Watertown leader. [volume] (Watertown, Jefferson County, Wis.) 1909-1911, 1909-12-03
ACTION HAS NO PRECEDENT FOR
800 YEARS AND CONSTITUTION
AL STRUGGLE is NEAR.
BILL NOW GOES TO COUNTRY.
Vote Is $50 to rs and, in Theory, 1t Is
Illegal to Garry on Kings
Government.
MONEY AFFAIRS ARE CONFUSED.

t,
tached manner characteristic of the pro
ceedlngs in the gilded chamber, and in
direct disregard of the advice of some of
Its ablest and Oldest members, such as
kosebery, Morley, Lord James of Here
tord, Lord Cromer Lord Balfour of
1urlelgh. the Earl of Lytton, Lord
Courtney ana the archbishopS of Canter-
bury and York, the House of Lords Just
before the clock struck L last night ere
ated situation unprecedented in Eng
liSh history, at least in 800 years, by re
tuSlng formal assent to the budget bill
and referring it to the country itself for
Judgment, thereby, in theory, making it
illegal to collect taxes and carry on the
klngs government. The vote was 800
against the budget to 10 in its favor
Scene Is Impressive.
After six days debate, notable for the
high standard of the oratory as we'll as
Tor the able and convincing arguments
arrayed for and against the budget and
placing III every possible light all the
aspects of the great constitutional ques-
tons involved, the House of Lords
cleared for division at IL 80 o'clock
Tuesday night.
The scene was impressive, but iii no
sense exciting, except that the house was
packed to its utmost capacity and n
great array of strange faces was seen on
the benches owing to the presence of
numbers of peers who only appear i'll
the house in most exceptional eases.
None would have supposed that the
event proceeding was destined not only
to prove memorable in the annals of
British history, but possibly also involv
ing tar-reachlng changes i'll the British
constitution.
Galleries on Qui Vive.
There certainly was unusual animation
III the public galleries. which were crowd
ed with peeresses, members of the House
of Commons, ambassadors and others,
but in the house itself complete calm
prevailed. There was none of that tense
excitement or eXuberant enthusiasm so
distinctive of Il similar occasion in the
lower house.
The vote was on Lord Lansdowne's
amendment that the house was not JUS
titled in giving its consent to the bill I'M
til it had been submitted to the judg-
ment of the country. Nearly fifteen min
utes were occupied in clearing the house,
the tellers for division being Earl Waldo
grave, Niscount Churchill, Baron Den
man and Lord Colebrooke.
When the vote was announced, Just
before midnight, as $50 to 70 in favor of
the amendment, Il few mixed cheers
were heard. Owing to the crowded state
CT the chamber, the tellers had some
difficulty in forcing their way through
to Lord Loreburn, lord high chancellor.
Tho Earl of Crewe Immediately moved
an adjournment and the house rose.
Crowd Awaits Result
An eager and eXpectant crowd was
awaiting the result in the central hall,
and when the figures of the vote became
known there was slight attempt at
counter demonstrations. The officials,
however, speedily cleared the hall, and
i'm a few minutes the Hobbies and pre-
lcincts were empty. h
Makes Curious Point. j
Among the minor speeches during the
debate, Lord Courtney, i'll speaking
against Lord Landsdowne's resolution,
made Il curious point. He reminded the
peers that by violating the established
usage they were creating q precedent
which might be carried far For eX
Iample, they held their seats i'll the House
of Lords by virtue of writs of summons.
t'If, under the minister's advice, these
Iwrits were withheld" he said, mo court
ieXisted which could enforce them and
1.-THE peers would have no right of entry
into the house. They might meet in
Trafalgar square, but could get no legal
redress"
The following abstained from voting:
The Duke of Connaught, the Archbishop
of Canterbury, Niscount st. Aldwyn,
Earl de-laWarr, the Earl of Lytton and
the Marquis Dufferin and several other
peers and bishops. The Archbishop Of
York and the bishops of Birmingham,
Chester and St. Asaph voted against the
resolution. The Bishop of Lincoln voted
for the resolution, while Lord james of
Hereford and the bishop of Hereford
paired against the resolution. Otherwise
the division was on strict party lines.
! The House of Commons holds that the
peers have not the right to reject the
financial measure; that the so-called up
per house must concur in whatever hnan-
ciaI proposition is sent to it.
Lord Lansdowne's amendment, how
ever. contended that the peers had the
right to reject.
When Lord Lansdowne last week in
the House of Lords moved his amend
ment he acknowledged that his amend
ment was a grave, perhaps an unprece-
dented, proposal. But he contended,
the preamble of the bill showed that it
required the consent Of the House of
Lords before it became law. That, he
insisted. involved the right Of rejection,
and he declared the peers were not JUS
titled in giving their consent to the bill
until it had been submitted to the coun-
try.
The cabinet was III session almost con-
tinuously today preparing to resign when
the lords took their final vote.
Money Affairs Confused.
The effect of tile crisis was felt
throughout the United Kingdom financial
ly. and confusion was general in money
affairs.
Two steps Immediately follow such
move as the rejection by the lords:
The resignation of the cabinet.
The dissolution of Parliament.