BUDGET BATTLE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9659, 25 November 1909, Page 5

BUDGET BATTLE.

DEBATE ON THE FINANCE BILL. SPEAKERS ON BOTH SIDES. | BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM S * APPEAL. United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph Copyright, Received November 24, 8.5 a.m. £ LONDON, November 23. Lord Halsbury, who was Lord Chancellor in Conservative Administrations from 1895 to 1905, continuing the debate on the second reading of the Finance Bill, said Lord Loreburn's suggestion amounted to this—that in future thare shoilJ be only oneCfiamuer, which, having the powers of the purse, could bring within money Bills all kinds of legislation. The Lords would not yield under threats of abolition. Lord Welby (formerly Sir Reginald Welby, secretary of the Treasury) warned the Peers of the danger of rejecting the Bulger. The national expenditure was already largely in excess of that of last year, and the result would be a grave deficit. Lord Revelstokr, a member of the tanking firm of Baring Brothers, said that during three years there had been a depreciation of 110 millions in the capital value of 387 leading British sto:ks, British stocks were being thrown over in wholesale fashion for foreign securities, and savings were fleeing from the threatened an\ a to quarters where capital was mnra warmly welcomed. The Bishop of Birmingham /Right Rev. Uiarles G.r.% D.D.) male an appeal to the House to pass the Budget, only to equalise lha birdei.s of the different classes.

Lord RibLL-sdale, formerly Chief Lib.ral Whip in the House of Lords, fpeaki.ij in favour of tie Budget, admitted that he had been mucu upset by Mr Lloyd-George's speeches, but said that whe 1 a man indulged in the half pantaljon, half highwayman fctyle, it wa3 tco much to ask him to revere to classical models.

Lord Cromer moved tle adjournment ot the debate.

Revived November 24, 10.25 p«m LONDON, Nuvemjtr 24.

Interest remains undiminished in the debate on the Finance Bill in th e House of Lords, and the C mmber was crowded lajc night.

Lord Cromer said the raal issue was not whether ciHectively and individually the provisions oc the Budget were bai, but whether the Lords were justified in insi tin ; that it should be jer'eired to ti.& nat.on. Tne principle that the burde.i should b; placed on tie shoulders of these most capable of bejring was sound enough. Nevertheless the general financial pol.'cy of the Government did not inspire him with confidence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had drifted into a position which t irew the whole fiscal system int> the melting pot. It was utteily unsjund finance to incur heavy liability last year without the faintest idea of how it was to be met.

The Duke of Marlborough said that the land taxes were intended to undermine the political position of the Upper House. Lord Avebury was of opinion that the Budget must drive ouc capital, check industry, and lower wa^es. Earl Beaucharnp closely argued, and made a vigorous defence of the various proposals in the Budget H-s was uuable tj understand the charges of tacking in connection with Hc.nßing. The only new proposal was that thd bigger houses should pay more than the small ones. Ihe. great majority of the public houses merely pay slightly higher duties. The only items in the Budget which the Opposition really considered revolutionary, and socialistic,, were the land taxes. The alternative to a tax on urban land values was a tax on manufacture J goods. The Marquh of Lansdowne's alternative to the Budget was to tax food If these were the cries wherewith tiie Conservatives were going to the councry the Liberals would have nccause to cornplain, ihe Cmmons would not surrender the power of tne purse nor come with, ca,j in, hand on bended knee to ask the Lords to pass a Budget which, the Lords approved. Lord Lylton said he disliked the land and liquor, t buses, but belived the Budget found more favour with tne tlectora tnan. any proposals since the Government took office. , Therefore he intenued to abstain from voting..

The Earl of Donoughmore spoke of the ill effects of the Budget in regara to Ireland, where it was uni> versally unpopular. Lord .Cromer said that a grea* wave of extravagance bad been passing over the country which had not been arrested until bitter experience proved the need. He had come to the conclusion irrespective of free trade or tariff reform, that tionable as the Budget was it could not be received without incurring more formidable risks than those involved in its adoption. It was of paramount importance to maintain Britain's naval strength and avoid a break in the continuity of the naval policy to which both parties were pledged/ It was a great temptation for both parties to seek to conciliate the mass of electors by extravagant expenditure upon social reform. He feared that tne main duty of the nation to maintain the naval strength would be then forgotten. Therefore he was unabte to follow the Marquis of Lansdowue into the lobby. Since voting tor the Government might be construed into his approval of the Bill which he coin dailly disapproved he proposed to abstain fiom voting. Incidentally, Lord Cromer advised the Unionist ! Fre-atraders to vote for the Tar"lF [ Reform candidates,