THE VETO CRISIS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3294, 12 August 1911, Page 7

THE VETO CRISIS.

VOTE IN HOUSE OF LORDS.

GOVERNMENT MAJORITY OF 17.

ATTITUDE OF UNIONIST PEERS.

[UNITED PEESS ASSOCIATION-—COPY RIGHT. 3

LONDON, August 10. In the House of Lords, the division on the censure motion resulted in a majority of 17 in favor of the Government.

There was some uncertainty as to the result of the division in the House of Lords, as to whether Lord Halsbury'a followers would be able to outvote the Government. Last night’s debate failed to secure any accession to the “stalwarts’ ” ranks.

Lord Morley, replying to Lord Lansdowne, said that ir the Bill was defeated sufficient peers would be created to guard against future defeat.

GOVERNMENT HOTLY DENOUNCED.

“YOUNG AND INEXPERIENCED KING.”

SPARING THE EMPIRE A SCANDAL.

(Received August 11, 10.35 p.m.) LONDON, August 11. The diplomatic gallery in the House of Lords and the Chamber itself were crowded during the debate. Lord' Morley ridiculed the proposal that the Government in November should suggest to the King to see the Opposition leaders. Replying to Viscount St. Akhvyn, Lord Morley said the Sovereign had had communication witli Mr Balfour and Lord Lansdowne the other day, but he was unable to say whether any opportunity wou/ld be given in Noveimber. Lord Lansdowne: No such opportunity will be given. Lord Camperdown announced that he would support the Government through the detested Bill. The Duke of Norfolk immediately declared that despite his promise to Lord Lansdowne he would vote with Lord Halsbury in order to cancel Lord Camperdown’s vote. Lord Halifax declared that he would act similarly. The Archbishop of Canterbury said that he had honed to abstain from voting, but the callousness and levity with which some of the peers contemplated the creation of five hundred peers, which would make the House and the ■errantry the laughing stock of the Dominions overseas, caused him to support the Government. Earl Rosebery hotly denounced the Government’s behavior towards their young and inexperienced King, who had only been four or five months on the Throne, but the Bill must pass, and that would leave the House some force to resist the Government’s dangerous measures. He would vote for the Bill, hoping that the Empire would be spared a scandal which would weaken the hold of the centre of the Empire upon its component parts.

A VEHEMENT DENUNCIATION. INTENSE EXCITEMENT IN THE CHAMBER. PROFOUND SILENCE BEFORE ANNOUNCEMENT. (Received August 11, 11 p.m v LONDON, August 11. In the House of Lords Lord SeiDorne in closing the debate, made a vehement denunciation of Lord Rosebery’s . attitude, and quoted a speech of his on May 29th to the effect that it was useless to prolong the existence of a sham. Lord Selborne continued: “That is my view. The country would be safer with a recognised Single Chamber system than with the proposed emasculated House of Lords.” He agreed, he went on to say, with the other House of Commons amendments. •There was intense excitement when Lord Loreburn nut the question as to whether the House agreed to Lord Morley’sv motion not to insist on Lord Lansdowne’s amendment excluding Home Rule. The Ministerialists cried “content,” and the Halsburyites gave a ringing chorus of “non-contents.” Many Unionists, with a few others, joined the Cabinet Ministers and Privy Councillors behind the Throne to watch the division.. The opposing forces seemed to be practically equal, the Halsburyites, if anything, appearing to be the more numerous. Eleven bishops accompanied t-Tie Archbishops of Canterbury and York into the Government lobby. Seeing the danger, thirty Unionists at the last moment joined the Ministerialists. There was profound silence when Lord Loreburn announced the result as follows: 'For the motion. 131; against, 114. This was greeted with a few Ministerial cheers, and ‘Opposition hisses.