HL Deb 29 June 1905 vol 148 cc480-506

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."

LORD BURGHCLERE.

My Lords, before we go into Committee on this Bill, I hope I shall be in order if I venture to put a Question to the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education. As your Lordships will remember, on the Second Reading I was fortunate enough to receive the assent of His Majesty's Government to the principle of this Bill, but the noble Marquess then intimated that there were some details of the Bill, and possibly some matters of drafting, with which he could not wholly agree. I then stated that I should welcome any Amendments that might be brought forward by His Majesty's Government or the Board of Education which did not affect the principle of the Bill and which were reasonable and just with regard to the details. Your Lordships will observe that there are no Amendments on the Order Paper to-day in the name of the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education. I therefore venture to ask the noble Marquess to state the position of His Majesty's Government with regard to this Bill. It may be that the noble Marquess, after re-consideration, has been impressed with the perfection of the Bill and its clauses, and does not wish in any way to amend it. I would also like to ask the noble Marquess, as there are no Amendments on the Paper in his name, whether the Amendments standing in the name of the most rev. Primate have been put down with the assistance of the Board of Education and the assent of His Majesty's Government; and whether we may consider those Amendments official. The noble Marquess at the former stage gave his assent to the principle of the Bill, and I sincerely hope that the absence of any Amendments in his name may mean that on the whole he is content with the Bill as it stands.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY)

My Lords, I was on the point of rising to say a few words as to the position of His Majesty's Government towards this Bill when the noble Lord rose. I do not at all regret the fact that he forestalled me and put to me certain Questions, for that naturally makes my task easier than it otherwise would have been. I intended rising to explain the position of His Majesty's Government or two grounds. In the first place, I considered it would be convenient that the House should be informed, before your Lordships went into Committee and discussed the Amendments that are to be submitted, as to the line His Majesty's Government propose to take on this question; and, in the second place, I thought it would be only courteous on my part to the noble Lord opposite, and other noble Lords who have put Amendments on the Paper, to explain the course I proposed to pursue when those Amendments were discussed. The noble Lord has truly said that on the ocassion of the Second Reading His Majesty's Government did not object to the principle of the measure. On the contrary, I myself expressed sympathy with certain of the details of the Bill and with its principle; but I think if the noble Lord will carry his memory back he will remember that I said at the same time that there were certain details embodied in the Bill which would not only require most careful consideration, but which I thought might be considered of a somewhat controversial character, and as such could not expect to receive the support of His Majesty's Government.

LORD BURGHCLERE

I did not understand that the Amendments the noble Marquess was going to put down were to be of a controversial character, but rather Amendments dealing with points of detail, which I was perfectly willing to accept.

The MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I do not think I stated that I would put down any Amendments at all; and, in reply to the Question put to me by the noble Lord, I may say that His Majesty's Government have not put down Amendments because it has been decided, after carefully considering the Bill and the debate that took place upon the Second Reading, to retain for His Majesty's Government an absolutely independent position. His Majesty's Government will take no part whatever in the Committee stage of this Bill. Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly, but I thought I was careful in stating that while His Majesty's Government concurred in the principle of the Bill, they at the same time reserved to themselves the right of carefully considering all its details as well as the Amendments that would be put forward in the Committee stage. We have to consider how far the application of the main principle of the Bill is surrounded by proper safeguards, so as to secure the rights of those who are entitled to use the buildings, whether under trusts or otherwise, at times when they are not in use as public elementary schools; and it is important to ascertain how far the measure is workable from practicable and legal points of view, and how far it is accurate in its structure.

At this point I do not propose to refer to any of the safeguards or to the machinery for the carrying out of this Bill, but I would ask your Lordships carefully to consider the drafting of the measure as it stands, its legal accuracy, and also its intelligibility. The principle itself, which the noble Lord wishes now to make generally applicable, is operative at the present time in a partial degree, and there are precedents as to many of the details which might have been followed by the noble Lord; but, without wishing to say anything in the least offensive with regard to the noble Lord's draftsmanship, I think I shall be able to prove that Clause 1, on which the principle of the Bill hangs, is full of difficulties and ambiguities, and in more than one place is meaningless. At least we at the Board of Education are unable to understand the noble Lord's meaning; but as we proceed he will, perhaps, more clearly define it. For example, it is proposed to restrict the right to use the building in pursuance of this Act to the electors and inhabitants of any district served by the public elementary school in question. I do not offer any opinion as to whether this restriction is reasonable, but if a restriction is necessary these words do not serve; nor does the noble Lord's Amendment improve the case. In the first place I would ask, Who is to determine what is the area served by the particular public elementary school; and, when this is done, who is to see that persons who are not electors or residents in that area are excluded from the meeting? It seems to me it might be an open question whether the political candidate himself, in the event of his being what is called a "carpet bagger," would be permitted to enter the building at all, still less to address it.

In lines 13 and 14, on page 1, a reference is made to— A member of any public body elected by the ratepayers of the area in which such district is situated. The members of public bodies are elected by electors; no public body is elected by the ratepayers of the area as such. Therefore the language in the clause is inaccurate and would be very difficult to construe.

Another important point arises in Clause 2 in regard to the question of the regulations for the working of this Bill. The object of having these regulations is, no doubt, to regulate the power which this Bill proposes to create and to safeguard the rights of those who are at present entitled to use the building outside school hours, but the safeguards which should surround the application of the Bill ought, to my mind, to be dealt with in the Bill itself. This is the only way in which, in my opinion, it would be possible to provide adequate safeguards and to apply them uniformly. There is another important provision in the Bill as to the use of buildings during election times, and here again the definition is incomplete.

I have endeavoured to point out to the noble Lord who is responsible for this measure some of the difficulties that have arisen through the inaccurate drafting of the various clauses. The noble Lord indicated during the Second Reading, and he has repeated the statement to-day, that he would be glad if the Government could see their way to introduce Amendments remedying the defects I have pointed out; but I have to say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that we could not for a moment consider even the desirability of entering on this course. Undoubtedly alterations in the Bill are required, not only as to substance but also from the point of view of phraseology and drafting, and this being a measure introduced by a private Member I cannot recognise that it is the duty of the Government to amend or rectify any shortcomings or mistakes in it.

We have not put down any Amendments because we did not consider it was our duty to amend a Bill which we could not regard as possible of being made perfect; for had we done so, and had it gone down to the other. House with Amendments in it which had been introduced by His Majesty's Government, we would have been considered more or less responsible for the Bill. If the Government had chosen, so to speak, to "cut about" the Bill to a great extent, and if the noble Lord in charge of it had been courteous enough to accept those Amendments, even then, as this Bill is at present drawn, it would be impossible for it to be regarded as absolutely satisfactory. To my mind there are two courses open to the noble Lord. He has it in his power to withdraw the present Bill and submit to your Lordships a Bill de nove, correcting the shortcomings in the present Bill and making it of a character more satisfactory to the Government. That is, of course, for him to decide. On the other hand, he has the right of going on with this measure in its present condition; but he must recognise that if he proceeds with it, and it goes down to another place unsupported by His Majesty's Government, it has very little, if any, chance of becoming law at this comparatively late period of the session. Consequently the discussions which take place on the Amendments to-day must be of more or less academic character. I do not say I should regret such a discussion. I have no doubt it would enlighten us as to the way in which a measure of this kind might be improved. We, the members of His Majesty's Government, can, however, take no part in any discussion that may ensue, nor shall I, individually, vote in any divisions upon it. I hope I shall not be considered wanting in courtesy in taking no further part in the discussion of this Bill, and I am glad your Lordships have allowed me an opportunity of stating, I hope clearly, the line His Majesty's Government propose to take—that while concurring in the principle of the Bill they cannot, in its present condition, give it their support.

EARL SPENCER

My Lords, the noble Marquess has made one of the most extraordinary statements I have even heard from a member of His Majesty's Government. He has declared that he is in favour of the principle of the Bill, but that there are some difficulties with regard to details. We naturally expected that, if the Government were in favour of the principle of the Bill, they would have put down Amendments in regard to its details. The noble Marquess says that because this is a Bill introduced by a private Member it is not necessary for the Government to deal with it. I cannot for a moment accept that. Private Members have not infrequently introduced Bills affecting great Departments of the State, and the member's of the Government representing those Departments have always given their opinions upon those measures and dealt with them in the fullest possible way. I venture to say that the noble Marquess, after what he has said, ought either to have refused to accept the principle of the Bill on the Second Reading or he ought to have put down Amendments with regard to the matters of detail to which he has called attention.

Now, what is the position? The noble Marquess suggests that my noble friend should withdraw his Bill. Why is it that my noble friend is pressed to drop the Bill? The Government themselves, though loth to appeal to the country, admit that before very long there will be a dissolution. It is of the utmost importance, therefore, that this extremely useful and necessary Bill should be passed promptly, and before an appeal to the country takes place. My noble friend is not prepared to withdraw his Bill. I should like to ask what will happen if the Amendments standing in the name of the most rev. Primate are accepted. Will that satisfy His Majesty's Government? It is extremely difficult to follow exactly the position in which the noble Marquess wishes to place the Government. Even if those Amendments are adopted by the House the Bill will not, I understand, satisfy the noble Marquess, and he will take no further part in the proceedings. I cannot understand the position which the noble Marquess has taken up. He either ought to have opposed the Bill on Second Reading or dealt with it by putting down Amendments, if other Peers have not Amendments already on the Paper which meet his view, or he might have given notice to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. It would have been far more straightforward and regular to have opposed the Bill than to decide to take no further part in the discussion of the measure.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, should have accused me of not acting in a straightforward manner. I stated—

EARL SPENCER

Order, order! We are not in Committee.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I am fully aware that I am not entitled to speak again, but the noble Earl having attacked me, I thought I should have been allowed to reply. I consider that I have acted in a perfectly straightforward manner. I stated in the debate on the Second Reading that we did not object to the principle of the Bill, and that I myself sympathised with the noble Lord, but I have yet to learn that it has beer the custom for a private Member introducing a measure to have it amended by the Government and sent down to another place. I have beer privileged, in Opposition, to introduce measures, but I have never had them corrected by the Government and sent down to another place.

EARL SPENCER

I again submit that the noble Marquess is out of order in speaking a second time. We are not in Committee.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

As I am not in order and am refused an opportunity of defending myself against the charge of not acting in a straightforward manner, I resume my seat.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, when this Bill came up for Second Reading His Majesty's Government approved of its principle, and the only objection which they made—if it could be called an objection at all—was that it was of such a complicated nature that the House could not adequately grapple with it in Committee. Now the noble Marquess says the Bill is so much nonsense. The question I should like to ask is, if the Bill is nonsense, why was that not stated At the former stage?

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

My Lords, I must say this is rather a remarkable proceeding. I do not think the course which the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education has taken is respectful to this House. The noble Marquess on the Second Reading gave us no reason to suppose that he was going to take a course at this stage which would be fatal to the principle of the Bill. He had not that courage. He told us, on the contrary, that he was in favour of the principle of the Bill. So far as I know, the noble Marquess has not given to this House until the present moment the slightest intimation of the line which he was going to take.

You may look at the benches of this House and see that this is a subject in which the House takes a great deal of interest. The House is rather full. Noble Lords have come down to be told by His Majesty's Government that whereas on the Second Reading they were in favour of the principle of the Bill, it is now their intention to adopt a totally novel proceeding and decline to take any part whatever in the discussion of the details of the measure. I can suppose it possible that it may be beyond the powers of the Board of Education to propose any Amendments to the first clause of the Bill which the noble Marquess criticised just now, and which I respectfully venture to say I do not think he himself understood. But I do think we have a right to complain that we should have been brought down to the House to-day with the belief and in the expectation that this important measure would be considered, and that we should be met by a statement that His Majesty's Government will have nothing whatever to do with the discussion.

LORD KENYON

My Lords, on behalf of the Local Government Board I regret to say I cannot afford the noble Marquess any better satisfaction than he has received at the hands of the Board of Education. There is no reason, set far as I know, why the Bill cannot be discussed now, as we have no Government whip against it. Although it might not get the same chance of passing the other House as it would if it were endorsed by His Majesty's Government, still there is no reason why the Bill should not go to the other House with the endorsement of this House. You have heard the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education state that he approves of the principle of the Bill. As to the drafting of it, I presume the House will pass some Amendments; but, on behalf of the Local Government Board, I have to say that they cannot suggest the Amendments which, no doubt, noble Lords sitting opposite would wish them to do.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

My Lords, we are placed in a very grotesque position by the action of His Majesty's Government. I was not present on the former occasion, but I understand from the universal acknowledgement of every nobleman who has spoken that the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education expressed himself in favour of the principle of this Bill. The Local Government Board, I am glad to hear, is also in favour of the principle of the Bill. But the noble Marquess, being in favour of the principle, suddenly comes forward and makes a long speech in which he announces that there are difficulties of detail in the Bill with which he and the Government are wholly unable to grapple. I endeavoured to find out what those difficulties were. The noble Marquess asked, Who is to decide what is the district that a school is intended to serve? I think the intelligence of this House might grapple with that difficulty. Then he said that ratepayers are mentioned where no elections are conducted by ratepayers; they are conducted by electors. That, again, seems to me to be a rock on which this House ought not to split altogether. But, as the result of these two petty, minute, I might use the word peddling, difficulties which the noble Marquess has found in the Bill, he suddenly envelopes himself in his own virtue, wraps himself in his own dignity, resumes his seat, and says he can take no further part in the discussion. Is this treating your Lordships' House with that respect to which it is entitled? Or is it not rather treating it as an assembly below the average of intellect as compared with the rest of mankind. It is true that the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board has risen to apply a soothing plaster to our souls. He also admits the total incapacity of the Local Government Board to deal with the complicated details of this Bill, but reasserts the passionate attachment of the Government to the Bill. I hope we shall have further comfort from the noble Marquess the Leader of the House.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)

My Lords, I think my noble friend, Lord Londonderry, was amply justified in protesting against a charge made on the other side of want of straightforwardness in his conduct. If his conduct is open to any criticism I should have said that its extreme straightforwardness and candour exposed a somewhat needlessly large target to the criticisms of the other side. Nor was my noble friend guilty of disrespect to your Lordships' House. Our position remains exactly where it was when this Bill was before your Lordships on a previous occasion. We are in favour of the principle of the Bill as we were then, but the Bill having been examined, the Departments most interested have come to the conclusion that it would require so much recasting and so many alteration that, considering the stage of the session at which we have arrived, they do not think it desirable that they should be called upon to undertake the task of remodelling the measure. The action of my noble friend beside me will not, after all, make the slightest difference to the fate of the Bill. We must all be aware that, supposing we were to pass this Bill now, it stands no chance of becoming law this session. Is it not, therefore, perfectly legitimate that we should invite your Lordships to debate it, that we should learn what we can from the debate, but that we should not undertake the responsibility of making what we conceive to be a badly-drawn measure into one fit to take its place on the Statute-book?

LORD BURGHCLERE

As I have already spoken I will so as to put myself in order, move the adjournment of the debate. I wish to reiterate what has been said on this side as to the House being placed in a most extraordinary position by the action of noble Lords opposite. With regard to what has been said in this debate about Bills introduced by private Members, I may say that since I have had the honour of being a Member of your Lordships House I have myself brought in a Bill on the important subject of open spaces which was referred to the Department interested, and that Department gave me its advice on the subject and the Bill was passed.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDEPRY

I should like to ask whether the noble Lord is in order.

LORD BURGHCLERE

I am moving the adjournment of the debate.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

Is that in order?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)

It is not.

EARL CARRINGTON

To put my noble friend in order, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.

Moved, "That the debate be adjourned."—(Earl Carrington.)

LORD BURGHCLERE

I merely wished to point out, with regard to Bills brought in by private Members being referred to the Departments interested and subsequently becoming the law of the land, that when I myself had the honour of introducing into this House a Bill on the important question of open spaces the Bill was referred to the Board of Agriculture; I received the Amendments of that Department and the Bill obtained the sanction of the Government, was referred to the House of Commons and is now on the Statute-book. Therefore, I think I have given the noble Marquess opposite a concrete precedent which might have been followed in a Bill of this description. The noble Marquess speaks of this Bill as if it was a complicated measure like the Local Government Bill of 1894. Why, it is a Bill of only three clauses to meet a matter of extreme simplicity, and I submit—

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

May I remind the noble Lord that the Motion is the adjournment of the debate.

LORD BURGHCLERE

If, in addition to wishing me to withdraw the Bill, the Government wish to silence me, I can do nothing but resume my seat.

On Question, resolved in the negative.

Original Motion agreed to.

House in Committee (according to Order).

[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1.

THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL moved to omit from Clause 1 the words "if there be no other public building available which shall be suitable and convenient for the purpose," He said that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill proposed to give electoral bodies throughout the kingdom, without exception, in districts where there were public elementary schools, a right of using those schools for public meetings; but the restrictive words which he (the Marquess of Bristol) now proposed to omit would he thought, if left in the clause, entirely cut away the privileges given by the Bill from urban districts. He thought feelings of envy and jealousy would be aroused if rural districts were allowed the use of the schools free of charge while the electors and inhabitants of urban districts had to seek for rooms for their public meetings in other buildings, at the same time being compelled to pay such sums as the avarice of the owners might demand. He appealed to Lord Burghclere, in his endeavour to remove what was an undoubted grievance, to take care not to create another grievance which would be equally irritating.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 5, to leave out from the word 'Act' to the second word 'the' in line 7."—(The Marquess of Bristol.)

LORD BURGHCLERE

said the noble Marquess's Amendment would greatly enlarge the scope of the Bill, and though he might entertain considerable sympathy for it he felt that he would not be acting up to the pledges he had given to the right rev. Bench and their Lordships on the Second Reading if he were now to support it. If there was no other suitable or convenient building in urban districts, then the schoolroom would be at the disposal of the electors under this Bill; but his (Lord Burghclere's) chief object was to meet the cases of rural villages where there were no other places in which the electors could meet, except perhaps a public-house or the Nonconformist chapel.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL

Will my noble friend agree to leave out the word "other"?

LORD BURGHCLERE

I am perfectly willing to agree to that.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

suggested that the noble Marquess should postpone the moving of this Amendment until the next stage.

THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL

agreed to do so.

LORD BURGHCLERE

said the Amendment standing in his name was placed on the Paper in the hope that it would meet the views of the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education. The words in the Bill were taken from the Local Government Act of 1894, of which the Bill was merely an enlargement; but as municipal and Parliamentary electors were now included as well as parochial electors, he moved to leave out "electors and inhabitants" as those entitled to the use of the school, and to insert in their place the words "parochial municipal, or Parliamentary electors." If, however, the Amendment did not meet the wishes of the noble Marquess, he would not press it.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 7, after the second word 'the' to insert the words 'parochial, municipal, or Parliamentary,' and to leave out the word 'and inhabitants.'"—(Lord Burghclere.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

said the Government would take no action one way or the other, and therefore he did not propose to bind himself. The Amendment would to a certain extent more closely define those who might attend the meetings; but for himself he thought it would be better to follow the precedent in the Allotments Act.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said the meetings would be public meetings and anybody might attend them. The real point was, who was to have the right of making application for the use of the school building for a meeting.

EARL CARRINGTON

held that the clause was perfectly clear. The noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education had said that it was full of difficulties and ambiguities, but it clearly stated that the persons who should be entitled to the use of the buildings were the— Electors and inhabitants of any district served by a public elementary school receiving a grant out of moneys provided by Parliament. The Noble Marquess had also asked who were to exclude persons not entitled to attend the meetings. There would be no exclusion at all. There was no power under the Bill to exclude a "carpet bagger" from the meeting. It was purely a question as to who should be entitled to have the use of the schoolroom for the purpose of convening a meeting.

LORD HENEAGE

hoped the noble Lord would persist in his Amendment. It was a distinct improvement of the drafting, and he did not see why they should not do all they could to improve the Bill even if His Majesty's Government were unwilling to do so.

On Question, Amendment agreed too.

THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL moved to omit the words "free of charge," on the ground that it was a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons for their Lordships' House to insert any such provision.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words 'free of charge.'"—(The Marquess of Bristol.)

LORD HENEAGE

supported the deletion of the words "free of charge" in order that the House might be at liberty subsequently to pass an Amendment standing in his name, providing that the school managers should make a fixed charge, which should be payable in advance, for the reasonable expenses incurred by them in connection with the necessary preparation of the room or rooms for the purpose of any meeting, including coals, lighting, and cleaning. He thought this would be far preferable to the cumbrous provisions of Clause 2.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

said he did not understand that the Bill was brought forward for the purpose of lessening the expense of Parliamentary elections, and in those circumstances he saw no reason why school buildings should be let free of charge. Some charge, should be made, but it should be a reasonable one. He supported the Amendment.

LORD BURGHCLERE

said that in introducing the words "free of charge" he followed the example of the Conservative Government of 1892, who brought in a Bill to effect absolutely the same object as the one now before their Lordships, and which contained a provision that the buildings should be let free of charge. The question of a fixed charge, not for the rent of the building, but for the expenses incurred in preparing the room and for lighting and other matters, was already fully covered by the Bill, which gave the local education authority a right to make rules with regard to the user of the schools; and it was also laid down in Clause 2, Section (a), that any expenses incurred—such as for gas and other matters—could be charged by the managers, and would be payable by the person convening the meeting. If noble Lords thought that the leaving in of the words "free of charge" would prevent the insertion of a provision in that direction, he would suggest that after the words "free of charge" the words "in respect of rent" should be inserted. Free of charge in this Bill and in the Local Government Act of 1894 meant free of charge in respect of rent for the user of the school. The insertion of the words "in respect of rent," as he suggested, would leave open the question of making a fixed charge for gas, firing, and other incidental expenses. If his noble friend would move an Amendment in the form he (Lord Burghclere) now suggested, he would have no objection to it, although he did not think it necessary.

LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH

hoped the House would accept the Amendment moved by the Marquess of Bristol. He did not see why a rental, so long as it was not an excessive one, should not be charged in respect of the use of the school buildings for these meetings. There had never been any grievance on the ground of having to pay for a room in which to hold an election meeting, and, if there was no other suitable room, he did not see why a small charge should not be made for the use of the schoolroom.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

thought there was very good reason why no charge should be made in the shape of rent for the use of schoolrooms. These schools were in receipt of a very large amount of public money, and he did think that buildings of that kind might reasonably be expected to discharge a public duty of this sort. He himself had always acted upon that principle and given to candidates of both Parties, without the slightest hesitation or charge, the use of schools over which he had control. The addition of the words "in respect of rent," as suggested by his noble friend, should meet all reasonable objections.

LORD HENEAGE

intimated that for himself he would be quite willing to accept the compromise suggested by Lord Burghclere, as he had no wish that any charge should be made for the use of the school.

On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," their Lordships divided. Contents, 23; Not contents, 45.

CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Apb. Spencer. E. Monkswell, L.
Overtoun, L.
Devonshire, D. London, L. Bp. Reay, L.
Manchester D. Southwark, L. Bp. Sandhurst, I. [Teller.]
Northumberland, D. shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Balfour, L. Shuttle orth, L.
Ripon M Belper, L. Stanley of Alderley, L
Brassey, L. Wandsworth, L.
Burghclere, L. Welby, L.
Carrington, E. [Teller.] Leigh, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) Malmesbury, E. Heneage, L
Richmond and Gordon, D. Mansfield, E. Herries, L.
Rutland, D. Morton, E. Hylton, L.
Wellington, D. Onslow, E. Killanin, L.
Waldegrave, E. Lawrence, L.
Ailesbury, M. Ludlow, L.
Bristol, M. [Teller.] Cross, V. Macnaghten, L.
Falkland, V. Napier, L.
Llandaff, V. Newton, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.) Allerton, L. Ravensworth, L.
Camperdown, E. Averbury, L. Robertson, L.
Egerton, K Calthorpe, L. Sherborne, L.
Feversham, E. Clifford of Chudleigh, L Sinclair, L.
Haddington, E. Clinton, L. Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Hardwicke, E. Crofton, L,
Harewood, E. Digby, L. Zouche of Haryngworth, L. (Teller.)
Lauderdale, E. Ellenborough, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL moved to delete the words— Any Member of Parliament, county councillor, or member of any public body elected by the ratepayers of the area in which such district is situated. He thought there was an excess of persons allowed to give notice under this clause. For himself, he would have preferred that the permission should only be given to the candidates or their agents. As he understood the clause, all Members of Parliament could give the notice as well as all county councillors and a vast number of members of miscellaneous bodies. He thought the clause ought to be recast. As a member of the managing body of a small school he was in a state of abject terror when he saw the large number of persons who were to be entitled to demand the use of the school.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 11, to leave out from the word 'by' to the word 'any' in line 14."—(The Marquess of Bristol.)

LORD BURGHCLERE

said the noble Marquess was mistaken. It was not meant that any Member of Parliament or any county councillor could call for the use of the school; but if there was any doubt on the point it could be removed by the insertion, after "Member of Parliament," the words "representing the district or area in which such school is situated." And the same words could be inserted after "county councillor."

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

pointed out that the clause as the Mar- quess of Bristol proposed to amend it would limit the use of the schools to the Parliamentary candidate. When the candidate got elected he would be debarred from addressing a meeting of his constituents in the school.

Amendment, by leave of the Committee withdrawn.

LORD HENEAGE moved to leave out the words "any of their agents" and to insert "the responsible and duly appointed election agent of such candidate." As the clause at present stood, not only were any of these gentlemen allowed to have the use of the schools on their own application, but the use had to be granted on the application of any of their agents. He thought that was giving a very wide permission, and he hoped the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would accept his Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 16, to leave out the words 'any of their agents' and insert the words 'the responsible and duly appointed election agent of such candidate.'"—(Lord Heneage.)

LORD BURGHCLERE

said he was prepared to accept the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL

did not know whether the Amendment standing in his name was in order, but he wished to secure that the same fee should be charged for the use of the rooms in the school in the case of public meetings as was charged in the case of other social gatherings or meetings.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 20, after the word 'given' to insert the words 'and who, if required to do so, shall pay such accustomed charges as are payable by other persons using the rooms in the school.'"—(The Marquess of Bristol.)

LORD BURGHCLERE

did not think that the noble Marquess's Amendment would quite carry out his intention. He therefore suggested that the Amendment should read— and, who, if required to do so, shall pay in respect of rent and other charges an amount not exceeding the amount usually paid in respect of such charges by persons using the same room for the purpose of public meetings.

THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL

was quite willing to accept the suggested Amendment.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

thought the line taken by Lord Heneage in the Amendment standing in his name to Clause 2 was preferable to that contained in the Amendment now before the House. He took it that the House did not wish the managers of the schools to beat any loss, but they did not want the charge to be an unreasonable or prohibitive one. If the Amendment were adopted, persons who did not want their schools used at all had only to fix an unreasonable charge and everyone was shut out. Parishioners in a village should be entitled to make the fullest use, on reasonable terms, of the school building, which was probably the only suitable building in the village. The Amendment which Lord Heneage proposed to move at a later stage provided that the charge should be merely sufficient to cover out-of-pocket expenses. Lord Burghclere, in his desire to get his Bill through, had offered the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Bristol) an Amendment which in a substantial number of places would be injurious to the object he had in view.

LORD BURGHCLERE

suggested that perhaps noble Lords would be prepared to accept an Amendment providing that the charges to be made for the use of such rooms should be according to a fixed scale graduated in proportion to the number of persons which the school would accommodate, but that in no case should the maximum charge exceed 20s. for each meeting of not more than, three hours duration.

LORD HENEAGE

said he infinitely-preferred the proviso to Clause 2 standing in his name. He believed the desire of most of the school managers was that the schools should be used as far as possible for all proper purposes, but they did desire that they might be entitled to charge a fixed sum such as was paid by other people, and that the sum should be paid beforehand so as to avoid the-chance of its being disputed afterwards. The managers would not be likely to fix an unfair sum because they would require the use of the school for persons of their own religious or political persuasion. They should be allowed to have a scale of charges which they could impose upon everybody alike, and he thought that his proviso would carry that out better than any of the suggested Amendments.

LORD BURGHCLERE

thought that an Amendment on this point would be more appropriate in Clause 2.

VISCOUNT CROSS

agreed, and expressed the hope that the stipulation, would be made that the charge should be paid beforehand.

Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

proposed the insertion of words providing that meetings should not be held on Sundays, on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, Ascension Day, or Christmas Day.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 20, after the word 'held to insert the words' on Sundays, nor on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, Ascension Day, Christmas Day, nor.'"—(The Lord Archbishop-of Canterbury.)

LORD BURGHCLERE

accepted the Amendment.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved a further Amendment for the purpose of preventing meetings infringing on the hours set apart for religious instruction in school, the clause as drafted only providing this safeguard in the case of secular instruction. He explained that the proviso, as amended, would read— Provided that such public meeting shall not be held on Sundays, nor on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, Ascension Day, Christmas day, nor at such times or in such manner as to interfere with the hours set apart for the religious or secular instruction of day or evening scholars, etc.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 22, after the word 'the' to insert the words 'religious or.'"—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)

LORD BURGHCLERE

accepted the Amendment.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

explained that the words contained in his next Amendment were taken from a similar provision in the Local Government Act of 1894.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 23, after the word 'school' to insert the words 'or with such other lawful use of the building as has under proper authority been customary, or if the use of the schoolrooms on the said day and at the said time has previously to the receipt of the notice of the meeting been granted for some other purpose.'"—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)

LORD BURGHCLERE

accepted the Amendment.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH,

who had given notice of an Amendment in page 1, line 27, after "provide," to insert— (a) That the person on whose behalf the notice is given shall pay to the managers of the school a reasonable sum byway of hire of the room, said the sole object of his Amendment was to enable the managers to make a reasonable charge for the use of the school. He was conscious of the difficulty there was in ensuring that the charge should be a reasonable one. His Amendment left it to the local education authority to decide what should be a reasonable sum for the use of the schoolroom, but he was not so wedded to the actual words of his Amendment as not to be prepared to accept the Amendment down in the name of Lord Heneage, which would carry out the object he had in view. He, therefore, would not move the Amendment standing in his name.

LORD HENEAGE

said he understood the noble Lord in charge of the Bill was prepared to accept his Amendment. He would, therefore, formally move it.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 10, to leave out the word 'and' and insert the words 'provided that nothing contained in this. Act shall prevent any school managers from making a fixed charge for the reasonable expenses incurred by them in connection with the necessary preparation of the room or rooms for the purposes of any meeting, including coals, lighting, and cleaning; and provided also.'"—(Lord Heneage.)

LORD BURGHCLERE

accepted the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL moved to leave out paragraph (b) and to insert the new paragraph in his Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 2, to leave out paragraph (b) and to insert the following new paragraph: (b) That (except during such times as an election is actually in progress) the right to use such rooms shall not be exercised by or on behalf of any particular candidate more than once in reference to the same candidature.'"—(The Marquess of Bristol.)

LORD BURGHCLERE

was not prepared to accept the Amendment, as it would prevent the use of the rooms on more than one occasion during the whole period of a person's candidature. The sub-section which the noble Marquess proposed to leave out was as follows. (b) That (except during such times as an election is actually in progress) no room shall I be used for the purposes of this Act by, or on behalf of, any particular person on more than two occasions during the same year. He (Lord Burghclere) was willing to meet the noble Marquess by substituting "one occasion" for "two occasions" in the last line of this subsection.

THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL

accepted this Amendment and withdrew, by leave of the Committee, the one he had already moved.

Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— In Clause 2, page 2, line 14 to leave out the words 'two occasions' and insert the words 'one occasion.'"—(Lord Burghclere.)

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved the insertion of a new Subsection to secure that the managers of each school should be made aware, when the year began, whether their school came within the category of schools likely to be so demanded. He did not think managers ought to be subjected to this inconvenience without knowing beforehand, in making their arrangements, whether their school rooms were liable during the ensuing twelve months to be used for public meetings by virtue of this Bill.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 14, after the word 'year' to insert the words: (c) That a day be appointed in each year on or before which the local education authority shall publish a schedule showing what schoolrooms within such district are liable during the ensuing twelve months to be used for public meetings by virtue of this Act."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)

LORD BURGHCLERE

drew attention to an Amendment standing in his name to Clause 3 which had for its object the substitution of the local education authority for the Board of Education as the authority under the Bill. The local education authority would be able very easily to determine the proper rooms which were to be used, and the Amendment was really unnecessary; but if the most rev. Primate really wished to press his Amendment he would suggested that he should substitute the word "may" for "shall," so as to make it permissive instead of compulsory. There were many districts in which it would be absolutely unnecessary to prepare a schedule.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said he was prepared, at the moment, to accept the suggestion subject to the right to reconsider the point at a later stage. There were, he said, some districts where the local education authority were doing their best to hamper certain schools, and it was possible that in those areas the local education authority would not act with complete fairness.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

spoke of the serious inconvenience which would be caused to the local education authority of the West Riding of Yorkshire and other large areas if the Amendment were adopted. He thought it would be better not to require a schedule to be published, but that managers of schools who thought their schools unsuitable and inconvenient should represent their view to the local education authority.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said it was desirable that the local education authority should consider the question beforehand. If the matter was to be considered after the notice of the meeting was given, he thought the difficulties would be very much greater.

LORD HERRIES

hoped the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would retain the words. at present in the clause. He was anxious that the interests of non-provided schools should be safeguarded, but thought it would be impossible for the local education authority to send all over the county to find what schoolrooms within their area would be liable to be used under the Act.

LORD BURCHCLERE

said it was not his duty to defend the Amendment which had been moved by the most rev. Primate, but the local education authorities to which he referred were the local education committees—the district committees, as they practically were—which in a vast number of cases had been appointed. Those were the persons he wished to make the authority under this Bill, and they would certainly know which schools were available and which were not. At the same time, he was not responsible for the Amendment.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said that if the education authority for the county had divided its area into districts the district authorities were subordinate committees-working under the education authority, and were not the education authority.

LORD BURGHCLERE

Yes, but they can report to the education authority.

LORD HENEAGE

contended that if the Amendment was inserted difficulties would arise on every side. It would be cumbrous and create a great deal of confusion as to how it was to be carried out.

EARL SPENCER

appealed to the most rev. Primate not to press his Amendment. He assured him that the drawing up of schedules in the way proposed for the whole of a county would be a most complicated and difficult matter. He thought it would be better that each case should be dealt with as it arose.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said he would withdraw the Amendment after the appeal of the noble Earl, and consider the matter between this and the next stage of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

LORD BURGHCLERE moved to substitute the local education authority for the Board of Education as the authority under the Bill.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 17, to leave out the words 'Board of Education' and insert the words 'local education authority for the district provided always that no room or building registered for divine worship, nor any room connected with or attached to any place licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors shall be deemed a suitable room for the purposes of this Act.'"—(Lord Burghclere.)

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

LORD MONKSWELL

suggested the advisability of inserting some definition of the word "candidate." He thought that if the provision was left in the Bill as it stood, the mere holding of a meeting in a schoolroom would constitute a person a candidate in the sense that the expenses of the meeting would have to be entered as part of his election expenses. It seemed hardly desirable that this should be the case, especially as the person might not have been actually selected as the candidate, and he should not include in his election expenses the cost of meetings before his candidature was endorsed.

LORD BURGHCLERE

did not think the Bill would have the effect which Lord Monkswell feared, but said that if the noble Lord had any doubts on the subject and would draft an Amendment he would consider it at the next stage.

Clause 4 agreed to. Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 112.)