HISTORIC SCENES. THE LAST OF THE BUDGET.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 14, 18 January 1910, Page 3

HISTORIC SCENES. THE LAST OF THE BUDGET.

A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. LORD ROSEBERY'S ATTITUDE. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, 3rd December. The atmosphere that hangs over England to-day reminds one strongly of the ominous pall of a smallpox epidemic. Those who are moving about in a city of plague are not co'nscsious of any feeling of awe or fear. It is the quaking observers afar who realise the awfulness of the situation, and dread even to receive letters from the stricken city. So to-day in England we know that we are face to face with a crisis comparable with that which preceded the dictatorship of Cromwell. The greatest thinkers of' the land have declared it to be so ; the press at the farthest ends of the world treats it 60. Here the traffic goes on much as usual. The "happy dispatch" was administered on Tuesday night, and now there is a wondrous lull. The bitter recriminations of the past few months is dead, and one might almost think that the future held in its palm nothing momentous for the people of England. It i&, of course, the lull before the greater storm which is to lead up to the great election. THE FATEFUL NIGHT. The attendance of the Lords on Tuesday night was in all probability a record for that Chamber. Nearly 450 peer's were actually in the Chamber at the time of the division, and probably another forty were present at one time or another during the debate. All tenantable parts of the Chamber 'were filled. In the Peeresses' Gallery was a historic assemblage of upwards of fifty, chiefly the wives of peers who were taking either a prominent or an unaccustomed part in the debate. The Duchesses of Wellington and Somerset and Adeline Duchess of Bedford, the Marchioness of Lansdowne, the Countess of Crewe, Lady Ampthill, Lady Tennyson, and Lady Ellenborough were conspicuous. When the last speech had been made, the Lord Chancellor solemnly put the question. The diction differs from that of the Houpe of Commons. Instead of "Aye" and "No," the cry is "Content," "Not Content." Lord Denham and Lord Colebrooke were named tellers for the Government, Lord Churchill and Lord Waldegrave for the Opposition. The benches were cleared, and with white wands in their hands the tellers commenced to count. About the throne gathered a small knot of peers who did not wish to vote. Thus in baulk were the Duke of Connaught, the King's brother, the Archbishop of Canterbury., Lord Gorell (the late President of the Divorce Court), Lord Strathcona (High Commissioner for Canada), the Bishops of Liverpool and St. David's, -Earl de la Warr, and Viscount I Cobham, with as many more. The first peer to vote was Viscount Morley. He was followed by the Bishops of St. Asaph and Birmingham, and the Archbishop of York. One of the earliest of the "Not Content*" was the Duke of Argyll, the King's brother-in-law. While the count was being made — and it took almost half an hour — the peeresses above stood craning over their seats to get a better view, conversing with animation, and throwing kisses to their husbands in the arena below. When the count was over there was a lull. "The Contents," -said the Lord Chancellor, "were 75; the Not-Contents were 350;, so the Not-Contents have it." There was just the murmur of a cheer, and in a t-wmk-,ling the house and galleries were vacant. THE VOTING. Here is an analysis of the voting :—;: — ; Contents (For the Budget). Xot-contents. Pairs. Pairs. Dukes — — 18 — Marquises ... 2 — 16 — Earls 9 2 101 3 Viscounts ... U — 21 1 Barons 54 7 193 5 Archbishops ... 1 — " — — Bishops 3 1 11 75 10 350 10 Lords Rosebery, Cromer, and Balfour of Burleigh, who made crucial speeches in the debates, were all absent from the division. Baron Fitzmaurice voted against his brother, the Marquis of Lansdowne. Some former Governors and Viceroys divided as follows : — For the Bill : Earls Beauchamp and Carrington (ex-Gover-nors of New South Wales), Baron Brassey (Victoria). Against : Earl of Onslow (New Zealand), Viscount Milner (South Africa), Barons Ampthill (Madras), Curzon of Kedleston (Viceroy of India), Kintore (South Australia), and Ranfurly (New Zealand). WAS NERO FIDDLING? To show the stoical spirit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Liberal paper published a character sketch the day after the death of the Budget, in wnich it was stated that Mr. Lloyd-George, unmoved by the momentous events that were passing, sat down with enthusiasm and appetite to eat a hearty meal, what time the Lords destroyed the masterpiece of his life. Whether this is true or not, the allegation seems to have been regarded as a reproach. At any rate, a »paper which has earned the title of the "Daily Georgic" for its publication of inspired news, solemnly phblished tho following paragraph, without comment : 1 v "At the moment that the House of Lords was occupied in killing the Budget Jate on Tuesday night, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was hard at work in Downing-street on business connected with the financial situation. A correspondent, calling at the Chancellor's residence after 11 o'clock, found the right hon. gentleman in a vast apartment quite alone and immersed in papers. Ho was blithe and cheerful, and apparently unmoved by the process of Budgetkilling going on only a couple of hundred yards away amid scenes of memorable excitement." Both accounts, however, pay testimony to the apparent nonchalance of the Chancellor. One of his colleagues, Mr. John Burns, was observed amongst the spectators of the execution in the Lords. There . was some hope amongst the Radicals that a demonstration would take place in Parliament Square when the result of the division was known. A small crowd of curious persons gathered and waited in the cold, but a force of two thousand police was in readinesG at Scotland Yard, a few doors away, and nothing occurred. At the moment the result was made known red rockets were fired all over London, in Manchester, Birmingham, and elsewhere. It was the demonstration of the Daily New.<=, which described it as "the red signal of a revolution." A demonstration on a larete- scale in Trafalgar-square is arranged for to-morrow. THE TIME OF PARLIAMENT. . This table shows how much of the time of Parliament has been taken up by discussion of the Budget : — Commons. Lords. Days.. Days. Introduction 1 First readinc 1 Resolutions 1!! Second reading ... 5 Second rending 4 Committee 43 Report stage 0 Third reading 3 Resolution of protest 2 Total 70 ". 6 In both Houses : 81 days. WHERE WAS LORD ROSEBfiRY? Now that people have had time to

draw breath they are beginning to look about for traitors, and quite a number have fastened upon that pink and picturesque personality, Lord Rosebery. The day after his remarkable speech in the Lords, the ex-Premier discovered in the rudest possible manner the opinion held of his action by the Tory press, which had expected something of him. Then he retired again into that solitary quietude in which some have seen explanations of his extraordinary political vagaries. He was not in the House during the rest of the debate, but he has come to light in the press to defend himself against a very general charge of having "ratted." He wrote: — Sir,— Lord Curzon, I see, following other critics last night, intimated that I had led the army up to the walls of the fortress and then abandoned it. As this fiction may in time come to be believed, may I state flint I hsne only delivered one speech on the Budget (that at Glasgow) and that I then went out of my way to utter a warning against the very course which has been pursued. I did not, and do not, think that the House of Lords was the proper agency to employ on this occasion. I feared, and still fear, that such action might injuriously affect a valuable institution, and enhance what popularity the Budget may possess. — Rosebery. But Lord Curzon was not to be so appeased. "I have "read that great and splendid oration (the Glasgow speech) many times," he -declares, "but I have never been able to find in it — and I cannot now find — the warning referred to. "It is true that Lord Rosebery said at Glasgow that he hoped that the House of Lords had come lo no decision, and that in the fortnight which he trusted would elapse before the departure of the Bill from the Commons to its arrival in the Lords, there"" would be ample time for them 'to consider the action, if any, that they would consider themselves justified in taking.' There were two further enigmatic phrases, which may be said to balance each other : — " 'If the House of Lords relies on the support of the people in the .easy chairs, the House of Lords is not likely to do what they expect.' " ' If you wish a Briton to do a thing, dare him not to do it, and he is quite sure to do it.' • "But I am unable to discover in any of these passages any warning against rejection. "On the other hand, when Lord Rosebery told his Glasgow audience that the Budget was 'putting the future of Great Britain into the melt-ing-pot,' and was 'a revolution without a mandate from the people,' and when he added : — 'I believe that it is not in the best interests of the nation that this financial measure should become law,' I cannot see how the average reader, supposing him to be a peer, could draw any other conclusion than that he would be acting in accordance with Lord Rosebery's advice if he were to cast his vote against the Bill. "Of course, I accept Lord Rosebery's statement as to what was in his own mind at Glasgow. But I am still unable to see where or how he conveyed it to the minds of others." The press and public were undoubtedly misled in the same way. NON-CONTENTS AND INVADERS. A great deal of amusement has been caused by several instances of irresponsible speaking on the part of opponents of the Government in the country. A week or two ago Sir Grey Skipwith declared that if the Budget was passed he would welcome the invader to England. Last night Sir Hereward Wake, at a rent audit dinner of his tenants, made a similar statement, and was adding that he and his wife would be compelled to live in lodgings in Queer-street, when he suddenly lost his power of speech. He was assisted to a seat, and after remaining there for a while rose to speak again, but was unable to utter a word, and had to be assisted home.