THE BUDGET REJECTED.

Colonist, Volume LII, Issue 12711, 2 December 1909, Page 2

THE BUDGET REJECTED.

LORD LAnSDOVvNE'S AMENDMENT CARRIED. A STIRRING DEBATE. [Pkess Association — CoPTßicriT.] (Received Dec 1, 11-35 p.m.) j London, Dae l.f The Budget debate attracted . another brilliant and crowded gathering. The Archbishop of York, in an eloquent maiden speech, strongly opposed tho amendment. He quoted Mill to prove that r.o taxing was involved. It was a far cry from taxation, of land values to that socialism' denounced by Lord Rosebery. The mass of the workers of Britain, ill matters wherein they had special knowledge and experience, such as relating to the property ol' building ar,,d friendly societies, might be trusted to take an independent line as against the, socialists' large promises and sounding phrases. It was in extremes of hardship and hopelessness that extreme socialism was found. He. warned the House of the consequences of disregarding the great constitutional principle enunciated by Lord James of Hereford, and deprecated adding to the heated controversy observable in tlie country, as calculated to onda tiger the House' of Lords' rightful position. Dwelling on the recklessness shown by i some in luuh positions, he remarked that the tendency was to lie conciliatory to the House of Commons. Mr Lloyd' George's . inflammatory Limehouse speech was largely attributable to the tendency of the Celtic temperament. He added that the people know what to think of those l mining in tho midst of inflammable materials with crackers md squibs. If :\ serious conflict followed the present vote, the whole respcnsibif.itv could not justly be placed upon the House, of Lords. Ivord Curzon, reraarkiu^ that the Budget was recommended in sonic quarters as an instsjunent of social reform warmly repudiated the insinuation that anxiety for social reform was •Miv less keen on the Opposition than the Government side. The Budget would increase poverty, unemployme it •Mid distress. Paradoxical! as it sornikcl they could best ascertain and weVh the fallacies of the Budget by reading Lord Cromer's and Lord Ij-ii-four of Burlejgh's .speeches, as rer.ddy ; is the Premier might have acceinea their conclusions. He repudiated tilaction they recommended as inconsistent with the duty and honour ot the House. Lord Curzon oinphasnucl that if tlie Budget passed the country would not escape the great couitilitional controversy which Lord (-r.m.or feared as likely to interfere with national defence." Lord Rosebcry's Glasgow speech delivered at the Budget a smashing blow, yet Lord RoseV:\y s conclusions oil the 24th were ame m a impotent. . Lord Cawdor made a powerful declaration in favour of the amendment, and was listened to with the closest attention. He said that if the Lords passed the Bill thrt.v would destroy for ever the power and authority ol the House as a second chamber. Whether or not it was dangerous, only one course was open to them at this critical national juncture, 'the ami ot the second chamber was to. guard the people against wi'd and rash legislation. Their Lordships would stultity themselves if they showed any hesitation, but being satisfied as to thenduty p.s a second chamber, and as the guardians of the rights of the people, to refuse to pass this socialistic Budget, they could very well lot -the consequences take care of themselves. Hie policy of the Government was to establish the House of Commons ab.yilutoly independent of the chock or the second chamber upon its legislation. Lord Cnwdor continued that that war, not a very attractive proposal to a freoctom loving people Lord Civwe, replying to criticism, declared that the Government was prepared at the proper moment to respond to the challenge to defend +he national defence policy. Discussing ilie "Vaduatod and other taxes ,he admitted that there had been a serious taint in securities and capital leaving . tincountry. , Lord Revclstokc's speech emphasised this. Lord Crewo next admitted that capital was a timid thing, and proceeded to argue that not the Budget but what tiic Oppositun h.-d said about the Budget had hoi pod the scare. The (jovexnrociit I"'-' » ■•'"•"■' discussed lands nationalisation, ■ '"<■ the notion that the land would <mt be <>,wii«l by the nation was as rns.io and fantastic as anything in 1 1. Wells' novels. . Lord Crewe continued: What would the colonies think of their Lordships' impending action. Australians would wonder what would happen ll the Commonwealth finances won' hair.led over to the squatters of the older states. Their Lordships were making ?. most tragic blunder. "If the country condones and approves your decision," he said, "our folow subjects abroad will n.s!v it' the citizens ol U;e motherland aro nltngcther fitted io exercise responsible government. it is not a reformed House which is ie jetting the Budget. Whether we sit here or opposite as the result ol ' .;O vote we must set ourselves to ob'.nin guarantees fenced about and gua.axl by-statute preventing that indisc.i'ii.na'tc destruction of our legislnti m (.1 which your work to-night provides the climax and crown. Lord Laiisdowne's amendment «as agreed to by 350 to 75.