§ *THE EARL OF MEATH rose to move the Second Reading of this Bill, the object of which, he explained, was to add to and extend the scope of the Museums and Gymnasiums Act, 1891, and also to extend to provincial County Councils the powers at present possessed by the London County Council and a large number of urban sanitary authorities throughout England and Ireland. The Bill is a purely permissive one, and contains no compulsory clauses. It originates no novel principle and creates no new precedent. It could in no sense be said to be framed in the interest of any political Party, for although the original Act which it proposed to amend could claim a Conservative parentage, this measure has no other objects in view than those social ones which were equally desired by both political Parties, namely, the health, happiness, and the moral improvement of the people. The Act of 1891 empowered the Urban Sanitary Authorities of England and Ireland, with the exception of the Metropolis, to erect and maintain museums and gymnasia which were to be thrown open to the public during certain portions of the week. This Act was a most useful one. It was evident that as the population became more and more concentrated in cities, and, owing to circumstances outside its control, was gradually withdrawn from the country, the masses in our large towns would grow up weak in physique, ignorant of Nature, and divorced from her healthful influences. Such was evidently the opinion of the Legislature when it passed the Act of 1891. One would have thought, however, that the larger the town the greater would have been the influence hurtful to health, and consequently greater would have been the need of gymnasia for the inhabitants. But, for some unaccountable reason, the largest city in the Kingdom, namely, the Metropolis, with a population of 4,000,000, was excluded from the operations of this Act, whilst it could be put in force by the authorities of the very smallest Urban Sanitary District in England and Ireland. The forty District Boards and Vestries of the Metropolis, some with a population of some hundreds of thousands—for example, Islington with 328 319,000—did not possess this privilege. It was true that under the Baths and Washhouses Act of 1878 the Commissioners appointed by a Vestry might in a roundabout way secure a makeshift gymnasium for five months in the year. But in order to obtain this they must first of all build a swimming bath, whether the district was in need of one or not, and so construct it as to render it capable during these five months of being turned into a gymnasium. In small districts this might be a useful device to effect the double purpose at a low expenditure, but in large cities, where both swimming baths and gymnasia were needed all the year round, or in smaller districts where only a gymnasium was wanted and not a bath, it seemed ridiculous in the Legislature to compel the Vestries to erect a Siamese-twin institution, half bath, half gymnasium, which having come into existence under the weakening influence of a divided purpose, must necessarily partake of the imperfection natural to compromises It was also true that gymnastic apparatus could be and had been erected in the open air, in public parks and recreation grounds. But in a climate like ours it was quite impossible to use it during a greater portion of the year. He therefore proposed by this Bill to remedy this defect in the Act by extending the operation of the Museums and Gymnasiums Acts of 1891 to the Metropolis and Woolwich. This was effected by Sections 5, 6, 7, 8; but before doing this, by Sections 2 and 3, he proposed to extend the scope of the Act of 1891, and he believed to improve it by including Winter Gardens amongst the institutions which Urban Sanitary District Authorities might erect and maintain. This Bill was introduced with the sanction and approval of the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association, a voluntary society which had established over 80 public gardens in the Metropolis, and the experience gained by this organisation had shown that owing to the inclemency of the British climate there was a considerable portion of the year during which the public were unable to enjoy the recreation grounds maintained at their expense. It was, therefore, desired to give power to Urban Authorities to erect and maintain buildings filled with shrubs, plants, 329 and flowers, capable of being warmed and lighted at night and plentifully supplied with seats, where in winter the public would enjoy the pleasure of a garden without suffering inconvenience from the weather. It was possible that in public parks such buildings might legally be erected and maintained as greenhouses or conservatories; but parks were usually on the outskirts of towns, and in severe or wet weather these buildings would be practically useless to the larger part of the population, especially to the women and children. What was needed was that these buildings should be erected not so much within the larger parks, as that they should be within easy distance of the homes of the people, bright, cheerful, warm places of resort, where the poorer classes could of an evening bring their wives and children. By Section 4 it was proposed to render illegal the erection of such buildings in public open spaces of 10 acres or under, inasmuch as it was felt that however useful these winter gardens might be, it was of greater importance to the people that these small air lungs in large cities should be carefully preserved intact. By Section 9 it was proposed to place County Councils on an equality with other local bodies with regard to the provisions of the Open Spaces Act. County Councils having been formed since the passing of the Open Spaces Acts, these bodies were riot named in them. The London County Council was the only one which could put the Open Spaces Acts into force, owing to its being the inheritor of the powers conferred upon the late Metropolitan Board of Works, a body which was expressly mentioned in the Open Spaces Act. It was very important that the County Councils should, like the London County Council, have the power under the Open Spaces Acts of assisting Local Authorities to provide parks and recreation grounds should they desire to do so. Under the Acts, a municipal body might purchase and maintain a park within and partly without or entirely without its district. As a matter of fact the majority of open spaces were situated on the outskirts of towns, and were visited in large numbers by those who contributed to the county but not to the municipal rate. It was only right, therefore, that if the County Councils desired it they should be able 330 to assist towards the purchase and maintenance of such outlying parks. An even stronger case could be made out in regard to the two County Councils of Middlesex and Surrey, within whose borders resided large numbers who enjoyed the more distant metropolitan parks without contributing to their support. These County Councils would doubtless gladly assist if they had the power, and he believed that in the case of the Middlesex County Council, the Metropolis would now have been enriched by the possession of an additional large and beautiful park if only it had possessed the power of assisting the London County Council when it proposed to purchase it. He should not detain them any further, as he hoped he had made clear to them the scope and objects of this Bill. He trusted that this humble, but he hoped useful, measure might commend itself to their Lordships' judgment, and that owing to its uncontroversial character, and perhaps even to its apparent insignificance, it might pass unopposed not only through their Lordships House, but through the other House of Parliament, and that before the close of the Session might ultimately be transformed into law, adding one more to the many useful social measures which had emanated from their Lordships' House, proving, if proof were needed, the deep and practical interest which their Lordships took in all matters that tended towards the health and happiness of the people. He begged to move the Bill be now read a second time.
§ LORD HALSBURYdid not think that the measure was either uncontroversial or insignificant. Besides, the Bill proposed to initiate taxation for the objects at which it aimed, and therefore its introduction in this House was a serious departure from all Parliamentary procedure.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCIIULL)regretted to say that he had not studied the provisions of the Bill to enable him to express an opinion upon it.
THE LORD PRESIDENT (The Earl of ROSEBERY)said, the legal point raised by Lord Halsbury made it clear that the Debate ought to be adjourned for the further consideration of the Bill.
§ Debate adjourned.