BRITAIN’S BUDGET

Grey River Argus, 18 April 1929, Page 5

BRITAIN’S BUDGET

LABOUR CRITICISM “A Scandalous Transaction” (Australian & N.Z. Cable Assn,. LONDON, April 16. A crowded house, including 'the Prince of Wales, who was in tho Peers Gallery, listened to Mr Churchill with interest, but the general verdict was that it was easily the dullest of Mr Churchill’s budgets. He cleverly found a way through a maze of statis tics producing an impressive defence of the Government’s financial policy since 1924, but hig artistry or oratory av as less conspicuous than in his previous Budget efforts. Only when the Chancellor approached the final announcement of the taxation changes did the audience sit up quickly. It is evident that 'the only substantial change was the abolition of the tea duty. The tax had been in existence from the times of Queen Bess. I mid had been as much as half a crown and even five shillings «a pound, so there is general satisfaction at its end. The fact 'that it is an entirely removed remission and not confined to the Empire product was also welcomed, as it will mean the removal of the irritating Customs restrictions. There is no likelihood of the abolition changing the price of a cup of tea in a tea shop. The expedited relief for agriculturists will cost 2£ millions. It pleased the fanner-Commoners.

Motorists complain of the absence of c substantial reduction in taxation on motor vehicles, particularly as the vast majority of the motor-owners me persons of moderate means. Racing men admit that the tax of half per cent on the takings of the totalizator is less tha.i they antici pa fed. At least one per cent was expected. Apparently Mr Churchill is desirous of making totalisator betting as popular and as cheap as possible. Mr Snowden, criticising the Budget, said the country had been disillusioned concerning Mr Churchill’s earlier pronouncements in favour of economy. The now remissions of taxation merely represented another raiding of the Sinking Fund. No more scandalous transaction had ever been made bv a British Minister than the settlement of the continental debts to Britain. France had been allowed to repudiate four,-fifths of her debts to Britain, though since the war, France had been the nio»t prosperous country in Europe. The case of Italy was even worse. Wo had done for France and Italy what the United States had not done. The total debt ratified, agreed to, or funded, amounted to fifteen hundred millions, on which the British taxpayer was paying Ave per cent interest. Mr Churchill had commuted these debts for twenty millions a year, while we were paving the United Slates thirty-seven millions. ”BARRFACED BRIBERY.” Mr Churchill, interrupting Mr Snowdon. pointed out that the Balfour Note embodied agreements with France and Italy. Tt was a dangerous thing for a possible future Minister to use the words ”repudition ” in this collection.*

Mr Snowden said he did not subscribe to the doctrine that an agreement made by one Government bound every succeeding Government. Th n Budget was barefaced bribery. Mr Churchill had lowered the. national credit, and his dismissal would be welcomed by men of all parties, having regard to sound and just taxation and honest finance. Sir R. Horne • congratulated Mr Churchill such relief to the taxpayers from such a narrow margin of surplus. The relation of direct to indirect taxation was now 60/40. Out of twenty-seven million voters, 2j millions bore upwards of half the total taxation. Sir W. Runciman said the continuance of high interest, which was hampering business was almost entirely due to Mr Churchill’s dealings with the sinking fund, which had created a new debt as fast as it wiped out th? old. His dealings with national finance would leave a mountain of embarrassment to his successor.

Sir Hilton Young said that with the single exception of the United States British credit was the highest in the world. The Balfour Note was the foundation of the reconstruction of Europe. If they tore up these settlements, exchanges would again be thrown into the melting pot, and further injure our foreign trade. Mr Pcthick Lawrence said the City of London was in n 0 wise deceived by M' r Churchill’s wanglings and devices. The people would be * v ankful to get rid of the tnan who had consistently thrown dust in. their eyes regarding the finances of the country. BALFOUR NOTE. AN UNANIMOUS POLICY(Recd. April 17 at 10 p.m.) LONDONfi April 16. Tn the House of Commons debate, speaking before Mr Churchill interrupted him, Mr Philip Snowden said: — ‘‘We have never subscribed to the policy of HRe Baljfou? << Note”. 1 think that it was infamous, and we hold ourselves opr*n, ?f circumstances arise, to repudiate the conditions of that note.”

TORIES DISCONCERTED. (Received April 17, a 10.50 p.m.) LONDON, April 16. Mr Phill'jip Snowden’s statement in the House of Commons regarding Labour’s attitude towards the Balfour noth'” |(in which Britain undertook not to exact more from her debtors than was required to pay America) took the House by surprise. Mr Churchill hurriedly loft the chamber. When he returned, it was

evident that the Government members’ order of speaking had been re-arranged. A Cabin A meeting will be held t o consider measures to allay inevitable alarm in foreign quarters, and also the proper reply to be made tonight. * The "Morning Post’s” Parliamentary writer thinks that in an effort to bo Effective, Mr Snowden became reckless, or he would never otherwise ha»ve slipped out a defiant remark which, the correspondent asserts astonished everybody.