IMPERIAL POLITICS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2670, 27 November 1909, Page 5

IMPERIAL POLITICS.

THE BUDGET—DISCUSSION IN THE LORDS. United Panes Association—Copyright. LONDON, Nov. 25. Lord St. Davids admitted that many business men were afraid of the Budget.' Could it be wondered at when responsible men jested about bonds being shipped as ballast." The remedy was to let the Budget pass. When people found nothing happened the bonds would he shipped back. Lord Milner declared that his experience as Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue showed* that it was a matter of impossibility to secure the enactment of all the complicated taxes included in the present Budget in a single year. The proportion of public investments in Britain to the total was 40 per cent.; in 1904 it was 31; in 1905, since the Government had come into power, the proportion each year had been- 30, 25, and 26, and this Budget year 10 per cent. He severly condemned the death duties, and concluded: “It is l 'possible to raise the whole amount required by import duties without injury to business and employment; indeed, with benefit to both. The Lords,” he added, “were not justified in passing the Budget without the consent of the people.” Lord Carrington declared that the value of land had advanced 25 to 40 per cent since the Liberals came into office. This was a testimony of public confidence in the -Government land legislation. ' Opposition interjections suggested that the improvement was due to the rise in, prices. . Lord Carrington . admitted this, hut added’ that indulgent laud legislation had dono its share. The Cabinet believed it was wrong to tax the land which produced the people’s food. Lord Onslow opposed, and- Lord Weardalo and Lord Glantawe supported the Budget. Lord Curzon moved the adjournment of-the debate. NEWSPAPERS ON LORD ROSEBERY’S SPEECH. Opposition newspapers pay high tribute to Lord Rosebery’s eloquence, and regret that he shrinks from the action which alone could give effect to his protests. The “Telegraph” says: “The enjoyment of a superb oratorical triumph is marred by the chilling thought of its supreme practical futility.” The “Chronicle” characterises it as a “Yes-110” speech, and his picture of the paralysis of commercial enterprise as only scaremongering. THE FOREIGN SECRETARY ON THE LORDS. Sir Edward Grey, speaking at Trowbridge, said the action of the Lords was not statesmanlike, but the throw of a gambler who was playing for a stake. He favored- a. second Chamber, which, however, should he something winch would reflect the opinions of the country. The Lords only did this by accidWhen tho Conservatives verj in power it was a sleeping partner • v hen the Liberals were in power it was not a second Chamber, but tho Opposition. If good Liberal work was to be.done it was essential for some fa’r and reasonable means to be accepted- by the Ixirds, whereby, in case of a deadlor-s, the opinion of tho Commons should prevail. ELECTION PROBABLE IN JANUARYIn London it is expected that Parliament will be prorogued l at the end of next week, and that'the election will take place early in January if the Lords do not assist the Budget. The. “Times” says the Government are averse to any proposals rone rning the collection of taxes to tide < ver the interregnum, lest they be interpreted as accepting an alternative to the Budget. The deficit resulting fiorn its rejection will continue until the new Parliament assembles. Mr. Asquith, in reply to a petitionsigned by 2000 city electors in favor of the Budget, welcomed the weighty memorial' strengthening the Government’s hands in maintaining the full force of the supremacy of the House of. Commons in the matter of finance. IRISH LAND BILL. The House of Commons, by 246 to 49 rejected- the House of Lords’ vital amendment in the Irish Land Bill, requiring an appeal to a judicial tribunal instead of the land commission prior to compulsory purchase. The 'Unionists urged that the rejection of the amendment would imperil the Bill. GLADSTONE AND THE HOUSE OF LORDS. Speaking on May 16, 1861, as Chancellor of the Exchequer,.in the House of Commons, on the second reading of the Budget Bill for the year, Mr W.-E. Gladstone said: I proceed, sir, to another point which I think, is well worthy the consideration of the House. It is said on all hand’s that the House of Lords do not claim the power of amendment. That is commonly stated/but is not literally true. The; House of Lords have- never given up the power of amendment: and I must say I think they are perfectly right in declining to record against-: themselves this o r any other such limitations of’ their privileges. Because cases might arise in which, from theillegitimate incorporation of elements not° ’ financial into financial measures, it might be perfectly' wise- and! just for the Lords _ to fall hack on an assertion of the whole breadth of their privileges according to the largest view, that they have ever taken of them. I believe I, am strictly correct in saying that the House of

CABLE, NEWS. ' J

Lords have never abandoned by any corporate and formal act of tlieir own, the right of making amendments in a financial measure sent to them from this House. ... The powers of this House must remain greater, on the whole, than those of the House of Lords; but I believe, that to infringe the privileges of the House of Lords, or to cripple the functions of that, august assembly, would be. as fatal to the balance of the Constitution as would he the loss of' the privileges of this House itself.