Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

A TEST VOTE

IN HOUSE OF LORDS. (United Press Association —By Eleetrir Telegraph—Copyright). LONDON, May 2. In the House of Lords, Viscount Cecil moved: “That in the opinion of the House of Lords, the time has arrived when the British Government should sign the Optional Clause of the League of Nations Covenant, providing for the judicial settlement of intern at ion a 1 d i sprites. ’ ’ The Lord Chancellor said that the Government could not accept this motion. It was not a question of the desirability. of arbitration, or the acceptance of the International Court at The Hague. It wn** a question of whether it uas expedient, in the interests of Britain and the Empire, to sign this clause now. The Lord Chancellor pointed out that in the event of a dispute between Britain and one Dominion, or more than one of the Dominions, it would be most undesirable to go to the International Court. The feeling of the Imperial Conference of 1926 was opposed to- this course, and it was decided not to take any action without further discussion. The Dominions, ait present, were considering a non arbitration treaty with . the United States. Beth the Dominions and Britain thought that the American treaty ought to lie concluded before they signed the League optional clause. Britain had more often 10sorted to The Hague Arbitration Court than had any other country, lutematinnl law, he said, was being amplified and modified, in the hope that the time wo.uld arrive when the Empire would he able to accept that Court’s compulsory jurisdiction, with or without reservations. Lord Reading said that the fact that sixty of the nations have, now agreed to tlie Kellogg Pact nas the strongest argument in favour of the motion of Lord Cecil. Lord Salisbury said that the Government had repeatedly affirmed the manciple of arbitration as ail alternative to war. but that they should not be too precipitate and lose their heads Lord Cecil insisted on a division. The motion was then negatived by 26 votes to 19.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19290503.2.59

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 3 May 1929, Page 6

Word count
Tapeke kupu
339

A TEST VOTE Hokitika Guardian, 3 May 1929, Page 6

A TEST VOTE Hokitika Guardian, 3 May 1929, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert