IMPERIAL POLITICS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9253, 4 June 1908, Page 1

IMPERIAL POLITICS.

' THE FISCAL QUESTION. ! BROADENING THE BASIS OP TAXATION. DEBATE IN THE HOUSE ' OF TTOMMONS. LONDON, June 3. In the House of Commons Mr 'Hardy's amendment, favouring broadfening the basis of taxation, was rejected by 367 to 124. ; Continuing the debate, Sir J. Bonar !Law said that nobody proposed prohibitive duties on imported goods in riew of manufacturing everything themselves, M'hether they were able to compete with their rivals or not. He Iwas not a protectionist in the crude cense of the Patents. Act, which witkdittt a patent unless articles were Jfcade in Britain. . H$ desired to give manufacturers and workmen preference |n the home market, enabling them to fcompete better with their foreign I Hvals there. He rebutted Mr Lloyd George's criticisms on German finances. {The fact was that unification and centralisation were not complete, and particular taxes could only be imposed (with the consent of the different German States. Britain would know what that meant if they 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 of wages in Germany for the two decades preceding 1900 exceeded any other country's, and there had been a great fall in the cost of living. Mr Winston Churchill replied that irince a patent was a restriction on freetrade the Patents Act was a reversion to freetrade. He contended that taxation of food and manufactures went together. The Government protested against 6O broadening taxation Und making it press more heavily on the threadbare shoulders of the poor. ; Mr Balfour expressed disappointment «t 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 bask of taxation necessary and inevit»b'h _The situation, wherein the country was faced by vast expenditure for which no provision wss foreshadowed, was unprecedented. Regarding food, If the country's financial necessities deananded, he would not shrink from Teimposing the corn duty, but he would be no party to increasing the working classes' proportionate burden. He added that if the Government intended to use the income tax and death duties in a, way their authors never intended, it would be inflicting a gross injustice on b few, and, what was more important, a serious injury to the industrial interests of the many. Mr Asquith eaid that, while the amendment attacked the Budget, his two cardinal proposals, reduction of the > sugar duties and establishment of pensions, were not contested. What had become of colonial preference ? The fcolonial Premiers having gone, had the Opposition so soon forgotten them? Nothing had been said regarding a tax | on wheat, meat and dairy produce. If , the Government foreshadowed the revenue plans for 1909, its expectations would be defeated by asfute anticipa- ! fcions. He etrenuously denied the charges of recklessness and improvi- ; & eL Freetrade finance had produced £ ition of stability whereon they Jfftrie entitled, to pride themselves, enabling them to more than meet all looming charges. The Finance Bill was read a second lime. I Three Unionist Freetraders voted for the amendment.