“DIRTY.”

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17527, 2 May 1925, Page 5

“DIRTY.”

RIOT IN COMMONS. LABOUR PROTESTS ON BUDGET. Renter's Telegrams. LONDON,. April 30. In tho House of Coiumous Llae gold standard decision was assailed by a broadside trow the Conservative member, fair Frederic V\ ise, a financial expert, who, alter a detailed criticism of what he termed “ a gamble winch will probably benent nobody but the United States," declared that they did not want to borrow more from America, and certainly did not want to bo in their hands. Mr MacDonald denounced the Budget on similar lines to Mr Philip &noiy<d<»i’s speech. Air Churchill, replying to the debate Was in a lighting mood. He faced an angry scene wnen he expressed the opinion that it was in the interests of trade unions and the employers to nform themse.ves of the danger in the workers learni. g how to qualify for unemployment insurance. There were Labour cries of ‘‘shame,’’ ** disgraceful,” "insulting to the workers’* and “withdraw,” all of which continued in spite of the chairman’s appeals foi order. Mr Churchill warmly declined to withdraw. A score of Labour members then sprang up, talking simultaneously. The Chancellor ironical y commented on the rights of free speech, and remained on his feet for fifteen m nutes, vainly trying to get a hear ng. Finally he sat down, suggesting that the motion should be taken forthwith, since the opposition was not prepared to listen to the Government’s spokesman. The Communist member, Mi S. Saklatvala rose to resume the debate, whereupon th•_* bulk of the Ministerialists rose and walked out. Mr Baldwin moved the closure amid back-bench' Labourite cries of "dirty.” The Labour members cha lenged the division, but did not persist on account of admonitions from Air MacDonald who, with the Labour front benches, did not participate in the interruptions. The committee stage then closed. The debate will be resumed on Alay 7. INDUSTRIES ALARMED. LONDON, April SO. The “Daily Ea press ” asserts that the Budget proposals are creating alarm in the industries such as shipbuilding and mining, which are unable to bear the incubus of the new insurance payments. The paper urgus the postponement of the burden, which may cause industrial ruin. In the House of Commons, during the' Budget debate, Air W. E. cruinness, defending the silk tax, denied that silk was anything but a luxury It was mixed with wool and cotton merely to increase its attractiveness, and w’as in no wise economical to the poorer classes. He cited as an example of the superiority of cotton the fact that ladies preferred that the feet and the tops of the stockings (to which they hitched the suspenders) should not be made of silk. This snllv was greeted with cheers and laughter. Air Guinness scouted the suegestion that the tax would appreciably affect the industry.