THE PEERS AND THE BUDGET.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2673, 1 December 1909, Page 5

THE PEERS AND THE BUDGET.

CABLE NEWS.

A LIBERAL VIEW OF THE

SITUATION

United Pmcss Association — Copykicirri LONDON, Nov. 29. -

Mr Herbert Samuel, Under-Secretary for the- Home Office, speaking at Paddington, emphasised the- difference between the rejection of the Finance Bill and other Bills. They might regret the rejection of the Licensing or One-man-one-vote Bill, but government could still continue. On the other hand a Finance Bill of some kind must be passed every year, or the whole process of administration would stop. Therefore, if . the Lords could establish the claim to refuse the passage of a Finance Bill, it meant that they could make or unmake • Parliaments and Governments whenever they wished. It meant the usurpation of.- the prerogative of the sovereign, whose right it was, on the advice of Ministers, to determine the hour of dissolution. The “Spectator” added : “The Government will accept no compromise or bargain from the Lords in connection with the Budget.” !

SPEECH BY LORD MOItI.EY

(Received November 30, 9 p.m.) LONDON, Nov. 30

The Budget debate in the House of Lords was resumed to a crowded house and galleries. Lord Alorley declared that the amendment involved five points, each further £rom constitutional usage and practical convenience than the other; firstly, arrogating to the Lords control of taxing powers; secondly, it assumes the power of forcing a penal dissolution by refusing supplies; thirdly,; there must be a new Parliament whenever the Commons had the misfortune to incur the displeasure- of their Lordships; fourthly, representative supremacy was to be transformed ■ to an oligarchy; fifthly, the 'whole financial machinery was to be thrown out of gear. It was on the authority of the Commons that taxes were collected, but if their decisions were able to be .subjected to a plebiscite there could be no plain yes or no thereto.

(Received November 30, 11.35 p.m.)

Lord Alorley continued: The amendment. disregarded the Septennial Act and the prerogative of the Crown. It stopped supplies granted the Crown by the Commons. Nobody denied the bare legal right; but the assertion o? r this bare right by foisting a constitutional crisis on top of a-’financial deadlock was nowise provident, sensible, or likely to serve one single useful end. He quoted authorities tcPshow that the Commons had the sole control of taxing. Replying to the argument that the Government had no mandate from the people, he contended that the whole idea of an election ad hoc was a referendum and mandate.

(Received December 1, 12.20 a.m.) Lord Morley continued: “Such a Parliament cannot be fettered in any matters wherewith it thinks fit to deal. The electors can demand afinancial policy, can demand, for example, some day, tariff reform, and can punish a Alinister when the time comes by dismissing him. AVhat they cannot do is by plebiscite break into the middle of a fully planned executive scheme for supplying the needs of the year, three-quarters of which year, by the way, are -now expired. The electors must trust those whom they have elected, must acquiesce in the action of their representatives, who had the whole case before them, all the facts and all the possibilities, who fixed the estimates,- and who decided ways and-means for satisfying them. The amendment is no rampart against the Socialist. The artisans of Britain are not red republicans. If a dangerous tide of Socialism is - running, which I deny, is it wise on sagacious to risk a change, however unfounded ? You are straining the constitution as champions of the rich against the; poor. 'That monies 'to;in Ibneef mg language.” 'He admitted that the only-things which could justify the amendment were the wildest proposals by a elemented House of Commons. Such a case had hot yet arisen. There was something worse, than a dummy House- .of Lords, namely, a dummy House of Commons. He warned the Opposition that the .more triumphant the majority in the House of Lords compared with the majority in the House of Commons, the more blazing in the public eye would he the constitutional outrage. . . ‘ >

HISTORIC VOTES' IN THE HOUSE ; v OF LORDS. '

The struggle for. the Reform of Parliament- referred to by Lord Roseberry, commenced in 1782, when Air Pitt s motion was lost by aTmajority 6U2D, and by larger votes in-1783 aiid. 1785. . April, 1831;Lord- John Russel’s Bi.l was abandoned after the- second road-, ing, which)-was carried by 302 votes to--301. A dissolution followed, and. on the assembling of the new. Parliament* the ‘Bill was reintroduced, carried in ....the, Commons and rejected by the Lords by 199 to 158. Next year,. 1832, the measure came on- again ? and in, the Lords,, ih committee,- a. hostile amendment .was carried by 10l to -116, The -Ministry resigned ; I great -public excitement •'toi.-1-6 wed, and the- Alinisters' were induced to. resume office on the King.- granting them power to secure, majorities hy-tne creation of. new -peers. . The. • Bill /was proceeded: with, and eventually earned: hy 106 to 22. Among the changes.made by ;the Reform Act were the disfranchisement of 56 boroughs in England, the reduction • of 30 to isingle members,the creation -of 22 .-new- two-menlber; and. 20 single-member boroughs. '