PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2902, 27 October 1909, Page 85

PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

THE BATTLE OF THE BUDGET. j — Freetrade or Preferential Trade? — i My laet two Ghats have been upon the Home Budget, and last week I told you that parties at Home are divided into two great classes. The one, a Freetrade one, in power just now, and v.nshing to have an increased revenue, is determined to get it by taxing land and the unearned increment; the other, largely a Preferential one, is not in power, is unwiliing to tax land and unearned increment, and is willing to give preference to imports from other places within the Empire. The former, being Freetraders, cay a tax on food, wheat, etc., will increase the cost of living, which wiil therefore lee&en the purchasing power of wages or cause a rise in wages, in which case cost of production must go up and exports decrease as a consequence. Preferentialists say that even admitting thai low wages mencs low cott of production, it is no use producing when the manufactured products are shut out from other countries by protective tariffs . But ihsy also say that Preferentiation need not mean a lowering of purchasing power, a raising- of wages, or an increased cost of production. •«■ Which side is right? Take the party in power. It says that land is not contributing its fair share of taxation and that the increased taxation must come from the leisured classes. This may be right., but it does not meet the fact that British goods are shut out j •of foreign .markets by "Protection, and that the trade of Germany, the United States, and Jajian has been increasing in a greater ratio than the trade of the Motherland. Cheap food is of no value if men cannon get work. I think, however, that landowners have not been contributing their fair share to the revenue, and that thay have taken, and ar« taking, undue advantages of the necessities of others. I.«et me give an example or two. A Welsh landlord had a. piece of land on which two shillings a year ware paid in taxes : but when "it < was proposed to purchase it the owner . wanted £2500 an acre fqr it ! Near '• Gresnock there is a piece of land paying , £11 2s an acre, but the Government i waited £ for a shooting range, and the i price demanded was £27.225. When the i Duke of Northumberland was asked to ' sell a piece of land for a School he named his price ab £900, though it was taxed on ' a value of 50 shillings an acre. But let me quote from Mr LJoyd Geo-rge'fi famous Limestone spech, which has been issued in leaflet form, and has been distributed by ths million :—: — , I want to invite your attention to a number of concrete cades; fair samples to show .you how in these ooncreto illustrations out Budget proposajs wort. Now, let us take tb&m. £et us lakrf fird. of all the tax on undeveloped land and oj? increment. Not far from hone, not sp many years ago, be- . tweon the Les and the ThaWs, you bad hundreds of acres of land which was not very useful even for agricultural purposes. In the main it was a sodden marsh. The ooauneroe and the trsfde of London increased -under Freetrsde. Tho tonnage of your shipping went up by hundreds of thousands of tons and by millions; labour was attracted from all parts of the country to cope with all this trade and business which was done here. What happened V There was no hotuSing accommodation. This Port of London, became overcrowded, .and the population overflowed. T4tat was " the opportunity of the ownara of the marsh. AH that 'and became valuable buiJdir.g- land, \ snd land which, used to be ranted at £2 ' or £3 an acre has bser selling within the -. last few years ac £2000 an acre, £3000 an j acre, £6000 an acre. £5000 ar acre. Who i created that increment? Who ovade that ' I goider swamp? Was it the landlord?— , J (Cries of "No.'") Was it his energy'/ Wa 8 ' I it his braine. — a very bad koi-cut for the place if it wera — his fccethoiig.it? It was • purely the combined erfora -of all tho psopl-a -engaged in fcjo trade and commerce of the Pert ol London — trader, merchant, ! . ship-owner, dock labourer, workman — everybody except the landlord. Now, you follc-w • j that transaction Land wcrth £2. or £3 an 1 acre running up to thousands During the time it was ripening the landlord was paying h:<, tares and taxes, not ,n £2 oc US an acre. It was agricultural land, and because it was agricultural land a munificent To- - 3 Cove-nraent — (laughter) —^ted a sum , of two m-iiliont to pay half the rates of i these pocr distretietl landier-cU, and j-ou ■ ajad I hid to pay taxes in order to enable ', rhoso iandio:v.is to pay half their rates on ' agricultural lard, 'v.mle n v,ab going up ] every year by hun-dred-s cf pout ds tnrougn ' >our exic.i-ts anu tho ■s-tfcircs of jorr n^i^ii- , bours. Take the u>»n of hcotle — a- town cieatcvi very rnu:h m t!>o {,a:i;€ way t.h these towns :ii the E^st of London, pui<.-!j' b\ tha (omra2ic« of Lh-cryco!. In 1^79 th? *)atcs i of Boolb were £9JC'O a } ear, the ground' lents were £10,000. so r.'iat zha landlord i , v.ai recDivintj mo:o '.com ths industiy ol I {ha co'junuiiuy than ell t w rutos <Joriv<.<l ! j by tho munk-ipnlitv Tor th-e benefit of tin; J town. I'l ]S9S the iai2S had gene up to I £9^,000 a ye;»r ior impro-ung the jilate, I to.:-3ti-ucting roads, laying cut rarks, aixl e.\tcnc'in!j lighting and openu.j up the j place. B-dfc ih-e ground landlord \»r^ recoiv- ' i;.g in gi-oi.nd lents £100,000. It is time , tnat ho should paj for nil lhi-> vuluc. A \ ■w&re wsj given jnc froui Richmor-J which i- , ve.jr lntiu-esririg The Town Cmmcil af ■, i Richmond rsoentiy built son); worJcnion'o j cottages unxlcr a hout-iiig scheme. The J land appeared on the rate book as of r.he j • -ialrc oi I^, -in.:!, b.mig agiicultucal, tho ' J landlord only paid haif tho rates, and you I and I paid the, rest for him It *s aituatod ■ ob the e:cfareni<! edge of th^ borough, thrrc- > fore net very accessible, and the Town ; Council nat:traliy tl'.oughl tlu'j would get iit cheap But they did noc know th-eir ! landlord. Thsy had to pay £2000 ar> acre i for it. The lesult is that, instead af having s good housing seh-srr.e. with plenty of gardons and op-2-n space, plenty of breathing ■=paco, plenty oi roon? for th« wcricmcn zt the end of their days, 40 cottages had to Lo crowded on two acres. Now, if the land ha,d been valued at its bras valu-s, that land1 lord would have *beer at any rate contribut- i

ing his fair share of the public revenue, and it is just conceivable- that he might, have b?2n driven to &ell at a more' reasonable price. i In my first Chat I referred to the new I Domeiday Book about to be compiled by the British Government, but one object the Government has in view in doing so I have not mentioned, 'Oor have I seen it referred to in our papers. The Domea- ; day Book will give the present value -of land in, say, au auction room,' and this value will be entered up against it. A piece of ground may be marshland, worth perhaps £2 an acre, but owing to city expansion or the establishment of some industry it may rise in value to '£2000^ then the Government -will claim 20 per cent, of the dirference. The Domesday Book thus fixes a value, upon which a special taxation is to be based. Another unearned increment is THE ROYALTY TAX, and upon this Mr Lloyd George says :—: — I have just one other land tax, and that is a tax on royalties. The landlords ara receiving eight millions a year by way of royalties What for? They never deposited the coal there. It was not they who planted these great granite rocks in Wales. Who laid the- foundation of ■ the mountains? Was it the landlord? And yet he, by fonm divin.3 'ight, demands as his toll, for ' mtxely the right men to risk their lives in hewing these rocks, eight millions a yean! Take any coalfield.- I w-ant down to a .coalfield the other day, and they pointed out to me many collieries there. They said: "You see that colliery there? The first man who went there spent •a quarter of a- million in sinking shafts, in driving mains and levels. He never got | coal, and ho lost his quarter of a million.* The sscond man who, came spent £100,000 — and he failed. Tlie third man came along an>d be got the- coal." What was the landlord doing in the meantime? The &rst man failed, but the landlord gob his royalty — the landlord got his dea-d ront, and a vary good namo foi- it. Hoe second ruan failed, but the landlord got his ' royalty. These capitalists put their rnon-?y in, axid I say: '"When the cash failed, what did the landlord pu^ in?" Ho simply put in the bailiffs. The capitalist risks, at any rate, th.3 whole- of his money ; the engineer puts his brains in ; the miner -risks bis life. , Have you beon down a coal mine? — (Cries of '"Yes.") Then you know. 1 was telling i you I v. ent down the other day. We sank down into a pit half a mile disep. We [ th^n walkoJ uud'&rneath. the mountain, and j we did about thiree-quarbers of a oiile-with i rocks and shale -above us. The earth ! sseniicd to ba straining — aToumd us and I above vs — to .crush as in. You could see tho pit props 'bent aj>d twisted and sundered until you eavT their fibres split m resisting tfcs pressure. Sometimes they give way, acd then the-r© is mutilation end death. Often a spark ignites, tho wholo pit is*d"clugcd in fire, and tha breath of life is -scorched out of hundireds of breasts by the consuming flame. In tha very next colliery to the on© I descended, just a few y-sars -ago, 300 people Josfc thoii livos in that way ; and yet when tba Prime Ministar and I knock at th-3 door of these landlords and say to- them: "Here, you know these poor fellows who have beeai digging up royalties at the i-jqk of their lives, some of them axe old, they hay« suirTived th» perils of their toado, are broken; they can e&rn no moi». Won't you give something towards k«eping thorn out of the workhouse?" th«y scowl at us, and we say: "Only a ha'penny, just a copper." Th-sy say: "You thieves !" And they turr their dogs on us, and you can hear their bark . eveey morning. If "this is an indication of "the view taken by th-3«e great landlords of their resp-orisibility to the people who, at the risk of life, crefete their wealth, then 1 say tbair day of reckoning is at nand. — (Cheers ) In another part of the address, which ' has caused so much excitement and discussion, he refers to the rights and duties of landlords :—: — j The other day, at the great Tory meeting held at the Cannon Streot Hotel, they i ha-l blazoned oa the walls: "We protest against the Budget in the nauj-3 of democracy, liberty, thd justice." Where docs the democracy come in in this landed sjstam? Whera is the liberty in our I leassh Id system? Whora is the seat ot jusolco in all -these tiansactions? I claim th^fc the tax wo impose on land is fair, is ' just, and 13 moderate. They go on threatening that if we proceed they will cut down their benefactions and discharge labour. What kind of labour? What is the labour they ar< 'going to chooss for disnissa!? .Are they gc-ing- to threaten to devastate rural England by feeding and drocsmg themselves? Are they going to reduo3 thnir gameks^pors? Ah. that wouldbs sad ! The agricultural labourer and the farmar might then have part of the game whioh they fcitoon with their labour. J3ut what vould happen, to you in the season? Xj woek-end shooting with th-3 Duke ot Norfolk or anyone. Eut that is not the kind of labcui- ih<?> are going to cut down. They a iv coin'r to cut down oroducLive laboi'r — their builders and their gardeners — and thoy are going to rum their pror.orty f,o i-hst it shall not be taxed. All 1 can say is this: ths ownership of land is not m-Si-elj' an enjoyment, it a ttaward ship. It h.i« bsen reckoned as such in tiie past, and if they cease to discharge rhoir functions, the security and defence of ih? count' y, 'ooking after the broken n their villagPa and in their neighbour hocil”- those functions which 'are part of the traditional duties attached to the of land, and which hav>> givon to it its titlf> -]l they ccae-e to discharge those functions, the time will co-me to rwoiis- ler the conditions under whioh land is held in thi3 country. No country, however rich, can prematurely afford to have uartered upon its revenua a r-.!a.HS which dsolices to do the duty which it v.-as called - ipon to psriorm since tho beginninL.'. And, therefore, it is one of tho pn:no duties of statesmanship to investigate th(Xcondition 1 ?. We are placing burdens on tho broaddst shoulder*-. Why should I putburdens 0:1 the pcjplo? I am oik of fhc! children of th-> people —(Loud and prolonged cJ'c«rip^-, and a voice: " Bnvo. David, stand by the people and they will stand by jou.'V I "'^ bioughf'up amongst then I kno« ihe ; r trials; and God forbid tbi>t I rhou'd add one of trouble to !,lic aniw-i-s v. hich Ihcy bear wirh such pTicnc-3 and fortitude. the Prime Minister did me the honour of inviting me

to tak? charge cf *he National EtcHequcr — ,-(A voice: "He knew what he was about,"' ■ and' la ujf i»ter) — at a tim* of great difficulty,I made up my mind in framing the Budgei. which in front of me, that at' 'any late no eupbeard' should be barer, no' lot would be harder. By lhat test, I chal leng v a them to judge the Budget~{Lpud and long continued cheers). k . t Whether Mr Lloyd GeoTge is 'right? or wrong is not -my conceran at presieht : I am thinking of how the Budge V.'concerns us. Will Freetrade as preached "at " present bj' Che British ' Government, ,l}elp to maintain Britain's .commercial supremacy and to consolidate tfce ,Empire, or will the Opposition -polipy of Preferential Trade be better for Great Britain and ! the Empire? Which vdH benefit vs, and can the outposts of Empire \>e^ benefiii|«J. or j injured without having a corresponding t effect upon the Motherland ? , * j L. there any middle oouree whicfi. will " give preference between the different parts of the Empire and_the Homeland without increasing food. duties? A ;Oa»adian delegate to- the Chamber of' Commerce Congress held in Sydney a 'week or two ago says there is. Pe"Miaps I'inay nsxt week write still one more Gna^t, on this subject, and. in H outline his Tpropotals. •