IMPERIAL BUDGET.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2605, 13 September 1909, Page 5

IMPERIAL BUDGET.

LORD ROSEBERY’S ATTACK.

A STRONG INDICTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT.

TYRANNY AND INQUISITION.

iUniticd I’jtKsa Association—Copyright (Received September 12, 5.5 p.m.) LONDON, Sept. 11.

Lord Rosebery, addressing a meeting .at Glasgow against the Budget, said he had long been an independent politician, and he believed it to be be his duty to show why it was not in the best interests of the nation that the Finance Bill should become law. Mr. Lloyd-George 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 was no real deficit. The 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 had no adequate preparation. It contained material for six Budgets, and the complementary Development Bill was the most novel, formidable proposal 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 harrassed as much as possible, for it placed new taxes onj land, besides expanding the income tax and death duties.

A STEP TOWARDS LAND NATIONALISATION.

It was a distinct step towards land nationalisation, which Mr Lloyd-George said must come. Land was selected because its taxation could not be evaded. Unearned increment could be applied to every other kind of property. No exertion was needed by the holders of consols or railway stocks. He warned the country tc consider the dangerous character of the principles raised by the Budget. Personally he found land a harrassing and unremunerative form of property. The land laws might be improved and more people of the yeoman class settled on the land, but landlords should be justly treated. They were usually human beings in difficulties. In 1896 a 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. Landowners seemed] to be “damned and doubly damned” for holding property in land. Many millions of working men’s money invested by prudential, temperance, and friendly societies might soon be touched. A DANGER TO CAPITAL. He considered that the enormous increase in the death duties was a danger to capital. They ought to be reserved for war purposes. The Government’s enormous taxation of capital was strangling in peace the goose which laid the golden egg in war time. The Government boasted that it had paid off 40 millions, and did not borrow, but it proceeded to spend 16 millions annually. The transference by enhanced death duties of masses of capital from the individual to the State injuriously reacted on commerce and employment, and destroyed the nation s reserve power. Scores of millions sterling were lying idle in banks or going abroad to develop other countries owing to apprehension, as to the Government’s financial policy. What feelings would Mr. W. E. Gladstone had had for such a Budget ? Liberalism and liberty used to go together. TYRANNY AND INQUISITION. This Budget established a tyranny and inquisition never previously known. He denounced the Government’s bureaucratic socialism. Bureaucracy was almost strangling France, yet our Govenment created a multiplicity of staffs: There were paid officers for the Small Holdings, Factory Inspection, Pensions, and Housing and Planning Acts. The supertax would be administered by commissioners, from whom there was no appeal. This sort of tyranny was not liberalism, but socialism. For five years before their death men would be ghosts. During that time they could give nothing to their children without it being reckoned part of their estate. He declared that Cobden, Bright, and Villiers had never dreamt of levying the vast sum now asked in direct taxation. If a Customs tariff was to be the only alternative, let them cease to defend the principles of freetrade. He urged retrenchment, but not of national defence. Why, he asked, should Ireland oosH £1,200,000 more yearly than she produced in taxation?, Ho would conduct the State as a private business. He was sorry that the Government had taken sides with the socialists. Some Ministers were conscious socialists. The least worthy working men were being taught not to exert themselves, and his Liberal friends were clearly moving on the path leading to socialism. He would not follow them one inch.

A denunciation op socialism.

He might think tariff reform or protection an evil, but socialism was the negation of faith in the family, in

CABLE NEWS.

property, in the monarchy, and the Empire.

In a subsequent speech, Lord Rosebery declared that John Bright would have denounced the encroaching proposals of this Budget. LOBBY OPINION ON THE SPEECH. Lobby opinion is to the effect that Lord Rosebery has created a new situation, and rendered even more likely the~~Lord’s rejection of the Budget. The Unionists attach great significnce to Lord Rosebery’s declaration of his belief that the Government is taunting and daring the Lords to throw out the Budget. It is expected that the Budget Bill will be sent to the House of Lords about 15th October. Both parties expect that a general election will follow in a few weeks.

NEWSPAPER OPINIONS

The “Times” says the essence of Lord Rosebery’s speech is that the Bill involves a social revolution without precedent. The paper says that he showed that behind devices whose professed end is revenue, lurk far-reaching schemes for the subversion and re-distribution 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 Telegraph” says that Lord Rosebery pronounced an elegy over the Liberal party as it existed until Mr. Lloyd-George assumed the Exchequer and Mr. Winston Churchill was admitted to the Cabinet. The “Daily News” says that there is no opponent so venomous as the renegrade, no critic so stern as the man who has failed. , The “Daily Chronicle” says that the speech is that of a great landlord, not of a great Liberal. It "was entirely colored by the prejudices and propossessions of landlordism.

Unitkd Press Association —Copyright LONDON, Sept. 10.

Lord Rosebery’s meeting at Glasgow was attended by an enormous assemblage of business men. The meeting was non-party in character, and no resolutions were carried.

Lord Rosebery’s speech occupied one hundred minutes. He remarked that though he did not belong to the Unionists, h© could not help paying a tribute to the courage and intelligence of the gallant little minority of the House of Commons. He characterised the Budget as harrassing, inquisitorial, bureaucratic, tyrannical, and predatory. No form of property was safe, nor was it intended to be safe under the new taxation. He argued for a rejection of the Budget, declaring that ‘Mr Gladstone would have made short work of a deputation of his colleagues presenting it. AMENDMENTS TO FINANCE BILL ACCEPTED. LONDON, Sept. 10. The Government has accepted amendments to the Finance Bill. One permits the State to accept real property for the payment of estate duty. The Opposition criticise this as the first step in principle towards State ownership of land which ought to have been secured by legislation instead of a money Bill. The “Times” states that a deputation from the committee of the Stock Exchange conferred with Mr LloydGeorge. It is understood the present duty on share transactions, ranging from fid to 2s, will be withdrawn in favor of a scale of 6d to the pound, thereby reducing the burden on transactions of average magnitude. ELECTIONS. LONDON, Sept. 10. The Opposition leaders reached an agreement whereby Lord Robert Cecil (Marylebone East), Mr G. V. Bowles (Norwood), Hon. F. W. Lambton (Durham, S.E.), and Abel Smith (Hereford) will not be opposed. Union Associations in the constituencies are now to be approached with the view of obviating Tariff Reform opposition to the sitting members of the Free Food section of the Unionist party. EXEMPTION FROM DUTIES. The Government propose exemption on works of art bequeathed to the nation from succession equally with legacy and estate duties. PROTEST AGAINST BUDGET. LONDON, Sept. 10. A deputation of cricket, football, and golf clubs, headed by the Marylebone Rugby Union Football Association, requested tbe Government to exempt land used for sporting and recreative purposes from the Finance Bill. Mr Masterman, on behalf of Mr. LloydGeorge, promised to exempt bona fide clubs from increment tax.