HL Deb 04 July 1889 vol 337 cc1428-9

House in Committee on recommitment (according to Order).

* LORD BALFOUR

, in moving the omission of Clause 14, said: The ground on which I move to omit this clause is, that in the Committee an Amendment to the next clause was carried, which will involve demands upon the Treasury, which were not contemplated when the Bill came up to your Lordships' House. I now take this course without again arguing the question on its merits, for the purpose of putting matters into such a position that the other House of Parliament if it choose can re-insert the clause in the form in which it please. It is only under these circumstances and purely upon technical grounds that I ask your Lordships to strike out the clause.

On Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill," resolved in the negative.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH

called attention to certain words in the schedule to the Bill, which, as he understood, necessitated the examination in London of all the Inspectors under the Act, a course which would involve great inconvenience to Provincial Inspectors.

* LORD BALFOUR

If the noble Marquess will put on the Paper the Amendment which he suggests I shall be glad to consider them before taking the subsequent stage of the Bill. I think the noble Marquess is not accurate in his reading of the Bill. I take it that the Board of Trade need not insist upon all the Inspectors coming up to London to be examined. There is nothing in the Bill as to where the examination shall take place, and I assume as a matter of course that they will be held at centres convenient to those who desire to undergo the examination.

Other Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Monday next, and Bill to be printed as amended, (No. 141.)