BRITISH ELECTORAL BILL

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 119, 6 February 1918, Page 5

BRITISH ELECTORAL BILL

LORDS V. COMMONS MEASURE HELD UP (Pec. February 5,' 11.0 p.m.) London, February 4. In the House of Lords the Earl of Selborno moved that the House should not insist on the proportional representation amendment, but insert instead an amendment on the lines Mr. Asquith had suggested. The Earl of Solborne said that the existing schema indicted a cruel injustice 011 agriculture. Proportional representation Avas in accord with-tho highest-democratic principles. Ho had 110 forebodings about this tremendous experiment"in democracy, providing that Parliament applied tho only' principle which could givo a real reflection of the people's will. As a compromise, 110 asked tho House of Lords to return tho Bill, Avith a clauso giving effect to the recommendations of the Sneaker's conference. The Earl of Sclborne's moFion was carried by 86 votes to 35. The Marquis of Lansdowne appealed to Earl Curzon to throw his Aveight on tho side of tho Earl of Sclborne's reasonable compromise. Tho responsibility for Avrecking the Bill would be with the House of Commons. Tho Marquis of Crewe said he desired that the experiment should be tried, but he did not believe that tho House of Commons Avould ac-cept tho scheme. One serious objection Avould be the London opposition. Earl Curzon said that it was essential to prevent the two Houses coming into conflict. Certainly the House of Lords had not shown a Avrecking attitude. Personally, be hoped that the experiment would De made with proportional representation. The House of Lords iniisted on tho amendment, rejecting th» alternative A'oto by 69 votes to 29. —Aus.-N.Z. Cablo Assn.