BRITISH POLITICS.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLIII, Issue XLIII, 20 September 1909, Page 4

BRITISH POLITICS.

Pbess Association. — Coproioni, j THE BUDGET. SPEECH BY MR ASQUITH. ! N REPLY TO LORD ROSEBERY. LONDON, Saturday. Mr Asquith, Premier, had a tumuluous welcome when addressing 10,000 leople at Binghl Hall. He likened the sensations of the read;r of Lord Eosebery's speech to those >f an over-sanguing explorer, who, hay- ( ng battled across parallels of ioe and fog ■caches the North Pole only to find lothing there except that the points oi :he compass have for the moment lost :heir meaning. He emphasised that the present gathering meant to declare its fixed resolve, first that the interests of the State should be met by an equitable distribution of the nations wealth ; . md secondly that the freely chosen rep- ( resentatives of the people should have . the fina Ivoice in settling both the mea- ; 3ure and incidence of their burden. i After summarising the proposals of the so-called revolutionary Budget ho remarked that the working classes as a body had not complained 6f their share acknowledged necessities of the State. The bulk of well-to-do citizens were just as ready as their less fortunate fellowsubjects to play their part and do their 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 .between Lord Bosebery and himself. Lord Rosebery had bewailed the hard fate and extolled the services of the owner of agricultural land; but the Budget's land taxes did not touch agricultural land. Its proposals were for increasing the deductions under schedule A, and left the owner of agricultural land better off than now. What the proposal was was merely to tax land values created by the social development of the country. Lord Rosebery himself, while prime' Minister, advocated the taxation of ground values. He agreed with Lord Rosebery that the Government was making a new departure in land taxation. The departure was that for the first time principles, the justice of which was admitted by every Imperial man who studied the subject, had been recognised) and acted upon by a responsible Government. Lord Rosebery bad discovered in the inheritance duties an intention to wage an implacable war against capital, saying that the epithets used against Mr Gladstone's Succession Duty Act had been falsified by events. The taxes were a very moderate toll. Re. garding the alleged depletion and socalled exploitation of national capital ho contended that the money taken in the shape of death duties did not disappear ; I it went in sanitation, national defence, the preservation of order, and those great schemes of social reform whereon the Liberals were bent. Nobody could say that capital so applied had not been so remuneratively employed as if left in the pocket* of it? previous owners and transmitted to their children. What was Lord Rosebery's alternative? Beyond a f^w singularly infertile- generi 't'es Lord Roscbery had nothing to tall them. Tiriff reformers wore grttefulfor Lord Rosebery's aid, but they disguised their disappointment with bis Jame and impo. tent conclusions. They felt "that it was all very well to abuse the Budget and ite authors ; but neither nations nor individuals could live on blood and thunder. They could not fill tho deficit by denunciation. Proceeding to argue on tariff reform, he said it had proved no practical alternative to the Budget as a revenueproducing scheme. Mr Asquith remarked that if any such alternative policy existed they ought to come out in the open. Mr Baffour on his last visit tc Birmingham administered to long-suffer-ing reformers a dose of syrup which hac kept them more or less quiet. The important part of Mr Asquith'i speech was reserved for tho last fiv< minutes. It was a direct challange t< the House of Lords. Speaking solemn ly and slowly, he declared if tile Lordi dpptroyed tho Budget, whether by muti lation or rejection, there would indee( be the most formidable revolution sinci the Long Parliament. He added that i had been settled long ago that the Housi of Commons had an absolute and un questionable decisive voice in matters o finance. The House of Lords was im potent and the House of Commons su preme if that issue was raised. He impressively remarked: "Ihai way revolution lies. It would involv issues far wider and deeper than th Houso of Lords' right to mdedle wM finance, but if it be raised the Libera party is anxious and eager to accep the challenge." Elaborate precautions were taken t prevent suffragettes from invading th jineeting. Barricades were erected forming a secret passage from the sta tion to the hotel. There wore numerous suffragist dis tr<rbances in the streets, and severa arersts were made. Their champion interrupted the meeting and severa were ejected. 'The "Times" says: "Mr Asquitih' defence in conclusion waa almost tri vial. The opposition to the Budge is provoked far less by what it take than its waya of taking, and th c avow ale of intention and design of Mr As qiiith's colleagues. These avowals h always ignored, and we can easily be lieve that they are far from command ing his personal approval. He mus be well aware that the House of Lords right to reject tho Budget is beyom question." The "Daily Mail" says the speed was humdrum; and quotes Lord Ers kine's statement in the House of Lord with regard to their right to withhol< their assent to any Bill of which the; disapprove. The "Daily News" says the Liberal are- prepared to take advantage of * neyolution b|y limiting tihe hereditarj right of veto to remove tho greatest stumbling block in the path of nationa advancement. The "Telegraph" says the speech wa. Quito futile as a.i effort to coerce th" Kcuso of J ords. Lord Swathling, Mr Austen Chamber lain, Sir Charles McLaren, Sir John Brunner, Mr George Cadbury, and 52 other business men have signed a statO' ment in favour of the valuation of j land, considering a new basis of assessment necessary to secure relief from growing I'ates. In the House of Commone the Ir' sn Land Bill was read a third time by 174 votes to 51. ■ . I