The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 29. THE BRITISH POLITICAL FIGHT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 275, 29 December 1909, Page 2

The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 29. THE BRITISH POLITICAL FIGHT.

Midst the storm of opposition to the British Budget —the bitter allegations of socialism, of property confiscation, ot the ruin of capital—it is cheering to find that there are—though the cables are strangely silent with regard to them—very many of the largest capitalists and employers of labor in Britain who see in the proposals nothing that can hurt, but muen that will tend to improve the lot of the people as a whole, as compiled with the "class protection" legislation of opponents. These are practical men, not political theorists or apologists for elass privilege. Amongst the great men of business in England, none is better known than Sir Christopher Furness, M.P., head of the great ship and engine building firm of world-wide reputation. In attempting to solve the great modern labor problem by suggesting joint partnership between employers and their employees, and putting his ideas into operation in his own extensive works, Sir Christopher earned the respect of workers throughout ' the industrial world. The cables recently informed us that the result of nine months' work under the new arrangement have, apparently, more than justilied the wisdom of his policy, as we were convinced it would. The opinions of a levelheaded business man of his calibre is accordingly worthy of the most serious resipect, and his views of the Buaget proposals may be accepted as expressing the opinions of an unbiassed thinker who is concerned only with that which is best for the country—for whatever is good for the country is equally good for the manufacturer and the employer. The broad view taken by him in attempting to solve the labor problem is also evident in his views of the Budget. Unfortunately, he was unable, owing to ill-health, to be present at the debate on the third reading in the House of Commons, but he communicated his views to tile Press. As one concerned with the direction of and responsible for "huge sums of capital," he wrote: "I am not one of those who view with alarm or regard it as injurious to the trade of the country." He elaborates his arguments at length, and discusses the incidence of the proposed taxation of the Budget dispassionately and without violence. Contrary to what might be expected, he finds no socialism in its provisions,' and as a capitalist and a man interested in many large industries he lends no support to the extraordinary and amazing ebullition of Lord Willoughby De Broke, who the other day declared that the Budget means empty stomachs for the workers, atheism for the schools, and the Empire for the foreigner. On the contrary, he boldly declares that the word "justice" is the mainspring of the Budget—"a just division of the natural i m l. n, the weight-load distributed upon those best able to bear it." He condemns the pictures of ruin and disaster drawn in lurid and sensational tints by the opponents of the Budget, He writes:

"Speaking for myself, and having full regard to the responsibilities ivhich my position in the industrial world invest me, I cannot pretend to' be other than sensible of the value of confidence, whether the subject of it be the individual or an industry or the entire nation. If confidence is to be maintained, there must lie no confiscation nor the fear of it. Capital must by common consent be entitled to its just reward. But such con fidence is not interfered with or abrogated by the proposals embodied in the Budget. To me it is evident that not a single legitimate interest contributing to the true wealth of our common country will in any way be impaired; rather do I think there will be removed many a barrier to progress and many an obstacle retarding the full and proper development of our great national industries. So far as its just employment is concerned, Icapital is as safe under the present Budget as at any period of our history, and I give that as my deliberate opinion."

Irhis eminently sane and just diagnosis of Hie political situation in the Motherland should appeal to those who have been misled into regarding the Budget as a compound of disintegrating socialI ism and destructive anarchism. Capital I be dviven from the country by ; it—Mew Zealanders have learned to! laugh at similar prognostications—for Sir Christopher Furness adds: "Suclr differences as the Budget proposals may make to capital will be in the direction of enhancing rather than diminishing security." It should surely be apparent that the echo of the hysterical opposition that reaches us consists largely oi gross exaggeration. The Westminster Uuette in a late issue emphasises thfrt new. The Gazette presumes, since Cuionist politicians repeat without -ceasing that the Budget is really "the opening of the floodgates, the beginning of the end, the red menace to property, family, and the State," that they are sincere in their views. "Hut," says the paper, "we are faced with the strange fact that the country, though walkin" 011 the thin crust of this' volcano, goes about its business with complete composure, and when ever it has an opportunity of expressing its opinion, manifests a steady approval of tiie coming iniquity; and that the party which pro, poses it, instead of being torn by the schisms which always hitherto have befallen parties proposing revolutionary I changes, is as firmly united at the end as at the beginning of this controversy." We cannot more clearij express the

Budget than by repeating the summing up of the Gazette, which expresses itself thus: "All countries alike at this moment ■ are faced with tlic problem which now confronts us—the problem of choosing very definitely between the different sources of taxation—and the choice which the Budget presents to us is, broadly speaking, that of taxing men oil their superfluities or taxing tlicin on their necessaries; raising land taxes, increasing death duties, taxing spirits and tobacco, or taxing bread, meat, clothes, boots, and other commodities which are necessary to sup-

port life. If we do the second instead of the first of .these things, undoubtedly we relieve the rich and make it easier for them to maintain the es-! tatcs, the establishments, and the way of life which they have learnt to regard as an inalienable right. But at the same time we make it harder for the poor not merely to obtain luxuries but even to live and to feed and rear their children according to a minimum standard of decency and physical efficiency. The choice between these two tilings is> perhaps the most important that a modern State -»uld have to make, and the wrong fioice means aggravation of poverty, lowering of the national efficiency, discontent, and agitation, leading inevitably, if it proceeds far, to the very violence and threats to property which the opponents of the Budget foresee. The right choice, <m the other hand, demands a sacrifice from the rich and well-to-do which we cannot expect to be agreeable to them, but which ought to be made cheerfully both on patriotic and on prudential grounds. Let them remember the inequalities in the distribution of wealth, and try to realise the feelings of the great majority who are shut out from their advantages."

We cannot presume to be able to judge accurately, but we should say that British public opinion will unhesitatingly show its wisdom by preferring the voice of reason and common sense to that of mutual recrimination and reckless assertion.