberal friends were clearly moving on the path leading to Socialism. He could not follow them one inch. He might think tariff reform, or Protection, an evil, but Socialism was a negation of faith in family, property, monarchy, and Empire. In a subsequent speech Lord Rosebery declared that Bright would have denounced the encroaching proposals of this Budget. Lobby opinion coincides that Lord Rose-bei-y has created a new situation, and rendered even more likely the Lords' rejection of the Budget. The Unionists attach real significance to Lord Rosebery's declaration of his belief that the Government was taunting and daring the Lords to throw out the Budget. The Times says the essence of Lord Rosebery's speech is that the bill involves a social revolution without precedent. Ho showed that behind the devices the professed end of which is revenue there lurk far-reaching schemes for the subversion and redistribution of private property. The Daily Mail says that the speech will settle the fate of the Budget, because it will convince the multitude of independent voters belonging to neither party. The Daily TelegTaph says that Lord J Rosebery has pronounced an elegy over the Liberal party as it existed until Mr Lloyd-George sssumed the Chancellorship ,of the Exchequer and Mr Churchill was ' admitted to the Cabinet. 1 The Daily News says that there is no opponent so venomous as the renegade and , no critic so stern as the man who has failed. j The Chronicle says the speech was that ■ of a great landlord, not of a great Liberal. It was entirely coloured by prejudices and prepossession in favour of landlordism. September 12. The Radical provincial newspapers bit— . terly criticise Lord Rosebery's speech. ; The Sheffield Telegraph suggest* that Lord Rosebery should come down from his Olympian heights and fight the Budget. 1 Tho Birmingham Post cays that the speech will do much to cause the silent voter to think hard. The Pall Mall Gazette states that City opinion is almost unanimous that Lord ' Roaebery has smashed the Budget. The

! speech is bound to have a tremendous i effect in Scotland. ! Lord Rosebery resigned £he presidency ! of the Liberal League before his Glas- : gow speech. Mr Asquith, Sir Edward j Grey, and Mr Haldane are among the I presidents. September 13. Mr Lloyd-George, on being interviewed, described Lord Rosebery's speech as a soft-nosed torpedo. Colonel Seely, speaking at Liverpool, ■said that the speech was inconclusive. If the House of Lords used its power to destroy the Budget the people -would use theirs to destroy the Peers. Mr Acland, speaking at Pensinstone, said there were a number of Peers who were known in London as wild men from the woods who regarded land taxes from so narrow and selfish a standpoint as not to be willing, in the event of Mr Balfour and his people thinking it would be best to let the Finance Bill pass, to obey Lord Lansdowne. If that happened and if, despite the Conservative party, those wild, uncontrollable Peers, who emerged from their hiding plaoes only on great occasions, rejected the Budget, then, as surely as to-morrow's sun would rise, the Budget would smash them. l Dr >tacnamara, In a speech at Grimsoy, said Lord Rosebery's speech was reminiscent of the Jackdaw of Rheims. Lord Rosebery and tho Unionists were at one regarding the Budget, but, while the Unionists proposed * the alternative of tariff reform, Lord Rceebery had no practical alternative. Any tampering with the Budget by the House -of Lords would lead to a declaration by the people against the Peers. Mr Ure, speaking at Coventry, said that as an attack on the Budget Lord Rosebery's speech was hopelessly ineffective, futile, harmless, and vain. It was the greatest help the Budget had yet received. There were only two ways of attacking the Budget. A critic could cay " The expenditure is wrong, or this is | not the right way to raise money, and i I shall show you a better way." Since i Lord Rosebery had not assumed either position, it was clear that he, like Lord Rothschild and the great bankers, knew that this Budget was the only just and fair method \o secure the necessary millions. Mr Gulland, in a speech at Edinburgh, said the enthusiasm that was everywhere shown for the Budget would be increased by the speech from the raven croaking on his withered branch. If the Lords rejected the Budget they would raise an issue which might cost them their ( coronets. A mandate must then be received which, besides carrying the ! Finance Bill, would permanently -curb the j cruel and blighting power of the Lords. Mr Walter Long (Conservative), speaking at Market Livington, said Lord Rose- j bery's indictment of the Budget was so [ powerful and so trenchant that it left nothing to be said by anybody in furtherance, pi the campaign against tho Finance Bill. The business men at Newcastle are inviting Lord Rosebery to address them on. the Budget.