§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 2.
§ (3.5.) BARON DIMSDALE (Herts, Hitchin)The object of this clause is to provide that where the district for which the adoption of the Act is proposed contains a population of 5,000 or more the opinion of the voters shall be taken by voting papers alone, and that where the population is under 5,000 they may proceed either by voting papers or by public meeting. I have an Amendment to move, the effect of which, with consequential alterations, will be to abolish the procedure by public meeting in all cases. Up to the year 1877 the procedure was entirely by public meeting; but subsequent to that a change was made, and the Local Authorities had the alternative given them of proceeding either by voting paper or public meeting. The Preamble of the Act bringing about this change declared that it had been found in many cases that public meeting was an unsatisfactory mode of indicating the general opinion of the ratepayers, and that it was desirable to adopt a more efficacious method of ascertaining that public opinion. I cannot understand why the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill should make the distinction he does between populations of under and above 5,000. It is in the small places that the greatest difficulty arises. In a large place if there is an objection to the establishment of a library the objection will be well-known, and effect will be given to the objection; but in small 1222 places the matter will not be so well discussed; and if there should be a public meeting it may only be attended by a few persons, and the ratepayers at large may find themselves involved at the will of those few persons in a very heavy burden. Violent agitations frequently take place on subjects of this kind, and we cannot be too careful in our legislation. If the right hon. Baronet will strike out the 5,000 limit it will give great satisfaction. Personally, I am very much in favour of the adoption of the Library Act in all cases where it can be adopted, but I am averse to its being put into operation by the machinery proposed. My Amendments will affect Clauses 2 and 5.
§ Amendment moved, in page 1, line 26, to leave out from the word "In" to the word "cases."—(Baron Dimsdale.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ *(3.11.) SIR J. LUBBOCKInasmuch as a poll is demanded in most cases where proceedings are taken by public meeting, I think it would be a saving of expense* to proceed by voting paper in the first instance. I am as anxious as anyone in the House can be that the Public Libraries Act should be adopted generally throughout the country; but, at the same time, I have no desire that it should be adopted in any instance against the wish of the people concerned. I feel that if there is not a public desire for a Public Library, the establishment of such an institution will not be useful. The hon. Member thinks that, under the clause as it stands, Public Libraries would be decided on without sufficient consideration. I do not agree with him. I admit, however, that the holding of a public meeting may involve unnecessary expense and trouble to the ratepayers, and I am in the hands of the Committee in regard to the Amendment.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Other Amendments made.
§ Clause 3.
§ *(3.17.) MR. RANKIN (Herefordshire, Leominster)The object of the Amendment I wish to move is to meet such cases as that of the borough of 1223 Leominster, which gives its name to the division I have the honour to represent. They have recently adopted the Libraries Act in that borough, but a difficulty has arisen owing to the fact that the borough consists of two portions—the one urban and the other rural. Naturally, the inhabitants of the rural portion of the borough feel somewhat grieved that they have to pay the same rate as the urban portion, though, of course, they will derive much less advantage from the library. Many of the rural portion of the inhabitants live a considerable distance from the town. It seems to me that the adoption of some such Amendment as that I propose would facilitate the adoption of the Library Act, as it would then be possible for places of unequal population and rateable value to join together for the purposes of the Act. At present when the rural parts of a district have to be rated to the same extent as the urban parts, they very often will not agree to putting the Act in operation. A number of county parishes surrounding a large village should not be called upon to pay at the same rate as the village, seeing that they would derive much less advantage from the library. I trust the Committee will see its way to the adoption of the Amendment, the effect of which will be to allow the rate to be levied indifferent proportions, on defined parts of a library district. So far as I can see, there is no objection to my proposal. Difficulties in the way of the working of the Act have arisen in the past, and may arise in the future, unless some such alteration as this is made. The right, hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill has no objection, I believe, to the Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 16, after the word "district," to insert the words "or in any defined portion of the district."—(Mr. Rankin.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ *(3.20.) MR.KIMBER (Wandsworth)I agree with nearly everything the hon. Member says, but I do not think his Amendment is necessary, because in Clause 8 it is laid down that the expression "library district" means any borough, &c., on any "parish or part of a parish." I 1224 do not know whether these words are sufficient to effect the hon. Member's purpose.
§ *(3.21.) MR. RANKINI think the hon. and learned Member has mistaken the object of that clause. It is that a library district may be composed of parts of parishes, but my proposal is that the various parts of a district may be differently rated.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ *(3.21.) BARON DIMSDALEI have two Amendments on the Paper to this clause, the object of which is to make it clear that there shall be no additional burden thrown on the rates. In the Libraries Act of 1855 it was specified that the rate should not exceed 1d. in the £1, and I think the wording of this clause would imply that limitation can be removed altogether. This question was fought out very hard, and owing to the attitude of the then President of the Local Government Board the controversy was closed. I think it would be a great mistake to re-open it now.
§ (3.22.) Amendment moved, in page 2, line 19, to leave out from the word "or" to the word "removed" in line 20.—(Baron Dimsdale.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ *(3.22.) SIR J. LUBBOCKI am assured by the draftsman that the Amendment is unnecessary; but if, on further consideration, it should appear that there is any ambiguity, I will undertake to have an Amendment to make the matter clear inserted in another place. The object of the clause is to enable the ½d. rate to be exceeded where it is found that the cost has been under-estimated. I do not think there is anything in the clause which would enable the 1d. maximum to be exceeded.
§ (3.23.) SIR R. PAGET (Somerset, Wells)I think the Amendment should be accepted, because it would be quite easy for the right hon. Baronet, if he desired it at a future stage, to re-model the clause. The clause as drawn seems somewhat ambiguous; and as the Amendment would simplify it, I trust it will be accepted. I think it is preferable that the words should be removed.
§ *(3.25.) SIR J. LUBBOCKI do not think there is any ambiguity. It is dangerous for a layman to speak too confidently as to the -wording of an Act of Parliament, but the draftsman assured me there would be no ambiguity about the words. I hope the hon. Member will allow the words to stand; and if on consideration it is thought desirable to remove them, they can be struck out at a subsequent stage.
§ *(3.26.) MR. RANKINIt seems to me that the last paragraph of the clause simply provides against the danger hon. Members have in view. It says—
Provided always that nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorise the levying of any rate exceeding 1d. in the £1.
§ SIR R. PAGETIf there is a proviso in one part of the clause and another proviso in another part there is obvious ambiguity. Had we not better get rid of the ambiguity?
§ (3.27.) SIR W. HARCOURT (Derby)To listen to hon. Gentlemen one would think there is some terrible danger about to be incurred. What is it? That a given community may wish to spend more than 1d. in the £1 on a Free Library. I do not regard that as a very overwhelming danger. I can quite understand poor communities wishing to be limited in their expenditure, but I do not see why rich communities should not be allowed to spend 2d. in the £1 if they so desire. I think it is a great evil that the rate under the Public Libraries Act should have been confined to 1d. It is not in the least necessary that Parliament should legislate against the terrible danger that a community should spend what it thinks fit on so excellent an object as a Free Library.
§ (3.28.) BARON DIMSDALEThe right hon. Gentleman would apparently be very careless whether there is a heavy rate in a particular district or not.
*(3.29.) MR. KIMBBRI think the offer of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London very fair. I agree with him and the draftsman that there is no real ambiguity when the clause is read carefully.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 4 to 7 agreed to.
1226§ Clause 8 agreed to, with an Amendment.
§ Clauses 9 to 11 agreed to.
THE CHAIRMANThe right hon. Baronet's new clauses ("Power to grant charity lands for library purposes," and "Extension of 18 Vic. cap. 70, 3, 18, to the Metropolis") appear to me to be outside the scope of the Bill.
§ *SIR J. LUBBOCKThe clauses are intended to meet cases in which Ecclesiastical Bodies, and other charitable institutions are desirous of giving land for the purpose of Free Libraries, and I think it would be eminently desirable they should do so. I believe there is no opposition to the clauses, but of course I must, Sir, bow to your ruling.
§ Amendments made.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Bill with Amendments to the House."
§ *(3.40.) MR. KELLYI do not know whether I should be in order if I allude at this point to the new clauses appearing on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Baronet, and which you, Sir, have ruled to be outside the scope of the Bill. The Dulwich Governors have expressed their willingness—their desire, in fact—to give a site for a Free Library there, and I believe the Charity Commissioners have expressed their desire to carry out the wishes of the Government. The Governors have no power at present to give the site, and, therefore, I appeal to the Government to afford the right hon. Baronet some facilities for amending the Bill in the way he suggests.
§ *(3.42.) THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr RITCHIE, Tower Hamlets, St. George's)I should be very glad, indeed, to see these clauses inserted, and I am sure no Member of the House wishes to put any impediment in the way of the adoption of the clauses. If my right hon. Friend brings the clanses within the scope of the Bill he might, on Report, move that the Bill be re-committed with a view to the insertion of the clauses.
§ *SIR J. LUBBOCKMay I hope Her Majesty's Government will help me in 1227 getting the Third Reading. I should be sorry to run the risk of losing the Bill by trying to get these clauses inserted.
§ *MR. RITCHIEIf the right hon. Baronet means that the Government should give up any portion of their time, I am afraid I cannot promise him that we will give him facilities for the Third Reading. But I cannot conceive that any difficulty will arise in obtaining the Third Reading.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill reported, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.