CHAMPIONS OF THE RICH

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 253, 1 December 1909, Page 2

CHAMPIONS OF THE RICH

AGAINST THE I'OOK. A .STRONG INDICTMENT AGAINM THE LORDS. FIVE COGrAT POl.\i.>. LORD JIORLEV S STATEMENT. UyOtble.—Prete Annotation. —OopjTigltl Received Novcini.er 30, lU..> p.m. London, November 10. The Budget debate in the Uouse ot LoiJs wae resumed to-day, before a crowded llousc aud galleries. > Lord Jlorley (Secretary of State lor ludia) declared that Lord * ainciidiiienl involved live points, cacti further from constitutional usage >id practical convenience ilian the other — Firstly, arrogating to the Lord* the control of taxing power. Secondly, assuming tlie power of >v'«ing a penal dissolution by refusing nipplies.

Thirdly, that there must be a new Parliament whoncver the Commons had the misfortune to displease their lordships.

Fourth}', representative supremacy was transformed to an oligarchy. Fifthly, tlic whole financial machinery was to be thrown out of (ear. It was, lie said, on the authority of the House of Commons that taxes wer* collected; but if they were told that tlicir decisions were to be the subject of a plebesciU their collecting responsibility would be weakened. "The Budget," Lord Morley said, "is the one thing which cannot usually be subjected to a plebiscite. There could be no plain ' Yes' or ' No' thereto." STRAINING THE CONSTITUTION, " PARLIAMENT CANNOT BE FETTERED." THE DUTY OP ELECTORS. MUST TRUST THEIR REPRESENTATIVES. mm Received 30, 11.35 pjn. London, November 30. Lord Morley, continuing, laid tile amendment disregarded the Septennial Act, which was the prerogative of the Crown. It stopped the supplies granted to the Crown by the Commons. Nobody denied the Lords' bare legal right, but the assertion of this bnre right by foisting a eonsltutional crisis on the top of a financial deadlock was in nowise provident, sensible or likely to serve one single useful end. He quoted authorities to show that the Commons had the sole control of taxing. Replying to Ihe argument that the Government had ao mandate, he contended that the whrte I idea of an election, ad hoc referendum 1' and mandate, was n complete departure from tile wholesome usages of the courttry.

Lord Morley continued: "Parliament cannot bo fettered in any matters wherewith it think* fit to deal. Hectors can demand a financial policy. Thay can demand, for example, stfine diy tariff reform, and can punish a Minuter when the time comes by dismissing him. What they cannot do is liv Mehiscite break into the middle of n full'-nknned executive scheme for supplying vße needs of the year, three-quarter* cf which vear, hv the way, have now e.t----j pircd. Electors must trust t hose who® I they elected and must acquiesce In the action of their representatives, who S had the whole case before them, with sU I the facta and possibilities of them, anl fixed the Estimates, and who decided ways and means for untisfving them. The amendment is no rampart agalnstsocialism. Artisan Britain is not socialistic. If a dangerous tide of socialism were running—which I deny—la it wise or sagacious to risk a charge, howefer | unfounded? You are straining the constitution as the champions of the -Ich against the poor. That is what it comei to in plain electioneering language." He admitted that the only * thing which could justify the amendment was the wildest proposals ny a demented Commons. Such a case, however, had not arisen. There was something wome tfran a dummy House of Lords, namely, a dummy House of Commons. He warned the Opposition that the mow triumphant the majority of the House of Lords compared with the majority in the House of Commons, the more biasing in the public eye would he the conHitntinnal outrage. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE LORDS WHAT THE BLOCKAGE OF THE BUDGET MEANS. London, November 29. Mr. Herbert L. Samuel, Chancellor ol tile Duchy of Lancaster, speaking at Paddington, emphasised the difference between the rejection of the Finaice Bill and the other Bills. They might, he said, regret the rejection of "the Licensing Bill or the One-Man-One-Vote Bill, but the Government could at least continue. Ou the other hand, a Finance Bill of some kind must be imaged every year, nr the whole process of administration would stop. Therefore, if the Lords could establish it claim to refuse the passage of the Finance Bill, it meant they could make or unmake Parliaments or Governments whenever they wished. It meant the usurption of the prerogative 'of the Sovereign, whose right it was, on the advice of hie Ministers, to determine the hour of dissolution. Mr. Samuel added that the Government could nccept 110 compromise or bargain from the Lords in connection with tne Budget. CONSERVATIVE WORKING MM.

London, November 29. Three working men have been selected under the Standard's fund, which hu now readied £6OOO, for sending 0«i----servative working men to the House of Commons. The three men in question are to contest the seats at Ciitheroe, Swansea nnd Leicester.