THE PEERS AND THE BUDGET.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2671, 29 November 1909, Page 5

THE PEERS AND THE BUDGET.

[REMARKABLE SPEECH BY LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH.

United Press Association—Copyright. LONDON, Not. 26. In the absence of Lord Curzon. ivho was to have resumed the discussion, but who had been suddenly taken ill, the debate opened tamely. Some of the benches were half vacant, and there were fewer spectators. King Manuel was present.

Lord Ashbourne said that for the first time in history the Budget went far beyond a provisional year’s revenue. The Lords had a right to be sure that the people knew what they were being charged. Lord Balfour of Burleigh made a remarkable speech, characterised with manly sincerity, and interrupted frequently by Liberal applause. He objected to the- Bill because the various taxes were unnecessary, to the service of the year. It was no answer to say that the Stato Avould be in possession A funds for future expenses. That aggravated the position, because it tended to make the Executive more independent of Parliament. In many res-' pects the Budget was unjust and unfair as between men. For the first time their finances was founded on ::lass hatred and jealousy. If he objected to the contents of the Budget lie objected still more strongly to the tone and temper of some of the speeches by which it had been recommended. There had been an increase in the output of rhetorical rotten eggs. Party organisation had been raised to such perfection that it was crushing out the independence of the Commoners. There was never a time in the history of the country avhen a second Chamber, strong, trusted, and in the nature of things somewhat Conservative, was more necessary. He questioned whether the Lords were wise in making a new claim at this juncture. Long usage made the Commons supreme with the Government of the day, and in control of finance matters. “The two things,” he said, “go together. They are in essence, a truth admitted by every constitutional lawyer. If a system were established whereby the Lords would have the right to force a referendum, you would destroy the control of the Commons over the Government-, and make a momentous change in the constitution. If there is a victory, it can he at least a most temporary one. The passage of Lord Lansdowne’s resolution would be a renewal of the conflict by which the Commons attained their present position ; if defeated, the result will ho that we prejudice the power, prestige, and usefulness of the House of Lords. I object to the tactics which combine defence of the second Chamber with taxation of the people’s food. I do not believe tariff reform will provide the needed revenue. Those who vote with Lord Lansdowne will he walking into a trap. They offend the deepest conservative instincts of the country. That feeling may be reflected at the polls.” Lord Lucas of Crudwell said the House of Lords had killed eighteen Bills during the four last Liberal Parliaments, and but one Conservative measure 'bad been rejected. The Lords now stepped’ into the political arena, competing with, the Commons on party Lines. Viscount Ridley ridiculed the contents of this “poor man’s Budget,” since it taxed his great necessity—employment. The Lord Bishop of Hereford supported the Bill, because- of the social welfare provided by the Budget and because it was based on sound finance. It was impossible to expect an educated democracy to remain content vith a service -which represented the prt. sent constitution of our society. Ho protested against the bloated estimates lor military armaments all over Europe. The country was waiting for the time when arbitration would supersede competitive armaments. Lord Lamington 'said be did not share Lord Balfour of Burleigh’s alarm. If the late Mr Gladstone, with all Ins prestige and authority, failed .in his attack, it was unlikely the present Government would bring the walls of the House about their ears. Dealing with the 'socialistic remedies for rural depopulation, he said that settlements set up by Australian Governments in country districts had been unsuccessful, though the conditions were favorable and land had been given free. The Marquis of Northampton warned the Opposition of the dangerous forces they were letting loose. They were imperilling their own existence as a branch of the Legislature. The contest over their privileges might last for years, but would inevitably end in their deposition. The immediate effect of the rejection of the Budget would be to stimulate social unrest and to advance Socialism. The Lords were playing into the hands of the extremists, apparently , because they wanted to overthrow the Government to which they were politically opposed. Lord Morlcy moved the adjournment of the debate. LORD ROSEBERY AND THE UPPER HOUSE. ' During bis speech in the House of Lords on the question of the Budget, Lord ItoSebery said that he would gladly vote for some form of Referendum, hut while holding office as Premier he had given utterance to references to the House Of Lords aud financial legislation which now prevented him from voting in favor of Lord; 'Lansdowne’s amendment. The “New Zealand Times” gives the following quotations from .the noble Lords’ former utterances, which are, ;probably, among those to which, he referred. They were made by him when ■‘ - .

CABLE NEWS.

general election campaign that followed the defeat of his Ministry: Addressing the Eighty Club on July 2nd, 1895,—three days before the fall of in’s Government—lie said that “the one question that embraced and involved all other political questions was the question of the domination of the House of Lords; and upon that, speaking as an individual and a Liberal, he was pledged to fight the election. That was the question which permanently controlled the Liberal party, which relegated it,' except in an overwhelming majority on some single question, to permanent impotence in the councils of the nation.”

At Bradford, on the eve of the 1895 election, he said: “Suppose at the next election you were to send back only a hundred Liberals to the House of Commons, there would be thirty Liberal peers. Supposing you were to send two hundred back to the House of Commons, there would be thirty Liberal peers. ... If you sent the whole House of Commons back liberals there would be only thirty Liberal peers. What a mockery is this! We boast of our free institutions. We swell as we walk abroad and survey less iortunate countries. We make broad the phylactries of freedom upon our foreheads. We thank God that we are not as other less favored men are, and all the time we endure this mockery of freedom. You are bound hand and foot. You may vote and vote till you are black in the face ; it will not change the face of matters at all —still the House of Lords will control at its will the measures of your representatives; still you will have to go hat in hand to the House of Lords to ask it to pass your measures, in however mutilated a shape they may wish.” ■ In one of his speeches in the Upper House Lord Rosebery said: “Your Lordships will remember what Franklin said about hereditary legislators. Ho said of them there would be more propriety, because less hazard, in hereditary professors of mathematics. I venture to think that a House based solely or even mainly on the hereditary principle is a House based upon the sand. . . • One party in power enjoys a practical omnipotence ; the other party is never absolutely in power. Whether in or out of office, it is galled by a perpetual, barrier, a constant stumbling-block, an endless disability. The divisions in this House represent rather the passions of a party or a class than the deliberate reasoning of a Senate-.”