BRITISH BUDGET

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20075, 16 April 1927, Page 13

BRITISH BUDGET

DEBATE IN THE COMMONS. MR LLOYD GEORGE’S CRITICISM. DEFENCE ECONOMY ADVOCATED. (Frei* A.«»ooi«tion—By Telegraph—Copyright.) LONDON, April 13. Resuming the Budget debate in the House of Commons, Sir Robert Horne (Goa.) said Labour was disappointed because it had not found a miserable Chancellor in a white sheet. ( He sympathised with Labour and congratulated Mr Churchill on the senes ot clever contrivances by means of which he had succeeded in climbing the precipice. At the same time a burden of £8(4,000,000 was an impossible one for the country to bear, and no one could look to tile future with any hope if that hgure were to become the normal expenditure. Mr Lloyd George said he was disappointed with dir Robert Horne’s speecn. Mr Churchill stood in danger of going down in history as ‘Mr Dencit.’’ there was no apparent provision to meet the expenditure in connection with China. It was a great mistake not to Budget m anticipation, as the troops would lemain in China for some tune, the new .axes were feeble, miserable, and annoying. 11 e sum ol £50,0u0,0U0 had been (iescnned as being made up of windfalls, b'.t they were tree shaftings, not windfalls, iiiere were one or two apples not ripe. Anyhow, they had not come out of Mr Churchill's orchard. Mr Churchill apparently believed with Robert Louis Stevenson that it was better to travel hopefully than to arrive. He had aimed at economy but the sturdy figure of the First Lord of the Admiralty stood in front of the target, causing him to miss his aim. The abolition of three departments was a firstclass mistake. Real economy lay in the direction of armaments. A Minister was sent to Geneva to ask others to reduce armaments while Britain was increasing its navy. Britain was accused of hypocrisy, and there was a certain element of truth in that charge. Britain was confronting nations which were without Britain a burdens and hence the Budget was misleading, irrelevant, and unhelpful. —A. and N.Z. Cable. THE CHANCELLOR’S REPLY. TAXATION PROPOSALS DEFENDED. ECONOMY OF ADMINISTRATION. LONDON, April 14. (Received April 15, at 5.5 p.m.) Mr Cnurchill, replying to the criticism of the Budget, claimed that the discussion showed almost unanimous approval ot the financial proposals for tne year, though the 1925 Budget, which was full of good things, had resulted in his being almost hounded out of public life. The present cost of the central Government was only £157,000,000 out of £818,000,000. The same services would have cost £96,000,000 before the war. Making allowance for the value of money they were costing 10 per cent, less than before the war.—(Ministerial cheers.) Members talked of economy; but when there was any specific proposal they criticised it in a tone of unwonted asperity. The size of the army was not excessive in view of the needs of the Empire, and before there was a large reduction 'in the navy the country must decide whether to abandon the oue-Power standard. There were three great naval Powers in the world ; but fortunately they lived in opposite corners of the earth. If there was no great upheaval the trading results of the year must be incomparably better than they were last year Ho would get the benefits of the results concentrated in the income tax. Lie debate then closed.—Argus and Sydney Sun Cable.