THE BUDGET DEBATE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13767, 4 June 1908, Page 5

THE BUDGET DEBATE.

BASIS OF TAXATION. OPPOSITION AMENDMENT REJECTED. THE PREFERENCE QUESTION. By Telegraph—Press Association.—Copyright. (Received June 3, 11.20 p.m.) London, June 3. The debate on the second "reading of the Finance Rill was resumed in the House of Commons last evening. Mr. A. Bonar Law (Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade from 1902 to 1905) said that nobody proposed imposing prohibitive duties on imported goods with a view to England manufacturing everything herself. Whether they were able to compete with rivals or not he was not a protectionist in the crude sense of the Patents Act which withdrew a patent ' unless the article was made in the country. What was desired was to give manufacturers and workmen preference in the home market, enabling them to- compete on better terms with foreign rivals there. Referring to Mr. Lloyd-George's criticisms on German finances, he said the fact was that unification and centralisation were not complete, and particular • taxes were only possible with the consent of the different German States, adding, " We should know what that meant if we had home rule all round." He emphasised that Germany was spending borrowed money in naval construction. The Board of Trade figures showed that the rise in wages in Germany for two decades preceding 1900 had exceeded that of any other country, and there had been a great fall in the cost of living.

Mr.' Churchill contended that the taxation of food and manufactures went together. The Government protested against so broadening taxation as to make it press more heavily on the threadbare shoulders of the poor.

MR. BALFOUR'S ATTITUDE. Mr. Balfour expressed disappointment at the attitude of Ministers. Even if he did not believe in establishing some bond with the colonies, and safeguarding British manufacturers against illegitimate forms of competition, he would still consider the broadening of the. basis of taxation necessary and inevitable. The present situation, in which the country was faced by vast expenditure for which no provision had been foreshadowed, was unprecedented.

Regarding the taxation of food, if the country's financial necessities demanded he would not shrink from reimposing a corn duty, but he would be no,party to increasing the working classes' proportionate burden.

Proceeding, he remarked that if the Government intended to use the income tax and death duties in a way their authors never intended, they would be inflicting gross injustice on a few, and, what was more important, serious injury to the industrial interests of the many.'

" WHAT ABOUT PREFERENCE

Mr. Asquith said that while the amendment attacked the Budget, his two cardinal proposals—a reduction of the sugar duties and the establishment of old age pensions--had not been contested. What had become of colonial preference? The colonial Premiers having gone, had the Opposition so soon forgotten them? Nothing had been said regarding a tax on wheat, meat, or dairy produce.

If, continued the Prime Minister, ■the Government had foreshadowed their revenue plans for 1909, their expectations would perhaps be defeated by astute, anticipations. He strenuously denied the charges of recklessness and improvidence. Free trade finance had produced a condition of stability on which they were entitled to pride themselves, enabling them to more than meet all coming charges.

Mr. Laurence Hardy's amendment in favour of broadening the basis of taxation was rejected by 367 votes to 124. Three Unionist freetraders voted for the amendment.

The motion for the second reading was then put and carried.