THE BRITISH BUDGET

Evening Star, Issue 14229, 1 December 1909, Page 8

THE BRITISH BUDGET

: THE DEBATE IN THE. LORDS. GREAT SPEECH BY LORD MORLEY. A POWERFUL INDICTMENT. Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. r . LONDON, November 50. The House and galleries wero crowded to hear Lord Morley (Secretary for India), who resumed the debate. The Indian Secretary said that ]x>rd Lansdowne's amendment involved five. jjo-'nus, each of which went further from constitutional usage and practical convenience than the other—firstly, arrogating to the House uf Lords tho control of taxing power; secondly, assuming the power of forcing a penal dissolution by refusing supplies; thirdly, there must be a new Parliament, whenever the House of Commons -had the misfortune to displease their lordships; fourthly, representative supremacy was transformed into oligarchy; and 'fifthly, the whole of the-financial machinery was thrown out of gear. It was on the authority of the House of Commons that taxes were collected, but if they were told that their decisions were- to he subject to a plebiscite the collecting responsibility would be weakened. The Budget was the one thing that" could not usually wisely be subjected to a plebiscite, as there could be no plain "Yes" or "No" thereto. Lord I,ansdowne's amendment disregarded tho Septennial Act and the prerogative of the Crown. It also stopped Supply being granted to the. Clown by the House of Commons. Nobody denied the bare legal right, but the assertion of this bare right by foisting a constitutional crisis on top of a financial deadlock was neither provident nor sensible, nor likely to serve ouo single useful end. He quoted-authorities to show that the House of Commons had sole control of the taxes. Replying to the argument that the Government had no mandate from the people, he contended that the whole idea of an election for a. referendum and mandate was a complete departure from the wholesome usages of the country. Parliament could not be fettered in any matters wherewith- it thought tit to deal. The electors could demand a financial policy; they could demand, for example, some day Tariff Reform, and thev could punish the Minister when the time camo by dismissing him. But what they could not do wjjs to break by a plebiscite into the middle of a fully-planned Executive scheme for supplying the needs of the year, three-quarters of which year, by the 'wav, had now expired. The electors must trust those whom they had elected, and must acquiesce in the'action of their representatives, who had the whole ca6e before them—all the facts and the possibilities of tliem—who fixed the Estimates, and who decided Ways and Means for .satisfying them. ' The'amendment was no rampart against Socialism. If a dangerous tide of Socialism is running, -which I deny, is it -wise or sagacious to risk the charge, however unfounded, that you are straining the Constitution ag champions of the rich against the pdor_ That is what it conies to in plain electioneering language. He admitted that the only thing which could justify the amendment was the wildest proposals by a demented House of Commons, but such a case had not yet arisen. There wfl6 something worse than a dummy House of Lords—namely, a dummy House: of Commons. He warned the Opposition that tho more triumphant the majority of the. House, of Lords compared with the majority in the House of Commons the more blazing in the public eye would be tlve constitutional outrage. THE REVOLUTION CRY. TITF. MONEY INVESTMENT BOGEY. CLOSING SPEECHES. (Received December 1, at 8.5 a.m.) Lord Morley argued in detail that there was nothing revolutionary ii» the Budget. ' Lord Lansdowne's amendment was the first step on a tremendous plane leading straightway to Constitutional revision, and there was no such battleground for the fiercest, passions. If behind the amendment there was a new fiscal policy, be did not envy the Indian Government when-dealing with the claim of Indians to have their own system of Tariff Reform. j Lord Rothschild criticised many provi- | sions of the Budget, and added that it was very easy now to get money for foreign investment, but very difficult to obtain it for even the best English enterprises. Lord James of Hereford declared that, the Lords had no competency to reject this Bill. Rejection would infringe that pait of the Constitution controlling the lehitions of the two Houses. The Crown thanked the Commons alone for Aid and Supply. He concluded by announcing that he would vote for the Bill. Lord Cawdor (for the Oppcsifion) and the. Earl of Crowe (for the Government) will finish the debate to-day. OPPOSITION COMMENTS. Tn the course of an address at Denh.im, Lord Morley commented upon Lord St. Aldwyn's (an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer) conspicuous absence, from the debate. The Unionist newspapers, though absolutely dissenting from his conclusions, admit the: skill and vigor of I/ord Morley's first speech in the Ixirds outside his own department. 'The Times' criticises his lideal of an autocratic House of Commons for seven years uninterruptedly. The •Standard' <=ays (hat Lord Morley ignored the fact that the Budget was a sheaf of measures.