HC Deb 10 May 1888 vol 325 cc1933-4

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords' Amendments be considered forthwith."—(Mr. J. B. Balfour.)

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

said, on former occasions he had taken objection to Lords' Amendments being considered without Notice. It was, in his view, a most improper proceeding, and in Ireland they had suffered from allowing it. Of course, he had no knowledge of, or interest in, this particular Bill; but he objected to the principle.

MR. J. B. BALFOITR (Clackmannan, &c.)

said, the Bill was brought in to make some very small amendments in the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, upon points as to which it was understood that there was a general consensus of opinion in Scotland. As introduced and passed through this House, the Bill applied both to counties and burghs; but it afterwards appeared that the counties desired to be exempted from its provisions, and effect was given to this desire by the Lords' Amendments. There was no objection to the Lords' Amendments, and the Bill in its present form had the assent, he believed, of both County and Burgh Authorities.


said, he was under the impression that there was an understanding that Lords' Amendments should be put upon the Paper. In the Procedure Committee, presided over by the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), it was agreed, at his instance, that Lords' Amendments should be considered in Committee; but here was the House considering such without Notice, or knowledge what they were.


If the hon. Member objects, this becomes an adjourned debate.


No; I do not do that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.