national liberal club, october 9, 1909
(from the times, by permission.)
i have never been able to rank myself among those who believe that the budget will be rejected by the house of lords. it is not that i take an exaggerated view of the respect which that body would bear to the constitutional tradition upon which alone they depend. it is not that i underrate at all the feelings of personal resentment and of class-prejudice with which they regard, naturally, many of the provisions of the budget. but i have a difficulty in believing that the responsible statesmen by whom they are led, and by whom we think they are controlled, would not hesitate as patriotic men before they plunged the finances of the country into what would be a largely irremediable confusion. and still more i find it difficult to believe that party leaders, anxious no doubt [406]for office on the most secure terms and at the shortest notice, would voluntarily run unusual risks in order to be able to fight a decisive battle upon exceptionally unfavourable ground. in common with most of us who are here to-night, i hold that the rejection of the budget by the house of lords would be a constitutional outrage. i do not think we are entitled at this stage to assume that such an outrage will be committed. we cannot credit such intentions, even though we read them every day brutally and blatantly affirmed by a powerful party press. we do not credit such intentions. we are, however, bound to be fully prepared against all contingencies. the necessary precautions must be taken. the fighting machine must undergo all those preliminary processes necessary for a rapid and efficient mobilisation. and the ground on which a great battle might take place, the theatre of war, must be scanned beforehand with military foresight. and that is being done.
but those who lightly estimate the crisis which will follow the rejection of the budget by the house of lords must be either strangely unimaginative or else they must be strangely ignorant of british history and [407]of the british constitution. the control of finance by the representative assembly is the keystone of all that constitutional fabric upon which and within which all of us here have dwelt safely and peacefully throughout our lives. it is by the application of the power of the purse, and by the application of the power of the purse almost alone, that we have moved forward, slowly and prosaically, no doubt, during the last two hundred years, but without any violent overturn such as has rent the life and history of almost every other considerable country, from a kind of medi?val oligarchy to a vast modern democratic state based on the suffrages of six million or seven million electors, loyal to the crown, and clothed with all the stately forms of the venerable english monarchy. finance has been the keystone. take finance away from the house of commons, take the complete control of financial business away from the representative assembly, and our whole system of government, be it good, bad, or indifferent, will crumble to pieces like a house of cards.
the rejection of the budget by the house of lords would not merely be a question of stopping a money bill or of [408]knocking out a few taxes obnoxious to particular classes; the rejection of the budget by the house of lords would mean the claim of the house of lords—that is, the claim of a non-elective and unrepresentative chamber—to make and to unmake governments; and a recognition of that claim by the country would unquestionably mean that the house of lords would become the main source and origin of all political power under the crown. now that is a great quarrel; that is a quarrel on which we had hoped, on which we had been taught, that the sword had been sheathed victoriously for ever. and that is the issue that is before us now. we do not intend to soften it in any way. the responsibility for the consequences must rest with the aggressor who first violates the constitutional tradition of our land.
the budget is through committee. we have had not merely an exhaustive but an exhausting discussion. i am told by ingenious calculators in the newspapers that over six hundred hours, from some of which i confess i have been absent, of debate have been accorded to the committee stage. no guillotine closure has been applied. full, free, unfettered debate [409]has been accorded—has been accorded with a patience and with a generosity unprecedented in parliamentary annals, and which in effect has left a minority not merely satisfied in all the conditions of reasonable debate, but unable even on grounds of the most meticulous partisanship to complain that the fullest opportunity has not been accorded to them. in all this long process of six hundred hours and upwards we have shown ourselves willing to make concessions. they are boasting to-day that they, forsooth, are in part the authors of the budget. every effort has been made to meet honest and outspoken difference; every effort has been made to gather for this budget—the people's budget, as they know full well it is—the greatest measure of support not only among the labouring classes, but among all classes in our vast and complicated community.
it has been a terrible strain. lord rosebery the other day at glasgow paid his tribute to the gallant band who had fought in opposition to the budget. had he no word for his old friends? had he no word for those who were once proud to follow him, and who now use in regard to him only the language of [410]regret? had he no word for that other gallant band, twice as numerous, often three times as numerous, as the tory opposition, who have sat through all these months—fine speakers silent through self-suppression for the cause, wealthy men sitting up to unreasonable hours to pass taxes by which they are mulcted as much as any tory? men who have gone on even at the cost of their lives—had he no word for them? we to-night gathered together here in the national liberal club have a word and a cheer for the private members of the liberal party in the house of commons who have fought this battle through with unequalled loyalty and firmness, and who have shown a development of parliamentary power to carry a great measure which i venture to say has no counterpart in the parliamentary history of this country.
well, that long process of debate, of argument, of concession, of compromise, of conciliation will very soon come to an end. when the budget leaves the house of commons the time of discussion, so far as we are concerned, will have come to an end. it will leave the house of commons in a final form, and no amendment by the house [411]of lords will be entertained by us. i have heard it often said, and i have read it more often still, that there are some members of the cabinet who want to see the budget rejected, and i have even been shocked to find myself mentioned as one of these machiavellian intriguers. to those who say we want to see the budget rejected i reply, that is not true. as party men we cannot be blind to the great tactical advantages which such an event would confer upon us. we cannot pretend that our feelings in such an event would be feelings of melancholy; but we have our work to do. politics is not a game. it is an earnest business. we have our work to do. we have large, complex schemes of social organisation and financial reform on which we have consumed our efforts, and which we desire to see, at the shortest possible date, brought to conception and maturity. we do not want to see the finances of the country plunged into inextricable confusion, and hideous loss inflicted on the mass of the people and the taxpayers. for my part, i say without hesitation i do not at all wish to see british politics enter upon a violent, storm-shaken, and revolutionary phase. i am glad, at any rate, if they are to enter upon that [412]phase, it shall be on the responsibility of others.
our intentions are straightforward. we seek no conflict; we fear no conflict. we shall make no overtures to the house of lords; we shall accept no compromise. we are not called upon to offer them any dignified means of escape from a situation into which they have been betrayed by the recklessness of some of their supporters. they have no right whatever to interfere in financial business directly or indirectly at any time. that is all we have to say, and for the rest we have a powerful organisation, we have a united party, we have a resolute prime minister, we have a splendid cause.
i do not think we need at this stage speculate upon the result of a battle which has not yet been, and which may never be at this juncture fought. i have seen enough of the ups and downs of real war to know how foolish forecasts of that character often are. but when an army has been brought into the field in the best condition, in the largest possible numbers, in a spirit of the highest enthusiasm, at the most favourable season, and on the best possible ground—then i think, when our [413]army has been brought into that situation, we can afford to await the supreme arbitrament with a cool and serene composure; and this mood of composure and of calmness may ripen into a kind of joyous and warlike heartiness, if we can also feel that the cause for which we are fighting is broadly and grandly a true and righteous cause.
error, of course, there is always in all human affairs—error of conception, error of statement, error of manner, error of weakness, error of partisanship. we do not deny that, but strip both the great political parties which to-day present themselves before the people of britain, strip them of their error, strip them of that admixture of error which cloys and clogs all human action, divest them of the trappings of combat in which they are apparelled, let them be nakedly and faithfully revealed. if that were done, cannot we feel soberly and assuredly convinced that, on the main contested issues of the day, upon the need of social organisation, upon the relations between the two houses of parliament, upon the regulation and control of the liquor traffic, upon a national settlement with ireland as we have made [414]with africa, upon free trade, upon the land—upon all of them separately, still more upon all of them together, if we ask ourselves in our most silent and reflective mood alone—cannot we feel a sober conviction that, on the whole, we hold the larger truth?
