LORDS AND COMMONS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIII, Issue 1081, 6 February 1918, Page 5

LORDS AND COMMONS.

THE REPRESENTATION QUESTION LORDS INSIST ON PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. Australian-New Zealand Cable Association. LONDON. Feb. 4. In (he House of .Lords Lord Selborne moved that the House do not insist on the Proportional Representation amendment, but to insert an amendment on the lines which Mi Asquith had suggisted. Lord Selborne said the existing scheme inflicted a cruel injustice on agriculture. Proportional representation was in accord with the highest, democratic principles. Ho had no foreboding about this tremendous experiment in democracy which provided that Parliament applied the only principle which, could give a real reflection of the people's will. As a compromise he asked the House of Lords to return tin l Bill with a clause giving effect to the recommendations of tlie Speaker's conference. Lord Selborne's motion was carried bv 86 to 35. Lord Hareourt said the Lords were heading straight for another defeat. They would not, dare to destroy the Bill and face a r-a-nional disaster. Lord Lansdowno appealed to Lord Cur/.on to throw his weight on the side of Lord Solhorne’s reasonable compromise The responsibility of wrecking the Bill would be with the House of Commons. Lord Urcwo desired (lie experiment to l>o tried, but did not believe the Commons would accept the scheme. A serious objection would be. the Loudon opposition. Lord G'urzon said U was essential to prevent the two Houses coming into conflict. Certainly the Lords had not shown a wrecking attitude. Personally he hoped the experiment would be made with proportional representation. Tbo House of Lords insisted upon flic amendment, rejecting the alternative vote by 56 to 29.