Read Online Never Give In! by Winston Churchill - Free Book Online Page A
Authors: Winston Churchill
Ads: Link
any kind whatever – ( laughter ), – not even a fishing smack, for all the 35 millions a year we give the Admiralty; and when I remember that in spite of all these evils the taxes are so oppressive and so cruel that any self-respecting Conservative will tell you he cannot afford either to live or die – ( laughter ), – when I remember all this, Mr Chairman, I think it remarkable that you should be willing to give me such a hearty welcome back to Manchester. Yes, gentlemen, when I think of the colonies we have lost, of the Empire we have alienated, of the food we have left untaxed – ( laughter ), – and the foreigners we have left unmolested – ( laughter ), – and the ladies we have left outside – ( laughter ) – I confess I am astonished you are glad to see me here again.
‘A VIOLENT RUPTURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CUSTOM’
4 September 1909
Palace Theatre, Leicester
A constitutional crisis was looming in consequence of the threat of the House of Lords, which at the time represented the landed aristocracy, to reject the Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George’s, ‘People’s Budget’. The Chancellor sought an extra £4 million to enable him to introduce retirement pensions for the elderly and to build seven new Dreadnoughts ( battleships ) for the Royal Navy. He proposed doing this by increasing taxation on the wealthier sections of society, especially the property owners. Churchill’s defiant threat to the House of Lords earned him an amazing rebuke from the King, in the form of an unprecedented letter to The Times from the King’s Private Secretary.
A general election consequent upon the rejection of the Budget by the Lords would not, ought not, and could not be fought upon the Budget alone. – ( Cheers. ) Budgets come, as the late Lord Salisbury said in 1894, and Budgets go. Every Government has its own expenditure for each year. Every Government has hitherto been entitled to make its own provision to meet that expenditure. There is a Budget every year. Memorable as the Budget of my right hon. friend may be, far-reaching as is the policy dependent upon it, the Finance Bill, after all, is only in its character an annual affair. But the rejection of the Budget by the House of Lords would not be an annual affair. – ( Loud and prolonged cheering. ) It will be a violent rupture of constitutional custom and usage extending over 300 years, and recognised 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? – ( Cheers. ) 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, whatever you may think of it, would be historic in its character, and the results of the battle fought upon it, whoever won, must inevitably be not of an annual but of a permanent and final character – ( Cheers. ) The result of such an election must mean an alteration of the veto of the House of Lords. – ( More cheers. ) If they win – ( Voices: ‘They won’t’ and ‘Never’) – they will have asserted their right not merely to reject the 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. – ( Loud and prolonged cheers. )
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. – ( Loud cheers. ) Never again, perhaps not for many years in any case, will such an opportunity be presented to the British democracy. Never will the ground be more favourable. Never will the issues be more clearly or more vividly defined. – ( Cheers. ) Those issues will be whether
‘A VIOLENT RUPTURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CUSTOM’
4 September 1909
Palace Theatre, Leicester
A constitutional crisis was looming in consequence of the threat of the House of Lords, which at the time represented the landed aristocracy, to reject the Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George’s, ‘People’s Budget’. The Chancellor sought an extra £4 million to enable him to introduce retirement pensions for the elderly and to build seven new Dreadnoughts ( battleships ) for the Royal Navy. He proposed doing this by increasing taxation on the wealthier sections of society, especially the property owners. Churchill’s defiant threat to the House of Lords earned him an amazing rebuke from the King, in the form of an unprecedented letter to The Times from the King’s Private Secretary.
A general election consequent upon the rejection of the Budget by the Lords would not, ought not, and could not be fought upon the Budget alone. – ( Cheers. ) Budgets come, as the late Lord Salisbury said in 1894, and Budgets go. Every Government has its own expenditure for each year. Every Government has hitherto been entitled to make its own provision to meet that expenditure. There is a Budget every year. Memorable as the Budget of my right hon. friend may be, far-reaching as is the policy dependent upon it, the Finance Bill, after all, is only in its character an annual affair. But the rejection of the Budget by the House of Lords would not be an annual affair. – ( Loud and prolonged cheering. ) It will be a violent rupture of constitutional custom and usage extending over 300 years, and recognised 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? – ( Cheers. ) 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, whatever you may think of it, would be historic in its character, and the results of the battle fought upon it, whoever won, must inevitably be not of an annual but of a permanent and final character – ( Cheers. ) The result of such an election must mean an alteration of the veto of the House of Lords. – ( More cheers. ) If they win – ( Voices: ‘They won’t’ and ‘Never’) – they will have asserted their right not merely to reject the 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. – ( Loud and prolonged cheers. )
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. – ( Loud cheers. ) Never again, perhaps not for many years in any case, will such an opportunity be presented to the British democracy. Never will the ground be more favourable. Never will the issues be more clearly or more vividly defined. – ( Cheers. ) Those issues will be whether
Similar Books
