BUDGET FIGHT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 672, 24 November 1909, Page 7

BUDGET FIGHT.

PEERS' CHALLENGE. POWERS AND PRIVILEGESOF THE LORDS AN HISIORIC DEBATE. (By Telegraph-Press Associatlon-OopyrlghU (Eec. November 23, 10.15 p.m.) London, November 23., The debate on. the second' reading .of' the Budget (Finance Bill) opened in the House of Lords in the presence of a' distinguished gathering, aiid the, scene wai 'one that will become,historic; : ,';.,;. IClng Manoelof' Portugal, who is visiting King Edward; was present, and the assemblage in the crowded Chamber included diplomatists, members of the House of Commons, and Peeresses. .The galleries were full, and many present were without seats; '.:.; . : r '....''; : .-: '■:■:'■[■:; Four, hundred Peers attended., There wero cheers- when Lord Cawdor,; who was' First Lord 'of tho Admiralty in' the last Unionist Government, • presented petitions, against ' .the Budget,, bearing 325„ signatures„\from the Imperial Maritime League and, the. Budget Protest League. Tho cheering was renewed when Lord, Eothschild presented a petition against the, Bhdgot, bearing 11,000' signatures, from City; merchants and bankers. ■' ','

The EarL of Crowe, Lord Privy Seal,' and; Government Leader in the: House of Lords, formally moved the second reading of the; Bill. General spprise was expressed when he immediately resumed his' iieat. '.; ■ '.':'

Lansdownb spoke for an hour .in moving his amendment directed against the passage of the Bill,; which was. as follows:— \ - : '.; --,

v : That the House of Lordsjs not • ■'■ justified in giving its consent to the _Bill until ;it;,Has been;submitted to -V. : . ■ ' the Judgment of the country,' - , Lord Lansdowne's speech'was restrained,*nnrhetorical, and-'closely •reasoned.:;'He twifted Lord Crewe with having,refrained from address: ing ..the''-House; and assured; his ■brother. Peers that this omission on the part of the Government Leader : "is' an' announcement that your Lordships have' really no concern in this : important, measure. : .-.'''■■■■ ;•.-; .'■ ,'■■ '.-v. ." i

"This BUI (added Lord Lamdowno) is an unprecedented measure which has not been before tho people, and the House Lords should not undertake the' responsibility of giving Its concurrence it is aware that the people deslro \ that the Bill should become law, \\ There is no law or-compact which !' has made the Lords' consent a musty anachronism. "In 1891 tho Annual Taxation Bill became a kind of omnibun finance measure. Tho change was made with'the intention of embarrassing tho Lords in tho' exercise of their undoubted right.' The effect of 'tacking' is a kind of hotch-potch financial legislation. Land Valuation Bills wero submitted to the Lords in 1907 and 1908, and in 1908 tho Lords rejected the Licensing Bill. Both are now included in the present Budget.

" What self-respecting Second Chamber would tolerate such treatment? could set up Homo Rule in Ireland by the same process." The Opposition Peers, continued Lord Lans downe, had considered tha consequences of their action, and were prepared to face them. They had been told that there would be a financial deadlock, and no money to paj Ministers' salaries; but doubtless tho Government had a nioe littlo scheme for tiding over tern, porary difficulties. "Is tho Budget," ho asked, "so perishable that it will not keep for six weeks? You can have chaos if you want,chaos, not. Should any assistance in this direction bo desired, the Opposition will do its utmost to mitigate any inconvenience." ' ; ; ,

Lord Lansdowno proceeded to, oriticiso tho chief- Budget proposals. The land taxes were based on a Socialistic idea, which the Government had not tho conrago to avow. The whole Bill was_ a confession that the possibilities of a finance system l based on free imports were virtually exhausted. The" Lords had been told that they nould bo punished if they' rejected the Bill, but the same threats had been made before. " Better," concluded the speaker, " that, tho Lords.should not shirk their responsibilities, and should riot fail those who look to us as ' guardians of their constitutional right to be consulted when fundamental political changes ,aro demanded by tho Government of the day." • Lord Loreburn, Lord Chancellor, replied on behalf of tho Government, and dealt with the powers and privileges of the House of Lords .as limited by the Constitution. If ho were asked, /'Could the Lords reject tho Bill according to law?"—he would say': "Undeniably yes." If asked whether tho Lords could reject it constitutionally, ho .would say: "No." The difference between the legal and the constitutional was fundamental. '' The Crown had enormous powers • which by thoiConstltutlon had been unused for centuries. Those wishing to'govern Britain must look to custom, usage, ' and convention, which modified law to such an extent that we were governed in. great matters more by custom than by law, - - The fact that Lord Lansdowno dwelt on tho 'tacking' argument showed that.he admitted the limitation of tha Lords' power. One Chamber alone had power to pursue tho couise of action which the Lords wore now asked by tho mover of I ho amendment to tako, and which was tho first step towards a constitutional revolution. If tho Budget had not taxed wealth, it must havo taxed poverty, to which tho policy of tha Government was wholly opposed. 'Lord Loroburn concluded, reading slowly from a sheet of paper: ■ "It is Impossible that; any Liberal Government can ever again bear the heavy burden of office unless it is secured against the repetition of the treatment which hat'been measured out in the House of Lords during the past four years. If the Liberals succoed In the coming eloctlon, they will hot flinch from what will have v to follow. Wo have not provoked nor desired this conflict, but we aro not afraid of it." • MANX SPEAKERS. _ ' London,.; November 22. A four-lined "Whip" has been issued to Unionist peers, urging them to attend tho House of Lords for tho! second-reading stage of tho Financial Bill to-day. ■ Twonty Liberal and thirty Conservative peers havo announced their intention to speak on the Bill. ' ' FISCAL CONTROVERSY. A LIBERAL VIEW. OF REVENUE FROM A TARIFF. A UNIONST ESTIMATE OF FLIGHT OFCAPITAL. London, November 22. : Mr. ■' Winston Churchill, .: President , of the Board of Trado, has published a manifesto occupying a column of tho nowspaporß, for tho purpose of proving that a ton per cent, duty oh-imported manufactures, which, apparently, would yiold .£U,30n,000, would in reality yield only JC3,75n,000 after taking into account ro-exports, drawbacks upon re-exportations, of partly-manufactured articles, lessor., imports owing to increasod British and colonial production, nnd ,cost of collection. ,If British manufacturers raised their prices five per cent.,

consumers would, said Mr. Churcfiill, be. mulcted to tho extent of fifty millions to secure this oxtra revenue of three and throo-quartor millions. , Mr. Georgo Wyndhain, 'Unionist M.P. for Dover, and formerly ' Chief, Socrotary for Ireland, speaking at Driffield, Yorkshire, said that what was wanted was British capital put into British industry, so that tho British artisan might earn a living wage. During nine months of 1908, said Mr. Windham, forty-two millions was subscribed in Britain for Homo enterprises. Dnnng nine months,of this year, Binco tho introduction of tho Budget, only sixteen millions of British capital had gone into Homo enterprises, while a hundred and sixteen millions had been subscribed for enterprises abroad. British manufacturers could not go oh on these terms.