BRITISH POLITICS.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9162, 4 June 1908, Page 8

BRITISH POLITICS.

United Press Association.— By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright. London, Jnae 2. A two days’ debate on the second tending of the Finance Bill has been ' commenced in the House of Commons. • Mr Laurence Hardy (Conservative . member for South Kent) moved. ! 'That, in view of the growing liabilities and “the need of further reducing the burdens -on the rate- \ •'payers for nath'Sl, purposes, the i Souse regrets i ,&'t no attempt is Toeing made to increase the revenue i'T.’by broadening the basis of taxation. . Oapt. E. P. Morrison-Bell, Libei ral-Unionist member for the Ash- ! . burton division of Devon, seconded

the motion. He described the Budget, ? with its old age pensions scheme, % a* a mad- gamble for votes. V MrS. Buxton (Postmaster-General) • asked how the author’s amendment - proposed to broaden the basis of taxV* ation. \ Mr Austen Chamberlain, who was f. of the Exchequer in Mr Balfour’s Government, asked how \ '.the Government intended to face ten 4 " millions of increased expenditure in ■ 1909. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, ■ Mr Lloyd-George replied that the \ real issue was being shirked, doubt- ' less at the instance of Mr Balfour, the wily strategist, since it was so much better to leave the details of fiscal reform to a gramaphone. Mr Lloyd-George, continuing his speech, admitted that the levying of / - jlocal taxation for general purposes was a serious matter, and must be ~* '■Qealt with at the earliest, opportunity; and the first step would be a proper valuation of the laud. He complained that the incidence of local rates was unjust. Mr Lloyd-George quoted a resolution passed by the Radical group of the German Bloc (the fusion of parties which supports the Bulow Government). This resolution declared that protection amounted to prohibition, that it rendered all commodities dear, and that as long as such a policy was maintained it would bo impossible to improve Germany’s financial position; and the resolution demanded a far-reaching scheme of taxation of the moneyed class. Mr Lloyd-George proceeded to remark that the Prime Minister, Mr Asquith had been criticised for suggesting that in 1906, after paying off fortyone million of the National Debt, the Sinking Fund had been suspended, and large sums had been borrowed to meet current expenditure. So much for Protectionist finance,. Regarding the amendment, if the proposed tax was on manufactures, it would be unproductive for revenue purposes. “If,” added the Chancellor, “you wish to increase the revenue by broadening taxation, you must tax commodities which the people consume, namely food. We say : ‘ Place a tax not on the poor, but on tliose who are rich enough to bear it. ’ ” In the House of Commons, Mr Hardy’s amendment favouring the broadening of basis of taxation was rejected by 867 to 124. Continuing the debate, Mr Bouar Law said that nobody proposed prohibitive duties on imported goods with the view to manufacturing everything ourselves; whether able to compete with our rivals or not. He was not a Protectionist in the i crude sense. The Patents Act, which withdraws a patent unless the articles are made here, desired to give manufactures and workmen preference in the home market, enabling them to compete better with foreign rivals. He then rebutted Mr Lloyd-George’s criticisms on German finances. ,The fact was that unification and centralisation were aot complete, and particular taxes were only possible with the consent of. different German States. We should know what that means if we had Home Rule all round. He emphasised that Germany was spending borrowed money in naval construction. The Board of Trade figures showed that the rise in wages in Germany for two decades preceding 1900 exceeded any other . country’s, and there had been a great fall in the cost of living. Mr Churchill replied that siuce a patent was a restricton on free trade, ‘ the Patents Act was a reversion to . free trade. He contended that the

taxation of food and maunfactures ■went together. The Government .protested against so broadening taxations as to making it press more heavily on the threadbare shoulders of the poor. Mr Balfour expressed disappointment~at the attitude of Ministers. Erengif ho did not believe in establishing some bond with the Colonies and safeguarding the British manufactures against illegitimate forms of competition, he would still consider the broadening of the basis of taxation as necessary and ineviablo. 1 If the country’s financial necessities demanded, he would not shrink from re-imposing the corn duty, but he # would be no party to increasing the .'working classes’ proportionate bur den. He added that if the Goveru- . *meut intended to use income tax and death duties in the way their authors never intended, it would bo

inflicting a gross injustice on a few, and, what was more important, a serious injury to the industrial interests of Imnuuiitj’. Mr Asquith sain’ that whilo the amend meat attacked the Budget, Ins two cwdinal proposals; —reduction of th u tvvwir titles end the establish.-

m e of pensions—wer® contes - ted. 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, their expectations would be defeated by astute anticipation. Ho strenuously denied recklessness or improvidence. Freetrade finance had produced a condition of stability whereon they were entitled to pride themselves, enabling them to raise more than would meet all

coming charges. The Bill was read a second time. Three Unionist Free Traders voted for the amendment. The text of the Old Age Pensions Bill has been criticised on the grounds of introducing inquisitorial machinery and numerous restrictions. In tho House of Commons Sir E. Grey informed Mr Hart Davies that Russia had declined arbitration in connection with the case of the steamer Knight Commander, sunk during during the Russia-Japanese war, and he was considering what steps to take. A joint committee of the Lords and Commons adojited the principle of purchase of the London docks.

SPEECH BY LORD CROMER. Received June 4, 8.15 a.m. London, June 3. Lord Cromer, in his Presidential address at the Unionist Free Trade Club, after remarking that the parties at next general election would probably be more equally divided, warned his hearers of the danger of the move of ardent tariff reformers, who were seeking to capture the Irish vote by concessions which if nob fatal would perhaps be very damaging to the cause of union.