THE BRITISH BUDGET.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2577, 11 August 1909, Page 2

THE BRITISH BUDGET.

'■ - ■ ■ —— LONDON’S NATION. CITY FINANCIAL EXPERTS AGREED IN PROTEST. The great City meeting in Cannonstreet Motel, on Wednesday, June 23, to protest against the Budget, was a memorable occasion. .Lord . gauged its importance correctly when, in the opening words of his speech, he said: “There has never been such a meeting, in the history of England." Banking, shipping, insurance, railways, and great mercantile undertakings, all had their leaders there, either on the platform, or in the auditorium. The authorised capital represented £195,000,000, and paid-up £128,000,000. That there was no party bias in the meeting was apparent from the presence of avowed political opponents side by side and equally earnest in their desire to see amended the Finance Bill of which, as Lord Rothschild declared, amid thunderous applause, “the whole principle is vicious." “VICIOUS PRINCIPLE.” Lord Rothschild eaid that the spontaneous 'gathering was the natural result of dissatisfaction with the main provisions of the^ Budget (cheers). The bankers of the City, who signed the protest to Mr. Asquith, were prepared to bear their share of taxation, but the Budget was quite an innovation, heavy burdens being imposed, not 'for the requirements of the year, not with a view to an impossible surplus, but with the certainty of a large surplus. We were told that some, of the money might be applied to the Navy. The citizens of London had asked that the Navy should be supreme, not for defiance, but defence, but before they acceded to the policy of the Development Grant they would like to know the

plans or tne liovernmcnt witn regard to the Navy. (“Hear, hear.”) “To my mind the whole principal of the Finance Bill is vicious (loud cheers). Mr. Lloyd-Goorge and the Ministers wish to establish the principle of Socialism and Collectivism, and if they succeed in land there is .no reason why they should not succeed in every other 'kind of property. “I do not know, if during the long time in which the Finance Bill will be discussed there will be many by-elec-tions, but I do know this, that if yon, in this hall —as I believe you are—are opposed to this measure, that if your friends in'the country are equally opposed, that if you care to make your voices heard, you will not appeal to Parliament in vain.” (Loud cheers.) PENALISING INDUSTRY. Lord Avebury; Never in the sixty years I have worked in the City have we held a general and non-party meeting to condemn the budget. We object not merely to a proposal here and there, but to the Budget generally., as unsound, unjust, and excessive (cheers). But this is a financial and economical, not a political meeting. We do not wish to attack the members of the Government personally; we criticise their •motives. Politicians think they can produce wealth and prosperity by restricting and penalising industry and enterprise (“hear, hear”). We recognise the necessity h>r increased taxation, and are ready to bear our full proportion. Our answers to those who ask how we should rise the money_ is that we consider that the Chancellor is estimating for much more than is required. Ha moved: — “That this meeting, while "recognising the necessity for increased taxation, is of opinion that the cumulative effect of the proposed heavy charges on both capital and income will be to discourage enterprise and thrift, and would prove seriously injurious to the commerce and industries cf the country.” Why, asked Lord Avebury, was land to bo treated with such exceptional severity? It was already taxed more heavily than other property. The valuation would impose an enormous initial expense on owners before anything accrued to the Government. Owners were to be taxed by an army of petty autocrats. It was impossible to estimate' the value of ungotten minerals, and who had heard of a man being taxed on something that lie had not got ? Until now much foreign capital had been sent hpre for security, to the great advantage of the country. The Budget would check this. Capital would go .where income tax and death duties were lowest or did not exist —to countries which had wiser and more far-seeing Governments (cheers). The excuse was that the Budget would spare the poor. But if you confiscate part of a man’s income in the name of taxation he must reduce either his expenditure or his savings, and in either case less will be paid, either directly or indirectly, to these whom he employs, and they will lose their places. If you wage implacable war, as this Budget does, against energy and industry, and confidence and thrift, the whole community will be injured, but in the long run it is the poor who will be the greatest sufferers.” (Cheers.) Sir Felix Schuster seconded. 1 lie fully recognised the need for increased expenditure, above all, for the security of the Empire, for social reforms, and for education. Personally, he would rather spend the money now used for old-age pensions upon the education of the future citizens. But he could not admit that the whole of the expenditure which we were called upon to pay was necessary. Revenue should be provided on sound lines without detriment to the trade of the country. His own objections applied mainly to the death duties, as they affected the capital of every citizen and the trading' capital of the country. The cost of insurance * was almost prohibitive. The new taxes on capital provided for revenue out of a wasting security. The resolution was carried 'unanimously amid loud cheers. THE PREMIER’S DEFENCE. Mi*. Asquith and Mr. Lloyd-George made fighting speeches on Thursday at a luncheon at the Holborn Restaurant, which was attended by a great body of Liberal members of Parliament. Mr. Asquith said that Lord Rosebery—“a

statesman to whom the Liberals owed a dept of gratitude”—had described the Budget as of a revolutionary character. Revolutionary? Nine-tenths of the Budget, said the Prime. Minister, consisted simply of readjustments or increases of existing • taxes.' Lord Rosebery’s criticism could only refer to tho land clauses. Could these be described as revolutionary ? They wore discussed in four sessions of the last Parliament. Fifteen years ago Lord Rosebery himself advocated a separate assessment of land and buildings and the taxation of land on its real value —“So to call this a revolution is, with all respect to the master of language, an abuse of our English vocabulary." (Loud Cheers.) ' They were told that the Budget struck at the roots of private property. Yet in “The Times” on Saturday, bo bad read of a sale ,of real estate in Essex (Mr. Pretyman’s constituency!) where the farmers were tumbling over each other to buy land.' “Who are these Essex farmers? To a large extent, as I know, they are Scotsmen —Scotsmen who left their own country for 'their own good. (Loud laughter.) Would they figlit for the purchase of land if its possession was to bo a punishment and a curse?” . ' „v '• Mr. Asquith was scathing in bis criticism of the City meeting.. The gentlemen present acknowledged the necessity of increased taxation and declared their willingness to take their share in it. But how?' The increased income tax, the super-tax, the increased death dpties, and the taxes on lanH were all ruled out of court. And they suggested no alternative. He would like to ask Lord Avebury and Sir Felix Schuster: ..“How are we to get this money which you agree we must have.” The Budget held the field, and he asked his hearers to join with, enthusiasm in the crusade through tlie country now started in its favor. (Loud cheers.)