The Parliamentary Debates (Authorized Edition) Volume 148 (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1905 Excerpt: ...the Act, he will explain why the recent rule regarding motor-cars was not laid before Parliament for the statutory time. LoRD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley): I have to refer my hon. friend to the reply given to the hon. Baronet the Member for Barrow-in-Furness on June 27thf; also to the judgment in the recent case of Musgrave v. Kennison in the High Court (June 8th). Mr. SCOTT-MONTAGU: Do I understand the noble Lord to say that no notice is required for these regulations? LoRD BALCARRES: The hon. Member must be aware that in the case to which I have referred judgment was given in fa-our of the course which the Office of Works has always pursued. Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the noble Lord actually rely on the judgment of the Court for his interpretation of the Act of Parliament 1 lord BALCARRES: Not at all. The judgment was in favour of tne course which the Office of Works has pursued since 1872. There is a distinction between rules and regulations, and the Lord Chief Justice upheld the practice of the Office of Works. Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I understand rules must be laid but not regulations, or vice versa'( lord BALCARRES: The matter is perfectly clear. Rules made under the Act have to be laid. Regulations may be made under the rules, and that i? what we have done in this case, and indeed in all other cases during the last thirty years. The Exclusion of Private Carriages from Hyde Park. Mr. SCOTT-MONTAGU: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the fact that by Section 11 of the Parks Regulation Act, 1872, no interference with rights of way is allowed in any of the Royal parks, _he will say under what Act or regulation private carriages are now being excluded by the authority of the Commissi..

R1,907

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles19070
Mobicred@R179pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1905 Excerpt: ...the Act, he will explain why the recent rule regarding motor-cars was not laid before Parliament for the statutory time. LoRD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley): I have to refer my hon. friend to the reply given to the hon. Baronet the Member for Barrow-in-Furness on June 27thf; also to the judgment in the recent case of Musgrave v. Kennison in the High Court (June 8th). Mr. SCOTT-MONTAGU: Do I understand the noble Lord to say that no notice is required for these regulations? LoRD BALCARRES: The hon. Member must be aware that in the case to which I have referred judgment was given in fa-our of the course which the Office of Works has always pursued. Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the noble Lord actually rely on the judgment of the Court for his interpretation of the Act of Parliament 1 lord BALCARRES: Not at all. The judgment was in favour of tne course which the Office of Works has pursued since 1872. There is a distinction between rules and regulations, and the Lord Chief Justice upheld the practice of the Office of Works. Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I understand rules must be laid but not regulations, or vice versa'( lord BALCARRES: The matter is perfectly clear. Rules made under the Act have to be laid. Regulations may be made under the rules, and that i? what we have done in this case, and indeed in all other cases during the last thirty years. The Exclusion of Private Carriages from Hyde Park. Mr. SCOTT-MONTAGU: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the fact that by Section 11 of the Parks Regulation Act, 1872, no interference with rights of way is allowed in any of the Royal parks, _he will say under what Act or regulation private carriages are now being excluded by the authority of the Commissi..

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

March 2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

March 2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 34mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

668

ISBN-13

978-1-130-30761-0

Barcode

9781130307610

Categories

LSN

1-130-30761-1



Trending On Loot