THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1909. CAN THE LORDS REJECT THE BUDGET?

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9588, 7 September 1909, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1909. CAN THE LORDS REJECT THE BUDGET?

Yesterday morning we published a cablegram from London stating that the "Westminster Gazette" admits that there irf a growing assumption that the House of Lords will reject the Budget, but is convinced that the Peers' action will be reluctant, as it will arouss forces the precise strength of which cannot at present be ascertained. Ihe Budget of the Imperial Parliament has certainly aroused a great deal of feeling, and the chief trouble has occurred in respect to the proposals which provide for increased taxation of the property of those engaged in the liquor trade. Several papers at Home have been calling on the House of Lords to reject the Budget, and the quesMon has been raised whether the Lords have power to do so. Much confusion of thought, says the "Tt Irgraph,"' prevails on the subject of the rights and privileges of the House of Lords with reference to financial proposals, In the absence of a written Constitution, we are compelled in this country to rely upon precedent. An interpretation of precedent by other tribunals than those of the law can never be satisfactory or impartial The authority of Sir T. Erskine May is exceedingly high, but it is obviously personal, not final or supreme. He tells us ("Parliamentary Practice") the responsibility discharged by the Lords in the grant of supplies for the service of tne Crown, and in the imposition of taxation is concurrence, not initiation. Thus, whilst the demand for supply made in the Speech from the Throne on the opening of a session is directed to the Commons, the Speech is addressed to both Houses of Parliament, and to the financial legislation which that demand creates the Lords must be a consenting party, Of the right, therefore, of the House of Lords to reject a Finance Bill there is no [ question, and, indeed, the preamble of every Finance Bill beseeches the King "be it enacted by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, etc." It is not therefore in dispute that it is ' the right of the House of Commons to initiate the grant of supplies far the service of the Crown any more than it is disputed that it is net within the power of the House of Commons to propose their increase, though i members can move the reduction of j any grant demanded by the Govern- ' ment. The real question at issue is whether the Lords have the'right to amend by way of reduction aids and supplies voted by the Commons to the Crown. On this point Sir Erskine May says:—'"The Commons havingT'during nearly thre« centuries

claimed t'he right to include the rnem* \ Ders of the House of Lords in the ) taxation levied upon the subjects of ' the Crown, advanced this claim still further by resolving (1671) 'that in all aids given to the King by the Commons the rate or tax ought not to be altered by the Lords,' and by a second resolution (July 3rd, 1678) 'that all aids and supplies and aids to his Majesty in Parliament are the sole gilt of the Commons; and all Bills for the granting of such aids and supplies ought to begin vgjfh the Commons; and that it is 'the un • doubted and sole right of the Com • mons to direct, limit and appoint in such Bills the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limila tions, and qualifications of such grants, which ought n"t U> tie changed or altered by the House of Lords." SirErskine May adds that: Lords may not amend the provisions in Bills which they receive from the Commons dealing with the abovementioned subjects, so as to alter, whether by increase or reduction, the amount of a tax or charge, its duration, mode of assessment, levy, collection, appropriation, or management ; or the persons who pay, receive, manage, or control it, or the limits within which it is leviable." The Lords threw out the Budget of 1860, which removed the duty on paper, but by including this tax in an omnibus Bill—instead of a separI ate Bill for each tax—the power of the Lords was overridden.