THE PEERS AND THE BUDGET.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2675, 3 December 1909, Page 5

THE PEERS AND THE BUDGET.

THE REJECtION OF THE FINANCE

BILL.

INTERESTING SPEECHES

United Press Association—Copyright. LONDON, Dec. 1. The Archbishop of York made an, eloquent maiden speech, in the House He strongly opposed the amendment. He quoted from -John Stuart Mill to prove v that no taxation was involved. It was a far orv from' taxation of land values toi the Socialism denounced by Lord Rosebery. The mass of workers in Britain, in matters wherein they had special knowledge and experience, such as relating to the property of building and friendly societies, might be trusted to take an independent line as against the Socialists’ large premises and high sounding phrases. It was in the extremes of hardship and hopelessness that extreme Socialism was found. He warned the House of the consequences of disregarding the great constitutional principle enunciated by Lord James of Hereford. He deprecated adding to the heated controversy- observable in the country, as calculated to endanger the House of Lords’ rightful position. Dwelling on the recklessness shown by .some in high positions he remarked that the tendency was to be conciliatory to the commons. Mr Lloyd George’s inflammatory Limehouse. speech was largely attributable to the tendency of n Celtic temperament, lie added that the people knew what to think of those running in the midst of inflammable materials with crackers ■and squibs. If a serious conflict followed the present vote the responsibility ■could not be justly xflaeed upon the Lords.

Lord Curzon, remarking that the Budget was recommended in some quarters as an instrument of social reform, Jwarmly repudiated the insinuation that ..anxiety as to social reform was any the ’less keen on the Opposition than on the Government side. The Budget would ■ increase poverty, unemployment, and distress. Paradoxical as it seemed, • they could best ascertain and weigh the fallacies of the Budget by reading Lord Cromer’s and Lord Balfour of Burleigh’s speeches. Readily as the might have accepted their conclusions he repudiated the action they recommended as inconsistent with the duty and honor of the House. Lord Curzon emphasised that the Budget , were passed the country would not escape the great constitutional controversy which Lord Cromer feared as likely to interfere with national, defence. Lord Rosebery’s Glasgow speech had delivered the Budget a smashing blow, yet Lord Rosebery’s conclusions on the 24th were lame and impotent. Lord Curzon added: £! I am not sure ve could count upon the people getting six or eight months’ experience of the Budget. Perhaps the Government are ’afraid of six months and will spring an election upon them. .The • Budget, he continued, created machinery. There would be nothing harder than to disestablish the bureaucracy if the Lords surrendered; nor should they be committed to a constitution wherein one chamber could override the otker without an appeal to the country. He went further. The House, he said, had no right to yield the principle that any measure, however Socialistic and subversive, must he passed if cramped within a Finance Bill. The reason -that no Finance Bill had been rejected , fi ince 1860 was that no Chancellor had submitted a. Bill directly challenging the prerogatives of the Lords. Some of us,” he said, would warmly welcome a constitutional struggle.” He hoped that out of the struggle would emerge a reformed House’ of Lords.

{Lord Curzon continuing, said it might mot .at this election, but he hoped at a subsequent election, the country would give an unmistakable mandate that a second chamber wa,s an essential part of the .constitution, and should’ continue independent, fearless and strong. Lord Cawdor made a powerful declaration in favor of the amendment, and was listened to with the closest'attention. If the House of' Lords passed the Bill it would, he said, destroy for ever the power and authority of the House as a second chamber. Whether or not it was dangerous. Only one course was open to them at this crit:-, cal national juncture. The aim of the .second chamber was to guard the people against wild and rash, legislation. Their Lordships would stulify themselves if they facilitated any Such. legislation, but being satisfied that their duty as a second chamber and guardians of the rights of the people -was to refuse to pass this Socialistic. Budget, they could very well let the consequences take care of themselves. The policy of the Government was to establish a House cf Commons absolutely independent of the check of a second chamber upon its legislation. . . ~ 4.1 + Lord Cawdor, continuing, -said that it was not a very attractive proposal to a freedom-loving people. A GOVERNMENT REPLY. The Earl of Crewe, replying to the criticism, declared that the Government were prepared at the proper moment to. respond to the challenge defend the national defence _ policy. Discussing -the -graduation an o lei taxes he admitted there had been serious faults, and that securities and capital were leaving the country. Lord Crewe next admitted that capital was a timid thing. He proceeded to argue that not the' Budget but Uat the- Opposition said about the Budget, : had helped to create a scare. The Go-

CABLE NEWS,

vernment had never discussed land nationalisation. The notion that the land was ever owned by the nation was as remote and fantastic as anything in 11. G. Wells’ novels. What would the colonies think of their Lordships’ impending action. Australians would wonder what would happen if the Com- ; monwealth finances were handed over to the squatters of the older States. He added : Your Lordships are making the most tragic blunder. If the country condones and approves of your decision our fellow-subjects abroad will ask if the citizens of the Motherland are altogether fitted to exercise responsible government. It is not a reformed House which is rejecting the Budget. Whether we sit here or opposite as the result o'f the vote we must set ourselves to obtain guarantees, fenced about and guarded by statute, preventing that in. discriminate destruction of our legislation of which your work to-night will provide a climax and a crown. Lord Courtney warned tlie House that the issue of the election would be wider than imagined. Their present action -would possibly imperil the»r present powers. The adoption’of a referendum into the question of finance would introduce an unworkable scheme. Lord Gosehen declared there was nothing more injurious to credit than tile uncertainty regarding the future. The Budget was established on extravagant machinery to deal With objects alien to the financial needs of the year. He in voting for the amendment occupied a nowise inconsistent position' for a freetrader. Lord Stanmore, as* a freetrader, dis- ■' associated himself from Lord Cromer’s abstention policy. The figures of the division were received with a slight Unionist cheer and a counter cheer. There were* some faint hisses from the Commoners seated in the galleries. At attempt to create a demonstration outside the House of Lords proved a fiasco. j The majority included 260 Conservatives, 77 Unionists, and 12 Liberals, and the Bishop of Lincoln. The mjnority included 66 Liberals, two Unionists, three Conservatives, tile Archbishop -of York, the Bishops of Birmingham, Chester, and Saint Asaph. THE GOVERNMENT’S REPLY TO THE PEERS —MR. ASQUITH’S NOTICE OF MOTION. (Received December 2, 7.55 p.m.) LONDON, Doe. 2. In the House of Commons, Mr. Asquith received loud. Ministerialist cheers when lie gave notice to move today that the action of the House of Lords in refusing to pass into law the financial provision made by the House of Commons- for the services of - the year, was a breach of the constitution, and a usurpation of the rights of' the Commons. (Renewed cheers.) (Receiced December 2, 9.30 p.m.) The 'Unionist leaders have resolved not to propose an amendment, but to give a direct vote against Mr. Asuith’s motion. " After 'Mr. Asquith’sspeech, Mr. Austen Chamberlain willexpress the Opposition views, and Mr. A. Henderson those of the Lauor Party. The Irish Nationalists will not -participate in the division on the resolution. It is generally agreed, irrespective of party, that in a crisis of such gravity, prolonged discussion on the constitutional issue would he out of place.

UNIONIST SUPPORT TO THE LORDS.

Lord Lansdowne has received telegrams from many Unionist Associations throughout the -country promising to support the Lords.

LORD ROSEBERY’S FEARS

(Received December 2, 11 p.xh.)

Lord-Rosebery, in a letter, replying to Lord Curzon, declared that he still fears,,. as at Glasgow, that action such as the House of Lords have now taken ■may injuriously affect that valuable institution, and enhance wliat popularity the Budget may possess.