CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASONS. (Hansard, 23 June 1885)

LORD DENMAN
moved that the Commons' reasons for disagreeing to the Lords' Amendments be considered that day six months, on the ground that the measure was most imperfect, and had been forced through the House in a most unseemly manner. There was no reason to hurry forward an Election in November next, and the polling places could be completed before next year. In one division no polling places were complete until after the old registration to be completed in 1885.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN
said, he was perfectly astonished at the reasons which the Commons had sent up against this Amendment, and had been still more surprised at the speeches made in support of the Government in the House of Commons. The first reason given against the Amendment was that Jedburgh was a small town, closely connected with the county, and not homogeneous in its character with the Border Burghs. Jedburgh was not closely connected with the county, and it was homogeneous in character with the Border Burghs. Jedburgh was the only burgh liberated in the counties of Roxburgh and Selkirk which was not in the Border Burghs. If Mr. Trevelyan's arguments were worth anything at all 1609 they ought to be applied to Selkirkshire. It was said that as Jedburgh was the county town it ought to vote in the county; but it ought to follow that Selkirk, being the county town, ought to vote with the county. It had been said that Jedburgh was against the change; but that feeling was not unanimous, because a strong Petition had been sent up in favour of the Lords' Amendment. It was a mistake to suppose that the Amendment proposed to alter the existing state of things. Exactly the reverse was the case. What he wished to secure was that the vote which had been given to the agricultural labourers should be exercised to its full value. Mr. Trevelyan had written a public letter, in which he said that this was Party action of the most objectionable character. He perfectly agreed with that. He thought the action most objectionable, but not in the manner in which Mr. Trevelyan meant. So strongly did he feel that he was inclined to ask their Lordships to take another division on this point, and to stick to their Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT CRANBROOK
said, that looking at the circumstance that no one in the House of Commons had supported the change in the Bill upon this point which had been made by their Lordships, he should recommend his noble Friend not to insist upon the Amendment.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
also hoped the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lothian) would not insist upon going to a division.

§ THE EARL OF MINTO
said, he thought it was quite unnecessary to divide. He supported the original proposal of the Bill, considering it better that Jedburgh should remain in the county than that it should be joined to a set of burghs with which it had no connection.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN
said, that as no sufficient reason had been shown against the Amendment he should press it to a division.

THE EARL OF GALLOWAY
said, he hoped his noble Friend would reconsider his determination. The principles of the Bill had been agreed upon by the Leaders of both Houses, and he trusted his noble Friend would not think it worth while to put their Lordships to the trouble of another division on the subject. The same point might just as well be raised in regard to one of the 1610 burghs with which he was connected; but in the circumstances he had not considered himself justified in contesting it.

§ THE EARL OF HARROWBY
said, he would join in the appeal to the noble Marquess not to press the question to a division, as it was highly inexpedient at the present time to introduce anything like complication into the relations between the two Houses. While giving the noble Marquess every credit for the sincerity of his motives, he hoped he would withdraw his opposition.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN
said, he had no desire to do anything inconsistent with the public interest; and, therefore, after the appeal made to him by the noble Earl beside him, he would withdraw his opposition.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY,
in moving that the House should not insist upon its Amendment changing the name of the Spen Valley Division to that of Birstall, said, there was, no doubt, a great deal to be said in favour of both these names; but, in order to avoid any complication between the two Houses, he would ask their Lordships not to insist on this Amendment. Whatever might be the merits of the question between Birstall and the Spen Valley, the delay in the passage of this Bill was causing extreme inconvenience throughout the country, which would be aggravated if the alterations made by the other House were not now agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
proposed that their Lordships should adhere to their decision.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he must urge upon the House the undesirableness of any further delay in completing the final stage of this Bill. From all parts of the country complaints were arriving as to the confusion that was being caused by the delay of the measure, and further delay would be most serious.

§ VISCOUNT CRANBROOK
was bound to say that it was extremely desirable that the Bill should proceed without delay. Although he thought the deci- 1611 sion of the House of Commons on this matter an unwise one, there being no such place known as the Spen Valley, yet it would be better not to insist on the Amendment than to run the risk of further delaying the Bill.