£11,000,000.

Feilding Star, Volume III, Issue 874, 10 May 1909, Page 2

£11,000,000.

LLOYD-GEORGE'S UNDERESTIMATE. HOW "PUBS" SUFFER. MR BALFOUR'i CRITICISM. [BY ILKOTBIO OLWOMW— rorriilMT.) [PEE PBBM ASSOCIATION.] London, May 9. Notwithstanding a week's deibate the operation of several of the Budget proposals is still obscure, especially the proposed 20 per cent, state tax on* the unearned increment of land. Representatives of licensed victuallers -decided that Mr Lloyd- , George's budget provided for £4,- V 200,000, whereas the increase from licensed spirits would; really produce eleven millions. Hotel licenses have advanced enormously. Savoy Hotel by £6250, Ritz £4250, on Whitney ' •and Combe's tied houses, .the licenses will amount to £140,000; Whitbread's to £42,000- ' General -and omnibus petrol will cost ;an additional £37,000 per year. Many taxieab drivers who have to pay for their petrol are striking. Mr Lloyd-George, interviewed by the Standard, declared that the navy would be a first charge on •any realised surplus in 1910. At a meeting of the Primrose League Mr Balfour •declared' that the. Budget proposals were inequitable,* vindictive, and based' on no principle. They were calculated in the long rim to injure the whole of the productive capacity of the country. The proposals iregarding income itiak, Mr ., . B ,? lf °wr continued, diminished Britain's financial 'capacity to meet the stress of every great European conflict, but placing the anavy issue before the Budget he proceeded t* •urge the Government's neglect of the navy was a grave peril to .Groat Britain, running her margin of superiority much too fin© for majbional security* The Government was well aware that eight Dreadnoughts were needed and it was perfect folly of them not to come forward, make a clean .breast, and admit that circumstances were so changed that they were conipelled to hasten their programme, and that their calculations had (been run too close. Every method, whether gentle or violent, had been ueett . to persuade the Government to confesa their actions inefficacious. The gigantic sacrifices which the nation would be called upon to make during •next decade, and perhaps long after, A ought to begin, at once. It was the '• duty of the Government, at what- ' ever cost^ ,to provide not merely a bare possible margin compared with any other*country and its immediate allies, but superiority of the only Bod which could secure honour for the country, and .peace for the world, namely, a strength whioit could mot possibly be challenged. ' • ' , Mr \ Winston Churchill, speaking at Oxford, said it was certain that -we are in for an. epoch not of panto building. biit of steady [building. .It was deplorable that nations should ispend money this" way. It would be laa impossible eeyere strain on every State., but it would not; ibe Britain that would be the first to show itself unv equal to the strain. {Cheora) Hapr pily free trade enabled us, unhampered by tariff loans and without the ' status' of any class m the ooiißitpy fe ing sensibly affected, to maintain an ample asnd effective superiority as to sea power over every likely combination. _, . M.>iooume, May 9. The 1 Federal Government will be represented at the Naval Conference by Senator Pearoe and Mr J. C; Wa*;son, ex-Premier. ■■-■■-•■ PRIME MINISTER WILL PROB* ABLY NOT GO. . It is generally considered that Sir Joseph Ward will make, strenuous efforts to go to London as New Zear ' land's representative -at the Imperial Defence Conference. There are two reasons for this.- First, it is his duty to go if possible. Second, he would arrive at Homo at a. time when his visit would, bo specially welcome- — , when the full glory of New Zealand's offer would be focussed upon him. Against this , there is the fireb meeting of a new- Parliament, in which, although he has a large party 'majority, he has to negotiate several awkward' questions, notably those connec- ! ted with land, retrenchment, and finance. Of course, if he went Home, Sir Joseph would have to obtain an undertaking from ibbe Leader of the Opposition that no party question, involving the fate of the Government ■ would be raised during his absence. .Therefore, the probability is— nrrach as he would like it otherwise— Sir Joseph Ward will not go to London. It^has been sugeested that Mr Hall-Jones, High Commissioner, and Mr McNah; should represent tMs dominion. Colonel Davies, Inspector- • of the Forces, will ibe ib. England at the time, and his services will be available to our representative or representatives. ' — — . . <; i .It has long been suspected that th« I Chancellor of the Exchequer was contemplating a system of high licenses, by which the licenses would bear some relation to the value, of the trade of the house. The Spectator . •-< says that; the refusal of Britain to • accept the high-license system is utterly unreasonable. She is missing a source of revenue of many miUions '■ a ye»r. Messrs Rowntree and SJierwell say : |i /"AVhile we are spending time and -^ effort and monpy. and incurring greatrisks in our endeavour to secure a ■ reduction of licenses we could easily effect a. greater reauotfon than the I most ardent temperance' reformer anticipates by a simple and just revision of our license duties. : ■ ' ■> "Altogether there are 1500 hotel* in England and Wales which pay only £20 per annum license duty, and their rateable value varies from £50 to £21,900. ? "Of the public-houses in England, 75 per cent, pay a license duty of , from £4 10s to *20, and only 25 per '■* ■ ■ cent, pay a duty exceeding £25. The * scale abounds in anomalies — e.g.: ';'' > 100 housesjrated at £16 pay <a license duty £800; 10 (houses rated at £160 pay a license duty £300 j and! 1 house rated at £1600 pays in license duty "Against this put the license duty imposed in. New Zealand cities: In ' '- 21 of these; the 'average license, duty is £268, or ten times the average of thf duty in the United Kingdom. "From 30,269 pubHc houses in 164 tons m Great Britain,, we received a total license revenue of £815,771.. "Were our license duties graded on the same basis per 1000 of the population as those which are levied in similar towns in the United States, we should receive an annual revenue 'S?mJ«S!? urban P uWic houses of 3t7,070,779. . * "The ann-ual proceeds of the license auties in London are £205,000. * In ■ New York, with half London's population, the proceeds are £1,45|1,> .; 000. "-■.