COMMITTEE. [FIFTH NIGHT.] (Hansard, 8 February 1894)

§ EARL CADOGAN
pointed out that one of the Amendments of the Leader of the House appeared to be merely for breaking up the clause.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)
said, he did not propose, unless the Committee desired it, to put such Amendments formally unless the words or their position were altered. Breaking up clauses did not seem to him to he really an Amendment, but rather a question of arrangement in the printing.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
said, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would remember that he had suggested an Amendment on Clause 20, which the noble Earl had promised to consider if necessary, and put in in Clause 30. He would not make over again the speech he made on the former occasion.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AM> SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)
said, the Act referred to in the Amendment was repealed by the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882. The trustees appointed under Section 71 of 154 the Act of 1835 seemed to be appointed for a temporary purpose only. According to his view, this was now more a question for the Charity Commissioners than for the Local Government Board.

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
said, on the previous occasion he was acting in the interest of people in Bristol interested in the matter, who were afraid their charities would come under this sub-section. He had since had communications from Coventry and Gloucester expressing the same apprehension. The noble Lord the other night apparently desired to bring these charities within the scheme of the Bill. He desired to know whether the Government were absolutely certain that the framework of the Bill, taking the sections together, did not in fact bring the charities under it? The introduction of parochial representatives on those bodies would cause great confusion, and render their administration absolutely impossible.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, the Amendment appeared to be wholly unnecessary. He was informed the trustees were only appointed for a temporary purpose. The trustees appointed by the Lord Chancellor under the Act of 1835 would not be affected. It was a question for the Charity Commissioners.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
understood that the trustees were appointed by the Charity Commissioners under the Act of 1852.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
had no information about that.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
asked what course he was to take to obtain information as to the intentions of the Government?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, the intentions of the Government were to oppose this proviso. He was informed that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, who was specially interested in Bristol, was quite satisfied that that town should be put into the Bill. The intention of the Government was not to interfere with the Bristol Charities.

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
assured the noble Lord that, according to a letter received from Bristol that morning, the people there were far from being satisfied. He asked whether, assuming it not to be the intention of the Government to apply the Act 155 to these charities, it would not be wiser to put in the proviso, or something like it, as the draftsman might think right, and make it clear once for all?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
was afraid his answer had not quite satisfied the noble Lord, but he would make a special note of the matter for the Report stage. He had stated the general view of the Government on the point, but could not give a further answer at present.

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
said, nothing could be more satisfactory than the answer the noble Lord had now given. He would withdraw his Amendment, and, if necessary, communicate with the Charity Commissioners or the Local Government Board.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
would prefer the question to be put again, in order that there should be no mistake.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
asked which of the Amendments was before the Committee? for nobody on that side of the House could hear a single word of what was going on.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, they were purely verbal matters.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY
said, noble Lords could not hear what the words in question wore.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, that the Statute referred to the complete County of London, and the question was whether the words in page 29 should remain in or not.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)
said, the Question was whether the words "Administrative County of London" should stand part of the clause or not.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
pointed out that the Amendments proposed on page 29 would contradict Subsection (2).

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, that would not be the case, the subsection referring to the Administrative County of London.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)
said, the words were "save as aforesaid."

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, that was just as it was in the other place. It did not go the whole length of the Act.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, the noble Marquess's criticism had been made before.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, that did not destroy its value.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, the omission of the words "Administrative County of London" would make it less clear.

§ THE DUKE OF RUTLAND
thought "save as aforesaid" had been struck out and another form of words substituted.

§ LORD LAMINGTON
said, he would withdraw his Amendment on the Taper— After Clause 30, to insert New Clause—("Before or after the appointed day it shall be the duty of the counsel of the Administrative County of London, the Corporation of the City of London, and so far as relates to its own and adjoining districts of every Sanitary Authority within the Metropolis, after due consideration, to make any representation to the Local Government Board as they think expedient for adjusting the boundaries of districts, for the amalgamation of existing districts, and the formation of new districts, and for transferring to the Council of the respective districts the duties of other Local Authorities within such districts (other than the duties of Guardians), and for abolishing the authorities whose duties are so transferred. The Local Government Board shall, unless for special reasons they think that the representation ought not to be entertained, cause inquiry to be made, and may make a Provisional Order for the proposal contained in 157 such representation and for such other proposal as they may deem expedient, or may refuse such Order. The Local Government Hoard may make a Provisional Order in pursuance of this section without any representation as in this section mentioned. A Provisional Order under this section shall not be of any effect until it is confirmed by Parliament. For the purpose of this section all the provisions of the Local Government (England and Wales) Act. 1888, shall, so far as they are not inconsistent with this Act, be incorporated with this Act, and the Commissioners appointed under Section 61 of the said Act of 1888 shall be the Commissioners for the purposes of this Act.")