THE HOUSE OF LORDS

Otago Witness, Issue 2913, 12 January 1910, Page 15

THE HOUSE OF LORDS

A HISTORIC DEBATE

(Feoh Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, November 26

This has been a week of glorious events, of whoops and wailing and gnashing of teeth. English politics to-day are comprised in the one definition of the House of Lords, and the whole joy and sadness of the week has centred in that Chamber. Nobody questioned any longer what the Lords would do in the long run, but it was one continuous paroxysm of delight to observe the manner of their doing it. There are so many peers who are unknown quantities. There are so many who are actually unknown personalities in the precincts of Westminster. Reading the paper in the morning since the debate began has been something like dipping into a lucky bag. There was the same delightful uncertainty as to which colour would turn up. The opening of the historic debate on Monday was historically interesting. The Earl of Crewe simply rose and formally moved the second reading of the Finance Bill. H© made no speech; no remark even. The Lord Chancellor put the question, and Lord Lansdowne forthwith led the attack'.. His lordship was suffering from a cold, and an effective speech was somewhat marred thereby. But it was not what Lord Lansdowne had to say that aroused the greatest interest. All knew his viewpoint. It was the lords unheralded and unsung who followed on after the first few speakers. The cheering which had frequently punctuated the speech of the Leader of the Opposition reach"/-' its climax when the noble lord declared :

"We have considered the consequences of rejecting this Budget, and we are prepared to face them " In the first day's debate the chief significance attached to the attitude taken by the bench of bishops. During the last year or two the bishops have voted against the Liberal party on several important social measures, and it was rather interesting to see how they would act. The first to speak was the Bishop of Bristol, and he strongly advised the House to vote for the amendment. He was followed an hour later by the Bishop of Birmingham, Dr Gore, who declareed himself a strong supporter of the Budget;, the proposals of which he defended against the charge of Socialism. The adjournment of the debate, on the motion of Lord Crewe, gave rise to the keenest interest in the proceedings of Tuesday. When the time came the great Egyptian administrator disappointed both parties. Speaking in a very low tone &'id very slowly, Lord Cromer gave cold comfort to both parties. To the Tories

gave the greatest offence by his announcement that he would not vote against the Budget. But he explained his action with such solemnity and sincerity that quite a new light was thrown over the controversy. was the first, almost the only, speaker in the whole debate so far who has looked beyond the bounds of England and seen cause for alarm in the domestic dissensions of the Motherland. lie told the Ldrds in the plainest possible terms that he deplored entirely a conflict which might encourage England's rivals to seize the opportunity to make war upon her. The lest of the day was bald. The sensation of the debate so far was created on Wednesday. The Peers who took part in it were to all intents and purposes walking the plank. There had been a good deal of backing and filling and recrimination throughout the country, but this debate was a final confession of faith. No Speaker could rise without feeling that he was morally bound to declare the ground he wished to take up. Some of the declarations were startling. Many were amusing. The sensation of the debate came when Lord Kosebery astonished the Lords and the country by announcing that he would not vote against the Budget. The Lords were paralysed. Lord Fiosebery it was who, like an oracle, had come out of his retirement to declare at Gl< fgow, in one of the most momenwim speeches of the year : , that the Lords -hnidd not shrink from their duty. He Jisf] "baraeterised the Budget as the last W'.i'd in Socialism, as dangerous in the extreme, and subversive of the-Constitu-tion and 'J all the interests of the countrev. N.Hicdy could detect any ambicruiry whatever in his speech. It was a ctrttisht-O'Jt declaration of war. and a raUvhic; -ry '■-■ the Lords. The Liberal ureas heiiev-ad him so implicitly that it bewaii-.'d I is ')r.\ defection to Conservatism, .li" Unionist papers were so convinced by !iis apparent apostasy that some <>f She m-.st influential actually in-•it-d the n'jb'e lord to come over and lef>d Choir forces in the conflict. .:■:•. thai was Lord Rosehery's only N'vjr-ci. i:'• declined absolutely to bo led deeper into the co ih'oversy. .Hit fongve was scaled until the fatefni t- ; -aie"in the House of Lo.-ds. There ho hrul cuokon foi' fiJlv h., If an hour before ho disclosed hi c - •hvrsi j d opinion "Mv Lords ! M wit!) .i th'i.'ik you nve playing i'ir '. o i>.-r ,r v ; ptafee on" this '~c<'i- : o;:. a.<:*o. ~'(■: 'i. ?kir.y .;c V2vy eiisienct Qi .j

Second Chamber. I do not pretend to be very greatly alarmed at the menaces which have been addressed to us on this and other occasions. I ask you to remember that the menaces addressed to this House in the old days were addressed by statesmen who had regard to the balance of constituticsial forces in the country. The menaces addressed to you now come from a wholly different school of opinion; from men who wish for a single Chamber and set no value whatever on the controlling and revising force of a Second Chamber. True courage in these matters wa'ghs the consequences not to the individual but to the State —('Hear, heai ')—and thinks not once, but twice or thrice, before giving a vote which may involve enormous constitutional consequences. I can quite understand someone saying, ' What is the use of a House of Lords if it cannot always vote according to its conviction V I reply that the House exercises enormous power without always voting on its conviction, and that power was never so valuable or so much wanted as now."

The effect of this declaration was perhaps greater amongst the Lords at the moment than in the country on the morrow. In the day's tally it was to some extent counterbalanced by the admirable speech of Lord Milner in favour of the amendment, and by the statement of the Archbishop of speaking for a number of the bishops, that they would hold aloof from the division. "By adhering to an independent standing," he explained, " they felt that they would increase their power of contributing usefully to the solution of some of the greatest, deepest, and most urgent questions which Parliament had to consider and decide."

Yesterday's event was the paternal speech of the Conservative Lord Balfour of Burleigh, one of the representative peers of Scotland. He, too, urged his fellows to look before they leapt. "To some extent," he said, " you have been put in a false position. You have been urged to take ths course in the public press and elsewhere by those who are not the wisest friends of this House. Noble Dords on this side are really walking into a trap, which had been set for them by those who are not their friends. You are going, my lords, to offend the deeper Conservative instincts of the country. — (' No.') That offended feeling may be reflected at the polls. I think I understand, and I honour the sentiment which inspires yon to take this action. You feel you must fulfil the expectations of ybnr fi-iends; that you will be thought traitors to them if you do not do something ; that you will be regarded as betraying them for the sake of saving—as it was put—your own skins—a more odious charge than which could not be brought against any body of men. I would like to join you if I could, but my judgment is that it is a false step alike in the interests of the country and of the House in which I have spent the whole of my political life."—(Cheers.) In the middle of a weighty and moderate speech Lord Ba.lfour created a roar of laughter by referen.ee to the Unionist Freetraders, of whom he is one. They " reminded him of the negro evangelist who announced that in life there were only two paths—one leading to death and the other to damnation. One of his audience remarked, 'ln dat case dis niggah will hab to take to de woods.'— (Laughter.) My Lords, I propose to take to the woods.".—(Renewed laughter.)