§ As amended, considered.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon District)It is not my intention to further oppose this Bill, seeing that it has been considerably modified in Committee, but I should like to make one or two observations in regard to the really important points which were raised in connection with it. On the motion for the Second Reading attention was called by some of my colleagues and myself to some provisions of the Bill which were of a very sweeping character, and which, if carried, would have had the effect practically of prohibiting the delivery of sermons and addresses on the foreshore of Rhyl. I believe that these powers had been introduced into the Provisional Order without the notice of the House being called to the fact. An attempt has been made to introduce them into Private Bills, but as those Bills were referred to the Police and Sanitary Committee for consideration, that body struck them out. What happened with regard to this Provisional Order? I think it is well the House should bear in mind what occurred. The Local Government Board opposed any attempt to refer this matter to a Committee of the House. It was suggested that something in the nature of what is known as the Paignton Clause, which was framed for the purpose of preserving law and order on the foreshore, would have been ample to meet the requirements of this case. But the Local Government Board refused to come to any terms, or to accept any suggestion; they refused even to allow the Bill to be sent before the Police and Sanitary Committee. On the first motion I made the House of Commons supported the Local Government Board by a considerable majority, and it was not until I had raised the question a second time that the House thoroughly grasped the idea which underlay the principle of the Bill, and saw how dangerous it would be to entrust any local anthority with a power to prohibit public meetings on the foreshore. I suggested successfully that the Bill should be referred to a strong Committee; and what was the result of the reference? The very clause which the Local Government Board had rejected with contumely and scorn was placed in the Bill by, practically, the unanimous 865 decision of the Committee. I think that that shows the danger of having these provisions inserted in these Provisional Orders, without some kind of supervision on the part of the House. Remember, a Provisional Order is generally unopposed. It is not a matter to which the House pays much attention, and, indeed, it so appears upon the Order Paper that nobody knows to what it refers. The words used are "Local Government Provisional Order No.[blank] Bill." It is quite a revelation to the House when it discovers that in these Provisional Orders powers are delegated to local authorities which would not be possessed by them under the Common law of this country. I should like to point out the moral. In this case the House of Commons was really dominated too much by a Government Department. That Department was practically attempting to over-ride a decision of the House, and I venture to assert that this House would never have dreamt of inserting in any Bill, and no Government would ever have put any such Bill on the Table of the House, provisions which were inserted by a Government Department in this particular Provisional Order. Whenever any effort is made to scrutinise these Local Government Board Orders, and to suggest that they should be investigated by a Committee of the House of Commons, very strong objection is expressed by the Department. But I do submit that it is our duty to see that the Common Law rights of the people are not taken away from them under these Orders; and I trust that, as a result of the action taken in this case, the Local Government Board will be much more cautious in the future with regard to provisions of this character. Now, this Bill contained three Orders, relating respectively to Rhyl, Ramsgate, and Reading, and there were in at least two of them the same regulations for regulating the use of the foreshore. Fortunately, the Rhyl people discovered it in time to object; they secured the appointment of one of the strongest Committees possible, and, after a very slight investigation, that Committee came to a conclusion that the provisions were of a character which could not possibly be justified. The Ramsgate people did not find it out, and the result is that the regulation is imposed on them. I will not press the matter further. Thanks to the interposition of the Com- 866 mittee, I have gained my point, and I only wished to draw attention to the fact.
§ Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.