CHRIST'S HOSPITAL (LONDON) BILL [Lords]. (BY ORDER.) (Hansard, 14 June 1901)

§ LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)
said it was his intention to have moved that this Bill be read a second time this day three months, but the promoters and himself had agreed that it would be more satisfactory to discuss the question at issue upon an Instruction to the Committee, and under those circumstances he begged to withdraw his motion, and to intimate that the motion would be discussed this day week.

§ MR. RICHARDS (Finsbury, E.)
said he represented those whose original intention it was to oppose the Bill altogether unless a compromise could be effected between them and the Christ's Hospital authorities with regard to the real points at issue. It had been stated that those who were seeking to prevent the authorities from building upon a burial ground and destroying a most valuable open space were endeavouring in that way to prevent the authorities from securing the necessary funds to support the institution in its new home at Horsham. Many of them would have liked to oppose the scheme from the beginning, but, as the Charity Commissioners had forced the hands of Christ's Hospital, and the authorities had built a school at Horsham, it would be absurd to ask the House to refuse to give the necessary permission to the Foundation to sell what was required for the re-endowment and for the payment of the expenses to which they had been put. Far from attempting in any way to hamper the hospital, their only object was to secure the preservation of the cloisters and the two open spaces now existing.

§ SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALE (London)
expressed a hope that the assertions 387 of the hon. Member who had last spoken would not be regarded by the outside public as accurate. When the matter came up for discussion he thought he would be able to show the House that the statements were absolutely unfounded.

§ MR. MELLOR (Yorkshire, W.R., Sowerby)
agreed with the action taken, and pointed out that it would have been impossible for him to support a motion for the rejection of the Bill.

§ CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)
, as one greatly interested in the matter through his constituents, entirely concurred in the statements made by the noble Lord and the hon. Member for East Finsbury. Any remarks he wished to make he would reserve, he added, until the Instruction was under discussion.