THE VETO BILL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10281, 8 July 1911, Page 6

THE VETO BILL.

——«.—.. AND THE HOUSE OF LORDS. LORD LANSDOWNE'S AMENDMENT CARRIED. United I'rcss Association — By Electric Telegraph — Copyright. (Received July 7, 8.30 a.m.) LONDON, July 6. In the House of I ords, tho debate was resumed on Clause 11. of tho Veto Bill, exempting from the opera- | tion of the Bill and Bills affecting Tho existence of tho Crown, The Protestant Succession, Home Rule for Ireland, Scotland, Wales, or England, Anything which a joint committee of tho two Houses regards as an issue of great gravity, upon which the judgment of the country has been insufficiently t that the P-- urofound mistake ~,, !„,.. -.-. - .-ta principle of the referendum.' Regarding Lord Morley's contention that the referendum would he destructive of repre- ' sentative government, he said he had i seen what was called representative government take many forms. Twentyfive years ago Liberal opinion had its say whichever quarter it came from, and it ii.fluenced Libera) action. Nowadays they had the closure, the caucus, and the group systems. Owing to these altered conditions, his Lordship contended, the referendum was now indespensible. It was necessary, he maintained, for the security of the State.' Continuing, Lord Weardale argued that representative government at the present time was tending not to liberty but to oligarchy. The country had accepted the principle of Home Rule, but that ciid not imply that the people , were in favour of all forms of Home Rule. The Government claimed a mandate for this Bill, but this mandate did not" imply that any Bill the Government liked to submit dealing with the Upper House must necessarily be an unalterable and sacrosanct measure. The passing of the Bill in its present foray would open the floodgates of faction, strife, and, perhaps, reaction. He appealed to the Government to reconsider its attitude and to submit modified proposals which would ensure the final settlement of this constitutional problem. Lord Handa tie, replying to Lord Weardale, said the device of the referendum had been rejected systematically by the democracies right through modern times. It was only brought into operation in Australia when the two Houses differed regarding the. constitution. (Loud Unionist cheers.) Continuing, Lord Haldane said the Government would not accept the proposal to adopt the referendum under any conceivable circumstances. Lord Selbourne, who next spoke, declared that the referendum had come to stay. Australia's rejnarkable j experience had proved it to bo a practical instrument of democratic government, which in no way impared the main features of representative government. Lord Lansdowne's amendment was carried by 253 votes to 46 votes. Lord Courtney, Lord Weardale, and the Bishop of Ripon abstained from voting. The Archbishops were absent. The Bishop of Birmingham (Rt. Rev. Dr. Gore) voted with the minority.