IMPERIAL POLITICS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2731, 9 February 1910, Page 5

IMPERIAL POLITICS.

A MEETING OF LIBERAL POLITICIANS.

"United Press Association—Copyright LONDON, Feb. 7. Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. C. F. G. Masterman, M.P., who have .been staying a.t Nice, interviewed Mr. Asquith at Cannes. Mr. Lloyd-George’s presence in the Riviera has aroused much comment. Unionists interpret it as an effort by the Radical extremists to influence Mr. Asquith's decision on the policy to be adopted regarding mo House of Lords.

THE PRICE OF LABOR'S SUPPORT

Mr. Roberts, M.P., the Labor whip, states that his ;party will assist the Government if it will abolish both the financial and legislative veto of the House of Lords.

A POLITICAL PASTORAL. Bishop O’Dwyer, of Limerick, in a pastoral, countermands the alliance of the Irish Catholics in the House of Commons with the English (parties because many English politicians are avowed atheists and Socialists, especially in view of the education question.

AN INDEPENDENT-NATIONALIST PRONOUNCEMENT.

Mr. O’Brien, M.P., states that he has re-entered politics because of a campaign of vengeance against twenty of Tiis friends, which took the form of packing a convention for the selection of candidates with delegates from speci-ally-manufactured branches of the United Irish League. He was willing for a round-table conference to adjust differences on condition that the Molly Maguire s were removed from the mastery of the national funds.

[Mr. O’Brien is the leader of what are known as the Independent Nationalists.]

A LABOR CONFERENCE

(Received February 8, 10.35 p.m.) LONDON, Feb. 8.

Five thousand delegates of the Labor party are attending a conference at Newport, representing 1,481,368 members. The executive’s report states that if the Osborne judgment, which renders levies on the members of unions for the payment of Labor M.P.’s, illegal, remains, unionism will suffer a greater impediment than from the Taff Yale decision. It regrets Robert Blatchford’s “absurd and wicked outbursts” against Germany. The report declares that the new Parliament is unlikely to have a long lease of life, and that the Labor party must prepare for another contest shortly.

THE OSBORNE DECISION. A London correspondent of a contemporary, writing on December 24th, says:— Judgment was delivered on Tuesday in the House of Lords in the case of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants versus Osborne, which raised the question of the legality of levies on trade union members; for the payment of Parliamentary representatives. The final decision is thus given after the matter has been before the courts for eighteen months. In July, 1908, Mr. Justice Neville decided that it was impossible to hold that trade unions were not at liberty to affiliate themselves to whatever political party they pleased. On 28tli November, 1908, the Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the decision.

Lord -Halsbury now stated that it might be difficult to express in sufficiently definite language, how far individual freedom of judgment could be preserved consistently with acceptance of pecuniary support. He could foresee questions of this sort, but ho did not desire to be called upon to decide them until they did arise, and he therefore contented himself by saying that this levy was, to his mind, manifestly beyond the powers at present possessed! by a trade union. Lord Macnaghten said the question was of great importance and general interest, but lie could not think that there was any difficulty about it. It seemed to him that no conclusion was possible but that which commended itself to the Court of Appeal. It could hardly be contended that a political organisation was not a thing very different from a combination for trade purposes. He did not think it was necessary, and lie doubted) whether it was expedient or possible, to discuss the so-called constitutional question which was introduced rather unfortunately, he thought, into the case in the Court of Appeal. He. thought the decision of the Court of Appeal must he maintained.

In the absence of Lord James of Hereford, his written opinion was read by Lord Macnaghten'. Lord James said his conclusion was that judgment should he given in favor of the respondent, but he desired to explain that this opinion was founded upon one particular fact existing in the case. He thought it might well be in the interests of trade unionism and Labor that the funds of the trade union should he devoted to the payment of the expenses of a member of Parliament who should represent such interest. His difficulty arose in consequence of the terms of Rule 13. as amended in October, 1906: “All candidates shall sign and accept the conditions of the Labor Party and be subject to their whip.” He construed this condition as meaning that the member undertook to forego his own judgment and to vote in Parliament in accordance with the opinions of some person or .persons acting .on behalf of the Labor Parties., Therefore he was of opinion that the application of money to the maintenance of a member whose action' was so regulated was not within the powers of a trade union. Lord Atkinson read a judgment agreeing that the appeal must be dismissed. Lord Shaw read a very long judgment. On the first question raised by the appeal he said he stood alone, for ho neither assented to the view expressed by the Court of Appeal nor dissented from it. But, on the whole case, he felt himself hound to- agree with the decision of this House already expressed,' that the appeal should be dismissed. On the motion of (Lord Halsbury the appeal was dismissed, with costs.