The Budget is the great political issue of the day. It involves all other questions; it has brought all other issues to a decisive test. The Daily Mail has stated that the Budget is hung up. So it is. It is hung up in triumph over the High Peak; it is hung up as a banner of victory over Dumfries, over Cleveland, and over Mid-Derby. The miniature general election just concluded has shown that the policy embodied2 in the Budget, and which inspires the Budget, has vivified and invigorated the Liberal Party, has brought union where there was falling away, has revived enthusiasm where apathy3 was creeping in.
You cannot but have been impressed with the increasing sense of reality which political affairs have acquired during the last few months. What is it they are doing at Westminster? Across and beyond the complicated details of finance, the thousand [345]amendments and more which cover the order paper, the absurd obstruction6, the dry discussions in Committee, the interminable repetition of divisions, the angry scenes which flash up from time to time, the white-faced members sitting the whole night through and walking home worn out in the full light of morning—across and beyond all this, can you not discern a people's cause in conflict? Can you not see a great effort to make a big step forward towards that brighter and more equal world for which, be sure, those who come after us will hold our names in honour? That is the issue which is being decided7 from week to week in Westminster now, and it is in support of that cause that we are asking from you earnest and unswerving allegiance.
I do not think that there is any great country in the world where there are so many strong forces of virtue8 and vitality9 as there are in our own country. But there is scarcely any country in the world where there is so little organisation10. Look at our neighbour and friendly rival Germany. I see that great State organised for peace and organised for war to a degree to which we cannot pretend. We are not organised as a nation, so far as I can see, for anything [346]except party politics, and even for purposes of party politics we are not organised so well as they are in the United States. A more scientific, a more elaborate, a more comprehensive social organisation is indispensable to our country if we are to surmount11 the trials and stresses which the future years will bring. It is this organisation that the policy of the Budget will create. It is this organisation that the loss of the Budget will destroy.
But, we are told, "it presses too heavily upon the land-owning classes." I have heard it said that in the French Revolution, if the French nobility, instead of going to the scaffold with such dignity and fortitude12, had struggled and cried and begged for mercy, even the hard hearts of the Paris crowd would have been melted, and the Reign13 of Terror would have come to an end. There is happily no chance of our aristocracy having to meet such a fate in this loyal-hearted, law-abiding, sober-minded country. They are, however, asked to discharge a certain obligation. They are asked to contribute their share to the expenses of the State. That is all they are asked to do. Yet what an outcry, what tribulation14, what tears, what [347]wrath, what weeping and wailing15 and gnashing of teeth, and all because they are asked to pay their share.
One would suppose, to listen to them, that the whole of the taxation16 was being raised from, or was about to be raised from the owners of agricultural estates. What are the facts? Nearly half the taxation of the present Budget is raised by the taxation of the luxuries of the working classes. Are they indignant? Are they crying out? Not in the least. They are perfectly17 ready to pay their share, and to pay it in a manly18 way, and two hundred thousand of them took the trouble to go to Hyde Park the other day in order to say so.
What are the facts about agricultural land? It is absolutely exempt19 from the operations of the new land taxation so long as agricultural land is worth no more for other purposes than it is for agricultural purposes: that is to say, so long as agricultural land is agricultural land and not urban or suburban20 land, it pays none of the new land taxation. It is only when its value for building purposes makes its continued agricultural use wasteful21 and uneconomic, it is only when it becomes building land and not agricultural land, [348]and when because of that change it rises enormously in price and value—it is only then that it contributes under the new land taxation its share to the public of the increment22 value which the public has given to it.
Then take the death duties. One would suppose from what one hears in London and from the outcry that is raised, that the whole of the death duties were collected from the peers and from the county families. Again I say, look at the facts. The Inland Revenue report for last year shows that ￡313,000,000 of property passing on death became subject to death duties, and of that sum ￡228,000,000 was personalty and not real estate, leaving only ￡85,000,000 real estate, and of that ￡85,000,000 only ￡22,000,000 was agricultural land. These death duties are represented as being levied23 entirely24 upon a small class of landed gentry25 and nobility, but, as a matter of fact, there is collected from that class in respect of agricultural land only seven per cent. of the whole amount of money which the Exchequer26 derives27 from death duties.[19]
[349]I decline, however, to judge the question of the House of Lords simply and solely28 by any action they may resolve to take upon the Budget. We must look back upon the past. We remember the ill-usage and the humiliation29 which the great majority that was returned by the nation to support Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1906 has sustained in the last three years at the hands of the House of Lords. That Assembly must be judged by their conduct as a whole. Lord Lansdowne has explained, to the amusement of the nation, that he claimed no right on behalf of the House of Lords to "mince30" the Budget. All, he tells us, he has asked for, so far as he is concerned, is the right to "wince31" when swallowing it. Well, that is a much more modest claim. It is for the Conservative Party to judge whether it is a very heroic claim for one of their leaders to make. If they are satisfied with the wincing32 Marquis, we have no reason to protest. We should greatly regret to cause Lord Lansdowne and his friends any pain. We have no wish whatever to grudge33 them any relief which they may obtain by wincing or even by squirming. We accord them the fullest liberty in that respect.
[350]After all, the House of Lords has made others wince in its time. Even in the present Parliament they have performed some notable exploits. When the House of Lords rejected the Bill to prevent one man casting his vote two or three times over in the same election, every one in this country who desired to see a full and true representation of the people in Parliament might well have winced34. When the House of Lords rejected or mutilated beyond repair the Land Valuation Bills for England and for Scotland, every land reformer in the country might have winced. When the House of Lords destroyed Mr. Birrell's Education Bill of 1906, every man who cared for religious equality and educational peace might have winced. When they contemptuously flung out, without even discussing it or examining it, the Licensing35 Bill, upon which so many hopes were centred and upon which so many months of labour had been spent, they sent a message of despair to every temperance reformer, to every social and philanthropic worker, to every church, to every chapel36, to every little Sunday school throughout the land. If it should now prove to be their turn, if the measure they have meted37 out to [351]others should be meted out to them again, however much we might regret their sorrows, we could not but observe the workings of poetic38 justice.
But I hope the House of Lords and those who back them will not be under any illusions about the Budget and the position of the Government. The Government is in earnest about the Budget. The Budget carries with it their fortunes and the fortunes of the Liberal Party. Careful argument, reasonable amendment4, amicable39 concession40, not affecting the principles at stake—all these we offer while the Bill is in the House of Commons. But when all that is said and done, as the Bill leaves the House of Commons so it must stand. It would be a great pity if Lord Curzon, the Indian pro-Consul, or the London Spectator—it would be a great pity if those potentates41 were to make the great mistake of supposing that the Government would acquiesce42 in the excision43 of the land clauses of the Budget by the House of Lords. Such a course is unthinkable. Any Liberal Government which adopted it would be swiftly ruined. The land proposals of the Government have not been made without long deliberation and [352]full responsibility. We shall not fail to carry them effectively through the House of Commons; still less shall we accept any amendment at the hands of the House of Lords.
Is it not an extraordinary thing that upon the Budget we should even be discussing at all the action of the House of Lords? The House of Lords is an institution absolutely foreign to the spirit of the age and to the whole movement of society. It is not perhaps surprising in a country so fond of tradition, so proud of continuity, as ourselves that a feudal44 assembly of titled persons, with so long a history and so many famous names, should have survived to exert an influence upon public affairs at the present time. We see how often in England the old forms are reverently45 preserved after the forces by which they are sustained and the uses to which they were put and the dangers against which they were designed have passed away. A state of gradual decline was what the average Englishman had come to associate with the House of Lords. Little by little, we might have expected, it would have ceased to take a controversial part in practical politics. Year by year it would have faded more [353]completely into the past to which it belongs until, like Jack-in-the-Green or Punch-and-Judy, only a picturesque46 and fitfully lingering memory would have remained.
And during the last ten years of Conservative government this was actually the case. But now we see the House of Lords flushed with the wealth of the modern age, armed with a party caucus47, fortified48, revived, resuscitated49, asserting its claims in the harshest and in the crudest manner, claiming to veto or destroy even without discussion any legislation, however important, sent to them by any majority, however large, from any House of Commons, however newly elected. We see these unconscionable claims exercised with a frank and undisguised regard to party interest, to class interest, and to personal interest. We see the House of Lords using the power which they should not hold at all, which if they hold at all, they should hold in trust for all, to play a shrewd, fierce, aggressive party game of electioneering and casting their votes according to the interest of the particular political party to which, body and soul, they belong.
It is now suggested—publicly in some quarters, privately50 in many quarters—that the House of Lords will not only use without [354]scruple their veto in legislation but they propose to extend their prerogatives51; they are going to lay their hands upon finance, and if they choose they will reject or amend5 the Budget. I have always thought it a great pity that Mr. Gladstone made a compromise with the House of Lords over the Franchise52 Bill of 1884. I regret, and I think many of my hon. friends in the House of Commons will regret, looking back upon the past, that the present Government did not advise a dissolution of Parliament upon the rejection53 of the Education Bill in 1906. A dissolution in those circumstances would not merely have involved the measure under discussion, but if the Government of that day had received the support of the electors at the poll their victory must have carried with it that settlement and reform of the relations between the two Houses of Parliament which is necessary to secure the effective authority of the House of Commons. That is the question which, behind and beyond all others, even the Budget, even Free Trade, even the land—that is the question which, as the Prime Minister has said, is the dominant54 issue of our time.
Opportunity is fickle55, opportunity seldom returns; but I think you will agree with me [355]that if the House of Lords, not content with its recent exploits with the legislative56 veto, were to seize on the new power which its backers claim for it over finance—if, not content with the extreme assertions of its own privileges, it were to invade the most ancient privileges of the House of Commons—if, as an act of class warfare57, for it would be nothing less, the House of Lords were to destroy the Budget, and thus not only create a Constitutional deadlock58 of novel and unmeasured gravity, but also plunge59 the whole finance of the country into unparalleled confusion, then, in my judgment60, opportunity, clear, brilliant, and decisive, would return, and we should have the best chance we have ever had of dealing61 with them once for all.
These circumstances may never occur. I don't believe they will occur. If we only all stand firm together I believe the Budget will be carried. I believe the Budget will vindicate62 the strength of the Government supported by the House of Commons. I believe it will vindicate the financial strength of this great country. I don't believe, if we pursue our course without wavering or weakening, there is any force in this country which can stand [356]against us. The Conservative Whip in the House of Lords, a friend of mine, Lord Churchill, said the other day that the House of Lords when they received the Budget would do their duty. I hope they will. But in any case be sure of this—that the Government and the House of Commons will do their duty. Then if there is anything more to be done, see that you are ready to do your duty too.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
guardian
|
|
| n.监护人；守卫者，保护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
embodied
|
|
| v.表现( embody的过去式和过去分词 )；象征；包括；包含 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
apathy
|
|
| n.漠不关心，无动于衷；冷淡 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
amendment
|
|
| n.改正，修正，改善，修正案 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
amend
|
|
| vt.修改，修订，改进；n.[pl.]赔罪，赔偿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
obstruction
|
|
| n.阻塞，堵塞；障碍物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
vitality
|
|
| n.活力，生命力，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
organisation
|
|
| n.组织，安排，团体，有机休 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
surmount
|
|
| vt.克服；置于…顶上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
fortitude
|
|
| n.坚忍不拔；刚毅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
reign
|
|
| n.统治时期，统治，支配，盛行；v.占优势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
tribulation
|
|
| n.苦难，灾难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
wailing
|
|
| v.哭叫，哀号( wail的现在分词 )；沱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
taxation
|
|
| n.征税，税收，税金 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
manly
|
|
| adj.有男子气概的；adv.男子般地，果断地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
exempt
|
|
| adj.免除的；v.使免除；n.免税者，被免除义务者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
suburban
|
|
| adj.城郊的，在郊区的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
wasteful
|
|
| adj.（造成）浪费的，挥霍的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
increment
|
|
| n.增值，增价；提薪，增加工资 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
levied
|
|
| 征（兵）( levy的过去式和过去分词 )； 索取； 发动（战争）； 征税 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
gentry
|
|
| n.绅士阶级，上层阶级 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
exchequer
|
|
| n.财政部；国库 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
derives
|
|
| v.得到( derive的第三人称单数 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
solely
|
|
| adv.仅仅，唯一地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
humiliation
|
|
| n.羞辱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
mince
|
|
| n.切碎物；v.切碎，矫揉做作地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
wince
|
|
| n.畏缩，退避，（因痛苦，苦恼等)面部肌肉抽动；v.畏缩，退缩，退避 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
wincing
|
|
| 赶紧避开，畏缩( wince的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
grudge
|
|
| n.不满，怨恨，妒嫉；vt.勉强给，不情愿做 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
winced
|
|
| 赶紧避开，畏缩( wince的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
licensing
|
|
| v.批准，许可，颁发执照( license的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
chapel
|
|
| n.小教堂，殡仪馆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
meted
|
|
| v.（对某人）施以，给予（处罚等）( mete的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
poetic
|
|
| adj.富有诗意的，有诗人气质的，善于抒情的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
amicable
|
|
| adj.和平的，友好的；友善的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
concession
|
|
| n.让步，妥协；特许(权) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
potentates
|
|
| n.君主，统治者( potentate的名词复数 )；有权势的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
acquiesce
|
|
| vi.默许，顺从，同意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
excision
|
|
| n.删掉；除去 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
feudal
|
|
| adj.封建的，封地的，领地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
reverently
|
|
| adv.虔诚地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
picturesque
|
|
| adj.美丽如画的，（语言）生动的，绘声绘色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
caucus
|
|
| n.秘密会议；干部会议；v.（参加）干部开会议 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
fortified
|
|
| adj. 加强的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
resuscitated
|
|
| v.使（某人或某物）恢复知觉，苏醒( resuscitate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
privately
|
|
| adv.以私人的身份，悄悄地，私下地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
prerogatives
|
|
| n.权利( prerogative的名词复数 )；特权；大主教法庭；总督委任组成的法庭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
franchise
|
|
| n.特许，特权，专营权，特许权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
rejection
|
|
| n.拒绝，被拒，抛弃，被弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
dominant
|
|
| adj.支配的，统治的；占优势的；显性的；n.主因，要素，主要的人(或物)；显性基因 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
fickle
|
|
| adj.(爱情或友谊上)易变的，不坚定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
legislative
|
|
| n.立法机构，立法权；adj.立法的，有立法权的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
warfare
|
|
| n.战争(状态)；斗争；冲突 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
deadlock
|
|
| n.僵局，僵持 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
plunge
|
|
| v.跳入，(使)投入，(使)陷入；猛冲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
vindicate
|
|
| v.为…辩护或辩解，辩明；证明…正确 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |