REFORM OF THE LORDS

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1065, 2 March 1911, Page 5

REFORM OF THE LORDS

MR. BALFOUR'S VIEWS. NO STEREOTYPED TORY MAJORITY WANTED. INTERESTING COMMENT. By Telesraph—Press A =socint ion—Copyriiiht(Rec. March 1, 10.50 p.m.) London, March 1. The debate on tho Veto. Bill was con.tinued in the House of Commons to-day, but there were no new features. Mr. Lyttelton (formerly Secretary of Stato for tho Colonies in tho Balfour Cabinet) and Colonel Seely, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Colonies, were the principal speakers. During the debate yesterday Mr. Balfour, Leader of the Opposition, declared that reform of the House of Lords was needed. That was admitted. However, no reform would be fair or lasting which stereotyped tho Tory majority there. T 10 Second Chamber should represent the best elements of tho country, and tho nation would renuiro to know what common ground existed between tho two B re '" parties before tho Government would b& permitted to carry tho present Bill through by methods of unparalleled violence, even the using of the Coronation as a weapon of political controversy.

NO PLANS FOR REFORM

UNIONIST REPORT MISLEADING. (Rec. March 2, 0.5 a.m.) London, March 1. "The Times" declares that both the Cabinet and the Unionists are equally destitute of a coherent and generally accepted plan for the ieform of the House of Lords. Yesterday's official report of the Unionist meeting was intentionally misleading, as the meeting adjourned until tho particulars of Lord Lansdowne's 1 Bill were known. THE UNIONIST CONFERENCE. . UNANIMITY REPORTED. London, February 28. Tho'official account of the meeting of Unionist M.P.'s states that there was a full meeting, and that the utmost loyalty and confidence in the party leaders wero displayed; also that Sir A. Ac'and-Hood explained tyie lines of Lord Lansdowne's Bill, which the meeting unanimously and cordially accepted.

A SPLIT DENIED. London, February 28. At a meeting of Unionist members of the' House' of Commons to consider the question of the reform of the House of Lords,' it was denied that the'ro was a split in the ranks. Differences had arisen over proposed changes, and complaint had been made by tho rank and file that the lelders had not submitted a definite plan.