IMPERIAL POLITICS

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1726, 29 March 1905, Page 56

IMPERIAL POLITICS

MR MORI/EIY ON HOME RULE. LABOUR REPRESENTATION. LONDON, March. 21. Mr Jolin Morley, addressing the League of Young Liberals in London, declared that there were nob two of the Viceroys and Chief Under-Secretanes for Ireland during recent years who were not convinced of the necessity for reform in the government of Ireland. He would not have duality of government if he could help it, but Britain s duty, having wronged Ireland in the jyast, was to look into the question with a clear and steady gaze, and try to Jbring it to a satisfactory end. Mr Morley stated that he would have only a moderate confidence in any Liberal Cabinet that did not include direct Representatives ot labour. LONDON, March 21. Mr John Redmond, M.P., speaking at Holborn, said:—Mr Gladstone’s Home Rule policy is still ours; we are asking no more. I have used the words “Independent Parliament” in the same §ense as Mr Gladstone. We never asked for repeal of the union. „ TRANSVAAL WAR LOAN. NOT RECOVERABLE BY LAW. VOLUNTARY PAYMENT EXPECTED. LONDON, March 21. Speaking in the House of Commons, the Hon. A./ Lyttelton, Secretary of State for the. Colonies, explained, in reply to Mr G. Mcßae, Liberal member for East Edinburgh, that the delay regarding the Transvaal war contribution was due to an understanding that the payment would be voluntary, and that the development of the country would not be impeded by it. It would be unwise to ask for payment prior to the establishment of an elective representa tive Government. He anticipated the pontribution would be paid in due time. It was not recoverable by law. ~ Sir Michael Hicks-Beach suggested that the Government should take security for this debt of honour by retaining the Government revenue from the Premier diamond mine and other mining rights. THE JAM SCANDAL. LONDON, March 21. Mr H. O. Arnold-Forster, Secretary of State for War, speaking in the House of Commons regarding the Australian jam contract, declared that the war did not permit weighing at Durban The examination was restricted to seeing that the jam was not damaged at sea and in transit, and was fit to be issued to the troops. The question whether there was any shortage on the total supplies was now under investigation. He was fully alive to the necessity of relieving the army of any general imputation of malpractice, and any individual guilty of misconduct or peglect would be punished without fear j>r favour. ‘ A QUESTION CONCERNING COMMISSION. LONDON, March 22. Replying in the House of Commons to a question put by Sir J. T. Woodbouse, member for Huddersfield, Mr Arnold Forster, Secretary of State for the Army, said the War Office did not pay an Agent-General, or anybody, commission or remuneration of any sort, in respect to orders placed in the colonies for supplies sent to South Africa. DUTIES ON FOREIGN MANUFACTURES. LONDON, March 22. Mr J. S. Ainsworth, M.P. for Argyllshire, will move in the House of Commons to-night a resolution condemning the imposition of any general duty on foreign manufactures. The Government has decided that as its attitude on the question is already clearly defined, all private members’ motions raising the fiscal question in any form shall be left to the free, unfettered discretion of the House. Hence the Government Whips have not issued notices to members, and fiscal reformers have decided not to participate in the debate on Mr Ainsworth’s motion or on the division. LONDON, March 23. The motion moved by Mr J. S. Ainsworth, member for Argyllshire, condemning the imposition of any general duty on foreign manufactures, was adopted by the House of Commons by 254 votes to 2. The Opposition was in full strength. A. number of free-food Unionists voted with the Liberals. Mr Balfour, in explaining the action of the Government party in not voting on the motion, said they were tired of lending importance to the Opposition’s academic discussions. THE' BUDGET. LONDON. March 23. Speaking in the House of Commons, Mr Austen Chamberlain, Chancellor of

the Exchequer, announced that the Budget Speech would probably be delivered on April 10th. LONDON, March 23. Mr Austen Chamberlain, Chancel lor of the Exchequer, prefaced the announcement of the date of the delivery of the Budget with the words: “In the ordinary course of things.” The Hon A. Lyttelton, Colonial Secretary, stated that he was unable to publish a return relating to the systems of graduated differentiated income tax in the colonies, because New Zealand and some of the Australian States had not furnished particulars. THE SPLIT IN THE OONSiERVATTVE RANKS. LONDON, March 24. Mr Hill, late chairman of the Greenwich Conservative Association, inquired whether the tariff reform section of the Greenwich Conservative Association was justified in selecting a candidate who would oppose Lord Hugh Cecil. Mr Chamberiain replied that a majority of Unionists, whether at Greenwich or elsewhere, was not only justified but required by their duty in a matter of such urgent importance to make every effort to be fully represented in the House of Commons. The question now dividing the Unionists was not a new one, although it had recently become one ot practical politics. The late Lord Salisbury, Mr Chamberlain continued, called serious attention on several occasions to the defects of the present fiscal system, indicating that some form of retaliation was the only remedy. On one occasion he advocated a policy of closer commercial union with the colonies. The National Union and the Conservative Associations were exclusively authorised to express Conservative opinion. The whole of them had repeatedly and strongly resolved in favour of tariff reform. The Liberal Unionist Federation in 1903 also almost unanimously resolved to support fiscal reform, and attempt to arrange with the colonies an increased trade on a preferential basis. Continuing, Mr Chamberlain said that instead of justifying the refusal to abide by the decisions of the representative organisations, the minority advised their friends not to support the Unionist candidates, who were following the policy supported by the vast majority of the Conservative Unionist party. Their action was doubtless the result of conscientious motives, hut they must not complain when from similar motives the majority defended themselves and their opinions from such attacks, and endeavoured to secure the success of the policy on Ith ich they believed the interests of the Unionists and the country’s future prosperity mainly depended.