HL Deb 18 June 1895 vol 34 cc1369-70

On the Motion to go into Committee on this Bill,

*LORD BALFOUR

said, that as to the course the House should pursue in regard to this Bill on the occasion of the Second Reading after what fell from the noble Lord who represented the Privy Council, it was clear that whilst there were some points in the Bill which might lead to controversy, there was an inclination to accept its chief proposals. At the same time it was intimated that certain clauses would have to be changed in form. He had since had an interview with the noble Lord opposite on the subject; and the result of that interview was, that certain Amendments had been prepared, it being the wish of the Privy Council that they should be introduced into the Bill. Nearly all these Amendments were concerned with matters of form. The course which he suggested should lie taken now was that the Bill should be committed pro formâ so that these Amendments might be inserted, and that afterwards the Bill should be recommitted from subsequent circumstances. Points, which were matters of substance rather than of form, could then be debated in Committee of the whole House, unencumbered by details which might obscure the merits of the questions upon which discussion was desirable.

LORD PLAYFAIR

said, that the Government were prepared to consent to the course suggested by the noble Lord. The Amendments to be introduced that afternoon had been drawn up by agreement between the Privy Council and the noble Lord. At a subsequent Stage, it would probably be necessary to propose Amendments, which might not meet with equal approval from the promoters of the measure.

The House resolved itself into Committee on the Bill, which passed through Committee without Amendments.

On the Report,

*LORD BALFOUR moved that the Amendments standing in his name be inserted.

Motion agreed to.

*LORD BALFOUR

next moved that the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House.

Motion agreed to.