IMPERIAL POLITICS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2611, 20 September 1909, Page 5

IMPERIAL POLITICS.

IMPORTANT MINISTERIAL SPEECH. MR. ASQUITH’S REPLY TO LORD ROSEBERY. ■o United rmetis Association—Copyuight. (Received September 19, 5.5 p.m.) LONDON, Sept. 18. The Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, had a tumultous welcome at Bingley Hall, when ho addressed 10,000 tpepole. He likened the sensations of a reader of Lord Rosebery’s speech to those of an over-sanguine explorer w’ho, having battled across parallels of ice and fog, reached the North Pole only to find nothing there except that points of tho compass have fonPthp moment lost their meaning. He emphasised that the present gathering meant to declare their fixed resolve, —-First, that the interests of the State should be met by equitable distribution of the nation’s wealth; secondly that the freely chosen representatives of the people must have the final voice in. settling both the measure and the incidence of the burden. He remarked that the working classes as a body had not complained of their share of: tho additional contribution to the acknowledged necessities of the State,, and the bulk of the well-to-do citizens were just as ready as their less fortunate fellow subjects to play their part and do a fair share of the patriotic duty of meeting the State’s needs. Whatever might happen in the .hurly-burly of politics, nothing could disturb the personal affection of Lord Rosebery and himself. Lord Rosebery had bewailed the hard fate, and extolled the services, of the owner of agricultural land. The Budget’s land taxes had not touched agricultural land. Its proposals for increasing deductions under Schedule A left the owner of agricultural land better off than now. What was proposed was merely to tax land value created by tho soeiaj development of the country. Lord Rosebery himself, while Prime Minister, had advocated the taxation of ground values. He (Mr. Asquith) agreed with Lord Rosebery that the Government was making a new departure in regard to land. That departure was that, for the first time principles, tho justice of which was admitted by every Imperial statesman who had studied the subject, had been recognised and acted upon by a responsible Government. Lord Rcsebery bad discovered in the inheritance duties an intention to wage implacable war against capital. The same epithet had been used against Mr. W. E. Gladstone’s Succession Duty Act, and falsified by events. The taxes were a very moderate toll. Regarding the alleged depletion and the so-called exploitation of national capital, he contended that money taken in the shape of death duties did not disappear. It went in national defence, the presex-va-tion of order, and those great schemes of social reform whereon Liberals w ere bent. Nobody could say that capital so applied was not being as remuneratively employed as it would have been if it was left in the pockets of its previous owners and; then transmitted to their children. What was Lord Rosebery’s alternative? Beyond a few singularly infertile generalities Lord Rosebery had nothing to tell uhem. Tariff reformers were grateful for Lord Rosebery’s aid, but disguised their disappointment at his lame impotent conclusions. They felt it all very well that he abused the Budget and its authors, hut neither nations nor individuals could live on a diet of blood and thunder. “You cannot fill « deficit by denunciation.” Proceeding to argue that tariff reform provided no practical alternative to the Budget as a revenue-producing scheme, Mr. Asquith remarked that if any suen alternative policy’ existed; it ought to come out in the open. Mr. Balfour, at his last visit to Birmingham, had administer edr to tho long-suffering tariff reformers a dose, something like syrup, which had kept them more or Jess quiet.

A CHALLENGE TO THE LORDS. The important part of Mr. Asquitli’s speech was reserved! for the last five minutes. It was a, direct cliallenge to the Lords. Speaking solemnly and slowly, he declared Hat if the Lords destroyed 1 the Budget, whether by mutilation or rejection, that indeed would be the most formidable revolution since the days of the Dong Parliament. He added that it had' been settled long ago that the House of Commons had an absolute, unquestionable, decisive voice in matters of finance. In those matters the Lords were impotent and the Commons supreme. “If that issue is raised,” impressively remarked the Prime Minister, “that way revolution lies. It would involve issues far wider and deeper than the Lords’ right to meddle with finance, but if it is raised the Liberal party arc anxious and eager to accept the challenge.”

THE NEWSPAPERS ON THE PREMIER’S SPEECH. The “Times” says: “Mr. Asquith’s defence, in its conclusions, is almost trivial. The opposition to the Budget is provoked far less by what it takes than by its ways of taking it, and the avowals of its intention and design by Mr. Asquith’s colleagues. These avowals he always ignored, and we can easily believe they are far from commanding his personal approval. Ho must be well aware that the Lords right to reject the Budget is beyond question.” The “Daily Mail” says that the speech is humdrum, and quotes Sir