The Dominion. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1909. THE REJECTION OF THE BUDGET.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 680, 3 December 1909, Page 6

The Dominion. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1909. THE REJECTION OF THE BUDGET.

•'■ It is with some reluctance' that we begin our reference; to the verdict of the Lords on the Budget with . a protest against the attitude:taken,'up by somo of bur contemporaries in their denunciations of the Peers. 'In.one sense thisiattitude—this warning of the Lords,, in 'the . manner of theSMbereenEagle— is somewhat ludicrous; but. it is nptsoludicrdus as it. appears, for we have. little doubt; that one result of it will be the use of the Dominion as a weapon in the domestic quarrel at Home.,', From 'its inception The Dominion has; conducted a '.steady campaign against the:tendency of party, politicians in Britain to use' the colbriies as sticks with which to belabour ; each other.. No opportunity has'been missed to,condemn in these columns the attempt lay. the/British .Opposition to turn th? statements; of'public men and newspapers in'this country to, its advantage in tho fiscal controversy,:and it has been Satisfactory ;.to, know that the /publicity given in the : British .'press to .our views on ••'.: this.;.•' ■.•matter.,'-' , /: had . .', a. : ; beneficial .. effect. If 'it i were. , important that our newspapers should be careful to make it clear' that New Zealand does not wish to interfere with 'Britain's fiscal poh icy, it is still more important that those newspapers should refrain from 'taking sides -as to.the .policy of .'the',-, Budget," /which is Britain's': affair alone, and which has not-even that concern;for;.'the overseoJ Dominions which the fiscal policy : 6f Britain i'most assuredly ;; has. ;' Yet'we';find, -that at 'least One pap'er: which' secbrided pur plea, for neutrality.-in regard to the tariff .issue has quite ; fbrgotten. its advocacyof non-intervention and .has . hasteneil to. furnish just,that tion for which /Lord Grewe angled in winding up the great debate. - ; :

In view of the terms of Ms. , Asquith's notioe of motion, recorded to-day,' .it seems pretty certain that the merits of the Government's proposals will ceaße to be a factor in> the'manoeuvring that is about to take place,'and they need not be referred to.' The rejection of the Finance Bill is a, circumstance that the Liberals cannot really regard, as a calamity if they believe that the nation desires the Budget policies- The Lords have taken the only course which will place the feeling of the nation beyond dispute by tho- dialecticians of either side.' Reference to the people is clearly one of the functions of the rovising Chamber, and to deny that the Lords own such a function, and to assert at this' same time that a Finance Bill, even if it includes the whole of the Government's proposals ' for the 'year' must be passed -unamended, is to reduco the bi-cameral system. of / legislation to a nullity. This is not to say, of course, '.that Britain should main; tain an unrcformed House of Lords in maintaining the Chamber of revision. There, is perfect truth in the charge that the Peers often leave their functions unexercised when a Unionist Government is in office. That they do so, however, is not a reason why they should equalise matters by. doing' so when the Liberals are in power: it is not an argument for the abolition of the House of Lords, but only a strong argument for its reform, but such roform as will not restrict the Lords' power to amend and revise. The Liberals should be delighted- to have an opportunity of obtaining the opinion of the people on the Budget. It will be time to carry the war against the Lords when a definite mandate from the people ia flouted. The' Budget at present has no clear mandate behind it. It is necessary to refer to the concluding speech delivered by Lord Ckewe—a speech which it is the duty of every true I friend of good Imperial relations to.condomn, "What," he tsked, "would tho colonies think of ■ thoir Lordships' impending action 1" The reply must be: What have the colonies to do with the Budget, and what right has either Houso of tho British Parliament to legislate upon the domestic concerns of Britain with an eye to the opinions of tho colonics, or to anything but the needs of Van people of Great Britain ? Such a doctrine as that of Lord Crewe's involves the consequential doctrine that the colonios must ascertain tho views of the man in the street in England before dealing with their affairs. "The Australians," Lord Crewe continued, "would wonder what would happen if the Commonwealth finances were handed over to the squatters of tho older States." There is no analogy whatever between the actual case in Britain and tho hypothetical case put by Lord Crewe. Indeed, Lord ■Crewe's admirers in this part of the world must" have read this/ and the remainder of this part of his speech with surprise and concern:

"Tonr Lordships," ho said, "are making the most tragic blunder. It tho country condones or approves your decision, our fellow-subjocta abroad will ask if the citis-enb of tho Motherland aro altogether fitted to exercise respoa--sihl4j;p,vecamtettt,"

Thoro was nothing but condemnation in this country for Me. Balfour's attempt in tho early part of the year to arguo that tho colonies' feelings required' that Britain should change her fiscal policy. Wo always condemned, in the strongest terms at our command, tho introduction of the colonies into tho quarrels ,of British political parties, and when Sir Joseph Ward rebuked Mr. Balfour he had the whole country at his back. Lord CreWs speech is at the very least as mischievous and improper as' tho Tariff Hcform tactics in this particular. If there is any honesty in the feeling here that British statesmen should keep the. colonies off thoir lips in their fiscal quarrels, New Zealand will resent LoitD Crewe'b adoption of just the tactics wliich his. party were glad to have this country condemn a little time ago.