THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. FRIDAY, JULY 30, 1909. THE MILITANT HOUSE OF LORDS.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9555, 30 July 1909, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. FRIDAY, JULY 30, 1909. THE MILITANT HOUSE OF LORDS.

I Judging by the eaay and confident aggressiveness of Lord Lansdowne's utterance at a banquet of the Conservative Association, the British people will not have to wait much longer for the conflict which has ■ een impending ever since the Liberal Administration took office. The Conservative leader i.i Ihe House of Lords calmly remarked that the Lords were unlikely to proclaim t'jemsflves not responsible for a financial measure and obliged to "swallow it whole without mincing." He put forward a plain claim that, on "common-sense grounds," the Lords would be justified in interfering with taxation which they regarded as "inequitable" and "subversive of society." These observations indicate that the marquis intends to direct the solid majority behind him in the House of Lords to contest the Commons' right to pass the Budget as they think fit in the interests of the country. Mr Bal four, speaking at Dumfries last year, summed up the financial powers of the tvvo Houses very tersely. "It is the House of Commons," he said, "not the House of Lords, which settles uncontrolled our financial position." And then he went on to argue that the Government would act wisely in leaving the House of Lords 'veil alone on the ground that the incapacity of the Lords to interfere, with financial measures would disappear if thejieers were made elective. After the plain statement by the Conservative leader in the House of Commons, the Marquis of Lansdowne's utterance is quite belligerent. He practically declares that the Conservative majority in the House of Lords will refuse to be guided by the precedants which have settled, after some fierce constitutional battles, that taxation is a matter for the House of Commons solely, and that, as Chatham said, it is no part of the legislative power which ii vested in the three estates, the Crown and the pears, as well as the Commons. It is true that the bords have often questioned this restriction of their power, but they have taiitly acquiesced injhe constitutional doctrine that they may not amend, although they may reject, money bills. The principle was fixed in the stormy Stuart times, and was

never seriously challenged until 1860,

when the Lords rejected „the Paper Duties Repeal Bill, with the result

;hat the House of Commons under the eadership of Palmerston, passed resolutions exactly definine its constitutional position with regard to money bills, and, moreover, in the following year included the repeal of the paper duties in a general financial measure which the House of Lords had to accept. It would appear, therefore, that the Conservative maiority in the House of Lords, smarting under Mr Lloyd-George's revised estate duties and land taxation which would chiefly affect th:m as well as under the heavy new taxation on incomes over £2,000 and motorcars, which they would share with the wealthy middle-class, have decided to throw precedent to the winds and contest the right of the Commons to apportion the incidence of the taxation necessary for carrying on the Government of the country. The House of Commons itself has conceded that it is ngb? of the House of Lords to reject a money bill altogether, though not to amend it. But that was in the Stuart times.

vhen the Lords could not be sus jectcd of desiring to withhold supilies from the Crown. The House jf Lords has never yet exercised its power to reject a bill designed tc produce revenue by means of taxation, nor has it sought by direcl amendment to vary the method de vised by the House uf Commons foi the purpose of raising supplies Hence the utterance of the Marquis of Lansdowne amounts to a dircc challenge to the Government, imply ing that, in the opinion of the Con servative majority in the House o Lords, the present House of Com mons does not enjoy the confidenc

jf the electors. By rejecting thi Budget "in globo," which is withii the constitutional rights of the Housi of Lords that House can force on i dissolution. But the Lords will in cur a grave responsibility if the; embarrass the Government by refus nig at this stage to assent to th passage of taxation for the produc tion of revenue necessary amoni other purposes for ensuring the na tion'a safety. This is not a time whei the people of Great Britain cai afford to indulge in a constitutinna struggle which is sure to be bitter!; contested when it comes about an< scant consideration will be shbwi for the non-representative House o Lords if it forces upon the nalioi such a domestic quarrel in the ence of the foreign danger that i; steadily maturing. If the safety o: the nation is to be imperilled while the Lords put up a constitution!: struggle on behalf of their own bij; incomes and estates, the exasppratet country may well demand that thej ba compelled to acquiese in the taxation which has been fixed by the representatives of the peopla.