THE BUDGET DEBATE

Evening Star, Issue 14225, 26 November 1909, Page 6

THE BUDGET DEBATE

WILL LAST A'WEEK. LORD ROSEBERY PESSIMISTIC, AN INTOLERABLE BUREAUCRACY. Press. Association—By Telegraph—Copyright, LONDON, November 25. Owing to tho number of Conservatives desiring to spent*’, the debate will not finish before Tuesday. The Marquis of Salisbury declared that the House of Lords did not pretend to exercise an absolute veto, but it said that the country should decide. The Archbishop of Canterbury, speaking on behalf cf the majority of the bishops, announced that as the division would be strictly of a party character the episcopal bench would stand aside. A large and remarkable audience attended to hear Lord Rosebery speak. His Lordship said that tho present crisis was the greatest since 1852. Tho Budget was crude and vindictive, and threatened to poison tho very source of national supremacy. It had already destroyed confidence in Britain as the money market of the world, and she was no longer the strong box and cafe of Europe to which foreigners sent their savings for safety. The influence of the Budget was like a great invading miasma, spreading the disease ot want of confidence, which was fatal to commercial and national life. Ships were going westward carrying bonds and stocks as ballast, but the strength, efficiency, and security of the Second Chamber were more vital to the country than the Budget. He had no fault to find with Lord Lansdowne’s amendment, in that it did not ask for the rejection of the Budget, but aimed at bringing about an appeal to the country. Ihe power of the House of Lords should ho exercised only under exceptional circumstances, and with tho express concurrence of tho nation itself. Ho would gladly vote for some form of referendum. Mhen Prime Minister he had given utterance to references to the House of Lords and to financial legislation which prevented him from voting in favor of Lord Lansdowne s amendment. General Elections were not conducted in a Palace of truth, and it was difficult to obtain the nation’s dear decision. Tho Lords, by voting for Lord Lansdownc’s amendment, would be risking the existence of the Chamber itself. He went on to say: 1 apprehend that the result will bo

an appeal to the country upon an uniformed hereditary Second Chamber. Jhe first basis of reform would bo a delegation similar to that practised in the cases of the Scottish and Irish Peers. .1 lie l/nds might even elect 150 Peers to vote rqKm Lord Lansdowne’s resolution. and cany more weight than the vote of the whole Chamber, lie was not greatly alarmed at the menaces. The House of Lords had long lived on menaces, but the present menaces came from men who did not value the controlling for ccs of a Second Chamber—from men who were eminently revolutionary in essence if not in fact. The tendency Of modern legislation was to shoot up measures like rubbish on a dung heap from an overworked House of Commons to the House of Lords. The Lords, therefore, should carefully reserve the powers of resistance which they possessed. In rejecting the Budget they would bo doing exactly what their enemies wished. He favored a less heroic policy than Lord Lansdowne s. He believed that a winning policy would have been to pass the Budget aud give the country from six to eight months’ experience of its intolerable imposition. mtolerable bureaucracy, and, above all, the enormous loss of employment ami capital that it involved. The opponents of the Budget would then have achieved a victory when they next approached the polls that would have surprised them. A SORRY JEST. THE ONLY REMEDY. LORD MILNER’S CURE. LORD CARRINGTON’S ANSWER. LONDON, November 25. (Received November 26, at 8.5 a.m.)

Lord Saint Davids admitted that many business men wero afraid of tho Budget, but could it be wondered at when responsible men jested about “ bonds being shipped as ballast.'’ The remedy was to let the Budget pass. When the. people found that nothing had happened, the bonds would be shipped back. Lord Milner declared that bis experience as Chairman of tho Board of Inland Revenuo showed the utter impossibility of being able to secure tho enactment in a single year of all the complicated taxes included in i lie present Budget. The proportion of public investments in Great Britain to the total was 40 per cent, in 1904 and 31 in 1905. Since the present Government came into power the proportion in each year had been 30, 25. and 26, and this Budget year 10 per cent. He severely condemned tho death dues, and concluded by affirming that it was possible to raise the whole amount required by import duties without injury to business and employment—indeed, with benefit to both: The Lords were not justified in passing the Budget without the consent of the people. J.ord Carrington {Minister of Agriculture) declared that the value of land had advanced from 23 to 40 per cent, since the Liberals came into office. This was the testimony of public confidence in the Government's land legislation. Opposition interjections suggested that this improvement was due to a rise in prices. Lord Carrington admitted there had been such a rise, but, added that an indulgent land legislation had had its share. Ihe Cabinet believed it was wrong to lax !he land that produced the people's food supplies. Lord Onslow opposed and Lords Wearilale and Glantawe supported tho Budget. Lord Curzon moved the adjournment of the debate. PRESS COMMENTS. A YES-NO SPEECH. The Opposition newspapers pay hi'di tributes to I.oul Rosebery’s eloquence, but regret that lie shrinks from that action which alone could give effect to his protests.

The ‘ Daily Telegraph’ (0.) says that the enjoyment of a superb oratorical triumph was marred by the chilling thought of its supreme practical futility. Ihe ‘Daily Chronicle’ (G.) characterised the speech as a " Yes-No ” one, and Lord Rosebery’s [ icture of the paralysis of the commercial enterprise of the country as only scarcmongering. THE THROW OF A GAMBLER. SIR E. GREY’S VIEW. Speaking at Townbridge, Sir Edward Grey (Foreign Secretary) said that the action of the Lords was not statesmanship, hut the throw of a gambler who was playing for a stake. He personally favored a Second Chamber, which, however, should bo something which would reflect the opinion of the country. The Lords only did this by accident. When the Conservatives wore in power, it was their sleeping partner. When the Liberals ruled, it was not a Second Chamber, but an opposition Chamber. j.f good Liberal work was to be done, it was essential that some fair and reasonable means should be adopted by the Lords whereby, in case of a deadlock, ihe opinions of the House of Commons should prevail.

' . ELECTIONS' IN ‘ JANUARY. . NO TERMS wiri THE LORDS. LONDON, November 25. (Received November 26, at 8.25 a.m.) It is expected that Parliament will be .prorogued at the end of next week, and that tho elections will be held early in January—i.e., if the Lords do not assent to the Budget, ‘The Times’ says that tho Government are averse to any proposals concerning the collection of taxes to tide over tho interregnum, lest their action be interpreted as accepting’ an alternative Budget. The deficit resulting from the rejection of tho Bill will be allowed to continue until the new Parliament assembles. LORD CURZON ILL. LONDON, November 25. (Received November 26, at 8.25 a.m.) Lord Curzon, who was to speak on the resumption of the debate, has been taken suddenly ill. THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CITY'. NOT ALL OPPONENTS. LONDON, November 25. (Received November 26, at 8.25 a.m.) Mr Asquith, in reply to a petition signed by 2,000 (? 20,000) City electors in favor of the Budget, welcomed so weighty a memorial as strengthening tho Government’s hands in maintaining the full force of the supremacy of tho Commons in all matters of finance.