DEBATE IN THE LORDS. LORD BALFOUR'S WARNING.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 129, 27 November 1909, Page 5

DEBATE IN THE LORDS. LORD BALFOUR'S WARNING.

t . — OPPOSITION AMENDMENT A TRAP.' LONDON, 26th November. In the absence (through illness) of Lord Curzon, who was to have resumed the debate in the House of Lords on the motion for rejection of the Finance Bill, the proceedings opened somewhat ! tamely. Some of the benches were half vacant, and there were fewer spectators. King Manuel of Portugal was present. Lord Ash bourne (who was for twenty years Unionist Lord Chancellor of Ireland) said that for the first time in history the Budget -went far beyond the piovisioiis for the year's revenue. The House of Lords had a right to be sure that the people knew the character of the Bill before they passed it. A REMARKABLE SPEECH. Lord Balfour, of Burleigh, who resigned the Secretaryship lor Scotland in 1903 owing to disagreement with his colleagues over Mr. Chamberlain's i Tariff Reform proposals, was the next speaker. In a remarkable speech, charj acterised by manly sincerity, and punctuated by frequent Liberal applause, he objected to the Bill because the various taxes were unnecessary for the service of the year. It was no answer to say that the State would be put in possession of funds for future expenses. _ That aggravated the charge, because it tended to make the executive more independent of Parliament. In many respects the Budget was unjust and unfair as between men. For the first time finance was founded on class hatred and jealousy. If he objected to the contents of the Budget, he objected still more strongly to the tone and 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 the Commoners. FORCING A REFERENDUM. There had never been a time in the history of the country when a Second Chamber, strong, trusted, and in the nature of things somewhat conservative, wa& mor& necessary. He questioned whether the Lords were wise in making a new claim at this juncture. "Long usage has made tho House of Commons supreme with the Government of the day and in the control of finance matters. That the two things go together, and are" the same in essence is a truth admitted by every constitutional lawyer. If a system be established under which the Lords shall have the right to force a referendum, you will destroy the control ot the Commons over the Government and make a momentous change in the Constitution. ONLY A TEMPORARY VICTORY. "If you win a victory it can be at most only a temporary one. The passage of Lord Lansdowne's resolution will only mean a ronewal of the conflict by which the Commons attained their present position. If it be defeated the result will be to prejudice the power, prestige, and usefulness of tie House of Lords. I object to tactics which combine the defence of the Second Chamber with taxation of the people's food. I do not believe Tariff Reform will provide the needed revenue. Those who vote with Lord Lansdowne will be walking into a trap. They will offend the deepest Conservative instincts of the country, and that feeling may be reflected at the polls." A GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE. Lord Lucas, Under-Secretary for War, pointed out that the House of Lords had killed Bills during the four last LibeVal Parliaments; but not one Conservative measure had been rejected. The Lords had now stepped into the political arena} competing with the Commons on party lines. VARIOUS VIEWS. Viscount Ridley, ex-M.P. for Stalybridge, ridiculed the contents of this ''poor man's Budget," since it taxed his great necessity — employment. tT , The Bishop of Hereford, the Right >&cv. L\ Percival, supported the Bill ■because it made for social welfare, and was based on sound finance. ""It is impossible," he said, "to expect an educated democracy to remain content wjth. the survivals which represent the present constitution of our society " His Lordabip protested against the bloated -bsfcimates for military armaments all over Europe, and declared that the coun-try-was waiting for the time when arbitration would supersede competitive armaments. Lord Lamington, one-time Governor of Queensland, said he did not share 1 ijord Balfour of Burieigh's alarm. If Gladstone, with all his prestige and authority failed in his attack on the House of Lords, it was unlikely that the present Government would brine the walls of the House about their ears Dealing with the Sooialistic remedies for rural depopulation, Lord Lamington said the settlements set up by Australian Governments in couniry districts had been unsuccessful, though •conditions were favourable, and land was in some cases given free. STRUGGLE IMPENDING. PLAYING INTO THE HANDS OF EXTREMISTS. (Received November 27, 8.5 a.m.) LONDON, 26th November. The Marquis of Northampton, continuing the debate in the House of Lords on the Budget, warned the Opposition of the dangerous forces they were letting loose. They would imperil their own existence as a branch of the Legislature by a contest over their privileges. It might last for years, but it would inevitably end in their deposition. The immediate effect of rejection of the Budget would be to stimulate social unrest and advance Socialism, apparently because they wanted to overthrow a Government to which they were politically opposed. The adjournment of the debate waa juoved by Viscount Morley, Secretary for India*.