LORDS REFORM BILL.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 131, 19 May 1911, Page 1

LORDS REFORM BILL.

DEBATE IN THE UPPER HOUSE. (PBESS ASSOCIATION. —COPYRIGHT], j London, May 18. } In the debate on the reform pro-: posals. Lord Curzon complained ' that the Government’s uncompromising attitude did not reflect pub- ! lie opinion. He attributed their; refusal to reveal their policy to } fear of sections of their followers. !> Lord Lansdowne’s Bill was fairness! and simplicity itself. Though Lord Morley estimated the Unionist majority in the Lords at 40, the Radicals would be in a majority of 80 ! in the joint sessions. ! Lord Courtney hoped that the} Government would encourage the j reforms, which were a great step! forward. i Lord Rosebery criticised the bad policy of introducing the Bill. He ■ said it would have been wiser to ■ rely on the resolutions. Only a re-; sponsible Government should in- : troduce constitutional reforms. Since it was impossible to frame a scheme to please everybody, it required all the Government’s influences and blandishments to secure the acceptation of any solution. He ridiculed the election of peers by their colleagues. Election by • borough and county councils was preferable. He also objected to the Lords’ choice being limited to j peers with special qualifications. } He asked what would be their po-. sition when the Parliament Bill be-, came law. Who would be the acolytes and sycophants who would accept a degrading position and fill their denuded benches. If the Veto Bill became law, Lord Lans-; downe’s Bill mattered little. He held no brief for the Lords or Commons, but wished to preserve the ’ bi-cameral system which the Government desired to overthrow. The debate was adjourned till Munday. j PARLIAMENT BILL DEBATE DEFERRED. (Received 19, 9.45 a.m.) | The Government has reluctantly! consented to defer the debate on; the Parliament Bill in the House! of Lords pending the conclusion of the debate on Lord Lansdowne’s, proposed reforms.