LORDS AND "LIBERALS."

NZ Truth, Issue 214, 31 July 1909, Page 1

LORDS AND "LIBERALS."

The present Government of the "United Kingdom poses as a Government ol Liberalism and Light, as the doers of "the Word" m politics against publicans and sinners, and as the only genuine , true blue patriots. In the carrying out of their ' "mission" as the Lord's Anointed of politics and political fuglemen of the British lower middle classes, the members of the Government have thought it well to introduce a Budget which hits hard the very classes that have been at the back of most of ' the opposition, much of it of a formidable and destructive character, against which the present ''Liberal" Adir.inistration . has had lto contend. The Asqulth Government has so framed its budget as to hit just those .who have been pulling the wires and working the oracles by means of. which so much harm has been done, politically, to the "Assassin" As'quith Administration. The "Dreadnought" agitation, for 'instance, has certainly been the. work ot •all the' classes Jihat are interested m the bringing about of war. The big contractors, fhe manufacturers "m a large way," even the big farmers, are all interested m anything that is likely to faring about artificial scarcity, and thus .to raise prices. As for the so-called aristocracy, they know that at a time of war, people are less likely to interest themselves m new schemes of Government'and. novel theories of. social adjustment. All these war-mongers are annoyed at the new Budget. ■■ • a Thie wealthy and high-placed Tories, are, .'however, not going to' allow themselves Vto be stabbed at by "Assassin" Asquith 'without fighting back, and they have the > advantage over their opponents of being dirmly entrenched m the House of Lords. Most of the members of the House ol ; * Lords are Tories, and they follow the Marquis of Lansdowne, who . was Secretary for Foreign Affairs from 1900 to 1905. Made bold by the fact of this sol- ( id majority of Tories "being at his back, the Marquis of Landsdowne says thai; the House of Lords is unlikely to proclaim that it has no responsibility with regard to the Finance Bill, or that it is obliged to swallow a Finance Bill "whole." This statement means a great deal more than at first sight appears, it evidently raises the whole question of the right of the ..Lords to amend moneyrbills. Hitherto,' it has been regarded as an established and fundamental principle of English Constitutionalism that, while the House of ' Lords has the power to reject a money-bill, it has not the power to subject it to any alteration. Now, however, we have Lord Landsdowne declaring that the House of Lords will not swallow the Budget "whole," which can only mean that the Lords will insist upon altering tile Bill. * • • Probably, the Lords will reject the Budget, after having made it clear to what parts of it they object. Winston Churchill says that the Government will not stand any "mincing," and that if the Lords make the slightest alteration m the Finance Bill, Parliament will be dissolved. So that here Is the beginning of a pretty conflict between the Commons and the Lords, and upon a constitutional principle of great importance. Should Parliament be dissolved and the Government get back with a sufficient majority, then the House of Lords would either have to pass the finance Bill m its present form or else rup the risk of being "swamped." By swamping is meant the nomination of a sufficient number of Peers to secure the passing of a Bill whose passage is desired by a Government. It is an exercise of the Royal Prerogative that is, however, not favored by Kings. William IV. was urged by the Government to nominate sufficient Peers to secure the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832. He, for some time, refused. At last, however, he was convinced that the only way to prevent revolution was' to pass the BUI by ["swamping" of the House" of Lords. He v was about, with considerable reluctance, I to sign the authority for the "swampj in:;" of the Peers, when he decided to let it be quietly known what he was about to <10. This knowledge, discreetly conveyed to the Peers, had the effect of ■ causing a suificiently large number of .tliem to veer right round m support of the Reform Bill, and, this being seen by •'toe' King, the "swamping" did not take ' place. . . • • The historical incident that we have mentioned is the nearest approach to a ' precedent for what the Asquith Govern-

ment would do m fighting ,the House of Lords. When the younger Pitt was Prime Minister of England, he succeeded m inducing the half-mad King to create a great number of new Peerages, but this was not for the purpose of passing any particular Bill : it was to strengthen Pitt, generally, m the/ House of Lords. During the times of the first -two Georges, there had been a succession of Whig Ministries m power, and their nominations had given them a Whig majority m the House of Lords. Pitt, who was a Tory, found himself considerably hampered and embarassed by the Whig complexion of the Lords ; and, therefore, he altered it by the lavish creation of new Peerages. If the British Government of Nonconformist Consciencers think that they are going to get over their difficulties with the House of Lords by the "swamping" expedient, they are likely to, find themselves egregiously m error. The people are not at their back' as the English masses were at the back of the Grey Government, when it sought to pass -the Reform Bill of 1832. >. The English middle classes then had all sections of the people, except the Lords, "by' the wool." They had persuaded the English working classes that the passing of the Reform Bill meant their own enfranchisement, and they deliberately encouraged the laboring classes to do things that suggested insurrection and revolusion. When the middle classes, had succeeded m getting their own turn served, they promptly "turned dog" on the workers, who have not yet been fully enfranchised. Moreover, the triumphant middle class Parliament elected under the Relorm Bill passed 'a new Poor Law that was far worse m its treatment of the poor than the old Poor Law that had been handed down from the days of Queen Elizabeth, and that was', m many respects, farmore humane than the/Poor Law passed by the "Liberal" politicians who succeeded to power under the Reform Bill.

It is not likely that the people will, be fooled, again, as they were m , 1832 by the sections of the community m whose name the present British "Liberal" Government speaks. The Budget is simply a Puritan Budget, and the working classes of England are less inclined to Puritanism than are the working classes of Australasia. The Government of Britain does not propose to remove the duties on tea and sugar, which are particularly felt by the working people of Britain ; there is no proposal to allocate money for the feeding of the school children y there Is no proposal to reduce to sixty the age-limit for the payment of pensions to <theagedfc nor is there any proposal for the spending of additional money m the pulling down of slums and the re-housing of the poor. There is no . increase m the diathduties proposed ; and the minimum for purposes of income-taxation, which is £2000, is far too low. What the working people of England notice with indignant attention is that the Budget will so treat liquor-sellers that a condition ol things will be brought about whereby the law will "rob a poor man of his "beer," as far as many of the poor men are concerned. This will not win votes for the Liberals m purely industrial constitutencies. It is much more liKely to maKe enemies for them. Unless there is returned to the House of Commons an increased number of robust Labor members of the Keir Hardie and Victor Grayson type, the House of Lords will be easily able to fight the House of Commons, with the result that there may be formed a Whig-Tory Coalition from which such men as Lloyd, George and Winston Churchill will be carefully excluded. There will never be truly democratic Government m England until there is manhood suffrage m that country, with that manhood suffrage based upon universal military training.

What possesses some men to listen to the advances of some of the old crones of the prossy class who pervade the byways of this festive city passes the comprehension of "Truth." Probably J. J. North would put it down to the cursed "derrink." One of the ancients, Kate Donovan, whose face will never be her fortune, made her bow to Beak Rsddell on Tuesday morning. • She pleaded guilty to being a common prossy and importuning m a public place, Victoriastreet, for the purposes of prostitution. It was stated that Kate had not honored the Halls of Justice with her presence since January 7, so the Beak gave her another chance, and warning her to be more careful m future fined her £2, m default 14 days.

Concerning a Coming Class Conflict.