HOME AND FOREIGN.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXVI, Issue 5293, 3 June 1904, Page 2

HOME AND FOREIGN.

(From Our Special Correspondent.) s “MR BUDGET. LONDON, April 33. Plain, straightforward, business-hko—-such was Air Austen Chamberlain's first Budget speech. No flourishes, no ! attempts at wit. Instead,: there was a brief and lucid exposition of the nation”s. huge balance-sheet, introduced with just that touch of diffidence which wins the sympathy of the listening House. “Air AustenV came through his ordeal with flying colours, and Mr Chamberlain “pore,” the only member of the House of Commons who has ever had the privilege of hearing his sou introduce a Budget; looked pleaked and proud, as .well he Anight.; That it was an ordeal for the young Chancellor of the Exchequer can bo readily imagined. The House H as crowded to excess—Peers’ Gallery, distinguished strangers’ gallery and all. “Up in the Peers’ Gallery (I quote from the..“St. James’s Gazette”) was the dour, grey Lord Goschen, cxChancellor. of the Exchequer. On a back bench, twitching his Mephistoohelian eye-brown, sat Air Ritchie, ex-Ciian-oellor, of the Exchequer. Blinking meditatively, while toymg with his wiry grey beard, another ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer sat, not far oil, Sir Alichael- Hicks-Bcach. Over the wdy, his countenance shadowed by the broad brim of bis hat, and with hands clasped across the convexity of his waistcoat, was a fourth ox-Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir William Harcourt.” ' No wonder that Air Austen, down on the Treasury bench, “sat looking pale and nervous, hugging his knee, blowing his nose, polishing Ins - eyeglass, examining his finger-nails—going through all the involuntary little actions which mark the man about to face an ordeal.” He made a good start, however, and the success of his quiet dig at two ex-Chan-cellors, Sir Alichael and Sir William—“whose memory will be kept green by the taxes they have imposed”—gave him increased confidence. He explained the accounts —how the expenses of the nation must reach £142,880,000 and the revenue in sight was not more than £139,060,000. That left a deficit of £3,830,000 to be made good by some moans or other. How was it to be done? Raid the Sinking Fund? Never! Air Austen’s attitude towards the fund was so virtuously correct as almost to suggest the repentant sinner, or the man who would have sinned : f the Treasury officials hadn’t opened his eyes to the enormity of the crime. Then ho broke out into a eulogy of the income-tax payers. Ho was overwhelmed with grief at the burden they had to bear. 'Oh. oysters, dear, I weep for you, I deeply sympathise.” It was “The Walrus and the Carpenter” over again. Having shown his deep sympathy for the poor taxpayers,. the Chancellor calmly proceeded to; add another; penny to theif burden, making it one shilling in the £. The extra penny, he cheerfuly remarked, would be worth another two millions sterling to the Treasury. Leaving the taxpayers to struggle back to life, after this backhander, the .Chancellor turned his attention to tobacco, and explained that he would raise half a million by putting an extra 3d: a pound on raw tobacco stripped before importation. Is a pound on foreign cigarettes and Gd a pound'on cigars. Yet another couple of millions was required, and, under. England’s free import system (here is precious little To raise it from by indirect taxation. The Chancellor had his choice between sugar and tea; .and he selected the latter—an

extra 2d a pound on tea would bring in two millions, clear tip tho deficit, and leave a balance of £730,000 for contingencies.

Such was tho budget, sir.iplo and business-like enough, but none kpo.acceptable. When all is said on its behalf, that extra, penny in the pound remain* a jiucr nill for tho taxpayer. A penny all round hits some people so much harder than others; the system is nm oi inequalities. One feels inclined to ask. with tho '‘Chronicle”: “Why should not tho principle of graduation adopted in the deafh-dutics bo extended to income?” Sir Michael Hicks-Boach urged that this question could not be much longer delayed; but England doesn’t, like to bo hurried. THE TRIUMPH OF THE MOTHER-JN-LAW.

From time immemorial (one might say)' tho mother-in-law'has furnished food for mirth. ■■Where is the comio paper which has not, found in her a staplo and abiding joke? I need not labour tho point; it stands undisputed. Now.and then, however, it happens that public sympathy is all on the side of tho mother-in-law, and of this the law Courts furnished a striking instance during tho'past week. A trial for slander brought by a young man named Foxwell against Mrs Shaf to-Greno, the mother of bis wife, culminated in a dramatic scene such as a sedate and judicial-assemblage rarely witnesses., Tho plaintiff was a clerk in a condensed milk factory- in Ireland. Ho ,mot his future wife on a steamer, and whilo paying her marked attentions talked largely of his wealthy grandfather, represented: himself aa studying for the army, and altogether convoyed a very erroneous impression regarding his social position. Tho girl fell in love, and accepted his suit. Although ho was only earning a pittance, arid had promised the girl’s relatives not to marry her for at least three montiis, lie broke his word, and persuaded his fiancee to contract-a secret marriage. Onco married, ho treated her so unkindly that she loft him. Tho plaintiffs mother-in-law was led by his conduct to express her opinion of him with considerable warmth. She described him a* a “cad,” a “ blackguard,” a “weak, lying poltroon.” and alleged that he had married her daughter secretly in order to get her money. Foxwell meanwhile was writing letters calling Sirs ShaftoGrene “a low-down adventuress of a third-rate order,” and making insinuations with regard to her moral character. Yet ho had the colossal effrontery —one can hardly call it anything else—to sue his mother-in-law to recover damages for libel.

The case was tried in the King’s Bench Division this week and came to an end with startling abruptness. Plaintiff’s wife was under cross-exami-nation and counsel for tho plaintiff wai reading out somq of her old love-letters and putting many questions. Suddenly tho unfortunate lady burst into teirs, and rushed out of Court, exclaiming between her sobs that she would not have hor lovo-lotters read. Judge, jury and counsel wero loft staring at each other in amazement. Then tho foreman of tho jury, after a p hurried conference with the others, got up, and said that the jury had made up their minds in favour of the defendant. Plaintiff’s counsel expostulated; ho had not yet delivered hie address upon tho ovidonco. “Ridiculous nonsense,”-said the Judge. “You may address tho jury if you like, but I will not wait to hour you. I accept the verdict.” And judgment was entered ao cordiugly. ■ ■

By a singular coincidence another motlior-in-law on the following day, in the same Court, and before tho same Judge, won the verdict of a sympathetic jury who ■ intervened'just as m the first case, and voted dead against the plaintiff son-in-law. ' After this the slock jokes against mothers-in-law will surely inquire revision.