BUDGET IN LORDS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 673, 25 November 1909, Page 7

BUDGET IN LORDS.

::;vV:;: : -NAVAL ;NEEqS.::;: : ?-: : REMARKABLE SPEECH BY LORD CROSIER :. ::■'■■.■■ - '■■ ■'• ■ •'" : -'■'■ ,; '..' ■''■ '•.'--' ■'■ HE WILL ABSTAIN FROM VOTING. (By Telegraph-Press Asßoclatlon-Cotiyticnii '■';.. •. ..- , . London,. November 23. In the House of Lords', Lord.Halsbury, who was Lord Chancellor in Unionist Administrations from 1895 to 1905, continuing the', debate.; on tho Unionist amendment refusing consent to;the Government's Finance Bill, till.it has been' submitted to the judgment of tho country, replied to tho contention of. the Lord Chancellor, Lord Loreburn, as to : the constitutional; powers of the Houso of L'ords. Lord Loreburn's suggestion, said Lord Halsbury, amounted to this—that in future there should be only one - : Chamber, which, i hiving the powers of the purse, could bring within money Bills, all kinds of legislation. The Lords would not,yield under threats of abolition. • "'■• ;.•■.■." A Financial Warning. > ..'■'."!.• Lord Welby,'(a Liberal Peer who was formerly Sir Reginald Welby, Secretary of the Treasury) warned the Peers of -the danger of .rejecting tho Budget'. The national ■ expenditure was already, largely'in excess of that of last year, and the result would be ! agravo deficit. . ■;; •.■■:•" :-: ; .-''..' " - : :",'^.';';. ,■;•."-' : 1 Lord. Eevelstoke, a; member.'. of. the banking firm of Brothers,, said .that during threo years there had been a depreciation; of 110 millions in tho capital value of leading British: stocks., British stocks. ;.wero- ■ being, thrown over in vrholesale; fashion for foreign securities, arid, savings vrere fleeing from tho threatened area to quarters where capital was more .warmly welcomed.' ' "' ' '■■ ,' ; .' : ' ';

The Bishop of Birmingham, Dr. Gore (a. leading social.'."reformer' , and Christian Socialist), made an'appeals to tho Houso, to pass the Budget, if ;only to equalise the' burdens of the different;classes. : :''■. ; - .'■',.

A Liberal's Attack on the Chancellor of tho Exchequer. Lord Eibblosdale, speaking m favour of the Budget, admitted that he had been much upset by Mr. Lloyd-Gebrgo's speeches, but said that when a man indulged in , tho half-panta-loon, half-highwayman style, it was too much to ask him to revert to classical modes.

Lord Cromcr moved tlio adjournment of tho debate ( [Lord Ribblesdale's ideas of classical modes may be inferred from the fact that ho has held Court offices under Mr. Gladstone and Lord Rosobery Hβ was Lord-in-Waiting from 1880 to 1885, and is mi authority on hounds. He and the Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, marlied sisters, daughters of Sir Charles Tonnant.]

UNIONIST FREE-TRADERS URGED TO

VOTE FOR TARIFF. THE SUBTLETY OF LORD CROSIER. (Rec. November 21, 10 25 p.m.) London, November 24. Interest continues undummsked m the debato in the House of Loids on tho second reading of the Government's Finance Bill, anil tho Unionist amendment thereto. TTie Chamber was crowded when Lord Croiner (Unionist Free-trader) continued the debate. Exlravaganco Upon Social Reform. Lord Cromer said the real issue was not whether collectively or individually tho provisions of the Budget ivere bad, but whether the House of Lords was justified in insisting that they should be rofeired to tho nation. Tho principle involved in the super-tax on incomes (Gd. in the £ on all incomes above .£5000) was sound enough—viz., that tho burden should be placed on the shouldeis of those most capable of bearing it Nevertheless, the general financial policy of the Government did not inspire him with confidence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had drifted into a position which threw the whole fiscal system into tho melting pot It was ntterly unsound hnanco to incur a heavy liability last year without tho faintest idea how it was to be met. The Liberals had tried to bo Free-traders and spendthrifts; tho result \>aa ,tho desperate expedient oi the land taxes. A great wave of extravagance was passing over the country which would not be arrested until bitter experience had proved the need of arresting it. His Attitude Guided by Naval, Not Freetrado, Needs. Ho had como to the irrespective of Free-trade a»d tariff reform, that, objectionablo as the Budget was, it could not be rejected without incurring more formidable risks than those involved in its 'adoption. It was of paramount importance to maintain Britain's naval strength, and to avoid a break in the continuity of the naval policy to which both parties were pledged. In tho present , distra-lion of tho country it was a great temptation to both parties to seek to conciliate the mass of the electors by extravagant,expenditure upon social roform. Ho feared that the main 4uty of the nation, which was to maintain its naval strength, would bo then forgotten. Ho was therefore unable to follow Lord Lansdowne into tho lobby, and, since voting with the Government might bo construed into approval of a Bill which he cordially disapproved, he proposed to abstain from voting. Incidentally, Lord Cromer advised the Unionist Free-traders to vote for tariff reform candidates. ::: Liberal.' Reply as; to' Flight of; Capital. !, : •i :The. Earl -of.. Portsmouth'.'' (Under-Secretary for War),,. -the ..arguments ' <>f Lord'Revelstoke as to }he alleged "flight - of canital, said 'that the amount of public jssu'es in '.Home/undertakings had, not greatly'varied during the last six'years. : During -the Unionists' term of. office Consols fell from ,113 .to'B9. The. present ; "temporary 1 disturbance of .business was due. to. the fear of. a general election, and was -not duo; to .'the Government. If the Budget/was rejected,;; the House: of. Commons' exclusive control.of expenditure would:bo destroyed," and its'executive -power .would -be paralysed.;. .-If : such.-a thing was allowed it might .occur' every, session..about everything. The result would , be government by privilege.' The Liberals, would not assume office in future , unless they were.secured against the'harassing opposition ..to which; the :presentiGovernment rhad been subjected. , • ■■'.■' . "■:''■:■''' -The- Duke,, of Maryborough was of ; opinion that.the; land :taxes : were intended , : to -Tinder-' mine the: political position of tho Upper House. ' .-'; v.'V..■;'■':'..' ■ '"■, ■':■'. L '-• ■.■••.■■...'..■•-..- ■;, Lord Avebury maintained that. the Budget' must drive out capital, be .a check, oh un-dustry,-and. cause, lower, wages. ■ ''..,■'■■ '.': . 'Unionist Alternative—Taxed Food. > ■: -J.The Earl; of Beauchamp • (Liberal) made 'a closely-argued 'and vigorous defence- of 'the , various proposals in the Budgpt. ,He.; said he was unable to understand the charges of "lacking •" connected: with the licensing' clauses.' The only new proposal was that the bigger houses should.pay more'than the small. The great] majority of public-houses would merely pay filifhtly higher, duties. The only, items in tho : Budget "which the Opposition' really;considered revolutionary .and Socialistic were the. land taxas. The .'alternative' to. a tax on urbnn.larid valties--was a. .tax on; manufactured; '~g oods. Lord;-Lansdowno's" alternative Budget .was. a .tax on>food, and if. those* were the cries'with winch ; , tlio Conservatives;-. were, going / to i the .country,; the' Liberals .would have no ".cause ■ fprveomplaiiit. The' House of Commons would not .''surrenderits power .of the purse, nor como ;cap" in hand and; on r bended knee •.. to .ask tho Lords .to pass a Buclgot, which fho . Lords dis-' approved/ .' : ; -.-'.'. ■.;:.■"-.: :■'''.. ■■, :■:- -,:.■;■,.. , ; ./ ; :' '.. '.i The Earl of Lytton said ,hn disliked.the land. v and:.the liquor diuses, but ha believed tha.t tho

Bndget had found more favour with the electors than any proposals made sinco tho Government took office. Thereforo he intended to abstain from voting. . .•...'. ■-':■■. The. Earl of Donoughmoro spoke of the ill effects of tho Budget in Ireland, whoro it was universally unpopular, NON-POLITICAL BISHOPS. •MAJORITY AGKEE NOT TO VOTE ON ■•■ ■ BUDGET. ~-■ London, Novemher 23. The majority of the bishops'in the House of Lords have decided not to participate in the division on the Budget. .