BUDGET BATTLE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9661, 27 November 1909, Page 5

BUDGET BATTLE.

LORDS AND THE PEOPLE. DRASTIC REFOKM NECESSARY. SIR EDWARD GREY'S VIEWS. United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph Copyright, Received November 25, 8.20 a.m. LONDON, November 25. Sir Edward Grey, Secretary for Foreign Affair", speaking at Trowbridge, Wiltshire, said the action of the Lords in regard to the Budget was not statesmanship, but the throw of a gambler who was playing for a stake. Hr favoured a Second Chamber, which, however, should be something which would reflect the opinion of the country. The House of Lords only did this by accident. When the Conservatives were in power it was a sleeping partner; when the Liberals held office it was not a Second Chamber, but an Opposition.

If good Liberal work was to be done, said the Minister, it was essential that some fair and reasonable means should be acepted by the Lords whereby in case of deadlock the opinions of the Commons should prevail.

IF THE BUDGET IS REJECTED. COLLECTION OF TAXES. Received November 26, 8.20 a.m. LONDON, November 25. It is expected, if the Budget is not assented to by the House of Lords, that Parliament will be prorogued at the end of next week, and that the general election will take place early in January. "The Times" saya the Government is averse to the adoption of any proposals concerning the collection of taxes to tide over the interregnum. lest it should be interpreted as accepting an alternative to the Budget. The deficit resulting from rejection will, "The Times" says, continue until the new Parliament assembles.

DEBATE IN THE LORDS. Received November 26, 8.5 a.m. LONDON, November 25.' . Continuing the debate in on the Budget, Lord St. David's,, formerly Mr Wynford Philipps r Liberal M.P. for Pembrokeshire, said he admitted that many business men were afraid of the Budget. Could it be wondered at, when responsible men jested about bonds being shipped as ballast?' The remedy was to let the Budget pass. When people found that nothing 'happened, the bonds would be shipped back.. Lord Milner declared that his experience as chairman'of the Board of Inland Revenue shoWßd that it was an utter impossibility to secure the enactment of all the complicated taxes included in the present Budget

in a single year. As illustrating the divison of capital, Lord Milner said the proportion of public investments in Britain to the total was 40 per cant, in 1904, and 31 per cent, in 1905 Since the present Government came into power, the proportion each

year had been 30, 25,. and 26 per cent,, and in this Budget year, only 10 per cent. He severely con • demned the death duties.

It would be possible, Lord Milner said in conclusion, to raise the whole amount required by import duties, without injury to business and employment—indeed, with benefit to both. The Lords would not be justified in passing the Budget without the consent t f the people.

Earl (Jarringtonj 1 President of the Board of Agriculture, and formerly Governor of New South Wal.?s, e'ec'ared thst the valua of land had advanced 25 ti 40 per cenN since the Liberals came into offite. 'i.'h*'s wns testimony to publn confidence in the Government's land legislation.

Opposition interjections suggested that the improvement was due to a genera! rise in prices. Lord Carrington admitted this, but added that indulgent land legislation had had its share in the result. The Cabinet believed that it was; wrong to tax land which produced the people's food. The Earl of : Onslow, formerly Governor of New Zealand, opposed, and Lords Weardale: and Glantawe supported th«j Budget. Lord Curzom movedi the adjuurn- : men; of the debate:

Received November 26> 10 p.m. LONDON. November 26. In the absence of Lord Curzon, the debate opened, tamely, some of the benches being: half vacant, and there were fewer spectators Lord Ashbourne, said that for the first time iii'history the Budget went far beyond the provisions for the year's revenue. The Lords had the right to be sure the people knew the character of the Bill. : Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in a remarkable speech, characterised by manly sincerity and frequent Liberal i. applause,, objected to the Bill because Ivarious taxes were unnecessary to the service of the year, it was no ' answer to say that the State would be in possession of funds for future expenses. That aggravated tlie change, because it tended to make the executive more independent of Parliament. In man? respects the Budget was unjvvt/and u if air as between men. H was the first time that finance bad founded class hatred *nl jehlrusy. If he'objected to the I contents of the Budget he objects!

' still more to the strong tone and i temper of some of the speeches by Which it had been recommended. ' There had been an increase in the output of rhetorical rotten eggs. Party organisation had been raised to such perfection that it was crushing out the independence of members of the Commons. He questioned whether the Lords were wise in making a new claim at this juncture. Long usage had made the Commons supreme with the Government of the day, and in the control of finance matters. "If a system is established whereby the Lords have the right to force a referendum you will destroy the control of the Commons over the Government, and make a momentous change in the constitution," s"a:d Lord Balfour. "If you win a victory it can be at in«)&t temporary. The passage of thv! Marquis of Lansdowne's resolution will only lead to a renewal of the conflict by which the Commons attained their present position. If the Lords were defeated the result would prejudice the power, prestige and usefulness of the House of Lords. I object to the tactics which combined the de • fence of the second (.hamber with the taxation of the people's food. I do' not believe that tariff reform will provide the needed revenue. Those who vote for the Marquis of Lansdowne's resolution will be walking into a trap. They will offend the deepest Conservative instincts of the country—that feeling may be re fleeted at the polls." Lord Luca3 said thai the Lords had killed eighteen Bills duiing the four last Liberal Parliaments, and not one Conservative measure had been rejected. The Lords had now stepped into'the political arena, competing with the Cimmons on party lines.

Viscount Ridley ridiculed the contents . of this poor man's Budget since it taxed his gr?at necessityemployment.. The Bishop of Hereford supported the Bill, and said it was impossible to expect educated democracy to'remain content with survivals which represent the'present constitution of our society. He protested against the bloated estimates of military armaments all over Europe. The country was waiting for the time when arbitration would supersede competitive armaments. Lord Lamington said he did not share with Lord Balfour's, of Burleigh, alarm, in connection with t'e Lords' position, if they rejected the Budget. If the late Mr W. E. Gladstone wkh all his prestige and authority failed in his attack of the Lords it was unlikely the present Government would bring the walls of the Hou=e about their ears. Dealing with the Socialistic remedies for rural depopulation he said that the settlements set up by Australian Governments in country districts had been unsuccessful', though he conditions were favourable and and given free.