A mighty struggle is on in England. The finance budget originates in the House of Commons, and for about 300 years the House of Lords has assented to the budget and tax proposals connected with it. But now for the first time during that long period it has dissented. November 16 Lord Lansdowne gave notice in the House of Lords that on the motion for the second reading of the finance bill, he would move that “this House is not justified in giving its consent to the bill until it has been submitted to the judgment of the country.” Issue was thus squarely joined. Many thought that the Lords would yield, but they have not done so. So, November 30 the budget was rejected. It is therefore illegal for the king’s agents to collect taxes with which to carry on the government. This action of the peers was taken contrary to the advice of such men as Rosebury, Morley, Lord James of Hereford, Cromer, Balfour of Berley, Courtney, the Earl of Litton, and the archbishops of Canterbury and York. The matter will now go before the country for its approval or rejection. In other words, the crown through the ministry will dissolve the House of Commons, order a general election, and it will be seen whether the present liberal House and ministry will be sustained in insisting on the budget. The vote was announced just before midnight, and stood 350 for Lansdowne’s motion, to 75 against. All the peers were present, many of whom never appear unless especially called for some crisis like the present. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord George, had a prodigious task before him in providing the means necessary to support the government, and meet the tremendous and constantly increasing expenses of the navy. And in his plan for raising taxes, he aimed to get back to the land; to increase the income tax especially derived from ground leases and rented lands, and to levy on the wealthy land owners’ non-productive sporting reserves and untilled moors.