IMPERIAL POLITICS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 345, 22 March 1910, Page 5

IMPERIAL POLITICS.

"MYSTERY AND EVASION." NATIONALISTS' DISCONTENT. By Cable. —Press Association. —Copyright London, March 20. The Irish independent complains that the Premier's' speech is merely continuing the Government's policv of mystery and evasion. Before mutual understanding is possible tiie Nationalists must know what the Premier means. RESTORING THE REFERENDUM. MEMORIAL TO LIBERALS AND LABORITES. Received March 21, 9.20 p.m. London, March 21. Percy Alden, a commissioner, has organised an extensively signed memorial to the Liberal and Labor members of the House of Commons, urging upon Mr. Asquith to restore the referendum in order to avoid disorganisation of business and the heavy expense entailed by another election. DRIFTING TO DISASTER. A TACTICAL MISTAKE.

Received March 21, 10.55 p.m. London, March 21 Mr. G. N. Barnes, M.P. for Glasgow, speaking at Torquay, declared that suo' mitting tl.e Budget to the House of Commons before the Lords finally disposed of the veto resolutions meant drifting to disaster. There was no prospect or the Liberals obtaining a large majority. STANDING TO THEIR PLEDGES. THE NATIONALISTS AND THE GOVERNMENT. THE PRICE OF SUPPORT. Received March 21. 10.10 p.m. London, March 21. Mr. Redmond, speakm? at Liverpool, said he was profoundly dissatisfied with the situation. The Tories wanted the financial chaos regularised before they returned J .o office. "I say," he proceeded, 'let them stew in their own juice until we know what we are tjoincf to do with the Lords' veto." The whisky duties j brought nq revenue. It was quite posi sible to evempt the small mvupi-s of Ireland from the new death duties and the stamp duties, and the small T vVa breweries from the licence taxes. Ths?i land must be exempted from valuation. Such concessions, he said, would not affect the character of the BiHl<ret as a great democratic measure. ITe was glad to reciprocate the conciliatory tone of Mr. Asquith's sneech. ami consult with the Government regarding the Budget veto, but the Nationalists intended to stand to their pledges. THE VETO AND REFORM. TO GO TOGETHER. SPEECH BY MR HALDANE. Received March 22, 12.30 a.m. London, March 21. Mr Haldane, Minister for War, addressing the Eighty Club, denied the rumour about his probable resignation. Referring to the present situation lie said the veto must be taken first, but the Liberals would make a profound mistake if they separated the veto hun reform. If the Liberals fail to recon struct the House of Lords upon a democratic basis, the Conservatives would do so, and then repeal the veto resolutions. The Lords' self-reform proposals appeared to contemplate depriving the Crown of the power to create additional peers. Until now this had been the House of Commons' supreme ultimas safeguard. Mr Haldane suggested that tin Second Chamber should represent the frteat constituencies in order that no cnP should be able to seek election unless ihe were a man of mark. SIR H.. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN S PLAN. Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman s proposals referred to in Mr Churchil's speech, reported yesterday, were introduced in the House of Commons o / June 26, 1907, in the form of the following resolution:— That in order to give effect to the will of the people, as expressed bv their elected representatives, it is necessary that the power of the other House to alter or reject Bills should be so restrained by law as to secure that within the limits' ef a single Parliament the final decision of the Commons shall prevail. . It was pointed' out at the time t.*- • t this was to deprive the House of Lords of the power of preventing rash legislation by a chance majority. The resolution, which was merely an abstract one, and which bound no one, was carried. The plan of the Ministry was understood to be as follows, though it was never embodied in a Bill: — If a measure was sent up from tR* Commons to the Lords and was' r'jected by the Lords, then a conference would follow between members appointed in equal number by the two Houses. If the conference did no* "e----sult in agreement, the Bill might again be reintroduced in the Commons aftr-r six jmonths. It would then be sent up again. If it were once m« there would be a conference as before. If the second attempt failed. tn« Bill was, after the laps'e of six "'orth? to be reintroduced a third time in the Commons, passed, and sent r-n ag?ir Once more, if the Lords and s differed, there was to be a conference and, if this failed, the Bill was to become law without the Lords' i-went.