§ Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
§ Bill read 3a (according to order.)
§ Clause 5.
§
Amendment moved, in page 3, line 37, after ("meeting") insert—
Nothing in this section shall give any right to hold a public meeting in the schoolroom (a) unless not less than six days before the meeting a notice of the intention to hold the meeting on the day and at the time specified in the notice, signed by the persons calling the meeting, being not less than six in number, and being persons qualified to make a representation to the Local Authority under the principal Act, has been given, if the school is under a School Board, to the clerk of the Board, and in any other case to one of the managers of the school; nor (b) if the use of the schoolroom on the said day and at the same time has previously to the receipt of the notice of the meeting been granted for some other purpose; but in that case the clerk or manager, or someone on his behalf, shall forthwith after the receipt of the notice, inform in writing one of the persons signing it that the use of the school has been so granted for some other purpose, and name some other day on which the schoolroom can be used for the meeting.—(The Earl of Jersey.)
§ Agreed to.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPI have to move, your Lordships, in line 32, after the words "the Act or," to insert the words 1510 "with the consent of the managers." This clause was introduced at the last stage of the Bill in the discussion in the House of Commons. It was introduced late at night and with the result of raising, as I am informed, a long and rather animated discussion. I do not think those who framed the clause or who agreed to it had taken the pains to work out to its ultimate conclusion the clause which they accepted, and I am confirmed in that opinion by the fact that the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill himself proposes an Amendment which materially alters the operation of this Clause 5; but it will be my object to show your Lordships that no Amendment would be satisfactory which gives the control of the school-rooms in others than those in whose charge they are at present vested by law, that is the managers. I leave out of consideration at present how far it is wise to import into the purposes for which school-rooms may be used their employment for the discussion of debateable questions, such as the adoption of the Allotments Act. I will assume that is all quite right and proper, though something might be said on the other side. But I pass that by, because I am anxious that your Lordships should not throw any difficulty in the way in the working of the Allotments Act, and that you should afford full facilities for giving effect to it. Your Lordships must know that as regards schools built entirely with public money, as in the case of schools erected under the School Boards Act, they are under the management of a Board, though I think there, again, Parliament has a right to control the arrangements of the School Boards, and to dictate the terms under which use shall be made of the schools. But as it stands, this clause is in a very crude and imperfect state, because whatever arrangements may have been made by those who have the charge of the schools at the present moment, whether they have let them for any parochial purposes, or for parochial meetings, as is often the case, those arrangements will be likely to be disturbed by the machinery provided in Clause 5. I think your Lordships will see that when there have been arrangements made for the regular and orderly use of a school, it should not be open to any body of unauthorised and 1511 irresponsible persons to come forward and claim the use of that room, and to upset and thwart and multiply the arrangements which have been made for its use. Therefore, it is that I propose the words "with the consent of the managers" should be introduced. Even in the case of Board Schools the inconvenience would be very great, but it must be intensified in the case of voluntary schools, under the control of voluntary managers. The noble Earl proposes, as an Amendment, a proviso at the end of the clause which is wholly inadequate to cure the evil which it recognises; he proposes that notice shall be given to the clerk of the School Board (that is all right, no doubt), and also to one of the managers. That may be a very convenient arrangement, but it may turn out to be a very inconvenient and unworkable arrangement, because you must assume, for the purpose of argument, that the use of the school is not one which is generally viewed with favour by the managers, because, of course, if everybody is agreed there is no need of any compulsory arrangement. This clause would only come into operation when there is a difference of opinion. Your Lordships will see how, by this clause, the power is put into operation: that notice should be given to one of the managers. Some managers do not even reside in the parish. I am myself manager of a school in Dorsetshire, 18 miles from where I reside, and it might so happen that notice might be sent to me. I might be away, and the necessary notice would have been given behind the back of the ordinary manager of the school, who would be ousted from all voice in the matter. That is not all: because as the clause stands in all its nakedness it would compel a manager whose school may be his own property to give up the use of the school-room for the purpose of carrying out the Allotments Act without giving him any control, or chance of appeal, or of making any arrangements at all. I am quite aware that the noble Earl who has charge of the Bill is going to propose that there shall be an appeal, and when that is proposed I think I can show your Lordships how badly it will work; but I would point out that if there is to be harmonious co-operation there must be some determining authority. When two 1512 people ride on a horse one must ride behind the other. The schools, in fact, are not to be retained in the control of the managers, they are to be handed over to the control of irresponsible persons. I put it to your Lordships whether it will not contribute much more to the harmony and peace of the parish if the control of the schools is left where it is now with the managers, subject to a reasonable appeal, which could be easily arranged, to the control of some body known to the law and not to one of the managers. I have mentioned the case of one manager being non-resident; I will now take the case of a notorious difference existing between managers, there being, for instance, one person who is not on good terms with the others, who may have made himself obnoxious, and who is, perhaps, anxious to pose as a popular demagogue, or who may be in known hostility to the other managers of the schools. It is to be supposed that the peace and harmony of the parish and the proper working of the schools will be promoted if the clause as it stands passes into' law, even with the modifications to be subsequently proposed by the noble Earl who has charge of the Bill. There is another point to which my attention has been called, and that is that there is no limitation with regard to the point of time. The persons who may claim to make use of schools may claim it on Sundays, or on any other day of the week; there is no limitation at all. As I have observed, the whole object of this clause of the Bill is to provide for cases where dissension exists. How much more will dissension be promoted when you leave it open to those who claim the use of schools to claim it for themselves if they like on Sundays; and it is quite possible, as far as I see, if they claim it that their claim might be enforced. In the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl it is said that six persons qualified to vote must apply; but those persons may not necessarily be substantial people, and I cannot help thinking that, in view of the fact that these buildings may have been built mainly by the munificence of those who are anxious in the cause of education,' and who have impressed those buildings primarily with a Trust for education, for in many cases they have been built gratuitous'y, and do not belong even to 1513 a public body, it is desirable, in the interests of the parish, and in the interests of peace, in the interests of harmony, in the interests of the harmonious working of the Allotments Act, that you should not provide such a means of strife, and such an opportunity for discord, as will be provided if the Bill as it stands passes into law, even with the safeguards proposed by the noble Lord. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will maintain the managers of the schools in the position in which they are placed by law, that there shall not be the consent of this or that manager required, but of the managers generally, a body well known to the law, subject, if the Government pleases, to an appeal which shall not aggravate the offence complained of. I quite agree that the County Council is a responsible body which is not likely to misuse the powers entrusted to it. As far as the County Councils are concerned there is, perhaps, no grave objection; but I do see a very grave objection indeed to delegating the power to any one member of the County Council. The Committee of the Council charged with the administration of the Act will take care to make the Act work smoothly. I do not distrust them, but I do distrust one of the managers alone being picked out, in the first instance, and then that the matter is to be decided by one member of the County Council, who may happen to be a fanatic on the subject, who would not bring to the decision of the question that calm and balanced mind which might be required. It may be said that it will take some time to get the decision of the County Council, but I do not know that that in itself is a serious objection. The matter is not one which presses seriously for decision. Arrangements as to allotments cannot be made in the twinkling of an eye, and if a week or a fortnight, or even a month, may elapse before the appeal goes to the County Council. I do not know that it would be a very serious misfortune. I think it might probably give time to those of opposing views to come to an arrangement, or some compromise which could enable all parties to work harmoniously together. As it is, I feel sure the Bill, as it stands in its present shape, is certain to be a fertile source of annoyance and disturbance in parishes, 1514 and, therefore, I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment which I propose. If the consent of the managers is required for the purpose of holding public meetings, the legitimate purpose of the clause will be fully preserved. The use of the schoolrooms can be obtained with the consent of the managers, and if a proviso is added at the end giving the right of an appeal to the Allotments Committee of the County Council, I do not know that there will be any objection to that but I do earnestly hope your Lordships will maintain in the first place the right of control which is now held by the managers over the buildings for which they are responsible, and that certainly you will not adopt the clause in its present shape. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to consent to the Amendment I propose.
§ Amendment moved, in line 32, after ("or") to insert ("with the consent of the managers.")—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I do not know that the dangers which my noble Friend has in view strike me as being dangers of any great magnitude; but in these matters I am all for peace, and I would suggest to my noble Friend to consider as an offer for a compromise, as he suggests the desirability of an opportunity for compromise, the adoption of the words "with the consent of any two of the managers." The difference between my noble Friend and the Government is reduced to a rather narrow point. He wants the consents of all the managers to be obtained, which might, under certain circumstances, be difficult and inconvenient, and, on the other hand, it is suggested that the consent of one manager would be enough. But as it is suggested that there may be managers of somewhat eccentric minds, I would suggest that if the consent of two managers were obtained it might be safer.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThere are always more than one, I think.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPThere must be three to sign the papers.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYWell I do not think it is a matter of first-rate importance, but I think any two managers will be sufficient for my noble Friend. To require the consent of all the managers would be very inconvenient. A man may be ill, or away, or in a lunatic asylum, and it may be impossible to get at him.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI am sorry to hear that the clause is to be introduced in any form, because I think the result will be exactly the contrary of that which the noble Earl desires, namely, that it will, in fact, introduce dissension. I do not think there would have been any differences occasioned if the schools had been left to be so used; but I am afraid if the managers are to be consulted and to refuse the only result will be that very great annoyance, controversy, ill-feeling, and disturbance will take place in the parish where it is refused, and the result will be what we should all dislike and deplore.
* THE PAYMASTER GENFRAL (The Earl of JERSEY)I propose to ask the House to insert words which would give the right of appeal to the County Council, or to one member chosen by the County Council for that purpose. The effect would be that supposing the one or two managers refused to give their consent to the use of a school, the people who were applying for the use of the school could then make an appeal to the Committee of the Council, or to some member of the Council who would be chosen for that purpose by the County Council. Probably if this Amendment were accepted by the House it would meet the objection of the noble Earl opposite, Lord Kimberley.
§ * EARL FORTESCUEMy Lords I must express my regret at the delay in passing a measure desirable in itself, though far less desirable in its present shape, in my opinion, since it has been altered, I will not say amended, in the other House, than it was as originally introduced by the Government. I should be sorry to think that the passage of this, on the whole, desirable measure should be jeopardised by our sending it back to the Commons with some small alteration or amendment, whichever it is, to arouse further discussion in the other House, and which, seeing what indications there are of a readiness to delay the progress 1516 of measures, might to a certain degree endanger its passing. If it had not been from a dread of delaying and possibly endangering the passing of this Bill I should have introduced an Amendment which I think would have been of some more importance than this about the managers of the schools, because I tried to persuade the House to restore the Bill more nearly to what it was when it was introduced into the other House by the Government. If the Amendment is not really, in your Lordships' view, an important one, I venture to hope the House will not encumber the Bill with it. I cannot say it commends itself to my judgment. This supposed Amendment, I agree with my noble Friend who spoke last, is not likely to smooth matters in the parishes where there is a difficulty about allotments; but even if the Amendment was desirable it seems to me, in the present state of public business, it would be a misfortune to send down the Bill for fresh discussion in the other House. Before the measure finally quits your Lordships' hands I should desire to make a few remarks, which nothing but my imperfect sight and hearing prevented my making on the Third Reading, before we came to clauses.
§ * LORD NORTONIt seems to me this is not a very small point of principle which is raised: it is the question of enacting that private property may be used by the public or anybody else without the consent of the owners. In many cases these schools belong to the managers, and are as much private property as your Lordships' own houses. The noble Earl opposite gives, as a very good reason for throwing them open to the public, that the public will be very much disappointed if that is not done: but I do not think that will serve generally as a reason for throwing private property open to the public use. That involves a very wide principle indeed. Then, I must say with regard to the proposal of the noble Marquess the Prime Minister as a compromise that two managers should be able to give consent that is no compromise at all. Two managers are not competent to act for the managers who are a body corporate, and they cannot be represented by one or two of their number. Either the managers must give their 1517 consent or not; nobody else can give it. To say that two instead of one of the managers shall be able to act as the managers is the most inefficient compromise I ever heard of. To say that one, two, three, or any other number, of them can act as their majority is illusory. The question is, Can the private property of school managers be safely thrown open by this Bill for the use of the public without the consent of those to whom it belongs? and I think anybody who knows how Board Schools are used throughout the country for all sorts of purposes will see that there is no small principle at stake here in opening private schools alike.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPOf course, the consent of two managers would be better than one. There seems to be a misconception in the mind of the noble Marquess that the consent of all the managers would be required if my Amendment were adopted. That is not at all the case. School managers act in the way in which all managers act every where. I suppose there may be differences of opinion between them, as in the case of the appointment of the teachers. It is not necessary that the managers should be unanimous in opinion in England to the appointment of teachers; they act jointly, as all Public Bodies do, and, therefore, I do not see why in this particular instance you are to introduce a new mode of consulting the managers rather than leave them to their ordinary jurisdiction of acting by a majority, especially if you guard it by an appeal to the Allotments Committee of the County Council. I hope, therefore, on consideration, the noble Marquess will see the object and purpose desired will really be more conveniently carried out by the way I propose of ensuring that the consent of the managers shall be given in the ordinary way, and not by any new-fangled limitation to one, two, three, or four. The other objection of the noble Marquess will come in later when we come to consider the terms of the appeal. I hope he will agree to my words, because it seems to me you are proposing new restrictions on the managers, which puts the whole thing in a new and strange light, and will hot conduce to the harmonious or efficient- working of the Act.
§ LORD HERSCHELLI do not understand that this introduces any new principle, inasmuch as, under Section 5, it is already provided that the schoolrooms may be used for the purposes of this Act by the County Councils.
§ LORD HERSCHELLI understood my noble Friend opposite in his previous remarks to suggest that this clause introduced a new and dangerous principle, namely, authorising the use of private property by other persons, and I was pointing out that that had already been done by a clause to which no objections had been taken.
§ On Question, "That those words be there inserted," their Lordships divided:—Contents 12; Not Contents 21.
§ Resolved in the negative.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI will now move my Amendment, but I do not know that I am bound to move it exactly as I offered it, to insert after the word "or" in line 32, the words "with the consent of any two managers." May I be allowed to say that the reason why I move this is, that I was told by a very distinguished authority that in a place in the south of England there was a meeting held for the purpose, as announced, of discussing allotments; but no sooner had they got the candles lit and the doors shut than they turned it into a meeting for organising a strike of bargees. I think we ought to have some kind of responsible authority, I do not care what, to prevent action of that kind.
§ Moved, in line 32, Clause 5, to insert after the word ("or") the words ("with the assent of any two managers.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Agreed to.
* THE EARL OF JERSEYThen, at the end of Clause 5, I move the Amendment which stands in my name, and to that I propose to add these additional words:
The persons calling a meeting and desiring for that purpose-to obtain the use of a schoolroom under this section may appeal to the Standing Committee to be appointed under this Act, or to any member of the Council 1519 who may be authorised by that Committee to determine appeals under this section, who may forthwith decide such appeal and make such order respecting the use of the room as to them seem just.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPI would point out that, in accordance with the Amendment we have just made, the notice ought to be given to the two managers, not to one, because there are, as some of your Lordships are aware, three managers—there must be three, and the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl must be taken to read on all fours with the Amendment we have just agreed to with regard to the two managers.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIt seems to me that one manager may very well take a notice on behalf of the whole body. It cannot be necessary that the two should be there at once.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPMay I again be allowed to point out that one manager may be non-resident, and very often is. The notice ought to be given to the two managers whose consent is asked; otherwise where are you?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI would call the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the Amendment is now agreed to.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPQuite so; and, therefore, I say that the notice ought to be given to the two managers, and not to one, who, in fact, might not even be one of the two whose consent has been asked. It is only to make the thing run in common-sense.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYWhat can be the necessity of giving notice to two managers? One manager cannot act by himself. He would, of course, have to call in another manager to decide 'the question; obviously he cannot act alone under what has been put in by the noble Marquess. There must be two managers to act, and the notice being given to one, he will have to communicate with the others. I do not see the difficulty. Besides which, there may be several managers, and if you are not satisfied with one, you may go to another.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)Would the words "the aforesaid managers" do?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD)That is not necessary, one is quite enough.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYMay I make a suggestion? I think, on consideration, it will be found that the whole of this clause is unnecessary. It was necessary when the managers had no option, and when there was no provision that they should have notice of what was going to be done, but, inasmuch as no use can be made of the school by persons who wish to hold meetings about allotments, without the consent of the managers, the managers may require as much notice as they please. It will be in their own hands, because they will have full control over the whole arrangements. The part about the appeal stands separately. No doubt the observation is true as regards the County Council holding an inquiry, but in the other case no further notice is required.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIt is to prevent, for instance, the County Council coming down on a particular day with some literary representation.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYWhat I meant is that they will have it in their own hands; but perhaps it can do no harm.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYNo, it can do no harm.
§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMI propose to move the exclusion of the words "or to any members of the Council." It is rather extraordinary that when any dispute arises with regard to the use of the schools it should go before the County Council. That does not seem a very desirable thing, but to say that it should be decided by any single member of the Council appears very unwise. I think it might not give satisfaction to those who have the managment of the schools if there was any dispute in the matter. Surely it would be sufficient to say that appeals should be decided by the whole Standing Committee. To say that any one member should decide would, I think, be very impolitic. I hope, therefore, that my noble Friend will agree that those words should be left out.
* THE EARL OF JERSEYI am afraid I cannot agree that those words should be omitted. The fact is, that the matter-would be left to the Committee of the County Council to decide if they chose, or, if not, they would appoint some one, and certainly they would not appoint anybody who would be likely to give an 1521 unfair decision. If there was nobody in whom they had full confidence, they would decide it themselves, and I, therefore, think it is as well to leave those words in.
§ * THE EARL OF POWISIt appears to me if those words are inserted the County Council would have to appoint one man, who would be a sort of standing arbitrator with regard to the use of these schools. As the noble Earl suggests, if they could not decide themselves, they would depute one of their number to do it. That at once makes him the representative merely of the majority of the Council, and brings the spirit of Party conflict into the Council upon the question of the use of these schools.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPI would point out that we have already struck out the words "or to any member of the Council."
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORYes, those words have been struck out.
§ On question agreed to.
§ * EARL FORTESCUEMy Lords, before the Bill passes I would say a few words, which my unfortunate blindness and deafness prevented my saying to you before, when the Bill was read a third time. I do not wish to detain you many moments. I should have much wished to introduce an Amendment which would have restored the Bill more nearly to the much more desirable form in which it was presented to the other House. It had an effect of giving an appeal to the County Council from the decision of the Sanitary Authority, and, in the case of very large towns, or even of populous towns, there was an obvious unfairness and unreasonableness in giving an appeal from the Urban Authority, we will say of Manchester to the County Council of Lancashire. But the Bill, as it stands, excludes an appeal to the County Council from any municipality—that is as I read it. Now, I think a number of municipalities—I speak coming from a county which has a multitude of very small ones, are so constituted that their decisions should be unsusceptible of being appealed against,, and that being so, that an appeal should be given against the decision of the Rural Sanitary Authorities is, I think, most unreasonable, and I am afraid will work very unfairly. In Devonshire there are a number of small ancient municipalities; there 1522 are four of them, the smallest with a population of only 2,200. Now; I think the Rural Sanitary Authority for a great number of parishes round the Okehamp-ton Union is much more likely to come to a much better and much more influential decision than the petty parish of Okehampton. There are two more under 3,500, South Molton and Torrington; and Totnes is the only one of these small places which reached 4,000—according to the last Census its population was 4,089. Now, all those places are centres of Unions, and there is practically no appeal against them, as there was against the Urban Authorities upon the far better principle adopted as the Bill stood when introduced by the Government. Now, the authority representing a single small urban parish cannot be appealed against; the authority representing 12 or 20 parishes with, in some instances, ten times the population, can be appealed against. My only reason for not trying to reverse the mischievous alteration made since the introduction of the Bill into the other House—and I hold the Bill in my hand as it was originally introduced—was the fear of endangering or causing a delay in a measure which, even as it stands with all its imperfections, is, I think, a very useful and desirable one, and I only wish the Government had been able to carry it more nearly in the shape in which they introduced it.
* THE EARL OF JERSEYIn answer to the noble Earl I desire merely to say that it was the original intention of the Government that the appeal should lie to the County Council from the Municipal Authorities other than the County Boroughs; but then, representations were made in the other House upon the matter, and the Government were reluctantly obliged to give way upon the point, and, therefore, the appeal does not lie at the present time. But, at the same time, I would point out to him that the authorities in these small boroughs have very close relations with the people who would ask for allotments, and to whom they would certainly be amenable supposing they did not act properly.
§ Bill passed, and returned to the Commons; and to be printed, as amended.— (No. 243.)