§ Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [1st August], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ Question again proposed.
§ Debate resumed.
§ * MR. GEOEGE DIXON (Birmingham, Edgbaston)
As I understand that the Government have agreed to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Gorton Division of Lancashire, I shall not move the Motion which appears in my name.
§ MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)
The Vice President of the Council in laying this Bill before the House has placed the friends of technical education in a very difficult position. He must be well aware that a good many education reformers object to secondary education being handed over to Local Authorities instead of specially elected educational bodies. Unless some concession is made to our views the Bill will be strongly opposed.
§ MR. T. E. ELLIS (Merionethshire)
Under the Intermediate Education Bill Parliament has given power to Parochial Authorities to levy a halfpenny rate for exactly the same purposes as are provided for in this Bill, and I therefore wish to know if the provisions of this Bill will enable them to levy an additional rate.
§ * THE VICE PEESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE, Kent, Dartford)
I do not think any Local Authority will impose any double rate.
§ Mr. A. J. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)
I do not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but I accept it with great regret and reluctance. After the country has been expecting a Technical Education Bill for two years, the measure now before the House is a great disappointment. The real mischief is embodied in Subsection (a) of Clause 1, which prevents the Local Authority from aiding out of local rates any technical or manual 992 instruction in elementary schools, an therefore by this Bill you are building a castle in the air and providing secondary technical instruction, because there is some idea that the voluntary schools stand in the way of introducing this technical instruction in elementary schools. Even agricultural instruction is excluded from elementary schools by-virtue of this Bill, notwithstanding the recommendations of the Royal Commission. What will this Bill do for London? For two years the London School Board has had before it a scheme of technical instruction which everybody wishes to see enforced, but this Bill will not allow a single boy in the London Board Schools to obtain this kind of instruction. It is true the County Council will be able, to some extent, to aid the Polytechnic, and for that reason I do not oppose the Bill, although I look upon it as a miserable compromise and as a miserable attempt to fulfil the promises of the Government. The existing system of elementary education is too booky; and it is desired to give to the boys a little manual, scientific, and technical instruction that they may take with them to higher colleges. This Bill will enable anything of the sort to be done. The Bill is one of the greatest shams ever perpetrated in the House, and I hope that it will be much altered in Committee.
§ Question put, "That the Bill be read a second time."
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.)
On a point of order, Sir, the hon. Member has already spoken on this stage. Can he now object?
§ * MR. SPEAKER
If the words "I object" reach my ears, it is sufficient. It is not necessary for me to know whence they proceed.
§ Objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
§ Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.
§ It being One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
§ House adjourned at One o'clock till Monday next