THE PEERS AND THE BUDGET.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2674, 2 December 1909, Page 5

THE PEERS AND THE BUDGET.

LORD ROTHSCHILD’S FINANCIAL . 1 VIEW.

United Press Association—Copyright LONDON, Nov. 30.

In the Budget Lord Morley argued that in detail there was nothing revolutionary in the Budget-.- Lord Lansdowne’s amendment was the first step in a tremendous plan, leading straightway to constitutionary revision, and there was no such battle-ground for the fiercest passions. He added that if 'behind the amendment there was a new fiscal policy he did not envy the Indian Government in dealing with the claim of Indians to have their own tariff reform.

Lord Rothschild criticised many provisions of the Budget, and added: “It is very easy now to get money for foreign investment. It is very difficult to obtain for even the best English enterprise.” Lord James of Hereford declared that the Lords had no competency to reject the Bill. Its rejection would infringe that part of Constitution controlling the .relations of the Houses. The Crown thanked the House of Commons alone for aid and supply. He concluded by announcing that he would vote for the Bill. ' Lord Cawdor and the Earl of Crewe finish the debate to-day. Lord Morley, speaking at Denham, commented on Viscount St. Aldwyn’s conspicuous absence from the debate. Unionist newspapers, though absolutely dissenting from the conclusions, admit the remarkable vigor of Lord Morley’s first speech in the House of Lords outside bis own department. The “Times” criticises his ideal of an autocratic House of Commons for seven years uninterruptedly. The “Standard” states that Lord Morley ignored the fact that the Budget was a sheaf of measures. THE LORDS REJECT THE BUDGET LORD LANSDOWNE’S AMENDMENT CARRIED. {Received December 1, 11.35 pan.) LONDON, Dec: 1. Lord Lansdowne’s amendment rejecting the Budget was carried by 350 to 75. , POWER- OF REJECTION. Mr J. A. R. Marriott discusses, in one of the English reviews, the constitutional position of the House or Lords in relation to money Bills, and, after an examination of precedents, inclines to the conclusion that the revising Chambcir would be justified m treating the various divisions of Mr. Lloyd George’s composite Finance BUI as separate measures, retaining or rejecting each, as it held fit. “By general admission,” he argues, “the Finance Bill of 1909 is no ordinary Budget, lhe dark threats that preceded it; the method and manner of its introduction; the place accorded to it in the legislative work of the session; the breadth of the principles it involves; the wide range of its pronosals; the almost, insoluble complexity of jits details; tihe vagueness of its financial forecasts; —all. combine to proclaim it an exceptional and unprecedented measure. The present Chancellor has bettered the example of his predecessor of 1861 (i.e./Mr. Gladstone’s tacking of the Paper Duty Repeal' to the Finance Bill). He has combined into one conglomerate Bill not only all the tax Bills of the year, but virtually all the legislative proposals of 'the session, not to say all the rejected Eroposals of an entire Parliament. He as, in l a word, provided the 'reductio ad absurdum’ of the vicious innovations which Mr. Gladstone was permitted to establish in 1861.” May, in his “Law of Parliament,”'lays it down that the Lords must “be a consenting party ’ to taxation, though they have not the right of initiation. “The legal right of .the Lords to reject any Bill whatever cannot be disputed,” he says, adding, “Even their constitutional right to reiettt tho Whole of a Money Bill has been fcV the Commons themselves. " AN. ENGLISH i^^ESPON.DENT } B * The following extract from a. letter received in Wellington from a gent.emS. holding an influential position in business circles in London mWthe keen interest taken m the Old Country irTthe question of-the attitude of the House Lords towards the Budget. “Tory papers (and they are through huge 7 combinations and multi-mil Suits in a large majority) are from <W to day exhausting the English lanSee in maledictions upon Lloydfilorae—as the easiest and most agreeab£ way bf filling their columns and gratifying their unthinking rea^®:F s ' One is 1 eager for the resumption _of the KT fitting, when » ' f °| Th! Ss will haVe to pass it sooner or later and, if later, they will have to be 'thorn of some of their huge powers tor mischief. What would we think if i Turkey or Russia the leader of the Up position in the Upper House and Lowe House —which Opposition P ar # been ignomimously rejected by the ooun trv—should still be able to go on dmta+ino- to the people as before. Ine-eirect t.T<Fheen simply to disfranchise the s of the voters of thjs teee land (?) since 1906. How would New Zealand take this? or Canada? But “The Times,” Standard, Teeerranh ” “Glasgow Herald, . ocots San” etc., spend theirAays in showing to what perfection the Opposition , h^ecomo,inWvie<vaandfgc^; -cts £***&». Jjbgp-gpSfc. Gilbert and orVethn/sanit, “as