Lloyd George and What He is Fighting For.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLIV, Issue 4, 26 January 1910, Page 2

Lloyd George and What He is Fighting For.

“Implacable Warfare’’ Against Poverty—The Greatest Political Struggle of Modern Times.

TJ y NTIL the final returns are V I through, it is impossible to 1 tell what the political position will be in Britain. History tells us again and again that it is not right, but often might prevails in the struggles which nations undergo for the betterment of the race. The Lloyd George Budget is one of those inspired efforts to make Britain a more humane and better land for the multitude to live in. The British millions do not live at present—they simply exist. The causes are as well know as widespread, but it is only

personal contact with the slum, the sweated wage-earner, the tremendous infant mortality, the slum “gin -palace,” the commercialised landlord and agent, and the demoralisation of the multitude by all these elements that one can realise the iniquities that go on in “the land of liberty.” If the financial proposals of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer prevail, humanity throughout the civilised world is certain to be profoundly affected. Mr. Lloyd George’s Budget frankly proposes to shift some of the burdens of national expenditure and naval supremacy upon wealth. He has declared his Budget means ’’implacable warfare” gainst poverty. Therefore, the less fortu-nate meinbers of society in every country have a great interest, in the fight which JJoyd George is waging. If he wins, there is little doubt that the new taxation scheme of Great Britain will be agitated in other countries, particularly in the United States, which is far behind Germany and Erance, as.well as England. in the equalisation of taxation burdens according to the ability of the different classes of citizen* to bear them.

Clearly, Mr. Lloyd George’s idea is to tax wealth rather than indigence. But he gees farther than that. Not onlg does he lay the revenue burdens of government upon the backs best aible to support them, but he offens something •more substantial than relief from taxation to the poverty-stricken citizens of the nation. Hearken to his humane utterance ami compare it with t ie unconcern of Unionist leaders about the s oc ial welfare of British citizens: Now 1 come to the consideration of the social problems 'which are urgently pressrrg for solution—problems affect-

ing the lives of the people. The solution of most, if not all, of these questions involves finance. What the government have to ask themselves is this:! Can the whole subject of further social reform lie postponed until the increasing demands made upon the national exchequer by. the growth of armaments have ceased? Not merely can it be postponed, but ought it to be postponed? Is there the slightest hope that if we defer consideration of the matter we are likely witnin a generation to find any, more favourable moment for attending to it? I confess that, as to that, I am rather pessimistic. And wo have to ask ouicolves this further question. If we put off dealing with these social sores are the evils which arise from them not likely to grow and to fester until finally the loss which the country sustains wilt be infinitely greater than anything it would have to bear in plying the cost of an immediate remedy? There are hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children in this country now enduring hardships for which the sternest judge would not hold them responsible, hardships entirely due to circumstances ovex

which they have not the slightest command—the fluctuations and changes of trade, or even of fashions, ill health, and the premature breakdown or death of the breadwinner. Owing to events this kind, all of them beyond hmnan control—at least beyond the control of the victims—thousands, and I am not sure I should be wrong if I said millions, are precipitated into a condition of acute distress and poverty. How many people there are of this kind in this wealthy land the figures of old-age pensions have thrown a o?ery unpleasant light upon. Is it fair, is it just, is it humane, is it honourable, is it safe, to subject such a multitude of our poor fellow countrymen and countrywomen to continued endurance of these miseries until the nations have learned enough wisdom not to squander their resources on huge machines for the destruction of human life?” Speaking at Limehouse, London, last July, the Chancellor (practically none of whose remarks were sent out by t he cable man) summed up the case o>: the naval expenditure very well as follows: — “ A few months ago a. meeting was held not far from this hall, in the heart of the City of London, demanding that the Government should launch into enorexpenditure on the Navy. That meeting ended up with a resolution promising that those who passed that resolution would give financial support to the Government in their undertaking. There have l>een two or three meetings held in the City of London since, attended by the same class of people, but not ending up with a resolution promising to pay. On the contrary. We are spending the money, but they won’t pay. What has happened since to alter their tone? Simply that we have sent in the bill. (Laughter and cheers.) We .•started our four Dreadnoughts. They cost eight millions of money. Wo promised them four more; they cost another eight millions. Somebody has got to pay. ami then these gentlemen say, ‘‘Perfectly true; sonielsaly has got to pay. but we would rather that somebody were somebody else.” He at* r led buildup; we

wanted money to pay for the building: so we sent the hat round. We sent it round amongst workmen, and the miners of Derbyshire—( loud applause)—and Yorkshire, the weavers of High Peak, and the Scotchmen of Dumfries. who. like all their countrymen, know the value of money. They all dropped in their coppers. We went round Belgravia* and there has been such a howl ever since that it has completely deafened us.” ‘ But they say, Tt is not so much the D readnoughU we object U>: it *s pensions.* ( near, hear.) Tf they objected to pensions, why did they promise them? (Cheers.) They won elections on the strength of their promises. It is true they never carried them out. (Laughter.) Deception is always a pretty contemptible vice, but to deceive the jxxir is the meanest of all. (Cheers.) But they say. When we promised pensions, we meant pensions at the expense of the people for whom they were provided. We simply meant to bring in a bill to compel workmen to contribute to their own pensions.’ (Laughter.) If that is what they meant, why did they not say so? (Cheers.) The Budget, as your ( hairman has already so well reminded you, is introduced not merely for the purpose of raising barren taxes, but taxes that are fertile, taxes that will bring forth fruit—the security of the country which is paramount in tin* minds of all. The provision for the aged and deserving poor—it was time it were done. (Cheers.) It is rather a shame for a rich country like ours—probably the richest in the world, if not the richest the world has ever seen—that it should allow those who have toiled all their days to end in penury and possibly starvation. Hear, hear.) It is rather hard that an old workman should have to find his way to the gates of the tomb bleeding and footsore, through the brain hies and thorns of poverty. (Cheers.) We cut a new path for him—(cheers) —• an easier one, a pleasanter one. through fields of waving corn. We are raising money to pay for the new road —■ (cheers) —aye, and to widen it so that 200,000 paupers shall he able to join in the march. (Cheers.) There are many in the country blessed by Provi deuce with great wealth, and if there are amongst them men who grudge out of their riches a fair contribution towards the less fortunate.? of their fel-low-countrymen, they are very shabby rich men. (Cheers.) We propose to do more by means of the Budget. We are raising money to provide against the evils and the sufferings that follow from unemployment. (Cheers.) We are raising money for the purpose of assisting our great friendly societies to provide for the sick and the widows and orphans. We are providing money to enable us to develop the resources of our own land. (Cheers.) I do not believe any fair-minded man would challenge the justice and the fairness of the objects which we have in view in raising this money.” Probably none nf Mr. Lloyd George’s proposals have aroused such powerful antagonism as those with respect to the taxation of land values. The tax on undeveloped land will be charged upon unbuilt-on land only, and all other land of which the capital value does not exceed £65 an acre will be exempted, as also any land exceeding that value with respect to which it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner? of Inland Revenue that no part of the value is due to the capability of the land for use for building purposes. Under these provisions all land having a purely agricultural value will be exempt. Further exemptions will be made for gardens ami pleasure-grounds not exceeding an acre in extent, and for parks, gardens, and spaces which are open to the public as of right, or to which reasonable access is granted to the public. The taxation novelties in the Budget have made its author, temporarily nt least, the most interesting economist in the world. Lloyd George is a man of interesting personality as well as interesting theoiies, and the story nf the man is the key to his policies. Tie is a man of the penpie. Tie was left an orphan in infancy, and has had nn social or external advantages to aid him in his long, hard climb tn power. But he was fortunate in having an unusual sort of man for an unde. This unde, who was a shoemaker, had made himself a Latin and French scholar. Boli» ving bi- nephew to be a lad with promise. lie decided to make him a profes•\Vest End of London.

sion.il man. To that end he tutored ih< boy in 1-atin and French, and throng! what his unde taught him and put him in the way of acquiring, the young mm was able to pass the examinat i<m for the bar. He became a solicitor at the age of twenty-one. During the early years of his practice in his native village he had a case which made him something of a local hero and extended bis reputation to distant parts. An old quarryman before his death had ex-pres-ed the wish to be buried in tho churchyard by the aide ui bia favourite daughter. and the vicar. resentrng the rvice of a legal notice upon him. assigned a grave in a place set apart for suicides. The family and friends of the dead man were indignant, and their indignation was shared by the entire village. The furious family and villagers consulted Mr. Lloyd George as to their rights, ami he advised them to break down the wall, make their way through the churchyard, and bury the old man by the side of his daughter. They followed his advice, and legal proceed ings ensued. The case, which attracted considerable attention throughout the country, finally came before I-ord thief Justice Coleridge, who decided that. Mr. Lloyd George’s advice was sound and that the villagers were entirely within their rights in the action they took. At twenty-seven Lloyd George entered Parliament. He is now forty-five. He was one of the most unpopular men in England during the Boer War, but his opinions were never shaded because of their unpopularity. Three years ago he was appointed President of the Board of Trade. His administration of that office was signalised by the settlement of the threatened railway strike, and the putting through of the Patents Act. Lloyd George is a slim man. of medium stature. He has rather long, black hair, which he brushes back from a pale, wide forehead. He has a very straight, firm mouth and a strong under jaw. His eyes are blue, and. whether twinkling with mirth or flashing scorn, are always suggestive of a militant soul. He usually sits side by side on the Treasury bench with Mr. Winston ( hurehill, with whom he is <*>n almost brotherly terms. The political enemies of the Oliancellor are decrying his Budget as Socialistic and confiscatory. His own claim for it is that it is democratic and humanitarian. lie declares frankly his l»clief that under the existing scheme of taxation in Great Britain an unequal share of the burdens of government falls upon those least able to bear them. And he proposes to shift the burden, making each man carry according to his capacity; that is, according to his means. Read this peroration to his Budget speech, and you will get a perfectly clear idea of his purposes: —• “This is a war budget! It is a budget for waging implacable warfare against poverty, and I cannot help hoping and believing that before this generation has passed away we shall have madt a great advance toward the good time when poverty, with the wretchedne-M and squalor and human degradation which always follow in its eamp. will be as remote from the people of this country as the wolves which once io tested it? forests.” Mr. Lloyd George is a courageous man. His challenge to privilege is couched in no uncertain terms. It is an order to capitulate the citadel. But it must not be forgotten that arrayed against him are the peers, the landowners, the financiers, the commercial magnates, the brewers, and the Church. N« wonder that this is the greatest |>oiitical struggle of modern times!