HL Deb 15 December 1902 vol 116 cc1139-43

moved to add the following proviso at the end of the sub-Section of Clause 7, which deals with the contribution of the local authority for the wear and tear of the schools— This obligation on the local education authority shall throw no additional charge on any public fund. This, he said, was a purely formal Amendment, and was only intended to bring the Bishop of Manchester's Amendment into conformity with the rules of privilege laid down by the authorities in another place.

Amendment moved— In Clause 7, page 4, line 39, after 'authority' to insert 'but this obligation of the local education authority shall throw no additional charge on any public funds.'"—(The Duke of Norfolk.)


This Amendment is not on the Paper, and until your Lordships have it before you, it is impossible to grasp its purport. It must necessarily alter the position of affairs in regard to the important Amendment of the Bishop of Manchester, but I am not at all sure how it will work out. If it had been brought in for the purpose of annulling the whole Clause I should not so much object to it; but if it means merely that the Clause is not to throw on the rates an additional charge, then the rates which would be available for some very important matters of education may be diverted to pay for wear and tear instead of paying for these matters. I protest against this proposal, which certainly goes beyond a mere drafting Amendment, and I am not sure that we ought to accept it without further discussion.


Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to explain. I am dealing with two different things. One is the ordinary form of procedure in this House. After we have gone through all the Clauses on which we might raise the merits, one of the ordinary forms at the end of every Bill is to put the question that the privilege Amendments be agreed to. But this Amendment moved by tho noble Duke is practically the same thing; it does not really, and cannot in itself, affect the Clause. But it allows the question to be discussed in the House of Commons. But for this Amendment, the Amendment already inserted might be rejected without discussion at all. In that way I think the Amendment of the Duke of Norfolk does not come within the ordinary rule about Third Reading Amendments because it is one of those which we almost always put in at the end of every Bill when the question of finance arises.


I think that the Amendment not only raises the question of privilege, but affects the merits of the finance of the whole Bill. It is a very serious Amendment, and I do not think we ought to accept it without a division


I understand that the only effect of the Amendment is to enable the other House, if it thinks fit, to discuss the Amendment of the Bishop of Manchester, which has already been agreed to, without the necessity of rejecting it summarily on a question of privilege. The noble Earl opposite is, of course, perfectly justified in objecting to the Amendment if he wishes to do so, but it is so important that the other House should not summarily dismiss the change in the Bill introduced by the Bishop of Manchester that we must support the noble Duke. If the noble Earl objects to discussing it now, we shall be under the necessity of meeting again tomorrow.


I shall vote against the Amendment, on the ground that I do not think it is desirable that the Amendment of the Bishop of Manchester should be discussed in the other House; because I hold that your Lordships' House had no right to introduce it into the Bill at all. Having introduced an Amendment into the Bill, which it is not in the power of this House to rightly introduce, it seems to me to be a ridiculous thing to nullify it and whittle it away by the Amendment of the noble Duke, so that it really means nothing at all. What is the good of charging the cost of wear and tear on the local authority if the local authority is not to be allowed to charge it on the rates? I do not think any of us wish to be so churlish as to cause your Lordships to meet tomorrow to discuss it, but we shall certainly divide against the Amend-

Verbal Amendments agreed to.


moved, as an Amendment to the Clause relating to the constitution of the education committees, to insert the words "or recommendation." after the word "nomination," With the object of enabling the Council to appoint representatives on a committee on the recommendation, as well as on the nomination, of other bodies. He was glad to say that the noble Duke had indicated his willingness to accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved—

'In Clause 17, 11, line 1, to leave out of nomination and insert 'recommendation.—

(Lord Ribblesdale.)


I am ready on this occasion to relax my "adamantine front," and accept the Amendment.

ment, because we believe the House has exceeded its power.

On Question, their Lordships divided: —Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 17.

Halsbury. E. (L. Chancellor) Stanford, E. Belper, L.
Devonshire, D. (L. President) Stanhope, E. Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Brougham and Vaux, L.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) Verulam, E. Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Congleton, L.
Aileshury. M. Dunboyne, L.
Bath, M. Churchill, V. [Teller] Ellenborough, L.
Hertford, M. Colville of Culross V. Forester, L.
Lansdowne, M. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Gage, L. (V. Gage.) James, L.
Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.) Kuntsford, V. Kenyon, L.
Llandaff, V. Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Denbigh, E. Lawrence, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Bucclenuch and Queensberry.) Newcastle, L. Bp. Macnaghten, L.
Rochester, L. Bp. Ormathwaite, L.
Hard wicke, E. Winchester, L. Bp. Robertson, L
Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.) Addington, L. Somerton, L.(E. Normanton.)
Leven and Melville, E. Allerton, L. Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloray.)
Morley, E. Ashbourne, L. Windsor, L.
Onslow, E. Avebury, L. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
Romney, E. Balfour, L.
Selborne, E. Belhaven and Stenton, L.
Breadalbane, M. Hampden, V. Monkswell, L. Reay, L.
Buckingham, E. Boyle, L. Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrcey.) Ribblesdale, L.[Teller.]
Carrington, E. Brassey, L. Sandhurst, L.
Spencer, E. Burghelere, L. Tweedmouth, L.
Coleridge, L. Welby, L.
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.) Dennan, L. [Teller]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

*Viscount LLANDAFF

moved the insertion of a new Clause. He said the Amendement was of rather a technical character. The Act of Parliament which went commonly by the name of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1888, laid down a number of condition and provisions which were to apply to the creation of charitable uses, but it excepted three sets of charitable uses, viz., grants of land for the purposes of a public park, a public museum and an elementary school. Grants of land for these three purposes were taken out of the ordinary provisions of the Charitable Trusts Act, subject to two conditions, viz., that their must elapse twelve months between the grant of the land and the death of the donor and that the grant should be enrolled with the Charity Commissioners. Considerable inconvenience had arisen from both those limitations. It had happened in many cases that the donor had died within twelve months after he had granted the land, and therefore his grant was void. This condition was for the purpose of preventing the improper procuring of a grant, but the grant of land for an elementary school was really of advantage to no individual, and the reason for requiring the twelve months to elapse before the death of the testator hardly applied The condition that the grant should be enrolled with the Charity Commissioners caused great expense to those who wished to found elementary schools. Parliament had permitted Orders in Council to transfer the whole subject of educational trusts from the Charity Commissioners to the Board of Education, and therefore the reason for enrolling the deed with the Charity Commissioners had ceased to exist. Under the Bill no new school could be opened without the Board of Education being consulted and its approval of the scheme obtained. Therefore he hoped the noble Duke would accept his Amendment.

Amendment moved— After Clause 8, page 6, to insert the following new Clause, 'the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888, and so much of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1891, as requires that land assured by will shall be sold within one year from the death of the testator, shall not apply to any assurance, within the meaning of the said Act of 1888, of land for the purpose of a school house for an elementary school.'"—(Viscount Llandaff.)


I accept the Amendment.


I think the Amendment is very pertinent, and should be accepted.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Bill passed, and returned to the Commons; and to be printed as amended. (No. 202.)