GAUNTLET THROWN DOWN

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 254, 2 December 1909, Page 2

GAUNTLET THROWN DOWN

LORDS THROW OUT TUB BUDGET. THE GOVERNMENT RESPO.WAU TO THE CHALLENGE. LORD MOULEV'S CRITICISM. By Cable—Press Association—Copyri«[ it Condon, Aoveinbcr ill). Lord Morloy, Secretary of State for India, argued in detail that there >vas nothing revolutionary in the lludget. Lord Lansdowne'g amendment, ho said, was the firs"l step on the tremendous plans leading straightway to constitutional revision, and there was no finch battle ground for the fiercest passions. He added if behind the amendment was a new fiscal policy he did not envy the Indian Government in dealing with the claim of Indians to have their own tariff reform. Lord Rothschild criticised ninny i

the provisions in tho Budget, and added it was very easy now to get money for foreign investment but very diffi cult to obtain it for even the beat English enterprise. Lord James of Hereford declared I'e ' l/irds had no competency to reject the Hill. Tho rejection, he said, would infringe that part of the constitution controlling the relations between the two Houses. The Crown, he declared, thanked the Commons alone for aid and supply. He concluded by announcing that he would vote for the Bill.

Lord Cawdor and the Earl ot Crewe, Secretary of State for the Colonies, finish the debate to-dav.

Lord Morley, speaking at Denham, commented on Lord St. Aldwyn's conspicuous absence from the debate.

AN OVERWHELM IXB MAJORITY. 350 VOTES TO 75. BOMB POWERFUL SPEECHES. Received December 1, 11.35 p.m. London, December 1. The Budget debate was continued m the House of Lords to-day. There was another brilliant and crowded gathering.

Lord Lansdowne's amendment—declining the House of Lords' consent tfll the Bill has been submitted to the judgment of the people—was agreed to by 350 votes to 75.

The Archbishop of York, in an eloquent maiden speech, strongly opposed the amendment. It was a far cry, he said, from the taxation of land values to that which the Socialists desired, and which was denounced by Lord Rosebery. The mass of the workers ol Britain, in matters wherein they had special knowledge and experience, such as.' that relating to the property of building rtnd friendly societies, might he trusted to take an independent line, as against the Socialists' large premises and sounding phrases. It was in the extremes ot hardship and hopelessness that extreme Soeialisln was found. He warned the House of the. consequences of disregarding the great constitutional principle enunciated by James Hareford. He depreciated 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 tondencv was to be conciliatory to (he Tloikc of Commons. Mr. Lloyd-flcorge's inflammatory Limeliousc speech was largely attributable to the tendency of his Celtic temperament. He added that people knew what to think of those running midst inflammable materials with crackers unit squibs. Tf a serious conflict followed the present vote the responsibility could not justly bo placed irpon the Lords. Lord Curzon remarked that the Budget was rccommendod in some quarters as. an instrument for social reform, lie warmly repudiated the insinuation that the anxiety for social reform was any less keen on the Opposition than on the Government side. Lord Curzon continued that the Budget would increase poverty, unemployment end distress. Paradoxical as it seemed, they could best ascertain and weigh the fallacies of the Budget by reading Lord Cromer's aud Lord Balfoiir of Burleigh's speeches. The Premier might have accepted the conclusions. lie repudiated the action they recommended as inconsistent with the duty and honor of the House of Commons. Lord Curzon emphasised that if the Budget passed, the country would not escape Jrnro a..fr ( >«}- KMKtifirtioi,,,!-. „-sfr w-v which Lord Cromer feared as likelv to interfere <with national defence. Lord Rosebcry's Glasgow speech delivered the Budaet a smashing blow, yet Lord Roseberv's conclusion* on the 24th as given in the House of Lords were lame and impotent.

Earl Cawdor, in a powerful declaration in favor of the amendment, nil listened to with the closest attention. If the Lords passed the Bill, he said, it would destroy for eVcr the power of authority the House pess'csßCd as t.tfc* second chamber. Whether ,or not it was dangerous, there was only one course open to them at this critical uational juncture. The aim of the second chamber was to 'guard the people against wild and rash legislation. Their lordships would stultify themselves if they showed any hesitation. Being Mitistieil of their duty as the second chamber as guardians of the rights of the people, they should refuse to pass this Socialistic Budget. They could very well let the consequence? take care 'of themselves. The policy of the Government was to establish a Houste of Commons absolutely independent of the check of the second chamber upon its legislation, Earl Cawdor continued that this was not i very attractive proposal to a freedomloving people.

WHAT WOULD THE COLONIES THINK? A CLIMAX AND A CROWN. EARL CREWE AT BAY.

Received 2, 12.35 a.m. London, Deecmbor 1. Earl Crewe (Secretary of State for the Colonies), replying to criticism, declared the Government was prepared at the proper moment to respond to the challenge to defend the national detenco policy. Discussing the graduation and other taxes, he admitted there had been a serious fall in securities and that capital was leaving the country. Lord Rcvclstoke's speech emphasised this. Earl Crewe next admitted that capital was a timid thing, and proceeded Kf> argue that it was not tho Budget, but what the Opposition said about' the Budget, that had helped the sc'rfre, The Government had never discussed land nationalisation. The notion that the land would ever be owned hv the nation was as remote and fantastic as anything in H. G. Wells' novels.

Earl Crewe continued: "What would tliecolouics think of their lordships' impenflltig action? The Australians would woiide,- wlint wonul happen if tho Com- '" nnvenlth finances were handed ovar to Lie squatters of the older States." He added that their lordships were making a most tragic blunder. "If the country condones or approves of your decision, your fellow subjects abnad will ask tf the citizens of the Motherland are altogether fitted to exercise resp.iusiWe government. It is not a reformed House which is rejecting the Budget. Whether we sit here or opposite as the result of the vote we must set ourselves to obtain guarantees, fenced about and guarded by statute, preventing that indiscriminate destruction of our lenfsl.ition of which your work to-nlgfat''pi-Q----vides a climax and a crown."

NEWSPAPER CRITICISM. The Unionist newspapers, though absolutely dissenting from his conclusions, admit the skill and vigour of Lord Jlorley's first speech in the House ot Lords on questions outside his own department.

The Times criticises his ideal of an autocratio House of Commons for a period of seven years without interruption.

The Standard says Lorn" Morlev ignored the faet that the Budget was a sheaf of measures.