Taranaki Herald TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1009. MR. ASOUITH'S SPEECH.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LV, Issue 14015, 21 September 1909, Page 2

Taranaki Herald TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1009. MR. ASOUITH'S SPEECH.

Mr. Asquith's speech at Bingley Hall, the scene of many great political gatherings, was a lame and unconvincing reply to that of Lord Rosebery, leaving behind an impression that he was an apologist rather than a defender of hi« Ministry's policy. The important part of the speech, the cable says, was reserved till the last five minutes, when the Prime Minister challenged the Lords to reject the Budget, at the same time threatening them, if they did so, with » revolution, in which, we suppose he means to hint, the House of Lords would be swept away. It is Mr. Asquith's contention, and that of many perhaps better authorities, that the Lords cannot, without violating the constitution, meddle with a money mensure, it being tliQ sole prerogative of the House of Commons to manage the finances of the country. After all it is only a matter of opinion, for there is no written constitution defining exactly the functions of the two Houses. Precedent is the usual guide, and it would not be without precedent if the House of Lords were now to amend or reject the Budget. The late Marquis of Salisbury remarked in 1894 that the Lords had not for many years interfered by amendment with the finances of the year, adding, that they could not do so because they could not change the executive, and to reject a Finance Bill and leave the game executive in power would create a deadlock from •which there was no escape. The fact remains, however, that moneymeasures have on occasions been amended by the Lords, though it is regarded almost as an unwritten law that they shall not do so. But what does the House of Lord* exist for as a part of the legislative machine ? Like out Legislative Assembly in New Zealand it lids its duties, and one of these is to act as a revising chamber and a check upon hasty legislation. If this is not so that portion of the machine might as well be broken up and cast aside, and the fuel that second chambers not elected by the people continue to exibt, even in such a democratic ccdwj unity as New Zealand, is evidence enough that the people have no great desire to rid them*selves of this check upon the elective chamber. In the last , result, of course, the will of \ the people must prevail; hence it is the duty of the Upper House, be it *ke House of Lords or our Legislative Assembly, not to persist in its resistance to a measure which the people have directly approved. It is, however, just as f surely the duty of the Upper House to insist upon the reference to the people of any measure which in its opinion would operate to the harm of the country, aftd common sense, putting constitutional precedent and authority aside, dictates that this must hold good even with a Finance Bill. It does not matter, so far as we can see, whether it is a measure giving Home Rule to Ireland or one revolutionising the taxation methods of the country, if the House of Lords is convinced that it is calculated to injure the best interests of the country it is its duty to reject it, though to amend a money measure might perhaps be going beyond its legitimate functions. If the people at the polls support the Ministry it mu.«t be interred that they 1 support its policy, and th# t/Prdg, op flje measure being again submitted, must bow to the people* decisionWhatever precedent, dug up from the remote past, dictates as the constitutional course to be followed, that seems to be the* com-mon-sense course. The Times

says that the opposition to the Budget is provoked far less by what it takes than by the ways of taking and £ke gfrpwak*, intentions, and designs at j£j ; &&> quith's colleagues, meaning, np doubt, the advanced ideas pf Mr. Lloyd-Georg6 and Mr, Winston Churchill. Be that as it may, the situation is of absorbing in* terest, even to us in New Zealand, because it promises to lead to a closer defining of the powers and privileges of the House of Lords.