Evening Post. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1909.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 129, 27 November 1909, Page 4

Evening Post. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1909.

DANGEROUS WORK FOR THE UNEMPLOYED.

If the Lords reject the Finance Bill, a number of awkward questions will be asked, "which," said Mr. Lloyd George in his speech at Newcastle, "are now whispered in humble voices, and answers will be demanded then with authority." He considered that one of these questions would be "whether five hundred men, ordinary men, chosen accidentally from among the unemployed, should override the judgment — the deliberate judgment — of millions of people who are engaged in the industry which makes for the wealth of the country." This chance selection from the ranks of "the unemployed" is now assembled at Westminster, many of. them drawn for the first time in twelve months, and at great personal inconvenience, from their game preserves and the other important diversions of unemployment, to the more exciting sport of slaying a great Liberal measure, and nearly all of them bent on defying the deliberate judgment, if not of the nation, at any rate of an assembly which has a hundredfold better title to speak on its behajf than they. Lord Lansdowne has given the signal for the slaughter of the Finance Bill, and most of the gallant three hundred who had informed him three or four weeks ago of their desire to kill it, are doubtless chafing at the delay which prevents them from getting , to business at once. When everybody's mind is made up, why waste any time on the formalities of debate ? The great majority of the Lords, including probably nearly all of those who have forced their leaders' hands and insisted on war to the knife, are better at voting than at speaking. But the peers who nave spoke-n have maintained the debate at a high level, and it cannot be said that they have as a whole failed to appreciate- the gravity of the position which the House is being asked to take up. Lord Rosebery, some people may feel inclined to say, does not count, and he has himself decided that he shall nob count in the fatal division which is to be taken next week. ' He appears to have spoken with his usual brilliance against the Bill, bnt he gives two reasons — one personal and weak, the other pertinent and sound — for declining to vote against it. "While holding office as Premier he had given utterance to references to the House of Lords and financial legislation which now prevented him from voting in favour of Lord Lansdowne's amendment." If he no longer believes in the doctrines of his political prime, there seems no good reason why he should nob be as free to vote as to argue against them, but the disqualification is, at the most, a personal one. Lord Rosebery's other argument makes the broadest possibre appeal. There is a growing tendency to regard the House of Lords as the mere registry office for the measures which have been thought out and fought out in the House of Commons. "Therefore," says Lord Rosebery, "the Lords should carefully reserve those powers of resistance which they possess. In rejecting this Budget you will be doing exactly .what your enemies wish." It was with just the same warning note that ho chilled the enthusiasm of the Glasgow audience which had been delighted to near him for nearly two hours denouncing the Budget with all tho fervour of a Duke. But, as Lord Rosebery may not unreasonably be suspected of having lost nerve' as well as heart, this argument •carries more weight when urged by less eminent but more stable men; and in the House of Lords, as* in so many places outside of it, men of that stamp, some of them lifelong Conservatives, have not failed to utter the same warning. Lord Lytton, for instance, expressed his strong personal dislike of the clauses of the Finance Bill dealing with land •and liquor, but at the same time he'believed that "the Budget had found more favour with tho electors than any proposals the Government had bronght forward since it took office." He could not, therefore, support his party in pitting the House of Lords against the democracy on such an issue, but would -refrain from voting. Lord Cromer is also strongly opposed to the measure, but considering that "it could not be rejected without incurring more formidable risks than those involved in its adoption," he will abstain from voting. But the weightiest testimony of this • kind is supplied in the speech of Lord | Balfour of Burleigh. It was of another Burghley ancestor of the present Lord Salisbury that Queen Elizabeth said, "You be burly, my Lord of Burghley," and that venerable joke might be applied with equal propriety to the statesman whose speech is reported to-day. Lord Balfour of Burleigh left Mr. Balfour's Ministry in 1903, because he disapproved of Mr. Chamberlain's fiscal theories, and on this grave issue he is able to display the same independence and outspoken sincerity. He resents a Budget which "for the first time in the history of finance is founded on class hatred and jealousy" ; resents the v-ecent "increase in the output of rhetorical rotten eggs." That there is some justice in this criticism must be admitted. We believe the proposals of the Budget to be sound in the main, but Mr. LloydGeorge has undoubtedly supported them, •just as Cobden supported his attack on the Corn Laws, by appeals to class jealousy. The evil has been aggravated by the folly of the Conservatives in putting the Dukes in the forefront of the battle, and in making the prospective sufferings of tho Dukes tho ground for piteous appeals .to the -elector?. The.

mischief will bo infinitely more inflamed as soon as Lord Lansdowne's motion has been carried and the battle of democracy and privilege has properly begun. Lord Balfour of Burleigh •»ealises this, and the unfortunate demonstration in 'Parliament Square which is reported to-day should drive his moral home. He objects to "tactics which combine the defence of the Second Chamber with taxation of the people's food" ;■ and he objects to the claim of the Lords to force a referendum, because it would "destroy tha control of the Commons over the Government, and make a momentous change in the Constitution." These are wise words indeed, but they will have uo effect on that dangerous class of the unemployed for whose idle hands Satan is finding the most mischievous job they ever attempted.