THE BUDGET BATTLE

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9664, 1 December 1909, Page 5

THE BUDGET BATTLE

LOE.D3 A ND THE FINANCE BILL. NO COMPROMISE. United Press ussocl vtioii—By Electric Telegraph Cop; riijht. Received November 30, 8.5 a.m. LONDON, November 29. The Right Hon. Herbert Samuel, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, speaking at Paddington, emphasised the difference between rejection of the Finance Bill and other Bills. They might, he said, regret the rejection of the Licensing Bill or a Oneman one-vote Bill, but the Government could at least, in such an event, continue. On the other hand, a Finance Bill of some kind must be passed every year, or th e whole process of administration stop. Therefore, if the Lords could establish a claim to refuse the passage of the Finance Bill, it meant that they could make and unmake Parliament whenever they wished it. it meant usurpation of the prerogative of the Sovereign, whose right it was, on ihe advice of his Ministers, to determine the hour of dissolution. Mr Samuel added: "Tha Govern> ment will accept no compromise or baigain from the Lords in connection with the Budget." "The Times" also urge* that the House of Lords ought not to be dominated by any party.

WORKING MEN CANDIDATES. Received November 30, 8.40 a.m. LONDON, Novebmer 29. Three working men have been selected under the newspaper "Standard's" fumd to contest the Ghtheroe Swansea, and Leicester seats. VISCOUNT MORLEY'S VIEWS. Received November 30, 10.5 p.m. LONDON, Novebmer 30. The Budget debate resumed before a crowded house and galleries. Viscount Moriey declared that the amendment involved five points, each further from constitutional usage and practical convenience than theotneis. They were, firstly, arrogating to the Lords control of taxing power; secondly, assumes power of forcing the penal of dissolution ,by refusing supplies; thirdly, there must b-: a new Parliament whenever the Commons had the misfortune to displease their Lordships; fourthly, supremacy was representative transformed to an oligarchy; fifthly, the whole financial machinery was thrown out of gtar. It was on the' authority of the Coilimous that the taxes were col'ected, but if they were told that their decisions were to be the subject of a plebiscite the collecting responsibility would be weakened. The Budget was the one thing which cannot usua ly wisely be subjected to a plebiscite There "could be no plain "Yes" or "No" thereto.

Received December 1, 12.20 a.m. LONDON November 30. Viscount Morley, continuing, said that Parliament cannot be fettered in any matters wherewith it thinks fit to deal. The electors can demand a financial policy, can demand, for examp'e, someday tariff reform and can punish a Minister when the time comes by ilLmissing him. What they cannot do i 8 by a plebiscite to break into the middle of a fully planned executive scheme for supplying the needs of the year, threequarters of which year by the way has now expired. The electors must trust those whom they have elected, and must acquiesce with tne actions of b t!aeir representatives who had the whole case before them, all the facts and the possibilities of them, fixed the Estimates and who decided the ways and mean 3 of satisfying them. The amendment was no rampant against Socialism. "Is it wise and sagacious to risk charge, however unfounded, that .vou are straining the Constitution as champions of the rich against the poor,"' asked Viscount Morley. '"That is what it will come to in plain electioneering language." He admitted that the only thing which could justiI f.v the amendment was wild proposals by a demented Commons.