The Press. THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 1910. BRITISH GOVERNMENT FINANCE.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13713, 21 April 1910, Page 6

The Press. THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 1910. BRITISH GOVERNMENT FINANCE.

Mr Asquifcli ias, by some arrangement with "the Nationalists, the nature of wh£di> is not yet known, secured J* majority of 93 for his resolution, that the House of Common? should sanction a Budget identical "with that of .last year. The resolution validates .the .taxes is, the Customs and excise duties, which "have been voluntarily paid by. traders <*vei' since Hh a Budget,resclation* were passed by theHouse, although the Government! lad no legal authority to demand them, j Mr Lloyd George has further stated | that he expects so much of the arrears* of taxation to be collected that lesa . than .half a million will bo lost. If that proves to be the case, the Government -will have had better luck than they deserve. The condition of the national finances is *t present simply chaotic. In the 'first week of last month Mr Lloyd George admitted that the loss to : €he revenue of the then current financial year, ending on March 31st, through ! the failure of the Government to pass the Budget, was estimated at twentyeight and a half millions, and he was not prepared to say how much of this loss would ultimately bo recovered. Ine Government had then just put through a Temporary Borrowing Bill enabling ■;;.'tb(Baa.Vie;.Taise some six and a half million*, partly by Joan and partly by diverting three and a half millions fnvm iiie Sinking Fund for the reduction, of the National Debt. On the motion lor the third reading of this Government's policy subject of much sharp Mr Aequith #* defence of the Go-

vernment's attitude. Hβ reminded the House that as far back as last September he had warned the country of tbe disastrous financial administrative effects that would follow tho rejection lof the Budget by the Lords. He I claimed that the Government could jdo nothing m January and February ito mitigate tho consequences of this I action, and as for the time that had passed since the House met on February 21st, it had been necessary to pass supply in order to provide for continuance of tho services. But he gave no adequate reason why he had not, after the House of Lords refused to pass the Budget, accepted the offer of the Opposition to make it easy for him to pass legislation to meet the current financial needs of tho country, and thus obviate the inconvenience that otherwise was inevitable. A resolution for the collection of the income tax would have been put throush without difficulty. But, said Mr Asquith, "the Government '"would not be a party to departing " from what had been regarded as tho " fundamental principle of the financial system for the last 40 years. " We regard the taxes imposed by the " Budget as one thing," he added, "and " I do not conceive it is any part of "our duty to take out one particular " tax and give it precedence and "separate treatment. The taxes in " the Budget must ho treated as a "whole, and I decline to single out "this tax for special treatment." The curious thing is that in the Temporary Borrowing Bill, which was at that ■ moment before the House, Mr Asquith had done the very thing that ho declared he .would not do. He had embodied in it the provision, torn from Mr Lloyd George's Budget, for suspending tho Sinking Fund, and he was proposing to ask the House of Lords, as an act of grace, to agree to this action in order to help the Government's finance. The Government's policy, in borrowing money at a cost of £10,000 a week rather than submit a resolution authorising the collection of even one tax, was described by Lord Hugh Cecil as being inspired by a desire not to ea.Te tho dignity of tho House of Commons, but to catch votes at the election, and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that in this matter Mr Asquith sacrificed the interests of the country for tito sake of what ho hoped would be a party advantage. Tho financial chaos was to he another stick with which to beat the Bxrase of Lord's. But the Government's strenuous assertion that all the trouhle and inconvenience, all the lose borne by the taxpayer through the Government's borrowing while refusing to accent the proffered payment of income tax, was duo to the action of the House of Lords, will not hold water. Most of the trouble and the loss would have been obviated if they had, perhaps at some little sacrifice of their pride but in the beet interests of the public, legalised the collection, of the income tax before appealing to the country. . By their action they deliberately put party before patriotism.