CRISIS IN BRITAIN.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXI, Issue 7933, 15 December 1909, Page 1

CRISIS IN BRITAIN.

the issue .FOR M fccrtjMßir

lii ai^ address at the National Liberal Gub oh September 17th, Mr Asquith devoted some of. his. tihie to discussing the fate of the Budget when it reached the House of Lords. What,, lie asked, is. going to be the fate of the Budget When it has,received, as it will receive, tho considered approval of an overwhelming majority of the House of Commons ? (Cheers.) We are told— I cannot protend to believe it—wo arc told that there is a possibility that the House of Lords, whether by mutilation or by rejection, and it matters not which—'(loud cheering)—may set aside the .provision which the House of Commons has made for the financial necessities of the 'State.

INDISPUTABLE RIGHT OF THE COMMONS.

Talk of revolutions, gentlemen, this would be indeed, the most formidable and the most fundamental since the days of the Long Parliament. (Cheers.) I assert with confidence that there is no rule more deeply ingrained iii our constitution, mote solemnly hallowed by precedent, more plainly sanctioned alike by the-traditions of the past and by the requirements of to-day, than that in matters of finance the Commons, the representatives of the people, have an absolute" and unquestionable and a decisive voice. The preamble of every Bill granting taxes and duties to the Grown begins with the statement lhat the Commons—not the Lords and Commons—

That c the Commons-of the United Kingdom have freely and voluntarily

resolved''to give and grant unto'his Majesty the duties mentioned. Those words, gentlemen—remember their historical origin—those words have appeared .in tho forefront of, every such Bill ever since the year 1628, when upon the report of a committee consisting of Coke and Selden, two of the.bnghtost.'namos. in the history of our constitution, and other eminent men, mention of 11 1" Lords was deliberately omi'Ltcd, auii the grant declared to proceed from tho Commons, and the Commons alone. (Cheers.) The Lords took exception to the omission, the Commons protested, and thev-established a precedent which, so far as my knowledge goes, has from that day to this never been departed from. The same principle was asserted in the clearest possible terms, even in the days of the Restoration and reaction by the celebrated resolutions of 1672 aiid 1678.

UPHELD BY EMINENT STATESMEN.

That is the ancient Ir.v . / Parliament, and now let me ask JV u..ior a moment how it has been construed and interpreted by the great statesmen of the past—yes, and even p the present day. (.Cheers.) I will take only two or throe out of a long catena of authorities. The first whom I will cite is William Pitt, afterwards Lord Chatham —at the time wlleu he used these words still the Great Commoner. Speaking in the House of Commons in 17 65 ho said :

The taxes are a voluntary grant and gift of the Commons alone. The concurrence of the Peers and the Crown to the tax is only necessary to clothe it with a form' of law; the gift and grant of the Commons alone. Take,' again, what was said by one of the most eminent leaders the Conservative party ever had in the House of Lords—the illustrious Duke of Wellington. Speaking in 1846, when, the Bill for the.'free'importation of corn had passed through the Commons and had .come-before .tne.House of Lords, where some foolish peers were disposed to reject it, the Duke of .-Wellington said this: This measure was recommended by the "speech from the Throne; it has been passed by the majority of the House of Commons, consisting of more than half the members of that House, but my noble friend said-—lis-ten to this, gentlemen —that vote is inconsistent with the supposed views of the constituents by whom they were elected. My lords, I think that is not a subject which this House can take into consideration.

ROSEBERY AND SALISBURY. So much for the great men of- the past. Now I will cite my three predecessors in the office which 1 have at present the honour to hold. I will first take Lord Kosebery. (Laughter.) Speaking on Sir William Harcourt's finance Bill in July, 1894, when someone proposed, not a fortnight, but a week, for the consideration of that measure, he thought that was a great deal too long. Lord Rosebery said:

I do not think it is necessary for the purpose of passing the Bill that the peers should make themselves masters of it, because I deprecate ' altogether the idea that the House of Lords has anything to do with money Bills. -• - (Cheers.) 1 pass to Lord Salisbury, his successor. . Speaking in the House of j Lords itself in the following year, he I said:

This House by custom takes no share whatever, in the forces by which Governments are displaced or inaugurated, and it takes no share whatever in that which is the most important part of" the annual constant business of every Legislative body—the provision 1 of the funds by which the public service is to be carried on,- and the determination of the manner in which these services are to be. carried on. In regard to 1 these matters it takes no part whatever. ' ...■■' And finally I v ill. quote Mr Balfour. Speaking in our i, ■ "i House the House of Commons, as lav !;• as June, 1907, he said:

Wo all know the -or of the House of Lords is still further limitby the fact that it cannot touch those money Bills, which, if it could deal with, no doubt it could bring the whole executive machinery of the country to a standstill. THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLE. Gentlemen, I have troubled you with these extracts —f.hope not to excessive length—but it is of the utmost importance the country should know what the practices of the constitution is, and now it has been interpreted, not by partisans, not by Socialists and demagogues; but by the great ana leading statesmen or the Tory party itself. I say .here is a principle, asserted upon the strength of precedents, which were already ancient in the times of Se-ldeh and i'itt and reasserted with, no less energy and insistence even in the servile atmosphere of • the Restoration, acknowledged time after time, generation after generation, by the most illustrious and responsible spokesmen of both parties of the State. The principle is this —that, stated in the plainest and most naked possible words, in matters of finance the Lords' are impotent and the Commons are supreme. (Loud cheers.)

THE W&.Y TO CHAOS. I ask is that condition of our constitution, established in the past when freedom, was painfully struggling into life, coniirrned again and again in times or storm and stress, reiterated and safeguarded as 1 have shown you under every temptation for ignoring or overriding it by tho greatest statesmen of the 'lory party itself—is; that venerable Canon now going in.the. twentieth century for the tirst tame in nearly bUU yours to bo put in jeopardy? (Loud cries of "No.") Amendment by tho House of Lords is out of the question. (Great cheering.) Rejection by the Houso of Lords is equally out or the question. (Renewed cheers.) It would mean, as Mr Balfour says, to repeat his own language, the bringing by the action of the House of Lords the whole of the executive machinery of the country to a standstill —it means, in a word, financial and administrative chaos —a chaos how profound, how farreaching, how fraught with injustice to individuals and danger to the State it is noj part of my business to-night—l trust it-may be no part of my business

hereafter—iv demonstrate and to make P aiIEAGfIfSIt FOR THE FIGHT. There stands the taattef; gentletn.eli. Is this .issue goiii^ to.be raised ? If it is it carries with it,in its train,consequences whicli it :would take ,a bold iniin ,to forecast :"or '.foresee;. That way revolution, lies, and if It. Is going i<s bo; seriously llueatened, involving,.as I venture .to predict it .will, issues far wider far' deeper ihan the mere rigrit.of tlie: House of Ldrds to meddle with finance, I say for you and for me,..1 say for the Liberal party thatw® represent,"that we are not only ready^ but/anxious,, that we are not only axious but,eager' to take up the challenge. (Loud and prolonged cheering.) ; :