Chapter 382: , Laws of 1889, to read as follows (9)

"At the opening of King Edward’s reign Berlin was the center
of European diplomacy, as Paris had been when Bismarck entered
upon his series of machinations and triumphs. The personal
ascendency of the German Emperor was unchallenged in Europe. …
In the course of seven years conditions have been transformed.
London is now the diplomatic capital of Europe. Resentful
enemies like France have been reconciled; friendships with
America, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Spain have been
strengthened; strained relations with Russia and Germany have
been eased; and by the alliance with Japan forces have been
readjusted for the maintenance of existing order in the
Pacific. A new balance of power has been established in
Europe, and the diplomatic resources of the British Empire
have been reinvigorated and enlarged. While there have been
eminent statesmen in the British Foreign Office—Lord Lansdowne
and Sir Edward Grey—these transformations have been mainly
King Edward’s work. Fifty years hence there may be a true
sense of proportion, so that his services as an empire-builder
and a peace-maker can be judged aright."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
Invitation of an International Naval Conference preliminary
to the establishment of an International Prize Court.

See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907
(appended to account of Second Peace Conference
at The Hague).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
Municipal and County Offices opened to Women.

See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
North Sea and Baltic agreements.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
Passage of the Coal Mines Eight Hours Act.

See (in this Volume)
LABOR PROTECTION: HOURS OF LABOR.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
Rejection of the Liberal Licensing Bill by the House of Lords.

See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM: ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (March).
Communication to the Belgian Government respecting obligations
involved in its proposed annexation of the Congo State.

See (in this Volume)
CONGO STATE: A. D. 1906-1909.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (April).
Resignation and Death of Prime Minister
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.
Succession of Herbert H. Asquith.

Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was forced by ill health to
resign the premiership on the 5th of April, 1908, and his
death occurred on the 22d of the same month. He was succeeded
in the headship of the Government by Mr. Herbert H. Asquith,
previously Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose place in the
latter office was filled by Mr. David Lloyd-George. Mr.
Lloyd-George had been President of the Board of Trade, and
that office was now filled by Mr. Winston Churchill, while Mr.
Reginald McKenna became First Lord of the Admiralty.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (April).
Treaty with Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and
Sweden for maintenance of the Status Quo on the North Sea.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (April).
Treaty with the United States respecting the Demarcation of
the International Boundary between the United States and Canada.

See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1908 (APRIL).

{239}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (September).
Withdrawal of intervention in Macedonia.

See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (JULY-DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (December).
Passage of "The Children Act."

See (in this Volume)
CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS DEPENDENTS AND OFFENDERS.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (December).
The Shipbuilding Agreement between Employers and
Trade Unions to prevent strikes and lockouts.

See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1908-1909.
Attitude on the question of the Austrian annexation of
Bosnia and Herzegovina.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908-1909 (OCTOBER-MARCH).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1908-1909.
Old Age Pensions Act.
Its working.
Its disclosures of poverty.

See (in this Volume)
POVERTY, PROBLEMS OF: PENSIONS, &c.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1908-1909.
Passage of the Indian Councils Bill.
Its provisions for popular representation in the
Legislative Councils of India.

See (in this Volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1908-1909.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Chief source of Food Supplies.

See (in this Volume)
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1909.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Concentration of Wealth.

See (in this Volume)
WEALTH, THE PROBLEMS OF.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Development and Road Improvement Funds Act.

See (in this Volume)
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: GREAT BRITAIN.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Naval questions.
"Dreadnought" building.
Distrust of Germany.
The Territorial Force, etc.

See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Official reports and statements concerning Public Education.

See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Passage of the Housing and Town-planning Act.

See (in this Volume)
SOCIAL BETTERMENT: ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Principal Socialist organizations.

See (in this Volume)
SOCIALISM.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Report of Royal Commission on the working of the Poor Laws
and Relief Systems, and the existing pauperism of the
United Kingdom.

See (in this Volume)
POVERTY.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Summary of the total prospective military defensive strength
of the Empire.

See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1909.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (January).
The Waterways Treaty with the United States, concerning
waters along the Canadian boundary.

See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (February).
The Opening of Parliament.

The session of Parliament was opened by the King with due form
and ceremony on February 16. "The Royal procession from
Buckingham Palace to Westminster," says a report of the
occasion, "took place in the dim grey light of a typical
February afternoon, and the pageant lost much of its beauty in
consequence. In spite of the cold wind and the absence of the
genial sunshine which is such a valuable asset on occasions of
spectacular display, there appeared to be as many people as
ever along the route of the procession. These formal openings
of Parliament, which have become customary since the beginning
of the present reign, are clearly popular with those of the
King’s subjects who know nothing, except by hearsay, of the
impressive scenes which are to be witnessed in the House of
Lords. The immense crowds who assembled to watch the King and
Queen pass yesterday, waiting patiently for hours in order to
enjoy a few minutes’ ecstatic sight-seeing, welcomed their
Majesties with a cordiality of the meaning of which there
could be no doubt. The King and Queen, in their wonderful gold
coach, with its sides of glass, must have been gratified with
the respect and affection which were manifested from all
quarters."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (February).
Debate in Parliament on the annexation of the
Congo State by Belgium.
Recognition of the annexation dependent on reforms.

See (in this Volume)
CONGO STATE: A. D. 1906-1909.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (February).
Represented in International Opium Commission at Shanghai.

See (in this Volume)
OPIUM PROBLEM.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (March).
Representation of the People Bill.
Proposed Universal Suffrage, including women.
Its second reading.

On the 20th of March, 1909, the second reading of a bill
described as "the Representation of the People Bill" was moved
and seconded in the House of Commons. Its provisions were
substantially for universal suffrage, including women. In
explaining the measure, the member who moved the second
reading—a representative of the Labor party, Mr. Howard—said:

"It was difficult, if not almost impossible, to deal with a
reform of the franchise without at the same time dealing with
woman suffrage, and it was difficult to deal with woman
enfranchisement without at the same time making some
alteration in the existing franchise law which should meet the
condition of the new elements proposed to be placed on the
register. The House must face the situation as a whole and
handle the two reforms in one scheme, because by a
coordinated Bill there would be a better chance of getting
nearer a settlement. In the Bill that he submitted to the
House there was no abolition of any old franchise. It proposed
to create a residential franchise in order to do away with the
hardships which any one with a knowledge of registration knew
to exist in connexion with the occupation vote of men. The
second clause provided for a restriction of plural voting, and
the third clause related to the removal of the sex
disqualification."

Before debate began another member presented a monster
petition against the political enfranchisement of women, said
to contain 243,000 signatures.

The attitude of the Government toward the bill was explained
by Mr. Asquith, the Premier. It was well known, he said, that
on the issue whether women should be granted the suffrage
Ministers were not of one mind. But they were strongly in
favour of a wide reform of the existing suffrage. They desired
the abolition of plural voting, the disappearance of the
artificial distinctions between occupiers and lodgers, the
material shortening of the period of qualification, and an
effective simplification of the machinery of registration. But
any measure to bring about these reforms ought, in his
opinion, if it was to take its place on the Statute-book, to
proceed from the responsible Government of the day, and to be
carefully remoulded in the light of prolonged Parliamentary
discussion. For these reasons he thought it was not necessary
that the members of the Government should vote for the second
reading of the Bill under consideration.

After some hours of debate the closure was moved and the
second reading of the bill was carried by 157 votes against
122.

{240}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (March).
Defeat of the Progressives in the London County
Council Election.

See (in this Volume)
LONDON: A. D. 1909 (MARCH).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (March).
Cession by Siam of suzerainty over three States
in the Malay Peninsula.

See (in this Volume)
SIAM: A. D. 1909.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (March-July).
The question of " Dreadnought" building, with reference to
the accelerated expansion of the German Navy.
Debates in Parliament and excitement in the country.

See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (April).
The National Debt of the United Kingdom.

The following official statement of the national debt of the
United Kingdom was published in April, 1909:

"On the 1st April, 1908, the aggregate gross liabilities of
the State amounted to £762,326,051. On the 1st April, 1909,
the corresponding figure was £754,121,309, showing a reduction
of £8,204,742.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (April).
Announced Governmental projects of Afforestation, and other
measures for Development of Natural Resources.

See (in this Volume)
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: GREAT BRITAIN.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (April-December).
Mr. Lloyd-George’s Budget.
Its features of taxation, denounced as Socialistic.
Seven months of vehement debate.
Adopted by the Commons and rejected by the Lords.
Warnings to the Lords against their action.
Preparation for appeal to the people.

The 29th of April, 1909, when the financial proposals of the
Government for meeting the needs of the coming year, called
"the Budget," were brought before Parliament, and the 30th of
the following November, when, after seven months of arduous
and angry debate, and after their adoption by a great majority
of the Commons, the Bill embodying them was overwhelmingly
rejected by the Lords, will be memorable dates in English
history if the consequences of the action of the Peers are
what, at this writing, they seem likely to be. Even failing
those consequences, the production of the Budget will be in
itself an event of no small moment, from what it signifies of
the development of democracy in Great Britain.

As a formulated "Finance Bill," the Budget was not submitted
to the House of Commons and to the public in print until the
28th of May. It was then entitled "A Bill to grant certain
Duties of Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), to
alter other Duties, and to amend the Law relating to Customs
and Inland Revenue (including Excise), and the National Debt,
and to make other provisions for the Financial Arrangements of
the Year." Until then its provisions were known only from the
statement of them made four weeks before by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, Mr. David Lloyd-George, in a speech extended
through several hours, which even his opponents were forced to
characterize as "a wonderful effort."

The Chancellor’s explanation of the Budget rested primarily on
the fact that an anticipated deficit of £15,762,000 required
to be filled from new sources of revenue. Of the main causes
of the deficit he said: "Were I dealing with a shortage due
only to a temporary cause like forestalments, I might have
resorted to some temporary shift which would have carried me
over until next year when the revenue would resume its normal
course. But unfortunately I have to reckon not merely with an
enormous increase in expenditure this year, but an inevitable
expansion of some of the heaviest items in the course of the
coming years. What is the increase of expenditure due to? It
is very well known that it must be placed to the credit of two
items, and practically two items alone. One is the Navy, and
the other is old-age pensions. Now I have one observation
which I think I am entitled to make about both. … The
increased expenditure under both these heads was substantially
incurred with the unanimous assent of all political parties in
this House. There was, it is true, a protest entered on behalf
of honourable members below the gangway against increased
expenditure in the Navy, but as far as the overwhelming
majority of members in this House are concerned the increase
has received their sanction and approval. I am entitled to say
more. The attitude of the Government towards these two
branches of increased expenditure has not been one of rushing
a reluctant House of Commons into expense which it disliked,
but rather of resisting appeals coming from all quarters of
the House for still further increases under both heads. …

"We are told that we ought not to have touched old-age
pensions, at least not at the present moment, when heavy
liabilities were in sight in connexion with the defence of the
country. I may point out that when we introduced our Old-Age
Pensions Bill that emergency had not arisen. But, apart
altogether from that, we had no honourable alternative left.
We simply honoured a cheque drawn years ago in favour of the
aged poor, which bore at its foot the signatures of all the
leaders of political parties in this country. They had all
promised pensions at election after election, and great
political parties have no right to make promises to poor
people in return for political support, valuable to them, and
all these people had to give, and then time after time return
the bill with ‘No assets’ written across it."

Proceeding next to survey the "inevitable expansion" of future
expenditure to which he had referred at the outset, and which
could be foreseen in connection with the navy and with social
reform, the Chancellor dealt at length on the demands that
were pressing from the latter side and would not be postponed.
"What the Government have to ask themselves," he said, "is
this: Can the whole subject of further social reform be
postponed until the increasing demands made upon the National
Exchequer by the growth of armaments has ceased? Not merely
can it be postponed, but ought it to be postponed? Is there
the slightest hope that if we deferred consideration of the
matter we are likely within a generation to find any more
favourable moment for attending to it? I confess that, as to
that, I am rather pessimistic. And we have to ask ourselves
this further question—If we put off dealing with these social
sores are the evils which arise from them not likely to grow
and to fester until finally the loss which the country
sustains will be infinitely greater than anything it would
have to bear in paying the cost of an immediate remedy?
{241}
There are hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children in
this country now enduring hardships for which the sternest
judge would not hold them responsible; hardships entirely due
to circumstances over which they have not the slightest
command—the fluctuations and changes of trade, or even of
fashions, ill-health, and the premature breakdown or death of
the bread-winner. … Last year, while we were discussing the
Old-Age Pensions Bill, all parties in this House recognized
fully and freely that once we had started on these lines the
case for extension was irresistible. The leader of the
Opposition, in what I venture to regard as the most notable
speeches he has probably delivered during this Parliament,
recognized quite boldly that, whichever party was in power,
provision would have to be made in some shape or other for
those who are out of work through no fault of their own, and
those who are incapacitated for work owing to physical causes
for which they are not responsible."

The speaker then developed at length the intentions of the
Government on these lines of social reform, which will have to
include undertakings of some system like the German, of
compulsory insurance against sickness, accident and
unemployment, and which will have to look to the organization
of labor exchanges and to the opening of wider fields for
employment, by development of neglected resources of the
country, through afforestation, through promotion of
agriculture, and the extension and improvement of roads.

And now, at last, he began to unfold his plans for raising the
means with which to deal with all these augmented demands on
the Government, and started them with a schedule of increased
taxes on automobiles. Further details of his scheme are
summarized in the following, from _The Times_ "Review of
Parliament," next morning:

"The right honourable gentleman was listened to with intense
attention when he proceeded to announce an increase of the
income-tax and of the estate duty. He proposed that for earned
incomes under £2,000 the tax should remain at 9d. but that
between £2,000 and £3,000 it should be 1s., and that all other
incomes now liable to the shilling tax should pay 1s. 2d.
Holding that the family man was entitled to more relief than
the bachelor, he proposed that on all incomes under £500, in
addition to existing abatements, a special abatement should be
allowed of £10 for every child under 16 years of age. He hoped
to get £160,000 by the partial restoration of the shilling
duty and £3,000,000 from the additional 2d. on the higher
incomes. There was also to be a super-tax on incomes exceeding
£5,000, to be levied on the amount by which such incomes
exceeded £3,000. The tax would be at the rate of 6d. in the
pound. Exclamations denoting great disapproval arose from the
Unionist benches when this was announced. The yield from this
super-tax, Mr. Lloyd-George explained, would be in a full year
£2,300,000; but this year not more than £500,000. He next came
to the Death duties. There would be no change in the case of
estates up to £5,000, but between this limit and the limit of
two millions graduation would be steepened. The duty on
estates between £5,000 and £10,000 would be 4 per cent.;
"between £10,000 and £20,000, 5 per cent.; £20,000 to £40,000,
6 per cent.; £40,000 to £70,000, 7 per cent.; £70,000 to
£100,000, 8 per cent.; £100,000 to £150,000, 9 per cent.;
£150,000 to £200,000, 10 per cent.; £200,000 to £400,000, 11
per cent.; £400,000 to £600,000, 12 per cent.; £600,000 to
£800,000, 13 per cent.; £800,000 to £1,000,000, 14 per cent.,
and above £1,000,000, 15 per cent. This new scale was
estimated to yield £2,550,000 this year, £4,200,000 next year,
and afterwards £4,400,000. The settled Estate duty he raised
from 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. From this source he hoped to
get £50,000 this year and £375,000 in 1910-1911. The Legacy
and Succession duty was to be raised in some cases from 3 per
cent. to 5 per cent., and in all others to 10 per cent. The
yield from this next year would be £1,300,000, and would
increase in the course of time to £2,150,000. Property
alienated _inter vivos_ within five years from death was
to be liable to duty. Objects of national and scientific
interest would only be chargeable for duty when they were
actually sold. There were to be increased duties in bonds to
bearer and in stock and share transfers. The estimated yield
from the increased Stamp Duties would be this year £650,000.

"It was at this point in his speech that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer required rest and that the sitting was suspended.
When in half-an-hour’s time it was resumed, the right
honourable gentleman continued his speech with renewed vigour.
He dealt at considerable length with the subject of licenses,
dwelling on the value of the monopoly granted to the liquor
trade and arguing that the toll exacted by the public was
ludicrously inadequate. He explained in detail a number of
changes which he proposed to effect, the chief being a uniform
charge of 50 per cent., subject to a _minimum_ rate in
urban areas according to population. For clubs there would be
a poundage rate of 3d. on the amount taken for the sale of
liquor. The yield from his revision of the liquor licensing
law would be £2,600,000.

"Then he turned to land, drawing a marked distinction between
the agricultural landowner and the urban landowner, of whom he
spoke with some scorn. He proposed to levy a tax on the value
accruing to land in the future through the enterprise of the
community, taking the land apart from buildings and other
improvements. This duty of 20 per cent. on unearned increment
would be payable on two occasions—when land was sold and when
land passed at death. A preliminary valuation of the land at
the price which it might be expected to fetch at the present
time would be necessary; and as the tax was to be imposed only
on the unearned increment subsequently accruing on that
valuation, the yield would probably be only £50,000 in 1909,
but in future years it should prove a fruitful source of
revenue. It was further proposed to levy an annual duty of one
halfpenny in the pound on the capital value of undeveloped
land and undeveloped minerals. Until the proposed valuation of
the land of the United Kingdom on a capital basis was
completed, it would be impossible to estimate the yield of
this duty, but till then the duty would be calculated on the
declarations of the owners, and in the current year he
expected it to bring in £350,000. A 10 per cent. reversion
duty was to be imposed on any benefit accruing to a lessor on
the termination of a lease, and from this source a yield of
£100,000 was anticipated. The three land taxes were,
accordingly, calculated to produce £500,000 in the current
year.

{242}

"He next dealt with indirect taxation. He proposed to raise
the present duty on spirits by 3s. 9d. per gallon. This would
justify an increase in the retail price of whisky of one
half-penny per glass, which would recoup the publican for the
additional duty and leave him something more to mitigate the
pressure of the new duties on licenses. The yield, during the
current year, he estimated at £1,600,000. He also proposed to
increase the duty on unmanufactured tobacco from 3s. to 3s.
8d. per lb., with equivalent additions to the rates for
cigars, cigarettes, and manufactured tobacco, the return from
which he estimated at £1,900,000 during the current year and
£2,250,000 for a full year.

"The total estimated revenue was £162,590,000 and the total
estimated expenditure £162,102,000, leaving a margin of
£488,000 for contingencies. In conclusion, the right
honourable gentleman—anticipating the charge that he was
imposing very heavy taxation for a time of peace—declared it
was a war Budget. The Government had declared implacable war
against poverty. It was 8 o’clock when the right honourable
gentleman finished, amid the cheers of his supporters."

That Mr. Lloyd-George’s Budget was a gage of battle and that
the fight over it was fierce is known to everybody, for the
din of the conflict penetrated to every corner of every land.
The key-note of the outcry against it was sounded in _The
Times_ of next morning, which opened its editorial comment
with these words:

"One general impression will be very widely made by the
complicated and portentous Budget which Mr. Lloyd-George
expounded at enormous length yesterday. That is that the huge
deficit of nearly sixteen millions is to be raised almost
exclusively at the cost of the wealthy and the fairly
well-to-do. They are struck at in all sorts of ways, through
the income-tax, the legacy duties, the estate duties, the
stamps upon their investments, their land, their royalties,
their brewery dividends, and their motor-cars. So when Mr.
Lloyd-George exclaims rather theatrically—‘Mr. Emmott, this
is a war Budget,’ his words carry a meaning which he did not
intend. He talks of waging war against poverty, but that is
never really waged by unjust exactions from those whose custom
prevents a worse poverty than any we know; and whose brains
and capital count for at least as much as thews and sinews.
Unless men exempt from income-tax either smoke or drink, they
do not pay a single penny towards making up a deficit mainly
due to a pension scheme of which they reap the whole benefit.
The doctrine of social ransom has never been carried quite so
far."

So it was branded by its opponents as a "Socialist Budget" and
its authors as allies of Socialism, throughout the campaign.
This denunciation was applied especially to the tax on
unearned increments of value in land, as such increments
should occur hereafter. On that point of opposition to the
Budget Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister of the Government,
speaking at a public meeting in London, had this to say: "The
increment duty is a tax of 20 per cent. on the increase in the
capital value of certain kinds of land which is shown on the
occasion of its transfer or devolution, and which is not
attributable to the efforts or to the expenditure either of
the owner or the occupier. That is what the increment duty is.
Now what is it not? I spoke a few moments ago of certain
classes of land. Let me ask you to observe, first, what are
the kinds of landed property which are altogether exempted
from the scope of this taxation. In the first place, all
agricultural land which has no building value above its
agricultural value; next, small properties occupied by their
owners; thirdly, property belonging to local authorities;
again, property held for public or charitable purposes; and,
finally, property belonging to statutory companies, such as
railways, which cannot be used for other than statutory
purposes. …

"Now, suppose the case of land which does not fall within any
of those exempted categories, how is the duty charged? Here,
again, there is a great deal of misapprehension about it, so
it is better to state the case as clearly as one can. You
start with the site value of the land at the present moment,
and by site value—I am not going into technicalities—we mean,
roughly speaking, the value of the land divested of the
buildings. You do not go back into the past, you take things
as they are; you do not rip up the previous history; you do
not interfere with existing or past contracts. You give to
every man, however he has acquired it, the full and
undisturbed enjoyment of the rights, privileges, and property
which he at present possesses. Starting with that datum line,
you will see that in years to come, when that piece of land is
transferred by sale—it may be by lease—or devolves upon death,
the site value (you are comparing like with like, mind you) at
that date—that is to say, the value after giving the owner and
every one who has been interested in the land credit for all
expenditure they have made in the way of improvement and
development in the interval—comparing site with site, if you
find an increment in value there, you say that it is an
increment due to the community, to social causes, to causes
over which the owner was no more responsible than you or I,
and that it is not unfair in point of justice, and that it is
in the highest degree expedient in point of policy that the
State should be entitled to claim for itself in relief of the
necessities of the same community some part—not any
exaggerated or exorbitant part—but some part, of the increment
which has so accrued. I may point out that there is no duty
chargeable at all. So tender has my friend Mr. Lloyd-George
(laughter and cheers) been to the interests concerned—he is a
man of a most sympathetic nature—sometimes I am disposed to
think he is of almost too impressionable a nature when appeals
of this kind are addressed to him—so tender has he been of all
these interests that he has agreed that no duty should be
chargeable unless the increment value amounts to at least 10
per cent., and where it is over, the first 10 per cent. should
escape free. That is the increment duty which Lord Rothschild
tells you—I think I am not misquoting him—is rank and
undiluted Socialism, and which Lord Lansdowne says is going to
shake the very foundations of civilized society. …

{243}

"The propriety and justice of taxing this kind of increment,
in the case of these classes of land, rests upon the most
solid ground both of authority and experience. It has been
advocated for generations by the most eminent economists. It
has been recommended in one shape or another by more than one
Royal Commission. It was approved in principle more than once
even by the late non-progressive House of Commons. It has been
put in practice in various forms for local purposes in not a
few Continental municipalities and in many of our own
Colonies, and, I believe, always with successful results. And
let me add, by way of climax to that catena of authority, that
it is at this moment, or at any rate was a few weeks ago, the
alternative proposal put forward by the Conservative party in
the Reichstag in Germany—an increment duty, not for local but
for Imperial purposes, was the alternative proposal to the
Budget of Prince Bülow put forward by the Conservative party
in the Reichstag in Germany, and this is rank Socialism!"

Next to the proposed land taxes, the most bitterly opposed
feature of the Budget was the increased revenue to be exacted
from the licensed monopolists of the liquor trade. Everything,
however, in its new taxation was denounced by the
Conservatives, who set against it their own project of
obtaining increased revenues by returning to the protective
tariff which England had abandoned three-quarters of a century
ago. The cry for what they preferred to call "tariff reform"
had been silenced since the election of 1906, when the
electors of the Kingdom rejected Mr. Chamberlain's revived
protectionism by an overwhelming vote. Now it was raised
again, and fully made the prime article in the Conservative
creed, as it had not been before.

It was not until the 4th of November that the Finance Bill was
brought to its third reading in the House of Commons, and was
passed, by the heavy majority of 379 to 149. From the
beginning it was known, of course, that the measure had few
friends in the House of Lords, and would go down in defeat
there if the Peers ventured to assume the right to negative a
money Bill. For many generations they had not disputed the
claim of the Commons to exclusive control of revenue
legislation; but a theory had now been mooted, that Mr.
Lloyd-George’s Budget Bill differed from a mere money Bill by
carrying Socialistic implications tacked on to it, which the
House of Lords was under no obligation to accept. Whether the
Lords would or would not be bold enough to act on this theory
and throw down the Bill, as they had thrown down so much of
the non-financial legislation of the Liberal Government, had
been a serious question throughout the debates. Sir Edward
Grey said of it, in a speech at Leeds, in August:

"As to the fate of the Budget—Is it going to be destroyed by
the House of Lords or is it not? The leaders of the Tory
party—with whom the decision rests—are very cautious in
expressing their opinions. Some of the rank and file have said
the House of Lords is going to destroy the Budget, or have
spoken as if it were so. But the leaders—Mr. Balfour, Lord
Lansdowne, and so forth—have been very cautious. They are
great partisans in this matter of the open door, or, perhaps I
should say, of two open doors. They have studiously kept two
doors open, and as far as Lord Lansdowne’s utterances go, he
has kept the door open for passing the Budget in the House of
Lords or rejecting it. He says the House of Lords is bound to
decide so that the people should be properly consulted, and
that that is the function of the House of Lords, to protect
the right of the people to have their say on the subject. A
very nice function if only it was performed impartially; but
when it is a function which has been in abeyance for the
greater part of the last 20 years, and is only to be erected
into operation when a Liberal Government comes into office, it
is not a function for which we can have much respect. But,
nevertheless, it is so in our Constitution at present that the
House of Lords is a weapon—a great gun, if you like to call it
so—which can be pointed only against Liberal measures—not
against Conservative measures—and which is in the hands of the
Conservative party. Now there is the Budget going presently to
the House of Lords; there is the gun pointing when it arrives
there; there is the Conservative finger on the trigger. Are
they going to fire the gun or not? They do not know themselves
yet. They are debating in their own minds what will happen if
they fire the gun. Will they destroy the Budget, or will the
recoil be more injurious to themselves? Or, perhaps, will the
gun burst altogether if they let it off? We know what their
wishes and inclinations are; what we do not know at the
present time is how much nerve they have got. But of this I am
convinced—whatever the House of Lords may do, when the time
comes for an appeal to the country, it will be an appeal on
this Budget as a Free Trade Budget, and against the
alternative of tariff reform.

Others among the prominent Liberals spoke with more temper of
the threatened action of the Lords. Mr. Winston Churchill, for
example, at Leicester, in September, said: "The rejection of
the Budget by the House of Lords … would be a violent rupture
of constitutional custom and usage extending over 300 years
and recognized during all that time by the leaders of every
party in the State. It would involve a sharp and sensible
breach with the traditions of the past; and what does the
House of Lords depend upon if not upon the traditions of the
past? It would amount to an attempt at revolution not by the
poor, but by the rich; not by the masses, but by the
privileged few; not in the name of progress, but in that of
reaction; not for the purpose of broadening the framework of
the State, but greatly narrowing it. Such an attempt,
gentlemen, whatever you may think of it, such an attempt would
be historic in its character, and the result of the battle
fought upon it, whoever wins, must inevitably be not of an
annual, but of a permanent and final character. The result of
such an election must mean an alteration of the veto of the
House of Lords; if they win they will have asserted their
right, not merely to reject legislation of the House of
Commons, but to control the finances of the country, and if
they lose we will smash to pieces their veto. I say to you
that we do not seek the struggle, we have our work to do; but
if it is to come, it could never come better than now."

Very soon after the Bill had been passed over to the House of
Lords it was known that the Conservative leaders had consented
to its death in that body. What may be called the death
sentence was pronounced on the 22d of November, when Lord
Lansdowne moved the following amendment to a motion for the
second reading of the Bill: "That this House is not justified
in giving its consent to this Bill until it has been submitted
to the judgment of the country."

{244}

Speaking to the motion with great seriousness he said: "I have
been in this House more than 40 years, I owe everything to its
indulgence, and I say from the depth of my heart that it is my
desire to do nothing unworthy of your high reputation or your
great place in the Constitution of this country. But I believe
that the worst and most damaging thing that you could do would
be that you should fail those who look to you as the guardians
of their greatest constitutional right, the right to be
consulted when fundamental political changes are demanded by
the Government of the day; and, my lords, depend upon it that
by rejecting this Bill you will, on the one hand, insist that
that right shall be respected; you will not usurp the function
of granting aid and supplies to the Crown; you will not
pronounce a final verdict upon this Bill, bad though you may
believe it to be; but you will say that it is a Bill to which
you have no right to give your indispensable consent until you
are assured by the people of the country that they desire it
to pass into law."

In the week of debate which followed many speeches of notable
force and impressiveness were made on both sides; but,
unquestionably, the weightiest, in reasoning and feeling, were
those which came from opponents of the Budget who would not
join their associates in the step proposed, but warned them of
dangers involved, to the existence of their House and to the
future of parliamentary government, from constitutional
changes which no man could forecalculate. On the latter point,
Lord Rosebery begged his fellows of the peerage to "remember
this: The menaces which were addressed to this House in old
days were addressed by statesmen of a different school and
under a different balance of constitutional forces in this
country. The menaces addressed to you now come from a wholly
different school of opinion, who wish for a single Chamber and
who set no value on the controlling and revising forces of a
second Chamber—a school of opinion which, if you like it and
do not dread the word, is eminently revolutionary in essence,
if not in fact. I ask you to bear in mind that fact when you
weigh the consequences of the vote which you are to give
to-morrow night. ‘Hang the consequences,’ said my noble friend
Lord Camperdown last night. That is a noble sentiment and a
noble utterance. It is a kind of Balaklava charge, and nothing
more intrepid could be said by any of us if we had not to
weigh the consequences, not to the individual, but to the
State; and you should think once, you should think twice, and
thrice, before you give a vote which may involve such enormous
constitutional consequences."

Lord Balfour, while condemning the Bill, condemned still more
the proposition that the House of Lords would do its duty in
compelling a referendum to the people on the measure. A
question in finance, he said, differs from all others in its
unfitness for this treatment in Great Britain. "If you are to
establish a system whereby this House or any other authority
had the right of establishing a referendum as it is called—a
reference to the people in matters of finance—you would spoil
and destroy the control of the other House of Parliament over
the Government, and you would make, I venture to say, perhaps
the most momentous change in the Constitution, as it has grown
up, which has been made in the whole history of that
Constitution. Take it how you like, if you pass this
resolution, if you make it a precedent—I care not with what
safeguards you accompany it, whether you say it is only to be
done on extreme occasions or by any other safeguard—you have
made a change in the practice and in the Constitution which
will prevent things going on as they have gone on up to the
present time. My lords, if you win, the victory can at most be
a temporary one. If you lose you have altered and prejudiced
the position, the power, the prestige, the usefulness of this
House, which I believe every one of you honours and desires to
serve as heartily and as thoroughly as I do myself. If you win
you are but beginning a conflict."

Lord James, one of the ablest of the Law Lords, and Lord
Cromer, were other opponents of the Budget who earnestly
counselled the Upper House not to interfere with the action of
the Commons on this measure of finance. From the side of the
few Liberals among the peers came other weighty words of
admonition, spoken especially by the calm and thoughtful Lord
Morley and by the Lord Chancellor, the presiding officer of
their House. "No one," said the latter, "will be so simple as
to believe that the only question which the country will
consider will be the question whether this Bill ought to pass
into law. Other and graver questions will be raised. We have
been in office for four years. In 1906 our whole time in the
House of Commons was taken up by passing an Education Bill. It
came to this House. It was wrecked, and the whole labour of
that Session was thrown away. The following year, 1907, was
not a year of very great enterprise of a legislative
character. In 1908 the whole time of the House of Commons was
spent in passing the Licensing Bill, a measure the loss of
which I regret more than I regret the loss of any other. It
came up to this House. It was not alive when it came here. It
had perished by the stiletto in Berkeley-square before it ever
saw this House. Now, again in 1909, after a Session of
unexampled labour, the House of Commons has presented to your
lordships the proof of many, many months of arduous work in a
domain entirely their own; and this House is going to destroy
the Finance Bill of 1909 and to refuse supplies. It is, in my
opinion, impossible that any Liberal Government should ever
again bear the heavy burden of office unless it is secured
against a repetition of treatment such as our measures have
had to undergo for the last four years. If we fail in the
coming general election, assuming that his Majesty is pleased
to dissolve Parliament, it will only be the beginning of a
conflict which can end only in one way. If we succeed, I hope
we shall not flinch from that which will have to follow."

The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Spiritual Lords generally
refrained from taking sides on what they regarded as a
political question; but the Archbishop of York construed his
duty differently, and added his voice to the remonstrance
against Lord Landsdowne’s motion. Close upon midnight,
November 30, the House divided on that motion and it was
carried, rejecting the Finance Bill, by a vote of 350 to 75.
So big a vote—such a swarming of titled legislators to record
it—had not been known within the memory of living men.

{245}

Three days later, on the 3d of December, the Premier, Mr.
Asquith, rose in the House of Commons and moved the adoption
of the following declaration:

"That the action of the House of Lords in refusing to pass
into law the financial provision made by this House for the
service of the year is a breach of the Constitution and a
usurpation of the rights of the Commons."

Speaking to this motion, he said, in part:

"When, a short time ago, the Finance Bill received its third
reading, as it left this House it represented, I believe, in a
greater degree than can be said of any measure of our time,
the mature, the well-sifted, the deliberate work of an
overwhelming majority of the representatives of the people
upon a matter which, by the custom of generations and by the
course of a practically unbroken authority, is the province of
this House, and of this House alone. In the course of a week,
or a little more than a week, the whole of this fabric has
been thrown to the ground. For the first time in English
history the grant of the whole of the Ways and Means for the
Supply and the Services of the year, the grant made at the
request of the Crown to the Crown by the Commons, has been
intercepted and nullified by a body which admittedly has not
the power to increase or to diminish one single tax or to
propose any substitute or alternative for any one of the
taxes. The House of Commons would, in the judgment of his
Majesty’s Government, be unworthy of its past and of the
traditions of which it is the custodian and the trustee if it
allowed another day to pass without making it clear that it
does not mean to brook the greatest indignity, and, I will
add, the most arrogant usurpation (loud cheers), to which for
more than two centuries it has been asked to submit."

After a short debate, the House divided on the motion, and it
was adopted by 349 against 134.

On the afternoon of the same day the King prorogued Parliament
to the 15th of January, 1910, this being preparatory to the
dissolution and appeal to the people which the action of the
Lords had made necessary.

See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1910 (January-March).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (May).
A Majority Vote in the Commons for removing Disabilities
from Roman Catholics.

A bill for the removal of remaining disabilities from Roman
Catholics passed its second reading in the House of Commons on
the 14th of May, by a vote of 133 to 123. Not being a
Government measure, the crowded programme of business for the
session gave no hope that it could be carried into law; but
the vote was an encouragement.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (May).
Resolution of the House of Commons in favor of the Payment
of Members and the public payment of election expenses.

The following resolution was introduced in the House of
Commons on the 12th of May, 1909, by Mr. Higham, of York:

"That in the opinion of this House the non-payment of members
and the liability of candidates for the returning officers’
expenses render it impossible for many constituencies to
exercise a free choice in their selection of candidates and
election of members of Parliament; and this House is of
opinion that any measure of general electoral reform passed
before the dissolution of this Parliament, and coming into
force upon or after the dissolution, should be accompanied by
arrangements for the payment of members elected to serve in
Parliament and for the transfer to the Imperial Exchequer of
the financial responsibility for the returning officers’
expenses incurred in the conduct of such elections."

Mr. Harcourt, for the Government, accepted the motion at once.
He pointed out that the expenditure entailed, if members were
paid £300 a year, would be £200,000 annually; but this was not
a valid argument against the change. For his part, he could
not see why politics should be the only profession "run by
amateurs." He was, therefore, not frightened by the prospect
of an Assembly of professional politicians. The time had gone
by when the country could select its legislators solely from
the leisured class; public servants deserved to be paid.

Most of the speakers in a debate of three hours favored the
resolution, and it was then adopted, by 242 votes against 92.
No legislation in accordance with it has yet been undertaken.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (May).
Reorganization of Passive Resistance to the Education Act
of 1902.

See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: ENGLAND; A. D. 1909 (MAY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (May-October).
Consumption of whiskey diminished by increase of tax.

See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM: ENGLAND.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (June).
The Imperial Press Conference.

See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1909 (JUNE).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (July).
Assassination of Sir W. Curzon-Wyllie by an Indian Anarchist.

See (in this Volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1909 (JULY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (July-August).
Imperial Defence Conference.
Its conclusions and agreements.

See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY AND NAVAL.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (July-December).
Decision against the right of Trade Unions to pay Salaries
to Members of Parliament.

On the 23d of July, 1909, an appeal from an order of the Court
of Appeal was argued before five legal members of the House of
Lords, on the question whether the payment of members of
Parliament chosen to represent the interests of a trade union
was a lawful application of the funds of such union. The
complainant in the case had sued the Amalgamated Society of
Railway Servants, of which he had been a member since 1892, to
have it declared that one of the rules of the society, which
provides, amongst other things, for Parliamentary
representation and the enforced levy of contributions from the
plaintiff and other members of the society, towards the
payment of salaries, or maintenance allowance, to members of
Parliament pledged to observe and fulfil the conditions
imposed by the constitution of the Labour Party therein
referred to, is _ultra vires_ and void, and that the
society may be restrained from enforcing it. And in the
alternative that it may be declared that a certain amendment
or addition made to the rules in 1906 be declared to be
illegal and void. The added rule, thus complained of, was as
follows; "All candidates shall sign and accept the conditions
of the Labour Party and be subject to their Whip."

{246}

The judgment of the Lords, rendered on the 21st of December,
sustained the order from the court below, dismissing the
appeal. Their decision rested mainly on considerations
relating to the rule quoted above, and stated briefly by one
of their bench, Lord James, as follows:

"The effect of this rule and others that exist is that a
member of the trade union is compelled to contribute to the
support of a member of Parliament, who is compelled ‘to answer
the Whip of the Labour Party.’ I construe this condition as
meaning that the member undertakes to forego his own judgment,
and to vote in Parliament in accordance with the opinions of
some person or persons acting on behalf of the Labour Party.
And such vote would have to be given in respect of all
matters, including those of a most general character—such as
confidence in a Ministry or the policy of a Budget—matters
unconnected directly at least with the interests of labour.
Therefore I am of opinion that the application of money to the
maintenance of a member whose action is so regulated is not
within the powers of a trade union. If your Lordships decide
on this branch of the case that the respondent is entitled to
judgment, it is unnecessary that any opinion should be
expressed upon the very broad constitutional question raised
for the first time in the Court of Appeal affecting the
general support of members."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (August).
The Prevention of Crimes Act brought into force.
The Borstal System.

See (in this Volume)
CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY, PROBLEMS OF.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (August).
The Trade Boards Bill, to suppress "Sweating."

See (in this Volume)
LABOR REMUNERATION: WAGES REGULATION.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (September).
Imperial Congress of Chambers of Commerce.

See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1909 (SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (September).
Marconi Wireless Telegraph Stations taken over
by the Post Office.

See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION: ELECTRICAL.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (October).
Organization of a Navy War Council.

See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1910 (January-March).
Dissolution of Parliament.
An indecisive Election.
No majority in the House of Commons for any single party.
Precarious support for the Liberal Ministry.
Uncertainties of the Situation.

As expected, Parliament was dissolved by royal proclamation
early in January, and new elections commanded, the first of
which took place on the 15th of that month and the last on the
14th of February. The result was generally disappointing,
because wholly indecisive. The new House of Commons was found
to be made up of 275 Liberals, 273 Unionists, 71 Nationalists
(Irish), 11 Independent Nationalists, and 40 Labor members.
Neither of the political parties arrayed on the main issues
involved had won a majority. The people had rendered no
recognizable verdict on the Budget, or on the tariff question,
or on the abolition of the veto power claimed by the House of
Lords.