DOCSLIB.ORG

Children's 76

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CHILDREN'S 76 this Committee agree to make provision in revenue estimates for continuing, on a proportionate basis, the financial aid at present being afforded by Middlesex County Council to the extent shown hereunder to the Voluntary Organisations respectively named, viz.: — £ The Middlesex Association for the Blind ... ... 150 approx. The Southern Regional Association for the Blind ... 49 approx. Middlesex and Surrey League for the Hard of Hearing ... 150 approx. 27. Appointment of Deputy Welfare Officer: RESOLVED: That the Com­ mittee note the appointment by the Establishment Committee (Appointments Sub-Committee) on 16th November, 1964, of Mr. Henry James Vagg to this post (Scales A/B). (The meeting dosed at 9.10 p.m.) c Chairman. CHILDREN'S COMMITTEE: 30th December, 1964. Present: Councillors Mrs. Nott Cock (in the Chair), Cohen, G. Da vies, Mrs. Edwards, Mrs. Haslam, Mrs. Rees, Rouse, Tackley and B. C. A. Turner. PART I.—RECOMMENDATIONS.—NIL. PART n.—MINUTES. 10. Minutes: RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 30th September, 1964, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a correct record. 11. Appointment of Children's Officer: RESOLVED: That the Committee re­ ceive the report of the Town Clerk that the London Borough of Harrow Appointments Sub-Committee on 16th November, 1964, appointed Miss C. L. J. S. Boag, at present Area Children's Officer Middlesex County Coun­ cil, to the post of Children's Officer in the Department of the Medical Officer of Health with effect from 1st April, 1965, at a salary in accordance with lettered Grades C/D. 12. Allocation of Stanmore Residential Nursery: With reference to resolu­ tion 7 (30th September, 1964), the Town Clerk reported that the London Borough of Brent had declined to meet representatives of this Committee to discuss the allocation of the Stanmore Residential Nursery and that the Committee's representations that this nursery should be allocated to Harrow had accordingly been forwarded direct to the Home Office. RESOLVED: That the report be received and that the Town Clerk be asked to urge the Home Office to make a decision upon the allocation of these premises. 77 CHILDREN'S 13. Allocation of Children's Service Properties: RESOLVED: That the Com­ mittee note the representations made by the London Boroughs of Brent and Hillingdon upon the Middlesex County Council's suggested allocation of Children's Service Properties generally and agree to take no action thereon at the present time. 14. Transfer of Responsibility for Children in Care on 31st March, 1965: The Town Clerk reported that among the functions relating to the Children's Service in Greater London which would be transferred to the London Borough Councils on 1st April, 1965, was the statutory responsibility for children in care of the existing authorities immediately before the Appointed Day and submitted a memorandum by the Home Office and a report of the Middlesex County Children's Officer upon the principles involved in such transfer. As the Home Office wished to have the Council's observations by the 21st December, 1964, the Chairman authorised the Town Clerk to inform the Home Office that Harrow considered that the children should be al­ located on the basis of " area of origin " being the practice currently in force in Middlesex. RESOLVED: That the Committee confirm the action of the Chairman. 15. Children's Services in Greater London: The Town Clerk reported that the Home Secretary had invited the Greater London Council, in common with the Councils of the peripheral Counties and the Local Authority As­ sociations concerned, to express its view on certain proposals affecting the future administration of the Children's Services in Greater London. The Home Secretary had received suggestions that legislation should be intro­ duced to change the arrangements which were made by the London Govern­ ment Act, 1963, for the transfer of the Children's Service in Greater London to the London Borough Councils on 1st April, 1965. The changes suggested would not affect the responsibility of the London Borough Councils for the day to day running of the Children's service or the statutory responsibility of the Borough Councils towards the Children's care. They would however confer on the Greater London Council certain functions in relation to the Children's Service which it has been suggested, could more effectively be exercised over the whole or part of the area by a Central Authority and particularly relate to residential facilities such as remand homes, children's homes and hostels. The Town Clerk submitted a copy of the Home Office memorandum outlining the proposals together with views of the London Boroughs Advis­ ory Body of Children's Officers and of the Children's Officer of the London County Council. He also reported that the Greater London Council at their meeting on 22nd December, 1964, approved the proposals and that the London Boroughs Committee by a majority vote of 13 votes to 11 votes, with eight Boroughs not represented, accepted the proposals in principle, and that the London Boroughs of Barnet and Hillingdon had strongly repre­ sented against the proposals. RESOLVED: (1) That the Committee strongly oppose any diminution of the powers granted by the London Government Act, 1963, and resist the suggestion that any Children's powers already granted to the London Borough Councils by the London Government Act, 1963, should be con­ ferred on the Greater London Council as they consider that the London Boroughs are fully competent to administer this service as a whole. LIBRARIES 78 (2) That the Town Clerk be authorised to convey these views to the Mem­ bers of Parliament for Harrow, the Harrow Representatives on the Greater London Council and the Under Secretary of State, Home Office. (Note: Councillors Cohen, G. Davies and Mrs. Edwards voted against this resolution.) 16. Appointment of Persons to Employment Involving the Care of Children: RESOLVED: That the Committee receive and note the Home Office circular 250/1964 dated 27th October, 1964, reminding Local Authorities of the desirability of taking up references and consulting the Home Office as to their suitability before appointing persons to Child Care Work. 17. Co-opted Members: RESOLVED: That the Committee receive with thanks and appreciation a letter from Mr. V. G. S. Ashworth, Senior Pro­ bation Officer in Harrow, offering the co-operation of the Probation Service to the Children's Committee; but defer for the time being the question of the co-option of Mr. Ashworth upon the Committee. 18. Date of Next Meeting: RESOLVED: That, because of a clash of member­ ship, the Committee agreed that the next meeting of the Committee be trans­ ferred from Monday, 22nd February, 1965 to Thursday, 25th February, 1965, at 8 p.m. (Note: The meeting ended at 8.10 /> m.) Chairman. LIBRARIES COMMITTEE: llth December, 1964. Present: Councillor Tackley (in the Chair); Alderman Gange, J.P.; Coun­ cillors Cocksedge, Mrs. Debell, Harkett, M.D. Hartley Hill, Judge and O'Loughlin, C.C. PART I.—RECOMMENDATIONS. RECOMMENDATION I: Public Libraries Act, 1901: Section 3: Byelaws and Regulations Governing Libraries in the Borough. It is essential that the Council should approve, and adopt, prior to 1st April, 1965, Byelaws and Regulations for regulating the use and for the proper con­ trol and protection of their Public Libraries on and after that date. The draft Byelaws printed in the appendix hereto, follow model byelaws issued by the Department of Education and Science. When considering the draft Byelaws reservations were expressed as to whether in paragraph 1 (d) of the draft Byelaws the definition of the term " book " was wide enough to in­ clude items such as films, tape-recordings and similar articles; after hearing the Town Clerk we are now satisfied on this point. We also recommend for adoption, the draft Regulations for the conduct and safety of the Public Libraries, a copy of which has been sent to each Member.
Recommended publications
  • London and Middlesex in the 1660S Introduction: the Early Modern

    London and Middlesex in the 1660S Introduction: the Early Modern

    London and Middlesex in the 1660s Introduction: The early modern metropolis first comes into sharp visual focus in the middle of the seventeenth century, for a number of reasons. Most obviously this is the period when Wenceslas Hollar was depicting the capital and its inhabitants, with views of Covent Garden, the Royal Exchange, London women, his great panoramic view from Milbank to Greenwich, and his vignettes of palaces and country-houses in the environs. His oblique birds-eye map- view of Drury Lane and Covent Garden around 1660 offers an extraordinary level of detail of the streetscape and architectural texture of the area, from great mansions to modest cottages, while the map of the burnt city he issued shortly after the Fire of 1666 preserves a record of the medieval street-plan, dotted with churches and public buildings, as well as giving a glimpse of the unburned areas.1 Although the Fire destroyed most of the historic core of London, the need to rebuild the burnt city generated numerous surveys, plans, and written accounts of individual properties, and stimulated the production of a new and large-scale map of the city in 1676.2 Late-seventeenth-century maps of London included more of the spreading suburbs, east and west, while outer Middlesex was covered in rather less detail by county maps such as that of 1667, published by Richard Blome [Fig. 5]. In addition to the visual representations of mid-seventeenth-century London, a wider range of documentary sources for the city and its people becomes available to the historian.
  • Giving Prescriptions Instead ; This Would Bring the Expendi

    Giving Prescriptions Instead ; This Would Bring the Expendi

    43 attending the casualty department-, had increased of latt- HOSPITAL REFORM. years with excessive rapidity. while there had also been an increase of out-patients, and that many cases in both departments were of a trivial character which could be dealt A SPEClAL meeting of the Council of the Charity Organisa- with satisfactorily by general practitioners and for which tion Society was held on June 20th at the United Services hospital aid was unnecessary. The practical suggestions Institntiouto discuss suggestions for the reform of the which he submitted as the result of conference with others were that all cases should a casualty and out-patient departments of London hospitals. casualty be seen by medical officer, who should select from them cases which were urgent Sir JOSHUA FITCH was in the chair and there was a large or of value for educational purposes, referring the rest in attendance. general terms to local medical men or an approved provident Mr. T. CLINTON DENT, surgeon to St. George’s Hospital. dispensary. In the out-patient department also the selec- described an experiment which is about tu be made in tion was to be made by a medical officer. but the suggestions connexion with the New Belgrave Hospital for Children. for disposing of them were more complicated, including a It was proposed to guard against the overgrowth of the limitation of the number of new cases to 15 or 20, a prefer- number of out-patients by limitation of new cases and ence for members of friendly societies, provident dispen- selection and at the same time to place a check upon the saries, and others recommended by their own medical undue multiplication of casualty patients.
  • Goschen's Assigned Revenues System and the Chiswick High

    Goschen's Assigned Revenues System and the Chiswick High

    ‘A bad bargain for local authorities’: Goschen’s Assigned Revenues System and the Chiswick High Road, 1902-1911 Tracey Logan, University of Leicester, ([email protected]) Supervisors: Professor Simon Gunn and Professor Rosemary Sweet Figure 1: A quiet lunchtime on Chiswick High Road (circa 1905).1 Considering a short-stretch of strategically-important highway in Greater London, this paper addresses the impact of a post-1888 financial settlement on local government which underfunded main roads in the pre-First World War decade. Chiswick High Road is a one and three-quarter mile (2.8 km) stretch of the ancient London to Bath ‘Great Western Road’, within the county of Middlesex. As a major London artery it had always been busy, but the turn-of-the-century separation of home and work life added commuters to the High Road’s business and pleasure traffic. This was especially true after 1900 when motor vehicles joined the horses, trams and traction engines pounding its wood-paved surface, increasing road maintenance and improvement costs, including safety measures. Constraints of space limit this paper to main road maintenance. From 1902 Chiswick’s main road funding became precarious, forcing its Urban District Council (UDC) to compensate through increased district rates and borrowing. By 1906 community tension over this posed a threat to its local government, when Chiswick’s Ratepayers Association- backed candidates challenging councillors in four of the district’s six wards.2 It was the most highly- contested poll in over a decade. Ratepayers were not told their high rates and UDC indebtedness were partly due to Middlesex County Council’s (MCC’s) underfunding of their main road and its unfavourable post-1902 reimbursement terms for constituent local authorities.
  • Local Government in London Had Always Been More Overtly Partisan Than in Other Parts of the Country but Now Things Became Much Worse

    Local Government in London Had Always Been More Overtly Partisan Than in Other Parts of the Country but Now Things Became Much Worse

    Part 2 The evolution of London Local Government For more than two centuries the practicalities of making effective governance arrangements for London have challenged Government and Parliament because of both the scale of the metropolis and the distinctive character, history and interests of the communities that make up the capital city. From its origins in the middle ages, the City of London enjoyed effective local government arrangements based on the Lord Mayor and Corporation of London and the famous livery companies and guilds of London’s merchants. The essential problem was that these capable governance arrangements were limited to the boundaries of the City of London – the historic square mile. Outside the City, local government was based on the Justices of the Peace and local vestries, analogous to parish or church boundaries. While some of these vestries in what had become central London carried out extensive local authority functions, the framework was not capable of governing a large city facing huge transport, housing and social challenges. The City accounted for less than a sixth of the total population of London in 1801 and less than a twentieth in 1851. The Corporation of London was adamant that it neither wanted to widen its boundaries to include the growing communities created by London’s expansion nor allow itself to be subsumed into a London-wide local authority created by an Act of Parliament. This, in many respects, is the heart of London’s governance challenge. The metropolis is too big to be managed by one authority, and local communities are adamant that they want their own local government arrangements for their part of London.
  • Middlesex. Ruislip

    Middlesex. Ruislip

    I DIRECTC'RY. J MIDDLESEX. RUISLIP. a43 eentral cylindrical shaft, with four smaller ones at the near the river Pin, and has a " Halt " on the Electric Motor angles, · · from a stone base : and in 1870 the chancel line from Harrow to Uxbridge. Here iS a Wesleyan chapel, 1ras under the direction of Mr. Ewan Christian, built in 1847. Eastcote House, formerly the- residence of and the rest of tho fabric by the late Sir G. G. Scott B.A.. : the Hawtreys and the property of Ralph Hawtrey Deane there are 500 sittings. The register of baptisms dates from esq. is now occupied by Charles Campbell McLeod esq. the year 1689; burials, 1695; marriage:s, 1699. The living is a vicarage, net yearly value £300, including 250 acrffi of King's End joins Ruislip. glebe, with residence, in the gift of the Dean and Canons RUISLIP COMMON is a hamlet, ll miles north--west, of Win.dsor, and held since 1900 by the Rev. William Arthur in the midst of an elevated district, with an extensive and Gordon Gray M.A. of Clare C-ollege, Cambridge, and rural beautiful prospect. Here is also a Methodist chapel. dean of Uxbridge. A new vicarage house, in the Eliza­ bethan style, was built in 1R81. Mrs. E. Rogers, in 1802, St. Catherine's End, or Little Manor, is 1 mile north-west ; left £380 to be invested in Consols, out of which £2 2s. was Duck's Hill, 2 miles north-west. to be paid to the vicar if he preached on Good Friday and Sexton, J oseph E.
  • Research Unit

    Research Unit

    September 2019 Research Unit Briefing: Mapping the Mayor’s Strategies An analysis of the Mayor of London’s strategic policy and spending priorities 1 September 2019 Briefing: Mapping the Mayor’s Strategies About the London Assembly The London Assembly is part of the Greater London Authority (GLA). The Assembly is made up of 25 Members who are elected by Londoners at the same time as the Mayor. It is the job of the Assembly to hold the Mayor and Mayoral advisers to account by publicly examining policies, activities and decisions that affect Londoners. The London Assembly question the Mayor’s plans and actions directly at Mayor’s Question Time and our committees examine issues that matter to Londoners through public meetings and investigations. Jennette Arnold OBE Tony Arbour Gareth Bacon Shaun Bailey Sian Berry Labour Conservative Conservative Conservative Green Andrew Boff Leonie Cooper Tom Copley Unmesh Desai Tony Devenish Conservative Labour Labour Labour Conservative Andrew Dismore Len Duvall OBE Florence Eshalomi Nicky Gavron Susan Hall Labour Labour Labour Labour Conservative David Kurten Joanne McCartney Steve O’Connell Caroline Pidgeon MBE Keith Prince Brexit Alliance Labour Conservative Liberal Democrat Conservative Caroline Russell Dr Onkar Sahota Navin Shah Fiona Twycross Peter Whittle Green Labour Labour Labour Brexit Alliance 2 September 2019 Contents 1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................
  • THE LONDON GAZETTE, 22 NOVEMBER, 1912. 8749 in Parliament.—Session 1913

    THE LONDON GAZETTE, 22 NOVEMBER, 1912. 8749 in Parliament.—Session 1913

    THE LONDON GAZETTE, 22 NOVEMBER, 1912. 8749 In Parliament.—Session 1913. of Middlesex, commencing in the parish METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD of Laleham, in the rural district of (VARIOUS POWERS). Staines, by a junction with Conduit No. 22 authorized by the Metro- (Construction by Metropolitan Water Board politan Water Board (New Works) Act, of Waterworks, Wharf, Railways and otheV 1911, at a point on the southern side of the Works in the Counties of London, Middle- existing Staines Aqueduct of the Board, and sex, Kent and Surrey; Power to Deviate; within the fences of that aqueduct, 6£ Acquisition and Appropriation of Lands for chains or thereabouts, : measured in a Purposes of Intended Worksi and other Pur- westerly direction from the centre of the poses; Exemption from 92nd Section of River Ash where that river passes under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845; said aqueduct near the house known as Extinction of Rights; Agreements for White House, and terminating in the parish Draining Lands and Prevention of Pollu- of Sunbury, in the urban district of Sun- tion; Diversion of Streams; Power to Retain bury-on-Thames, by a junction with an Lauds; Reservation of Rights on Sale of existing pipe of the Board at a point 1£ Lands; Provisions as to Compensation in chains or thereabouts measured in a Certain Cases; Revival of Powers for Con- southerly direction from the south-eastern structing Works and Acquisition of Lands corner of the southern valve-house at the Dis- in Middlesex authorized by New River Com- tribution Reservoir at the termination of the pany's Act, 1896; Extension of Time for said Staines Aqueduct, and | chain or there- Completion of Certain Works in Middlesex abouts measured in a north-easterly direc- and Essex, and Revival of Powers for Con- tion from the eastern bank of the brook structing other works in those Counties known as the Portlane brook.
  • Seven Dials Guidelines

    Seven Dials Guidelines

    Conservation area statement Seven Dials (Covent Garden) 7 Newman Street Street Queen Great akrStreet Parker Theatre London tklyStreet Stukeley New aki Street Macklin Drury Lane This way up for map etro Street Betterton Endell St hrsGardens Shorts Neal Street Theatre Cambridge ala Street Earlham Mercer Street omuhStreet Monmouth Dials page 3 Location Seven page 6 History page 10 Character page 19 Audit Tower Street page 26 Guidelines West Street hfebr Avenue Shaftesbury SEVEN DIALS (Covent Garden) Conservation Area Statement The aim of this Statement is to provide a clear indication of the Council’s approach to the preservation and enhancement of the Seven Dials (Covent Garden) Conservation Area. The Statement is for the use of local residents, community groups, businesses, property owners, architects and developers as an aid to the formulation and design of development proposals and change in the area. The Statement will be used by the Council in the assessment of all development proposals. Camden has a duty under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to designate as conservation areas any “areas of special architectural or historic interest, the character or historic interest of which it is desirable to preserve.” Designation provides the basis for policies designed to preserve or enhance the special interest of such an area. Designation also introduces a general control over the demolition of unlisted buildings. The Council’s policies and guidance for conservation areas are contained in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). This Statement is part of SPG and gives additional detailed guidance in support of UDP policies.
  • A«»«N, TOWN PLANNING and VALUATION

    A«»«N, TOWN PLANNING and VALUATION

    /a«»«n, TOWN PLANNING AND 18th December, 1944. VALUATION COMMITTEE Present : Councillor Priestley (in the Chair), Councillors Brown, C.C., committee. Beacham, Carter, Charles, J.P., Coles, Daniels, J.P., Ellement and Gange. PART I.—RECOMMENDATIONS. RECOMMENDATION I-Town and Country Planning Acts, 1932 : Proposed Formation of Executive Joint Town Planning Committees for Middlesex. Your Committee reported at length on this matter to the Council on 22nd July, 1944. The Council at that meeting (by Council resolution 2919) approved, in principle, the setting up of executive joint town planning committees in Middlesex in accordance with the suggestion which had been made by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. The Ministry indicated that it would be appropriate to form three such joint committees in the County, one of these to be called the " West Middlesex Executive Joint Planning Committee" and to be appointed by the Borough Councils of Hendon, Wembley and Willesden and the Urban District Councils of Harrow, Ruislip-Northwood and Uxbridge. By the same resolution the Council authorised your Committee to appoint representatives to discuss generally, with representatives of the five other local authorities concerned, matters relating to the formation and constitution of the new West Middlesex executive joint committee, which was then being suggested by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. The final paragraph of the recommendation adopted by the Council on 22nd July, 1944, contains an instruction to your Committee to report further, with appropriate recommendations, when a decision upon the proposals of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning had been arrived at. A conference was held in Harrow on 18th October, 1944, at which there were present representatives of the six local authorities mentioned above.
  • Docklands Revitalisation of the Waterfront

    Docklands Revitalisation of the Waterfront

    Docklands Revitalisation of the Waterfront 1. Introduction 2. The beginning of Docklands 2.1. London’s first port 2.2. The medieval port 2.3. London’s Port trough the ages 3. The end of the harbour 4. The Revitalisation 4.1. Development of a new quarter 4.2. New Infrastructure 5. The result 6. Criticism 7. Sources 1. Introduction Docklands is the semi-official name for an area in east London. It is composed of parts of the boroughs of Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Newham and Greenwich. Docklands is named after docks of the London port which had been in this area for centuries. Between 1960 and 1980, all of London's docks were closed, because of the invention of the container system of cargo transportation. For this system the docks were too small. Consequently London had a big area of derelict land which should be used on new way. The solution was to build up a new quarter with flats, offices and shopping malls. Map with 4 the parts of London Docklands and surrounding boroughs (Source: Wikipedia.org) 2. The beginning of Docklands 2.1. London’s first port Within the Roman Empire which stretched from northern Africa to Scotland and from Spain to Turkey, Londinium (London) became an important centre of communication, administration and redistribution. The most goods and people that came to Britain passed through Londinium. Soon this harbour became the busiest place of whole Londinium. On the river a harbour developed were the ships from the west countries and ships from overseas met. 2.2. The medieval port From 1398 the mayor of London was responsible for conserving the river Thames.
  • Friern-​Barnet​-Library

    Friern-​Barnet​-Library

    FRIERN-BARNET-LIBRARY ​ ​ A Brief History! A note from Friern Barnet Community Library; ​ FBCL Would Like To Thank; ‘Dorrell Dressekie’ ​ Friern Barnet & District Local History Society for providing us with this copy of his work. More details at the end of this document. In this writing; you could find interesting facts, such as; ● The very first book [The Story of San Michele] taken out from this library in 1934, ● The background, People & services like lending up to 700 books daily! ● The script of the library-opening-prayer! ● The Local people, closure, campaign ● The opening of Friern Barnet Community Library. Please Note; There are some Converted-Typo-Errors as this is an old document now converted in a digital ​ ​ format, and technology is not perfect! Below you may see some inappropriate ‘8’ so; consider it ‘g’ (!!). We hope you find this history fascinating! FBCL ( March.2019. F.I.) Frìern Barnet district Local History Society This history was compiled​ ​ and written by Dorrell​ Dressekie​ in 2010 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ and updated in June 2012 ​ ​ ​ Background Friem Barnet Library, housed in a Tudor style building in Friern Barnet Road, was ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ opened in 1934 by the Middlesex County Council Library Service. A purpose•built ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ a library, it was among the first to be built and filled out under the County Scheme ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ for whole-time lending libraries. Other whole-time lending libraries of the period ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ under the Scheme were Uxbridge (1930), Y iewsley (1931 ) and Hayts (1933). ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Before the opening of the label, Friem Banner Urban District Council had quite a ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ different procedure for the lending of books.
  • Harrow Urban District Council

    Harrow Urban District Council

    3ist July, 1934. Vol. 1—No 6. HARROW URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL, MINUTES of the Monthly Meeting of the Council held in the Technical School, Station Road, Harrow, on Tuesday, the 31st day of July, 1934. PRESENT: Councillor Mr. T. Charles, J.P. (Chairman). „ Mr. G. F. Telfer (Vice-Chairman). Councillor Mrs. M. E. Webb. Councillor Mr. T. A. Ellement. Mr. W. T. Adams. Mr. A. G. Elliot-Smith. Mr. G. VV. Alien. Mr. D. C. Ellis. ., Mr. A. C. Andrews. Dr. R. Forbes, J.P. ,, Mr. C. Brown. ,, Mr. J. Greer. ,, Mr. A. Buttle. Mr. J. E. Ousey. Mr. F. A. Coles. Mr. D. J. Pratt. Mr. F. P. Cope. Mr. S. J. Rust. ,, Mr. H. Cornish. Mr. J. V. Smith. Mr. R. W. Cowan. ,, Mr. E. G. Swann. ,, Mr. E. L. Cridford. Mr. H. Walker. ,, Dr. N. Crosby. ,, Mr. W. Weston. ,, Mr. H. Dawson. ,, Mr. J. Wibberley. Mr. G. W. B. Wilkins. (131) MINUTES.—The Minutes of the Meeting of the Council held on 3rd July, 1934, being printed, were taken as read and the file copy signed, attention being directed to the following :— (a) an inaccuracy in Minute No. 118, which should refer to children at Roe Green having to attend the new school at D'Arcy Gardens, Kenton ; 3ist July, 1934. 274 (b) Minute No. 119, Resolutions Nod. 664 and 665, page 239—Councillor Cowan not shewn as voting against; (c) Minute No. 105, Resolution Nod. 521, page 202— the grounds for the proposition not stated, i.e., on a point of equity, having regard to the Council's decision to supply surplices for clergy ; and (a) Minute No.