EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.

HC Deb 07 December 1906 vol 166 cc1315-465

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

Clause 1:—

MR. BRIGG (Yorkshire, W.R., Keighley)

said the Amendment standing in his name to require the consent of the poor law guardians of any union before the local education authority could take steps to aid in the provision of meals for children was placed by him on the Paper with the object of introducing smoother relations between the two authorities concerned. The one authority had the spending of the money and the other had to provide it. There was almost certain to be borne friction between the authorities, and it was to remove that friction that he framed his Amendment. In view, however, of the statement last night of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, that it was intended to modify the Bill in Committee so as to remove further from the guardians the work which the Bill proposed that they should do in connection with this matter, he did not intend to move his Amendment.

MR. MASTERMAN (West Ham, N.) moved to omit the words "with a view to the organisation and direction of the provision of a midday meal" in order to provide that the local education authority might take such steps as it thought fit with a view "to provide meals" for school children. He remarked that under the Bill (except as provided later on in Clause 3) no public money could be taken in respect of the purchase of food for these meals, and he had no desire to challenge that arrangement. His Amendment in the first place, compared with the phraseology of the Bill, proposed words which were more simple and less open to any kind of subsequent disturbance in a Court of law—and that in Bills connected with education seemed to be an advantage. The second reason for his Amendment was the desire to give greater freedom to the local authority. Instead of saying "a midday meal," it was better not to particularise the meal, but to leave it to the local authority to deal with the local circumstances He was exceedingly anxious that practically the whole of the present voluntary organisation should be unified into one consistent scheme under the control of the local authority. A large number of these charities at present provided breakfasts—the well-known one at Birmingham, for instance; and if they excluded breakfast there was no doubt that that charity would continue to work on present lines outside the scope of the Bill. That would be a profound mistake, for it was important to avoid that most desolate of all occupations—pushing the interests of competing charities. They ought to give an opportunity of providing breakfasts or dinners, or breakfasts and dinners, under special circumstances of distress. On the Select Committee which carefully worked out this problem there was a considerable divergence of opinion whether breakfasts or dinners were the most valuable. Remembering that there was so much divergence of opinion existing, he thought it would be better to let the local authorities decide. He begged to move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words, 'with a view to the organisation and direction of the provision of a midday meal,' and insert the words 'to provide meals.'"—(Mr. Master-man.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH, Islington, W.)

said it was quite evident that great interest was taken in this matter. The Government never regarded the words "with a view to the organisation and direction of" as being very essential; they were taken from the Report of the Committee. The hon. Member for North West Ham had stated that he was not going to move a subsequent Amendment, and that he and his friends would be satisfied with regard to the first clause if those words were left out. It was important for the Committee to bear that in mind. His own opinion as to whether or not the words were necessary was not of much value, but the skilled advisers of the Government had looked into the matter and they had come to the conclusion that the words "with a view to the organisation and direction of" were not essential and amounted to a surplusage. The Government were still of opinion that all the other features of the clause must be retained. Sub-sections (a) and (b) gave the local authority the powers they intended it to possess without reference to the Board of Education, and they did not think it was desirable to go beyond this clause. The phrase "midday meal" had been subjected to close scrutiny, and the Government felt that it was a little clumsy. Consequently they did not think it necessary to retain the words "midday meal" in the Bill. The Committee should remember that in this Bill they were dealing with meals paid for by the children, and if any child wished to pay for two meals why should they prevent it? They were dealing with meals provided from sources other than from public funds, and why should they object to more than one meal being provided? The Amendment he suggested to meet the case was to leave out the words "with a view to the organisation and direction of" and insert the word "for." The Government would also accept the word "meals." The clause as amended would then read— A local authority under Part III. of the Education Act, 1902, may take such steps as they think fit for the provision of meals for children in attendance. ….

MR. MASTERMAN

said that would meet his point, and he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words 'with a view to the organisation and direction of' and insert the word 'for.'"—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

* SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)

thought a little more time ought to be given to the consideration of the Amendment. As the clause at present stood, it provided only for the organisation and direction, but the provision of food was a matter of a very different character. The Amendment appeared to him to give a general authority something in the nature of a roving commission to the local authority. But any hon. Member who would refer to Clause 3 would find that local authorities could only act when they were satisfied as to the necessitous conditions of the district. That was a different thing from giving them a general power to act under all circumstances and in all seasons. Before adopting the Amendment the Committee should have some assurance from the Government that the provision of food was not dealt with under the amended clause. When they came to deal with food, then they would be entering upon the question of relief which was far wider in its range and far more difficult and delicate. He felt that he was only doing right in calling attention to this difficulty. The Amendment had been accepted now without any previous indication that it would be so accepted. It raised a very wide issue. It was not a question merely of drafting, but went to the whole root of the matter. Therefore it required most careful investigation and the very best attention that could be given to it, in order that the Committee might feel sure that there was no danger that the supplying of food was included in the Amendment.

* SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)

said the local authority could not spend money on food for the children, but what they could do was to take steps for the provision of meals by association with a committee and by providing plant, furniture, and other things which he did not understand his hon. friend to object to. That was the meaning of the acceptance of this Amendment. He believed the hon. Member for North West Ham was prepared to fall in with that. He agreed with the Parliamentary Secretary and the draughtsman that the words, "with a view to the organisation and direction of" were valueless. The words which the Government now proposed were important. There was some difference of medical opinion as to whether, if only one meal was given, it should be breakfast or dinner. If there were funds for two meals well and good. If a child could only have one meal, why should not the local authority have the guidance of expert opinion in order to enable them to decide which one it should be? Therefore the first part of the Amendment which proposed to leave out the words "a midday meal" appeared to him to be harmless.

MR. BRIGG

said he was sure hon. Members were all perfectly agreed as to the necessity for some provision being made for the feeding of hungry children; but, at the same time, they were anxious that nothing should be done which would unduly relieve parents from the obligation which naturally rested upon them to give proper food to their children, or would pauperise those people who were given help. His own idea of the kind of meal that should be provided was food that might he accessible at any time. For this purpose he would suggest that there should be some place about the school building where dry bread and good milk should be available. This food would be sufficient to nourish the child, but at the same time no child would prefer this fare if it could get better food at home. At certain hours of the day the food should be accessible to all children who required it irrespective of whether their parents were poor or well-to-do. He felt himself that his suggestion would meet the case, for while it would provide that sufficient food was given to children it would not have the effect of pauperising them. He was in favour of the Amendment, but he would wish to give a wider meaning to the term meal. In his opinion the kind of meal to be provided should be left to the discretion of the local authority.

* SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)

said he could not accept with equanimity the omission of these words. The original suggestion appeared in the Report of the Royal Commission on Physical Training. They went into that point with very great care, and what they urged was that steps should be taken for the provision of meals, but that the organisation of these meals, and that alone, should be part of the work of the education authority. On that point he thought all the members of the Commission were agreed. This clause defined the necessary work which would fall upon the education authority. In the forefront of that they should put organisation and direction. What might come afterwards as to the provision of meals ought surely to be regulated by the subsequent clauses as indicated by the words "as hereinafter provided" at the end of Clause 1. If they dropped out the very important and ruling words at the beginning of the clause, the ordinary reader would think that the first and chief work of the education authority was to provide meals. Ordinary laymen and even draughtsmen might differ, and the interpretation which the Courts of law would put on particular words might not always be easy to predict. The ordinary laymen would understand that if they empowered the local authority to take steps for the provision of meals that was to be interpreted in the ordinary sense of the words, and that it meant, as everyone thought, that they should provide not only the kitchen and the cooking utensils, but also the food which was to be cooked. There was no use minimising the effect of the omission of these words. He must dissociate himself from what was said by his hon. friend the Member for the University of Oxford. He did not think his hon. friend had followed what was done by the Select Committee on this important point. The omission of the words "a midday meal" would give a very useful discretion in the matter; and personally he thought that a morning meal of a simple kind would be at once more useful and much less liable to abuse. This clause dealt with the duty which would lie on the local authority not only in particular cases where poverty was proved, but in every case. It was of the highest importance that they should got in these limiting words, and that they should not be dropped in the easy way the Secretary to the Board of Education proposed.

MR. LOUGH

asked whether there was not a general understanding that the discussion should take place on both proposals now. He thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee that they should have the whole discussion together.

* THE CHAIRMAN

I think, owing to the course of the discussion, hitherto we ought to take the discussion on both points at one time, and then they can be decided one after the other without another debate.

LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)

said there was a great difference between the question of organising the work of providing meals and the question whether there should be midday meals.

* THE CHAIRMAN

There is a distinction between the two points, but if hon. Members discuss the two points, as they are entitled to do on this Amendment, then we shall not want to enter again on the discussion of the second point.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

said the Committee was quite unnecessarily frightening itself as to the effect of this Amendment. The Bill ran along two lines. The scheme of the first clause was to set up school canteens, in regard to which the local authority would be associated with voluntary agencies in making provision for meals for which the parents must pay. They must not, except as provided in Clause 3, spend any public money on these meals. That was the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Physical Training to which the hon. Member for Glasgow University referred. The proposed alteration in the words would not allow under Clause 1 any local authority to spend any money on the provision of meals. But Clause 3 proposed to enable local authorities power, in rare cases of real hardship, to spend money out of the rates on the provision of meals. That was a separate scheme altogether. There was only one big question in the Bill, and that was whether any public money should be spent on the provision of meals. He hoped that they might soon come to the discussion of that question. That was the grave and novel proposition which had to be decided in this Committee, but it did not arise on the present Amendment.

LORD BALCARRES

said the Amendment was in direct contradiction to the recommendation of the Committee on the mid-day meal. He would be glad to support the hon. Member in excluding the words "organisation and direction," but it seemed to him that the hon. Gentleman was not acting in harmony, not merely with the Committee of which he was chairman, but with the provisions of the sub-section which followed that now under discussion. The local education authority was to organise and direct the machinery, and for that purpose they could associate themselves with the voluntary committee who would undertake to provide the food. The provision was not mandatory, he admitted; but the local education authority might aid the voluntary Committee— By furnishing such land, buildings, furniture, and apparatus, and such officers and servants as may be necessary for the preparation and service of such meals. The victuals were to be provided by the Committee. He could not help thinking that those words were considerably more important than the hon. Member intended, and they raised a great question of principle. By striking out "organisation and direction" they were putting on the local education authority a duty which it was the original intention of the framer of the measure to put on another authority.

* SIR W. J.COLLINS (St. Pancras, W.)

said that, having sat on the Committee upstairs, he recognised cordially the assistance given by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Wigan and the hon. Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen. He desired to emphasise the great distinction to be drawn between the provision of machinery and the provision of food; and he held that the latter should be safeguarded more than the former. He understood that if the Amendment were accepted and the concluding words of the clause were retained, the power to provide the meal minus the power to pay for the food practically amounted to the same thing as giving the power, organisation and direction to the local authority. If he thought it was otherwise, he should be inclined to agree with the criticisms which had been made. He was glad that due recognition would be given to the important voluntary agencies. In London alone £10,000 a year had been provided from voluntary sources for the provision of meals for school children. At present, without any objection from the Board of Education or the auditor, the first clause of the Bill was virtually carried out in some fifteen London school centres. The food provided had been paid for by the parents and by voluntary agencies, the former contributing 75 per cent. of the cost and the latter 25 per cent.

LORD BALCARRES

said that the apparatus had been provided for, but that did not touch the provision of food.

* SIR W. J. COLLINS

said that the local education authority in London had utilised the materials which had be9n used in cookery centres without any cost to the rates, in fifteen schools, and that had been conducted with great advantage to the children. He was satisfied that there was a need in the primary as well as in the secondary schools for the provision of an early or a mid-day meal at cost price to the parents. With the restrictions contained in the last three lines of the clause he saw no harm in accepting the Amendment, fully understanding that payment for food out of public funds would be fenced by adequate safeguards.

* SIR FRANCIS POWELL

said that having an Amendment on the paper to-leave out the midday meal, he felt bound to say a word by way of apology for his departure from the recommendation in the Report of the Committee, which gave information of the most valuable character as to the procedure of foreign countries and in this country. He confessed that on more careful examination of that Report he had come to the conclusion that it would not be advisable to limit the provision of food to the mid-day meal. He found that in France and Belgium there was a midday meal, but when they went further east the meals provided were sometimes breakfast, sometimes a mid-day meal, and sometimes a supper. He therefore thought they would be acting more in accordance with convenience if they gave the local authority power to deal with the various circumstances which might arise. He had some apprehension as to giving more than one meal, because he was most anxious not to impair the sense of parental responsibility. He did not intend to carry the operation of this reform further than the necessity of the case demanded. He thought the case for a single meal had been clearly proved, but some discretion ought to be given to the local education authority. He had confidence in such bodies, and he would be content to remove the restriction that the local authority was not to provide more than one meal, and allow them to fix the time at which the meal should be given. He believed that the local authority would administer the Act with great care, because they had a desire to maintain the sense of parental responsibility, and he believed that they would act on that principle in the administration of this Bill when it became law.

* SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER (Wiltshire, Chippenham)

said he had been a supporter of this Bill in all its different phases in the Select Committee because he believed that the machinery proposed in it would go a long way towards diminishing that lack of parental responsibility about which so much had been said. As to the provision of one meal only, he hoped that that would not lead in the future to interference with the operation of Clause 3. The omission of the words "organisation and direction" seemed to him to be merely a verbal alteration. The concluding words of the paragraph controlled the whole clause and made it perfectly clear that it only provided that the machinery should be supplied by the local education authority, and that it had nothing whatever to do with providing the food.

* MR. BRIDGEMAN (Shropshire, Oswestry),

thought that nearly every one in the Committee would agree with the omission of the word "mid-day" before the word "meal," and he would be glad to see the word struck out. He would also like to see greater elasticity in regard to giving more than one meal if it was wanted. But that was altogether a different matter from leaving out the words "organisation and direction" of the provision of the meal. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had suggested that the word "organisation" had no significance at all, and that it did not matter whether they put it in or left it out. If that was so, why alter it? Again, why did the hon. Gentleman move to insert this very word in sub-section (b). If it had no significance why should it be left out here, and why waste the time of the House in introducing it in sub-section (b). The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave as a reason for rushing this Bill through that it had been carefully considered by a Select Committee upstairs. That would be all very well if the Government were proceeding upon the understanding arrived at in the Select Committee, but they were going to upset it. His contention was that the Government were departing from a distinct understanding arrived at in the Committee upstairs, who distinctly put these words in the forefront in the clause in order to make it clear that what they wanted to aim at was the organisation and direction of this provision, and not the buying of food out of public money, to which some of them objected altogether and which ought only to be resorted to in most exceptional circumstances. If the words were omitted the intention of the Committee would be entirely obscured to anybody reading the Bill, and to any local authority who might have to administer it. Therefore he strongly protested against leaving out the words, as such a course would destroy entirely the working basis upon which they went through the Committee. If the Government were going to destroy that working basis they should have to fight the Bill afresh at the present stage in order to put right what the Government had put wrong.

* MR. REES (Montgomery Boroughs)

said that the hon. Member for North Camberwell, who addressed the House with the utmost confidence in this behalf, stated that this Amendment would not involve any financial obligation either in regard to a mid-day meal or meals. But when hon. Members looked at Clause 3, they found there provision for the payment of such meals. The words "such meals" of that section would refer back to Clause 1, and it appeared to him that under cover of this Amendment, which was being treated as a question of organisation and direction in regard to the provision of meals, they would find when they got to Clause 3 that the important point of this Bill had been concluded if the Amendment under consideration was already passed. He did not dispute the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's description of the framework of the Bill. What he did dispute was his description of the effect of this Amendment. He thought it right to call attention to this matter, in order that the Secretary to the Board of Education might deal with it and if possible settle it at once. He thought the House should see exactly where it was going, and not find it had given away in the earlier clauses questions which properly fell to be considered later on. He did not think this the proper place to discuss the merits of this Amendment, which in his opinion altogether altered the scope of the Bill, and made it far wider and of a more far-reaching character than the Bill hon. Members had had before them.

MR. BOWLES

entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs that the Amendment, although moved by his hon. friend opposite in an argument tending to show that it was really one of small importance, was an extremely far reaching and important one. The Amendment proposed that it should be in the power of the local education authority not merely, as the Bill proposed, to organise and direct the provision of meals, but absolutely to provide the meals. There was a very great and real difference between organisation and direction of the provision of a meal and the actual providing of it. It was a vital and fundamental difference, and he was astonished that the hon. Gentleman opposite who moved the Amendment should not have seen, as apparently he had not, the extremely serious character of the Amendment. He had stated that the object of the Bill, as he understood it, was to consolidate and unify all the different charities by which at present this work was being carried on, and as he believed, very satisfactorily carried on. In other words, the hon. Member believed that the charities, the private enterprise, and the benevolence which was being exerted in connection with the feeding of children would be consolidated and unified under the municipal authority, and it was with that opinion that he moved this Amendment that raised in a direct fashion the whole principle with which they had to deal. An Amendment which would have such an effect could not be dismissed as a mere matter of verbal alteration. The hon. Member for North Camberwell, whose authority on these matters everybody admitted, had said that there was no harm in the Amendment, because the clause was already enormously safeguarded by certain provisions in the Bill. For instance, he said that they need not be in the least afraid, because it was provided in the clause that the local education authority should not incur any expense in the provision of food. That would be perfectly true if Clause 1 stood alone, and was, in fact, the Bill, but they had to look at it in relation to the other clauses and the whole Bill as it would stand when it was amended and passed. Every provision of the Bill rested on Clause 1, and it was idle to say that because no money was going to be spent under Clause 1 they were justified in making the large alterations in the clause which were proposed. As to the second part of the Amendment, which dealt with the question whether or not the meal was to be a mid-day one, he would have liked to say a few words, but it seemed that the whole matter was disposed of by the extraordinary statement of the Financial Secretary to the Board of Education, that "mid-day" might mean half past ten in the morning or any other hour convenient to the district. If midday meant half-past ten it might mean half-past eight or any other hour, and it was perfectly idle of them to waste their time in discussing the matter. It was, however, an important matter that the local education authority should be empowered to give an indefinite and indeterminate number of meals, and under this provision they might have any number of children fed at other people's expense. [Ironical LABOUR Cheers.] No doubt that was a prospect with which hon. Gentleman below the gangway were very much enamoured, but it was one which he thought was insulting to the independent working man. It was indeed a very serious proposal, and would very greatly extend the ambit of the Bill, and for his part he was sorry that it should have been made upon the responsibility of a member of the Government. But these were minor matters as compared with the first part of the Amendment. He thought there was a very serious difference between authorising a local authority to organise and direct, and allowing them to provide food, and because he thought the Amendment was a mischievous one he should vote against it.

* MR. W. T. WILSON (Lancashire, Westhoughton)

said that Labour Members were quite satisfied with the Amendment moved by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, and if there had been any wavering on their part as to the way in which they should vote, the question would have been decided for them by the ridiculous arguments of the hon. Member for Norwood. He appealed to the Committee not to reiterate arguments, but to come to a decision on the point. So far as they were concerned they did not care if they sat till two o'clock to-morrow afternoon, but other hon. Members wanted to get away, and therefore he hoped that they might now come to a decision.

SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)

said that instead of appealing to them to come to a decision, the hon. Gentleman ought to have appealed to the Prime Minister not to put down a Bill of this sort to be, discussed in the short time at their disposal. The Bill would change the practice which had existed in this country for hundreds of years. The other night hon. Members discussed a measure long after the hour when they had agreed to terminate it, and it was absurd that they should be told that they must not discuss this measure because hon. Members wanted to go home. As another illustration of the harmonious manner in which the discussions on this Bill were conducted upstairs he might mention, having the proceedings of that Committee before him, that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill introduced an Amendment couched in these very words, and having succeeded in carrying it upstairs he now came down to the House and reversed his principles. It was another exemplification of the phrase on the knee" and apparently it did not apply to the Government only but to every member of the Party opposite. He quite agreed that the omission of the words "organisation and direction" might be safeguarded in later portions of the Bill, but, supposing hon. Gentleman below the Gangway gave the command, what guarantee had they that the Government would not go down "on the knee" and vote against Amendments in that direction? These words "organisation and direction" were of great importance, because the local education authority might combine with voluntary effort to do certain things. If these words were taken out it might be held that there was a provision in the Bill that the local education Authority should combine with those who were engaged in voluntary effort, but how many in this House really and sincerely believed in their hearts that after this Bill was passed there would be any voluntary effort? The burden would be put upon the State or upon the rates. Then as to the provision of more than one meal, he was against the provision of any meal at all. Would the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill say that the principle of the Bill was not to be extended? [Mr. LOUGH: "Hear, hear."] Then would the hon. Gentleman vote against the omission of the words "organisation and direction"; [Mr. LOUGH; "No."] The hon. Gentleman had changed his mind again. It seemed to him that by the Bill and the Amendment they were embarking upon a very dangerous course, because if they put the word in the plural it stood to reason that more than one meal would be given He quite agreed that there was a great deal to be said in favour of the hon. Member for North Camberwell. The hon. Member had a warm heart, and no doubt there was a certain amount of misery, although he himself did not think there was so much distress as was represented. But people like the hon. Member, whose heart has warmer than his head was cool, desired to see that misery alleviated, but for himself he believed he was saying the kindest thing possible when he said that if they encouraged parents in the belief that they might have any number of children and someone would provide for them they would be doing injury both to the child and the parents. He felt very strongly about this measure, and to substitute "meals" for "meal" would increase the burden upon the taxpayer and ratepayer which in any case must be great.

* MR. MADDISON (Burnley)

said that unless he had assurances, which he thought they had. that the Amendment would not extend the clause in the direction indicated by the hon. Baronet, he would be compelled to vote against it. He agreed that if they did anything to undermine parental control, it would do harm to the children, and if this proposal meant universal maintenance or indiscriminate giving of food, he should oppose the Bill. But it was because he did not see those things in it that he could support it, although he regretted very much that the Government had accepted the Amendment. He preferred the clause as it stood, but as they had assurances that it did not open the door in the wide way the hon. Baronet suggested he should support the Amendment. There was a very grave danger of impairing parental responsibility and the Government should be very careful what they did in that way, otherwise they would find some Members on their own side who could not support them. He thought, however, that hon. Members opposite were wrong, because in his opinion the governing words at the end of the clause did away with any such fear as had been expressed.

CAPTAIN CEAIG (Down, E.)

said that, as a Member of the Committee which considered this matter upstairs, he regretted that in this discussion in a full House the Parliamentary Secretary should have lent himself to this arbitrary proceeding in connection with the measure. The discussions upstairs had proceeded most harmoniously, and had the hon. Member started in the way he had proceeded upstairs a great deal of time might have beer, saved. The two parts of the Amendment now under discussion had very divergent bearings on the Bill. There was no question whatever that the draft of the Report which came down from the Committee, and which included the words mid-day meal, did not for a moment suggest that the Committee was in favour of a mid-day meal, but it showed the care with which they went into the matter. The vote of the majority of the Committee showed that the balance of opinion was in its favour. But he did not think anybody objected in any way to its commission and if the hon. Gentleman had moved to omit "mid-day" the Amendment would have been accepted. But the hon. Gentleman did not do so. He waited for the Amendment to be moved casually by a private Member, and then accepted it instead of indicating, as he should have done, what the desire of the Government was. He (Captain Craig) however, placed more importance on the additional "s" which appeared in the Amendment. The point was thoroughly threshed out in the Committee, where it was intended that a meal should be given to such children as were found, on attending at school, to be in such a condition as not to be able to benefit by the education given until they had been fed, and it was agreed that machinery should be provided for giving a meal. The hon. Member, by the Amendments he had put down at short notice, had introduced into the measure an aspect which certainly the Bill never had before, and he-regretted that such Amendments should be sprung upon the Committee and accepted. The question whether there should be a midday meal or whether those children who required it should be given a meal when they attended school raised large issues such as the question of parental authority, which would have been better raised later on. The question of parental authority was a very wide one and it would be very difficult to deal with it at the present time. It was a pity the hon. Gentleman had departed from the wording to which he agreed upstairs, because when they acceded to his desire to discuss the matter again in Committee of the whole House they tried to come to an agreement upon points which the hon. Gentleman; was now trying to raise afresh with regard to the question of whether the word should be "meals" or "meal;" as it stood now he heartily supported what had been said by the hon. Baronet. The hon. Member had said earlier in the debate that these were charitable funds, and that children when they came could demand a meal. Did the hon. Gentleman mean to suggest that one child could demand a breakfast, and another a midday dinner, and another a meal at some other time? The purpose of the measure was to give the children a meal to enable them to do the strenuous work imposed upon them during school hours, and the object of the State was to enable the voluntary effort to be made as in the past. The last part of the Amendment, although it did not effect so sweeping a change in the Bill, departed at the outset from the wording which the hon. Member himself asked the Committee to accept as being the most ready means of arriving at the object of the Bill. Clause 1 was to provide machinery to enable a school to set aside a class room and a kitchen and the necessary utensils to provide the children with meals. The clause had already met with approval from all sides of the House; it was a provision to enable the local education authority to do what in many cases was done "through a back door." This Amendment placed an entirely different aspect on the clause. He thought it would have been better to insert these words in another place, and unless the hon. Gentleman changed his whole methods of conducting this discussion he could not depend on that harmonious cooperation which had been extended to him in the Committee upstairs in the endeavour to meet a growing evil.

MR. LOUGH

said it was true that the proceedings upstairs had been most harmonious, and the hon. Member who had just sat down had himself given great assistance to the Committee in putting the Bill into shape. The hon. Member

would believe him when he said that the Government were not going to extend the provisions of the Bill beyond what was agreed in the Committee upstairs. The Amendment might be of some value in the way of clearness, but it did not in the least pledge the Bill to anything not already agreed to. The Government did not put down the Amendment, because they wished to get through the Bill as harmoniously as possible. He pointed out that the Bill did not mention parental responsibility, and there was nothing about it in the Amendment. The only thing was that voluntary effort would not allow any claim to be made on the parents, and they wanted to make it a statutory matter. He hoped the Committee Would now come to a decision upon the Amendment.

* MR. F AROLD COX

said he only desired to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he would be kind enough to explain exactly the bearing of the alteration. In point of view of drafting the words themselves did not appear to be very different, but there was some difference in the intention implied. It implied in the one case a larger measure than in the other The logical consequences might be the same in both cases, but the Committee had the right to consider what was meant by the Bill.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 41; Noes, 219. (Division List No. 467.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex F.	Doughty, Sir George	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Ashley, W. W.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Morpeth, Viscount
Balcarres, Lord	Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan	Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry, N.)	Fletcher, J. S.	Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hamilton, Marquess of	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Thornton, Percy M.
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Hills, J. W.	Valentia, Viscount
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Younger, George
Corbett, T. L.(Down, North)	Liddell, Henry
Cox, Harold	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Bowles and Captain Craig.
Craik, Sir Henry	Lowe, Sir Francis William
Davies, David (Montgomery Co	Mallet, Charles E.
NOES.
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Barlow, Percy (Bedford)
Agnew, George William	Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Barnard, E. B.
Alden, Percy	Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Barnes, G. N.
Beale, W. P.	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Beauchamp, E.	Fuller, John Michael F.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Beaumont, Hn. H. (Eastbourne)	Fullerton, Hugh	O'Grady, J.
Beaumont, Hn W. C. B. (Hexham)	Ginnell, L.	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Beck, A. Cecil	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.	O'Malley, William
Bell, Richard	Glover, Thomas	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Bennett, E. N.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Paul, Herbert
Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex Romf'rd)	Gulland, John W.	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Billson, Alfred	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Power, Patrick Joseph
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central
Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)	Halpin, J.	Priestley, W. E. B.(Bradford, E.)
Boland, John	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Radford, C. H.
Bottomley, Horatio	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Raphael, Herbert H.
Bowerman, C. W.	Hart-Davies, T.	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Bramsdon, T. A.	Hayden, John Patrick	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Branch, James	Hedges, A. Paget	Remnant, James Farquharson
Brigg, John	Henry, Charles S.	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)
Brodie, H. C.	Higharn, John Sharp	Ridsdale, E. A.
Brooke, Stopford	Hobart, Sir Robert	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J.T.(Cheshire)	Hodge, John	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Hogan, Michael	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hooper, A. G.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Horniman, Emslie John	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Rogerts, F. E. Newman
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles	Illingworth, Percy H.	Rowlands, J.
Byles, William Pollard	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Cairns, Thomas	Jardine, Sir J.	Sears, J. E.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Seddon, J.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Jowett, F. W.	Seely, Major J. B.
Causton. Rt Hn. Richard Knight	Kearley, Hudson E.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Charming, Sir Francis Allston	Kekewich, Sir George	Sherwell, Arthur James
Clarke, C. Goddard	Kelley, George D.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Cleland, J. W.	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Simon, John Allsebrook
Clough, William	Laidlaw, Robert	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Clynes, J. R.	Lambert, George	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)	Lament, Norman	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Cogan, Denis J.	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Snowdon, P.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Lehmann, R, C.	Spicer, Sir Albert
Collins, Sir W. J. (S. Pancras, W.)	Lewis, John Herbert	Stanger, H. Y.
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Lough, Thomas	Steadman, W. C.
Cooper, G. J.	Lundon, W.	Strachey, Sir Edward
Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Lupton, Arnold	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Lyell, Charles Henry	Sullivan, Donal
Cory, Clifferd John	Lynch, H. B.	Summerbell, T.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Crean, Eugene	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Cremer, William Randal	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Thomasson, Franklin
Crombie, John William	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.	Thorne, William
Dalziel, James Henry	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)	Toulmin, George
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	M'Crae, George	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Delany, William	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)	Verney, F. W.
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Maddison, Frederick	Walsh, Stephen
Dillon, John	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Walters, John Tudor
Dobson, Thomas W.	Masterman, C. F. G.	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Dolan, Charles Joseph	Meagher, Michael	Ward, W. Dudley (Southamptn)
Donelan, Captain A.	Menzies, Walter	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Micklem, Nathaniel	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Molteno, Percy Alport	Waterlow, D. S.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Elibank, Master of	Mooney, J. J.	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Erskine, David C.	Morley, Rt. Hon. John	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Essex, R. W.	Murphy, John	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Everett, R. Lacey	Murray, James	Williamson, A.
Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Myer, Horatio	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Farrell, James Patrick	Napier, T. B.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Fenwick, Charles E.	Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw)
Ferens, T. R.	Nicholls, George	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Ffrench, Peter	Nolan, Joseph	Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Word "for" inserted.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words 'a nid day meal,' and insert the word 'meals.'"—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

LORD E. CECIL

said the Opposition regarded this matter as so important that they must again divide the Committee upon it.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 233; Noes, 28. (Division List No. 468.)

AYES.
Ashley, W. W.	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Morpeth, Viscount
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gardner, Ernest (Berks East)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Uni.)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Hamilton, Marquess of	Thornton, Percy M.
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Valentia, Viscount
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Cecil Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Liddell, Henry	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Bowles and Captain Craig.
Cox, Harold	Lowe, Sir Francis William
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
NOES
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.	Cheetham, John Frederick	Ginnell, L.
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Clarke, C. Goddard	Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert In.
Agnew, George William	Clough, William	Glover, Thomas
Alden, Percy	Clynes, J. R.	Gulland, John W.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius
Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Halpin, J.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Cooper, G. J.	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil
Barlow, Percy (Bedford	Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Hart-Davies, T.
Barnard, E. B.	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Hayden, John Patrick
Barnes, G. N.	Cory, Clifford John	Hedges, A. Paget
Beale, W. P.	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Henry, Charles S.
Beauchamp, E.	Crean, Eugene	Higham, John Sharp
Beaumont, Hon. H. (Eastbourne	Cremer, William Randal	Hobart, Sir Robert
Beaumont, Hn W. C. B (Hexham	Crombie, John William	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
Beck, A. Cecil	Dalziel, James Henry	Hodge, John
Bell, Richard	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Hogan, Michael
Bennett, E. N.	Delany, William	Hooper, A. G.
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd)	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Horniman, Emslie, John
Billson, Alfred	Dillon, John	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Dobson, Thomas W.	Illingworth, Percy H.
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire	Dolan, Charles Joseph	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred
Boland, John	Donelan, Captain A.	Jardine, Sir J.
Bottomley, Horatio	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Bowennan, C. W.	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne	Jowett, F. W.
Bramsdon, T. A.	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Kearley, Hudson E.
Branch, James	Elibank, Master of	Kekewich, Sir George
Brigg, John	Erskine, David	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Brodie, H. C.	Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Laidlaw, Robert
Brooke, Stopford	Essex, R. W.	Lambert, George
Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T. (Ch'shire	Everett, R. Lacey	Lament, Norman
Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs)	Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.
Burke, E. Haviland-	Farrell, James Patrick	Lehmann, R. C.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Fenwich, Charles	Lewis, John Herbert
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Ferens, T. R.	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt-Col. A. R.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Ffrench, Peter	Lough, Thomas
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Lundon, W.
Byles, William Pollard	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Lupton, Arnold.
Cairns, Thomas	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lyell, Charles Henry
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Lynch, H. B.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Fuller, John Michael F.	Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Fullerton, Hugh	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Charming, Sir Francis Allston	Furness, Sir Christopher	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Stanger, H. Y.
MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal E.)	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
M'Crae, George	Power, Patrick Joseph	Steadman, W. C.
M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)	Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central	Strachey, Sir Edward
Maddison, Frederick	Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Mallet, Charles E.	Radford, G. H.	Sullivan, Donal
Masterman, C. F. G.	Raphael, Herbert H.	Summerbell, T.
Meagher, Michael	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Menzies, Walter	Redmond, John E.(Waterford)	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Micklem, Nathaniel	Redmond, William (Clare)	Thomasson, Franklin
Molteno, Percy Alport	Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)	Thorne, William
Money, L. G. Chiozza	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)	Toulmin, George
Mooney, J. J.	Ridsdale, E. A.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Morley, Rt. Hon. John	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Verney, F. W.
Morrell, Philip	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Vivian, Henry
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall	Walsh, Stephen
Murphy, John	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee	Walters, John Tudor
Murray, James	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Myer, Horatio	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Ward, W. Dudley (Southamp'n)
Napier, T. B.	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Rowlands, J.	Wason, In. Cathcart (Orkney
Nicholls, George	Runciman, Walter	Waterlow, D. S.
Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)	Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Nolan, Joseph	Sears, J. E.	White, George (Norfolk)
Norton, Capt, Cecil William	Seddon, J.	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid	Seely, Major J. B.	White, Luke (York, K.R.)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T (Hawick B.)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)	Sherwell, Arthur James	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Williamson, A.
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Simon, John Allsebrook	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
O'Grady, J.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,)	Sloan Thomas Henry	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
O'Malley, William	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.	TELLERS FOB THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Paul, Herbert	Snowdon, P.
Perks, Robert William	Spicer, Sir Albert

MR. BOWLES moved an Amendment the object of which was to make the clause apply to underfed children only. He said the Amendment was a simple one, but it raised a question of considerable importance. Was it to be at the discretion of the education authority to provide meals for every child, or were they only to be supplied to underfed children? He had no desire to prolong the debate, but it was essential that the Committee should know what it was doing. If it was intended by the Committee that these meals were to be provided to all children, it seemed only reasonable and just that those who had to find the money should have some security that they should not be provided for children who did not need them.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 8, after the word 'for' to insert the word 'underfed'"—(Mr. Bowles.)

Question put, "That the word 'underfed' be there inserted."

MR. LOUGH

said he could not accept the Amendment which would strike at the root of one of the objects of the Bill. If a child could pay for his lunch, why should he not get it? One set of schools in London had been authorised by statute to provide meals, and the power was being taken advantage of to an enormous extent. Indeed Parliament had allowed another set of the schools to set up canteens, and the object of the Bill was to enable the same thing to be done in connection with other schools where the local authority thought fit. Every precaution was taken that no charge should fall on the ratepayers as it could be undertaken by voluntary association, and Clause 2 also provided stringent powers for the recovery of the cost of meals from parents. Further than that, if the hon. Member would look at Clause 3, he would see special provision was inserted for dealing with underfed children.

* SIR FRANCIS POWELL

was very glad to hear that the Amendment would not be accepted, as there were other children whose cases required consideration besides the underfed. There were those who were misfed, and those who were not gifted by nature with a strong constitution, and who did not assimilate their food easily. They required careful treatment, and if the clause was confined to underfed children, they and also misfed children would be excluded.

MR. HART-DAVIES (Hackney, N.)

said the Amendment was originally down in his name, but he withdrew it in order that they might get on with more important business. He thought the question would be better raised on Clause 3, which dealt with the power of the local authority to spend money out of the rates.

MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)

pointed out that the Bill as originally introduced and backed by a round dozen Labour Members was strictly confined to underfed children.

LORD R. CECIL

did not agree with the argument that under Clause 1 they were not pledging public funds. The clause declared that certain things should be done and that private subscriptions were to be brought in if possible; but no one could suppose that if the Bill was passed private subscriptions would go on. Why should people subscribe for charity money which after all would merely go in relief of the rates? Hon. Members who thought that possible showed much ingenuousness. It was suggested that his hon. friend's proposal was provided for in Clause 3, which limited the rate to ½d. But what would happen when, the limit was reached? Did they imagine for one moment that the ½d. limit would be maintained? It was not done in the case of the education rate. The hon. Member for West Ham had publicly avowed that his object was to get children fed when their fathers were out on strike, so that they might not have the anguish of thinking that their children were not properly fed. Therefore they knew what the object of the dominant section of the House was.

MR. CHAIRMAN

The noble Lord is travelling very wide indeed of the Amendment.

LORD R. CECIL

said he was, of course, obliged to abide by the Chairman's ruling, but it was impossible for him to reply to the arguments of hon. Members opposite if he could not deal with the subjects they had themselves discussed. He could not in the least accept the principle that some such limitation was not required.

* MR. HAROLD COX

suggested that perhaps the Government would be prepared to accept the word "necessitous" instead of "underfed." This was a very important matter. The Bill was recommended to the country and put forward by the Socialist Party as a means of providing for necessitous children.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

said that was not the case. The Bill was introduced to enable the education authority to make provision from the rates for underfed children and for such other children as it thought fit.

* MR. HAROLD COX

said he ought to have stated that the arguments in support of the Bill were almost always based upon the fact that hungry children were sent to school. The Socialist Party had pressed the Bill upon the Government because they were in favour of the State maintenance of school children. That of course was their ideal, and the Government had taken it up as a step towards that ideal. Many people had been led to support the Bill because of the pictures that were drawn of starving children going to school. But the object of this measure, if they took the interpretation of the Parliamentary Secretary, was that the Board of Education was apparently to turn every local authority into a refreshment contractor. He objected to that being done. The insertion of the word "necessitous" would very greatly limit the amount of the burden thrown upon the ratepayer. Sub-section (b) provided that the education authority should provide for the preparation and service of the meals. It was obvious that if they had to provide for other children as well as those that were necessitous, the cost to be borne by the ratepayer would be greatly increased. The clause as it stood would require the local authority to set up a great machinery for the feeding of thousands of children. He therefore sincerely hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary would accept his proposal to insert the word "necessitous."

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

was extremely glad that his hon. friend had brought forward the Amendment, because there seemed to be some little misunderstanding as to why the Bill was brought in, and what was its object. He had come to the conclusion that they ought to divide on this Amendment, because, if the word "underfed" were rejected, it would shew clearly to the country that the object of hon. Members in bringing in the Bill was to provide for something else than underfed children. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had repeated the argument that the Board of Education should be a refreshment department, but the Board of Education was never started with that object. The hon. Member had said there would be no charge upon the rates, because the parents would pay. Would the Board of Education get the money for the meals in advance, because if they put it "on the slate" it was very doubtful if they would ever get the money at all, and the cost involved in Collecting these small sums from a large number of people would be enormous. The word "underfed" would undoubtedly limit the application of the Bill and the expense involved. In London alone if all the children in the council schools were given only one meal a day the expense would be something between £1,500,000 and £2,000,000 a year. The limitation of the meals to underfed children might at least be taken as an instalment to see how the system worked. It was said that the children often wanted tender care, but surely they were not going to introduce a nursing department at the Board of Education as well. It was a beautiful sentiment from a kind heart, but they had to look at the matter from a practical point of view.

* DR. MACNAMARA

said the hon. Baronet had placed the issue unfairly before the Committee when he said the division would show whether they were in favour of a great scheme of feeding children at the public expense. That was not the issue at all. The hon. Gentleman did not understand the scheme of the Bill in the least. That scheme was to set up school canteens, and people in good positions who wanted to pay for the meal would find it an economy of time at home to let their children use the canteens where they would get a better meal. In the first clause provision was made that not a single farthing of public money should be spent upon that meal. In Paris the working classes to-day found the system a great convenience. Thus there was no public money — no "million and a half "— [Sir FREDERICK BANBURY dissented.] Would the hon. Gentleman read the words of the Bill— Save as hereinafter provided the authority shall not incur any expense in respect of the provision of food. They could take a rate up to ½d. in the pound under Clause 3, and that was where this Amendment might be considered. Upon that clause they were, prepared to insert words providing that where they did spend public money it should be upon the necessitous child only. It was a grotesque misrepresentation to say that because they would not put in this word here they were in for a great socialistic scheme to spend the ratepayers' money on the feeding of children whose parents ought to provide for their offspring. Nothing could be further from the truth.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)

said he would like to ask the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken—if he were the authorised interpreter of the Bill on behalf of the Government—whether it was the case that the parents of non-necessitous children would pay for the expenditure under this clause. He did not think that if that was the intention it was carried out in the clause. The education authority were to supply kitchen, dining-room, cooks, and attendants. Was the charge which parents were to pay sufficient to cover not merely the cost of the food, but also these capital charges? If that was clearly understood, and if the clause was so altered in its wording as to make it clear that this was the policy, there was force in the observation that it was not on this clause, but later on, that the question as to necessitous children should be raised. But had they got that assurance? Would the words necessary to make the understanding clear be introduced into Clause 2?

MR. LOUGH

said the policy of the Bill was certainly to make the parents pay wherever that could be done; and there was an Amendment to Clause 2 covering the point raised. He could not enter" into the discussion now without being out of order.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the Government ought clearly to tell the Committee what their policy was, because it would be on the faith of what they now told the Committee that they would vote on the Amendment.

MR. LOUGH

said the right hon. Gentleman had not been present during the whole of the debate. He would repeat what he had said. The Bill was not confined exclusively to necessitous children, and the points raised would be relevant to Clause 2.

MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)

said as some doubt had been cast on a statement of the hon. baronet the Member for the City of London he would draw attention to the evidence given before the Committee. According to the statement of Mr. Alfred James Shepheard, if every child in London were provided with a meal the food would cost £937,627 reckoning the cost at 1½d. per head. Including the cost of cooking, etc. it meant an expenditure of £1,500,000.

* VISCOUNT MORPETH (Birmingham, S.)

said it had been stated that this scheme would not cost a farthing to the ratepayers, but there were in London between 400 and 500 schools, and it would be difficult to provide kitchen and other accommodation under £1,000 a school, or even double that amount, so that to begin with the expenditure on capital account would be between £500,000 and £1,000,000. The education authorities were to be barred by the Bill from using ordinary class rooms for the meals, so that the necessary accommodation would have to be provided. He allowed there was much to be said in favour of providing food for underfed school children, but he protested against the view with which many Members supported the Bill that it was the duty of the State to maintain all children. There were council schools in prosperous London suburbs attended by children of well-to-do parents, and were the ratepayers to pay any part of the cost of supplying meals to such children? Many hon. Members were putting forward the Bill in the first place in order to introduce the principle that it was the duty of the State to maintain all children whether rich or poor, and for that reason he opposed this clause.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

thought this was a matter on which his hon. friend who moved the Amendment was entitled to some more explicit Answer than had been given by the Parliamentary Secretary. If he understood their plan rightly, they contemplated two classes of children—the necessitous children whose parents either could not or would not pay for their feeding, and the children whose parents were willing to pay for the meals. The local authority was to provide the plant, service, and so on out of the rates. The only chance which the ratepayer had of getting any return for his outlay was from the paying child, and therefore it was extremely important to know whether the charge for the meal would cover not merely the cost of the food, which on the Government plan was supplied by voluntary agencies, but also the cost of the plant for which the ratepayers paid. The ratepayer was entitled to know whether he would be recouped by the paying children for the money which he had expended for the plant and service and not merely the voluntary society repaid for the money which it had expended on the food. That important point was left perfectly obscure by Clause 2. He thought the cost to the ratepayers should be limited to the case of the children who were really necessitous.

MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)

I reminded the Committee that the clause was not compulsory or mandatory. It only provided that the local authority "may" do certain things, and the local authority might be left to protect its rates.

MR. ROGERS (Wiltshire, Devizes)

said the provision of food by the local authority would, in country districts, be a great boon to children who lived a long distance from school and were absent from home for nine hours. He contemplated under this clause that the local education authorities in country districts would have power, with the assistance and co-operation of voluntary agencies, of providing hot milk for children who arrived at school in wet clothes after a long walk. He would like to see that, done, always provided the cost above the money found by voluntary agencies was paid for by the parents. He did not think there would be any difficulty in recovering the cost from working-class parents. The great majority of working-class parents in country districts would be only too glad to avail themselves of a system for the better feeding of their children. The payment should cover the whole cost, but in many rural schools the appliances for cooking existed, and in such a case it would be unreasonable to charge the parent with the capital cost of the apparatus. He did not look upon this proposal as either socialistic or pauperising. It was a very usual thing in middle-class schools for parents to buy dinner tickets for their children. In adopting this proposal the State would be showing the same regard for the physical welfare of the children as had been shown for a good many years for their mental and moral welfare.

CAPTAIN CRAIG

said a certain number of hon. Members would take quite a different attitude towards this Bill if the word "necessitous" or "underfed" were inserted. What they asked for was a statement whether the Government intended that the charge to paying parents should be sufficient to recoup all the expense the ratepayers were put to. The Opposition were fully alive to the point raised by the last speaker. They all desired to meet extreme cases, but if they did not insert the word "necessitous" they did not approach the difficulty, for they applied the provision to the whole of the children in the country, and they would turn the schools into feeding centres for all children, which was a totally different matter from meeting the necessitous cases during a hard winter. He wished the Government to state clearly whether this enormous procedure of building dining halls i and supplying waiters and cooks would be paid for by the parents of the children, or would the local authority be recouped not only for the cost of the food but for the extensive machinery and the cost of putting up large halls out of a sinking fund. This was not a question which could be deferred. It was not merely a matter of the wording of the Amendment, but of what policy was in the mind of the Government. Were the taxes and the poor rates of the country to be wasted in putting up these enormous buildings and costly machinery?

MR. CLOUGH (Yorkshire, W.R. Skipton)

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question."

* SIR HENEY CRAIK

said he would have loyally supported the Bill in its present form and resisted the Amendment had it not been that the understanding reached by common consent in the Select Committee had been set aside. His experience of schools led him to think that it was not only expedient but almost a necessity that in certain localities there should be the means of providing food for the children. The children in many cases came from long distances, and local authorities ought to be provided with some machinery for carrying out this object. But since the Bill was settled amicably in Select Committee it had been seriously altered, and the intentions of the Government had not been explained.

MR. LOUGH

said he had already stated that the Government intended to adhere to the other provisions contained in the clause. The local authority would be quite at liberty to charge a sum which would cover the cost.

SIR HENRY CRAIK

said the hon. Member had not yet told them what the action of the Government would be in regard to this matter. There were difficulties in deciding what an underfed child was. In several schools in Scotland he knew cases where elaborate schemes had been established under which the school board lent its voluntary aid, and where voluntary coadjutors were admitted who found the money, and provided for poor and rich alike a meal, charging a certain sum to those who could afford to pay, and giving the meal to those who could not. The difficulty was that the Bill had been seriously altered by the action of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, and in regard to future safeguards the Parliamentary Secretary maintained an impenetrable obscurity as to his action.

MR. HUNT

agreed that it was necessary to provide for the hungry children in the schools, but if they were going to

do this in the country districts and provide halls for the children to have their food in, an enormous expense would be incurred. He thought that the best way to deal with the question in country districts would be to provide the food something like the Army and Navy rations were supplied, so that they could give the food to the children ready cooked without the necessity of providing expensive dining halls and cooking arrangements. The food could be supplied by a contractor—

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not in order in discussing suggestions as to what steps ought to be taken. The only point is as to the insertion of the word "underfed."

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 230. (Division List No. 469.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Pinch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)
Ashley, W. W.	Fletcher, J. S.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Balcarres, Lord	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxfd Univ)
Balfour, Rt. Hn A. J. (City Lond.)	Hamilton, Marquess of	Thornton, Percy M.
Barrie, H. T.(Londonderry, N.)	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Valentia, Viscount
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Hunt, Rowland	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Bowles, G. Stewart	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Bull, Sir William James	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Younger, George
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W	Liddell, Henry
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. B.	Mallet, Charles E.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Lord
Cox, Harold	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Robert Cecil and Sir
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Morpeth, Viscount	Frederick Banbury.
Craik, Sir Henry	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
NOES.
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Brigg, John	Cleland, J. W.
Alden, Percy	Brooke, Stopford	Clough, William
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshir)	Clynes, J. R.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)	Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)	Cobbold, Felix Thornley
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Burke, E. Haviland-	Cogan, Denis J.
Barnard, K. B.	Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexhm)	Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Condon, Thomas Joseph
Bethell, Sir J. H (Essex, Romf'rd	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Cooper, G. J.
Billson, Alfred	Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles	Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Byles, William Pollard	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire)	Cairns, Thomas	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.
Boland, John	Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)
Bottomley, Horatio	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Crean, Eugene
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Cremer, William Randal
Bowerman, C. W.	Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Crombie, John William
Bramsdon, T. A.	Cheetham, John Frederick	Dalziel, James Henry
Branch, James	Churchill, Winston Spencer	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Clarke, C. Goddard	Delany, William
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Lundon, W.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Dillon, John	Lyell, Charles Henry	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)
Dobson, Thomas W.	Lynch, H. B.	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Dolan, Charles Joseph	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)	Roe, Sir Thomas
Donelan, Captain A.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Rowlands, J.
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Runciman, Walter
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Elibank, Master of	M'Crae, George	Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)
Erskine, David C.	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)	Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Maddison, Frederick	Sears, J. E.
Essex, R. W.	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Seaverns, J. H.
Everett, R. Lacey	Masterman, C. F. G.	Seddon, J.
Farrell, James Patrick	Meagher, Michael	Seely, Major J. B.
Fenwick, Charles	Menzies, Walter	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Ferens, T. R.	Micklem, Nathaniel	Sherwell, Arthur James
French, Peter	Molteno, Percy Alport	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Mooney, J. J.	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Fuller, John Michael F.	Morley, Rt. Hon. John	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Fullerton, Hugh	Morrell, Philip	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Furness, Sir Christopher	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Snowdon, P.
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Murphy, John	Spicer, Sir Albert
Ginnell, L.	Murray, James	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Glover, Thomas	Myer, Horatio	Steadman, W. C.
Gooch, George Peabody	Napier, T. B.	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Gulland, John W.	Nicholls, George	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r	Sullivan, Donal
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Nolan, Joseph	Summerbell, T
Halpin, J.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Nuttall, Harry	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)	Thorne, William
Hart-Davies, T.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Toulmin, George
Hay, Hon. Claude George	O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hayden, John Patrick	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Verney, F. W.
Hedges, A. Paget	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Vivian, Henry
Henry, Charles S.	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Higham, John Sharp	O'Grady, J.	Wallace, Robert
Hobart, Sir Robert	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)	Walsh, Stephen
Hodge, John	O'Malley, William	Walters, John Tudor
Hogan, Michael	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Hooper, A. G.	Paul, Herbert	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Perks, Robert William	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Illingworth, Percy H.	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Jardine, Sir J.	Power, Patrick Joseph	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh Central)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Jowett, F. W.	Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Kearley, Hudson E.	Radford, G. H.	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Kekewich, Sir George	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')	Williamson, A.
Laidlaw, Robert	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Wilson, P. W.(St. Pancras, S.)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Redmond, William (Clare)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton).
Lamont, Norman	Rees, J. D
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Lewis, John Herbert	Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Ridsdale, E. A.
Lough, Thomas	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

CAPTAIN CEAIG moved to insert a proviso that meals should be. given only to the children whose parents or guardians signified their approval in writing to the authority. He said that this was the first Amendment that touched the question of parental responsibility. It was a small Amendment, but it was of some importance, because the parents or guardians would be the first persons pursued for payment. It might be that a parent had three or four young children attending school who would apply for meals from time to time without the knowledge or consent of the parent, and it might be a difficult matter to recover payment for such meals. He had no desire to stand in the way of granting immediate relief in the case of underfed children, but it should not be forgotten that this Bill was quite a different measure from what it was when it left the Committee upstairs. In the first instance they contemplated feeding only underfed children in necessitous schools, but they were now face to face with the task of supplying food in all schools to all the children. He had no harsh feeling in putting down the Amendment, but it really seemed necessary to the Bill in its present shape, and he hoped it would be acceptable to the Government as a small and innocuous provision. He would not press the acutal wording of the Amendment, but would be satisfied if the Government would insert words which would carry out his object. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 9, after the word 'area, to insert the words' whose parents or guardians signify their approval in writing to the authority.'"—(Captain Craig.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. LOUGH

said he gladly bore Twit-ness to the assistance which the hon. Gentleman gave on this question upstairs. The measure was not changed, and the Government would not assent to any change in the direction proposed. The principle of the Bill was that they should trust the local education authorities. The Bill was not compulsory. It allowed them to do the work. These were great elected bodies, and pressure would be brought upon them to prevent any burden falling on the rates. Sorely in a small detail like this it would be impossible for the House with any respect for the local authorities to give a statutory direction such as the hon. Member proposed. In the case of a child in want of a meal, was the teacher to say that he could get nothing until he had sent home to the parent and got a written instruction?

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

said the Secretary to the Board of Education had misrepresented the case. His hon. friend had stated that he would be content with an assurance that something would be put in the Bill to give effect to what he desired. The Secretary to the Board of Education attached great importance to the recovery of the price of the food from the parents. The food was to be given to the child without the knowledge and consent of the parents. It was all very well to say that the ratepayers would exercise such control over the local education authorities as would prevent their being extravagant. The hon. Gentleman had forgotten, or he did not know, what had taken place during the last two or three years. The extravagance of the local authorities had been enormous, and it had not been checked by the people on whom the hon. Gentleman relied. It was absurd to say that a local education authority was going to be taught economy by the ratepayers. The cry at the next election would be "Vote for Mr. Smith and free meals for all children." His hon. friend had not received any assurance from the Secretary to the Board of Education on the point raised by the Amendment.

MR. BOWLES

said the Parliamentary Secretary did not seem to appreciate the very simple point raised by the Amendment. They had been told a great deal about the principle of the Bill, but the remarkable thing was that the principle seemed to change with every Amendment. At one time the principle was one thing, and at another it was something different, The hon. Gentleman now said that the great principle was "trust in the local authorities," and he thought there was no danger to be apprehended on that score. It was also a great principle of the Bill that the parents were to pay in the vast majority of cases for the meals which their children received. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the Bill contained altogether novel and drastic machinery for pursuing parents and recovering the amount due to the local education authority for the meals provided under the Bill. The unfortunate parent was to be put absolutely in irons. It was a statutory duty on the part of the local authority to take every possible means to see that the parents paid what was due for food. If that was so, it was not unreasonable to ask that security should be taken that parents had some knowledge of the meals provided, and that, if necessary, they should be able to prevent the meals being given. Public authorities should not be empowered to sue people in the Courts for something which they did not want, did not ask for, and very likely would have objected to if they had known about it. That was utterly unreasonable. If a child was so far from school that it was likely to be hungry when it got there, there would be no difficulty in getting the parent to agree that it should receive the necessary meals, or in recovering the cost. He hoped the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would accept the Amendment, or introduce other words to ensure that parents knew what was being done with the f children in this matter.

* MR. BRIDGEMAN

thought there was a good deal to be said for the view of the Parliamentary Secretary that if the Amendment were accepted meals could not be provided for children even as a matter of necessity. The evidence given before the Select Committee showed that in a good many cases children got meals of which their parents were unaware. He suggested that at a later stage of the Bill the hon. Gentleman should insert words to provide that when a child received a meal the school authorities should immediately inform the parent that the meal had been given. If that were agreed to the Amendment could be withdrawn.

MR. HAROLD COX

said that he agreed with his hon. friends opposite, and could not understand why the Government could not accept the Amendment.

MR. CRAIG

said he would withdraw the Amendment if the hon. Gentleman would say that he would consider the matter later on.

MR. LOUGH

said the intention was clearly expressed in the Bill that the parents should be made to pay, and he thought the means for effecting that end might fairly be left to the local authorities.

LORD R. CECIL

said that that was not the point. The point was whether the parents should be made to pay without being informed in some way, so that they might not be involved in unnecessary expenditure on behalf of their children, He thought they might have a simple answer to that simple question.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he would put the matter in the simplest possible form. It was an understood maxim of law that "you cannot make a man your debtor without his consent." Was a local authority to be allowed to make a parent its debtor without his consent? Were parents to be made liable when they had no information, and no possibility of knowledge as to whether the child was. receiving food or not?

Question put, and negatived.

MR. BOTTOMLEY moved to omit sub-section (a) on the ground that it would tend to damp the ardour of education authorities to put the Bill into operation themselves, and encourage them to leave the feeding of the children largely to voluntary bodies. As the law stood at present there was nothing to prevent a local authority from associating itself with any voluntary body, provided it did not involve the expenditure of public money. To create by Act of Parliament a form of connection between voluntary bodies of this description and statutory bodies such as local education authorities would, in his opinion, have one effect, and that was to take away the interest of those who subscribed to the funds of the voluntary associations. Many of the subscribers would not contribute to the funds if they had the knowledge that under certain circumstances proceedings might be taken against parents. He knew many people who would withdraw their subscriptions if they knew that the people receiving the benefits were to be sued. The hon. Member for North Camberwell thought the system had worked wonders in France. There was no poor law system of any kind in France, and it was only by such committees as the hon. Member had referred to that the work could be done there which the poor law system did here. So long as the local education authority took forcible possession of any section of children it was a primary duty to see that the children were provided with food and put in proper condition to benefit by the instruction given. The placing of voluntary bodies in the forefront of the relief schemes would tend to keep the local education authorities from putting the Act in operation at all.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, to leave out lines 10 to 13, inclusive."—(Mr. Bottomley.)

Question proposed, "That the words in line 10 down to the word 'any' stand part of the clause."

MR. LOUGH

said that sub-section (a) was a fundamental part of the Bill. He earnestly hoped that nothing of the kind suggested by the hon. Member would occur. On the contrary, he trusted that when the voluntary societies received the recognition which the Bill would give them, and enable the local authorities to give them, they would become stronger than they had been in the past, and would attract subscriptions from fresh sources. He appealed to his hon. friend not to press his Amendment.

MR. BOTTOMLEY

said that after the appeal which had been made to him, he wished to withdraw the Amendment.

* THE CHAIRMAN

put the Question that the Amendment be withdrawn, but leave was refused.

* VISCOUNT MORPETH

said he wished to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the local education authorities would be allowed to appoint the managers as the proper committee to deal with this question.

MR. LOUGE

said that under the Bill the local education authority might associate themselves with the managers.

LORD BALCARRES

said that so far as he could see the local committees could do nothing but buy the victuals. There was a marked distinction between the food now offered and the organisation by which it was to be prepared and distributed under the new law. If that were so, they would not get the same class of people to join these committees as in the past. Sub-section (a) provided a new committee in place of the voluntary bodies to do this work.

MR. LOUGH

No. The local education authority will associate themselves with the voluntary committees.

LORD BALCARRES

said that he did not state that sub-section (a) necessarily substituted fresh committees for the existing committees, but his argument was that the existing committees supervised the distribution of the food, having previously bought it to advantage, and did it very well. The new committee under sub-section (a) would have nothing to do but to pay the bakers' and butchers' bills. Under sub-section (b) the whole distribution was to be managed by the local education authority, and if that were so they would lose the services of men whose work in the past had been invaluable.

Amendment negatived.

MR. HAROLD COX moved the omission from sub-section (a), after "may associate with themselves any committee," of the words "on which the authority are represented." It might happen that no person was available from a local authority to sit on the committee, or that the committee would prefer to be independent, and he thought the local authority ought to be left a free hand in such a case.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 10, to leave out from the word 'committee,' to the word 'who' in line 11."—(Mr. Harold Cox.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

MR. LOUGH

said that an essential part of the scheme of the Government was that the central authority should be represented on the committee. The clause would not impose restrictions on the authority.

MR. HAROLD COX

said that his point was that the local education authority should be able to appoint someone who was not a member of that education authority.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

said that the hon. Gentleman did not wish to impose any restrictions on the local education authority as to the appointment of members on the voluntary committee. That might be so, but how far was the local education authority empowered to put members on the committee who might have the power of interfering with the proceedings of that committee? He did not see why the local education authority should be represented on the committee at all, except to make themselves objectionable. Under these circumstances there were only two courses open to the Parliamentary Secretary—either to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston, or to insert words making it quite clear that the local authority might appoint some person other than one of their own members to represent them.

* SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he did not think the hon. Baronet understood the relation of the parties. There were now a number of voluntary agencies for supplying food to the children. The object of the Bill was to bring about some arrangement between the local education authority and the committees of those agencies so as to secure permanence and stability and the fullest possible information to the committees who would supply the meals. Inquiry must be made before food was supplied. He thought that the representation of the local education authority on the committee was a very salutary provision. It was permissive, but if the local education authority wished to exercise the powers conferred upon them under sub-section (b) it must associate itself with the committee. He thought that that would facilitate the work of the committee, and secure adequate information which was needed. He himself was of opinion that the board of guardians ought to be represented on he committee.

* SIR FRANCIS POWELL

said that the Select Committee had carefully considered this subject, and were of opinion that it was of great importance that the local education authority should be represented on the committee by persons outside their own body. Their recommendation was that the committee should contain representatives of the local authority, of the board of guardians, of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and of the head teachers of the schools. He thought that that was a most valuable recommendation, and such a committee would be able to modify their policy' from time to time as was most consistent with the interests of the community.

* VISCOUNT MORPETH

thought that the Committee would be wise to follow the view of the late Home Secretary. It would be very desirable that the committee should be composed of philanthropic persons who had knowledge and also time to deal with the matter, but he thought that the local education authority should be represented on the committee. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.

MR. HAROLD COX

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS (Sheffield, Ecclesall) moved an Amendment to provide that there should be some representation of the poor law guardians upon these committees. He thought that the boards of guardians had been rather slighted in the matter, because, while the local education authority were to put the machinery in motion, the boards of guardians were to recover the money which it was thought the parent ought to pay. The board of guardians ought to be represented on the committee, because they might have some information which would be extremely useful,

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 11, after 'authority,' to insert the words 'and the board of guardians for the poor law union or unions within the area of the local education authority.'"— (Mr. Samuel Roberts).

MR. LOUGH

said that although the hon. Member had declared that his Amendment was a very small matter, it might create very considerable difficulty. He was quite right in saying that provision should be made for the representation of the poor law guardians upon the committee where it was thought desirable. That was exactly what the Bill provided for. It was left to the discretion of each local education authority to construct its committees as it pleased. They could not make a statutory obligation which would suit all districts. He had given considerable thought to this matter, and difficulties surrounded it. If Parliament made it obligatory to appoint poor law guardians, there might be claims also for representation from the local branches of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and the Charity Organisation Society. The duty and responsibility must rest on one authority. He had had representations made that the local education authority and the board of guardians were not unanimous on the point, and that was the reason why he could not agree to the Amendment.

MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS

said that what he wanted to ask was whether the local education authority would attempt to make use of any of the officials of the board of guardians in the matter?

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he was sorry to hear that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education took the views that he had expressed on this point. He understood that the hon. Gentleman had stated that the local education authority were to make the committee as they chose; but it appeared to him that it was all important that the committee should have full information as to the condition of the children, and that could only be obtained through the board of guardians.

* SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER (Wiltshire, Chippenham)

said that the hon. Baronet would lead the House to believe that these committees would be in existence before the Bill passed through the House. There were dozens of places where there were no committees at all. It might be that in some districts it would be desirable to have representatives of the boards of guardians upon the committee, and in other districts it would not, but the Amendment left it entirely in the discretion of the local education authority whether or not there should be these representatives upon the committee.

* SIR FRANCIS POWELL

wished as a co-opted member of the Bradford Board of Guardians to say one or two words in regard to this Amendment. He thought that it was of great importance that the guardians should have some representation upon the committee. It was of the greatest moment that the local education authority should have the information which was at the command of the boards of guardians. The authority which administered this Act should be in possession of every fact which could be of service to them in that administration, or it would be impossible for them to discharge their duties properly. They had to guard against laxity and fraud and to be constantly on the watch against many evils. If the Committee would permit him to do so he would read the substance of a report from the Bradford Board of Guardians, which showed exactly the work that had been done in that great city as regarded the feeding of children in schools. The total number of children who were being fed on the 30th of September was 558. Out of those 323 were in the hands of the local education authority alone; and 110 of those children were being fed by the guardians and had fathers who were permanently disabled from voting, while 107 were being fed as paupers because their parents were in receipt of out-door relief. He thought those figures were highly instructive, and if this Bill passed he did not think there would be any great change in them. They should, he thought, be a guide to them in their present deliberations as they afforded strong testimony of the merits of a system under which the co-operation of the guardians was secured. He hoped that the result of their discussions would be that the guardians would be represented upon these committees. He did not wish them to be represented in any undue strength, but they should have members who could express their views in the matter and be able to supply that information without which the local education authority would act without full knowledge.

* VISCOUNT MORPETH

was sorry that he did not see his way to support the Amendment of his hon. friend, but before he voted he desired to give his reasons for opposing the proposal. In the first place we suffered at the present time from an altogether excessive duplication of machinery. Every Bill that was passed added to the committees which were dealing with the local government of the country. That made for expensiveness, and, if the worse came to the worst, for jobbery. In the country, which naturally differed very greatly in its circumstances as compared with cities and towns, he was convinced that the proper way to deal with this question of feeding the children was to appoint the managers of the school as the committee in charge of the matter. It had been asked whether the officers of the poor law would be available to give assistance in the work. It might be desirable to consult them and ask their opinion, but to his mind the proper person to make the inquiries and find out whether the parents were necessitous would be the attendance officers. There was no body of officials who had more knowledge of the lives of the people and of their circumstances than the school attendance officers, and there was no body of men more hardly worked or who did their work with greater efficiency. He thought that for that reason it would not be desirable to add guardians to the body of the committee of managers who had to deal with this subject, and therefore he was unable to vote for this Amendment. If they turned from the country to the town they found an entirely different set of circumstances. He would not elaborate that argument except to say that in the not very far distant future he should not be surprised if they found hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House demolishing boards of guardians. There were a good many portents and signs which showed that that was what was likely to happen in the near future, and it was therefore ridiculous to put boards of guardians as one of the foundation stones upon which they were going to rest this Bill if those bodies would in a few years cease to exist. The last reason why he was unable to support the Amendment was that it would lead to divided authority. There was the difficulty that the matter fell half way between education and Poor Law administration. The question had been asked to which body it should be entrusted, and the Committee had decided that it fell more within the domain of education than within that of the Poor Law. That being so he held that they should keep this subject as far as possible within the power of education committees instead of dividing it between them and the Poor Law authorities.

MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH

said that the reasons advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education for refusing the Amendment were inadequate. The only reason given for the attitude of the Government was that if boards of guardians, to whom they did not object, were included, certain other bodies would also have to be included. That was hardly an argument which could be held to be valid against a well-known body and moreover a statutory body. No doubt there were many excellent agencies concerned in carrying out this work, but they were not statutory bodies and had not the authority of Parliament as the boards of guardians had. He ventured to say that in the constitution of committees under this Bill it was very desirable that there should be included gentlemen who had had experience in these matters. To have upon these committees representatives of bodies of a voluntary character was by no means the same as having upon them representatives of boards of guardians. He hoped the Government would see their way further to consider this matter, as he thought the country as a whole and the great majority of guardians thought that they ought to be represented on these bodies. If the Bill was passed into law in the condition in which it now stood the voluntary bodies who had done good work in this regard in the past would be bound to diminish and their place would be taken by specially created bodies. When the whole object was to govern the administration of this question by officially created committees it was important that those who had had to do the work in the past should be officially represented thereon.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

said that the Committee were placed in a very peculiar position in regard to this Amendment. Questions had been asked about the Amendment and arguments had been advanced against it of a very pertinent character, but apparently there was no one on the Government Bench able to answer either the questions or the arguments. The Secretary to the Board of Education had given two reasons for not accepting the Amendment. The first was that he was going to move the omission of the boards of guardians from the Bill, and in the second place he said that if the boards of guardians were included amongst those who were concerned in the management of these matters he should have to include also the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. He did not see why because he was called upon to include one body he would have to include others, seeing that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was a voluntary body, while the boards of guardians were statutory and there was a vast difference between the two. The hon. Gentleman had also said he intended to move the omission of words referring to boards of guardians, but they did not know what the effect of those Amendments would be. However, the statement that he was going to do that made it necessary that hon. Members on that side of the House should press this Amendment, because they attached great importance to the inclusion of poor law guardians. The hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan had shown most conclusively that it was necessary to include representatives of boards of guardians on these committees. It might be that in years to come the local education authority, through the committees which they appointed, might develop the necessary knowledge, but at present they had not got it, and he failed to see what reason there was for refusing to allow members of boards of guardians to be put on these committees. There was nothing in the Amendment giving the members of the boards of guardians who were put on these committees the power of veto. [An HON MEMBER: One guardian will do.] His hon. friend said that one guardian would do, but in his opinion two were necessary. After all, if only one guardian were appointed he would probably have this experience which the local education committee would lack. Let the House consider for a moment what this committee would be if the Bill passed. It would be a committee of eleven gentlemen desirous of relieving a certain amount of want; it would be a committee whom everybody would respect, but to it would be added certain members from the education authority. Those added by the education authority would be interested in education, and the philanthropic members of the committee would be occupied by philanthropy. There would be no one of business capacity to look after the interests of ratepayers, and it was in order to safeguard the interests of the ratepayers that they desired to put on these bodies someone not only with experience of dealing with the poor, but such experience as was only to be found in boards, of guardians. He did not agree that boards of guardians were always bad. There always had been and always would be boards of guardians who did not act up to the high standard of their duties, but the boards of guardians generally throughout the country had done their duty fairly and well. The evidence of the Blue-book showed that the local education authorities had allowed their hearts to run away with their heads in this matter, that they had given meals to children whose parents were in good circumstances and did not require them; and that they had taken up cases of children that were not underfed, but wrongly fed— fed with the wrong class of food. The local education authorities came to the conclusion that those children required more food when as a matter of fact they only required proper food. Everyone would agree that they wanted somebody with a clear head and a little knowledge of the defects of human nature, but of these three separate bodies—the board of guardians, the education authority, and this philanthropic committee—he thought that the men with the clearest heads would be the members of the boards of guardians. His hon. friend the Member for the Oxford University had intended to support this Amendment, and it was only because of the inconvenient hour on a Friday at which the House was compelled to take this debate that he could not be present to do so.

* MR. JOWETT (Bradford, W.)

said he intervened in the discussion for the sole purpose of appealing to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education not to agree even to allow one guardian on the committee now under consideration. In making that appeal he was not unmindful of the good work that boards of guardians had done. They had done very important work, more especially in respect to infirmaries and children, but it had been for seventy years past the practice of guardians to address themselves entirely to cases of destitution. Everybody who was brought unfortunately into connection with guardians instinctively shrunk from them. Because the records of the guardians had been such he thought it was not desirable to extend their influence in other directions. Boards of guardians had looked upon fraudulent poverty so long that they could see nothing else, and therefore they commenced their inquiries with a bias against the individual instead of starting with an open mind, less prejudiced by their association and training. He appealed to the hon. Member not to allow guardians to be placed upon these new bodies, but to leave the business in such a way that the relief should not be tainted in the slightest degree by its being connected with the Poor Law.

LORD BALCARRES

said that Members of the Labour Party were apparently not unanimous upon this question, because he noticed that the hon. Member for Barnard Castle signed the Report of the Select Committee in two places in which this specific suggestion was made that there should be representatives of boards of guardians on these committees. The hon. Member who had just spoken was rather hard on boards of guardians when he said that people associated with their work the taint of one form or another of pauperism. That might be so with regard to one aspect of their work, but in regard to others one had to associate with boards of guardians some of the most valuable duties that had ever been performed for the community. He did not think a guardian would be so useful in sub-section (a) as in sub-section (b) of this clause, but the question was, had a member of a board of guardians as such means of inquiry which would not be possessed by other members of these committees? The whole history of the Johanna Street School inquiry showed that without the skilled and experienced advice at the disposal of the guardians it had been impossible to get at the facts of the situation. He thought that the co-operation of even one member of a board of guardians would be almost invaluable in helping inquiry, by reason of the knowledge and information in possession of the guardians. That being so, he could not understand why the proposal to add one to these committees met with such determined opposition.

MR. LOUGH

appealed to the Committee to come to a decision upon the question. Even if the Government agreed to accept the Amendment it would be impossible to carry it out as every hon. Member would see. If they looked at the first paragraph they would find that a local education authority under Part III. of the Edition Act, 1902— may associate with themselves any committee on which the authority are represented. The Committee was being bombarded with arguments in favour of a member of a board of guardians being placed upon the committee of every public school. In some cases there might not be a guardian within five miles of the committee. The position of the Bill was that the authority could "associate themselves with any committee." They could appoint a guardian if they pleased, and to ask the Government to make the appointment of a guardian compulsory having regard to the vast number of schools in the country was little less than absurd.

* MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS

pointed of that there was no question of appointing; the words of the subsection were "may associate."

* MR. BOWLES

said the hon. Member, had refused to accept the Amendment on the ground that it was already in the power of the education authority to put on a guardian, if there was a guardian available, if they thought fit. Did the Parliamentary Secretary suggest that in the Bill there was anything to that effect? The hon. Gentleman had been accused of not having re d the Amendment, he wondered sometimes if he had even read the Bill. There was a good deal to be said in favour of the view that if this work was to handed over to the education authority the education authority ought to be left free. But the hon. Gentleman had departed from the principle, and had limited the discretion of the education authority, by saying that, however much it might desire to do so, it must not associate itself with any committee unless it was itself represented on that committee. There could be hardly any doubt that the information at the disposal of the boards of guardians was very valuable. In the case of a family who were already in receipt of relief from the guardians, was it not desirable that the Committee, which was considering whether a meal should be given to a child, should be

aware of the fact that the family was already receiving assistance, or did hon. Members belong the gangway desire to see the child relieved twice over? It was a blot on the machinery of the Bill that it was perfectly possible, unless some such Amendment as this was accepted, for a number of children, or one child, to receive public relief twice over, and that was a condition of things that everyone would be unwilling to allow. The Amendment did not infringe the principle of the Bill, and he should support it.

* MR. CLAUDE HAY

said he did not intend to vote for the Amendment. It was, in his opinion, quite unnecessary for the boards of guardians to be brought into the Bill at all. On the teaching staff of the schools there were suitable persons who had better means than either Poor Law guardians or officers of ascertaining the true conditions of the family life of the child attending the school. The object of the Bill was to give to hungry children a meal at once, and not to wait to ascertain the home conditions before the hunger was relieved. If the boards of guardians were to be introduced the Bill might just as well be made a Poor Law Bill at once. He hoped the Committee would join with the Government in resisting the Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 186. (Division List No. 470.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington
Balcarres, Lord	Craik, Sir Henry	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)
Barrie, H. T.(Londonderry, N.)	Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan	Thornton, Percy M.
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Fletcher, J. S.	Valentia, Viscount
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Bowles, G. Stewart	Hamilton, Marquess of	Younger, George
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hunt, Rowland
Bull, Sir William James	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Samuel Roberts and Mr. Ashley. J
Cavendish, Rt. Hon Victor C.W.	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Win.
Cecil, Evelyn {Aston Manor)	Liddell, Henry
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Cox, Harold Magnus, Sir Philip
NOES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Atherley-Jones, L.	Barlow, Percy (Bedford)
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)	Barnard, E. B.
Alden, Percy	Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Beale, W. P.
Ambrose, Robert	Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Beaumont, Hn W.C.B.(Hexham)
Beck, A. Cecil	Halpin, J.	Paulton, James Mellor
Bellairs, Carlyon	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Billson, Alfred	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Power, Patrick Joseph
Boland, John	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Bottomley, Horatio	Hart-Davies, T.	Radford, G. H.
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Branch, James	Hayden, John Patrick	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Brodie, H. C.	Higham, John Sharp	Redmond, William (Clare)
Brooke, Stopford	Hodge, John	Rees, J. D.
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. T. (Cheshire)	Hogan, Michael	Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Horniman, Emslie John	Rickett, J. Compton
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Illingworth, Percy H.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)
Byles, William Pollard	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Cairns, Thomas	Jardine, Sir J.	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Runciman, Walter
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Jowett, F. W.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Kekewich, Sir George	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Clarke, C. Goddard	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Cleland, J. W.	Laidlaw, Robert	Sears, J. E.
Clough, William	Lambert, George	Seaverns, J. H.
Cogan, Denis J.	Lamont, Norman	Seddon, J.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Lewis, John Herbert	Seely, Major J. B.
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)	Lough, Thomas	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Lundon, W.	Sherwell, Arthur James
Cooper, G. J.	Lupton, Arnold	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Mackarness, Frederick C.	Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Stanger, H. Y.
Crean, Eugene	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Cremer, William Randal	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Crombie, John William	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, B.)	Sullivan, Donal
Dalziel, James Henry	M'Crae, George	Thorne, William
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)	Toulmin, George
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Mallet, Charles E.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Delany, William	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Verney, F. W.
Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras, N.)	Masterman, C.F. G.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Meagher, Michael	Wallace, Robert
Dobson, Thomas W.	Menzies, Walter	Walsh, Stephen
Dolan, Charles Joseph	Micklem, Nathaniel	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Donelan, Captain A.	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Dunean, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)	Mooney, J. J.	Ward, W. Duelley (Southampton)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Morpeth, Viscount	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Murphy, John	Whitbread, Howard
Elibank, Master of	Murray, James	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Napier, T. B.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Farrell, James Patrick	Nicholls, George	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Fenwick, Charles	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Ferens, T. R.	Nolan, Joseph	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Ffrench, Peter	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Wiles, Thomas
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Yoxall, James Henry
Fuller, John Michael F.	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Ginnell, L.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir.
Gooch, George Peabody	O'Grady, J.	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)	Pease.
Gulland, John W.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Paul, Herbert

MR. LOUGH

claimed, "That the Question 'That the words of the clause to the word "save," in page 1, line 18, stand part of the clause,' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question

That the words of the clause to the word "save" in page 1, line 18, stand part of the clause,' be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 33. (Division List No. 471.)

AYES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Ambrose, Robert	Balfour, Robert (Lanark)
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Atherley-Jones, L.	Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)
Alden, Percy	Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)	Barlow, Percy (Bedford)
Barnard, E. B.	Ginnell, L.	Paul, Herbert
Beale, W. P.	Gooch, George Peabody	Paulton, James Mellor
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexh'm)	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Bellairs, Carlyon	Gulland, John W.	Power, Patrick Joseph
Billson, Alfred	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Price, C.E.(Edinb'gh, Central)
Boland, John	Halpin, J.	Radford, G. H.
Bottomley, Horatio	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Branch, James	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Redmond, William (Clare)
Brodie, H. C.	Hart-Davies, T.	Rees, J. D.
Brooke, Stopford	Hayoen, John Patrick	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)	Higham, John Sharp	Rickett, J. Compton
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Hodge, John	Roberta, G. H. (Norwich)
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Hogan, Michael	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Horniman, Emslie John	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Byles, William Pollard	Hyde, Clarendon	Rogers, P. E. Newman
Cairns, Thomas	Illingworth, Percy H.	Runciman, Walter
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Jardine, Sir J.	Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Clarke, C. Goddard	Jowett, F. W.	Sears, J. E.
Cleland, J. W.	Kekewich, Sir George	Seaverns, J. H.
Clough, William	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Seddon, J.
Cogan, Denis J.	Laidlaw, Robert	Seely, Major J. B.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Lambert, George	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T.(Hawick B.)
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Lamont, Norman	Sherwell, Arthur James
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Lewis, John Herbert	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Cooper, G. J.	Lough, Thomas	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)	Lundon, W.	Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Lupton, Arnold	Stanger, H. Y.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Lyell, Charles Henry	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Crean, Eugene	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Sullivan, Donal
Cremer, William Randal	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Thorne, William
Crombie, John William	Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Toulmin, George
Dalziel, James Henry	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)	M'Crae, George	Verney, F. W.
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Delany, William	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Walsh, Stephen
Dickinson, W. H. (S. Pancras, N.)	Masterman, C. F. G.	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Meagher, Michael	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Dobson, Thomas W.	Menzies, Walter	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Dolan, Charles Joseph	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Donelan, Captain A.	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)	Murphy, John	Whitebread, Howard
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Murray, James	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Napier, T. B.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Edwards, Prank (Radnor)	Nichols, George	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Elibank, Master of	Nolan, Joseph	Whitely, J. H. (Halifax)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Farell, James Patrick	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)	Wiles, Thomas
Fenwick, Charles	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Fereas, T. R.	O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)	Yoxall, James Henry
Ffrench, Peter	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Faster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	O'Grady, J.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Fuller, John Michae1 F.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Pease.
NOES.
Ashley, W. W.	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Balcarres, Lord	Craik, Sir Henry	Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Barrie, H. T.(Londonderry, N.)	Fletcher, J. S.	Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Thornton, Percy M.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hamilton, Marquess of	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Bowles, G. Stewart	Hunt, Rowland	Younger, George
Bridgeman. W. Clive	Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.
Bull, Sir William James	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Cavendish, Rt. Hon Victor C.W.	Liddell, Henry	Alexander Acland-Hood and
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Viscount Valentia.
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Magnus, Sir Philip
Cox, Harold	Morpeth, Viscount

Question put accordingly.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 32. (Division List No. 472.)

AYES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Ferens, T. R.	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Ffrench, Peter	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Alden, Percy	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Paul, Herbert
Ambrose, Robert	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Paulton, James Mellor
Atherley-Jones, L.	Fuller, John Michae1 F.	Pickeragill, Edward Hare
Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)	Ginnell, L.	Power, Patrick Joseph
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Gooch, George Peabody	Price, C. K. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Radford, G. H.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Gulland, John W.	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Barnard, E. B.	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Beale, W. P.	Halpin, J.	Redmond, William (Clare)
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexham)	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Rees, J. D.
Belleirs, Carlyon	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)
Billson, Alfred	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Rickett, J. Compton.
Boland, John	Hart-Davies, T.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Bottomley, Horatio	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd)
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Hayden, John Patrick	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Branch, James	Higham, John Sharp	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Brodie, H. C.	Hodge, John	Runciman, Walter
Brooke, Stopford	Hogan, Michael	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)	Horniman, Emslie John	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Hyde, Clarendon	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Sears, J. E.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Seaverns, J. H.
Byles, William Pollard	Jardine, Sir J.	Seddon, J.
Cairns, Thomas	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Seely, Major J. B.
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Jowett, F. W.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Kekewich, Sir George	Sherwell, Arthur James
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Clarke, C. Goddard	Laidlaw, Robert	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Cleland, J. W.	Lambert, George	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Clough, William	Lamont, Norman	Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)
Cogan, Denis J.	Lewis, John Herbert	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Lough, Thomas	Spicer, Sir Albert
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)	Lundon, W.	Stanger, H. Y.
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Lupton, Arnold	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Cooper, G. J.	Lyell, Charles Henry	Strachey, Sir Edward
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E'Grinst'd)	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)	Sullivan, Donal
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Thorne, William
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Toulmin, George
Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Crean, Eugene	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Verney, F. W.
Cremer, William Randal	M'Crae, George	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Crombie, John William	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)	Walsh, Stephen
Dalziel, James Henry	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)	Masterman, C. F. G.	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Davie, Timothy (Fulham)	Meagher, Michael	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Delany, William	Menzies, Walter	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Dickinson, W. H. (S. Pancras, N.)	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Whitbread, Howard
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Dobson, Thomas W.	Murphy, John	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Dolan, Charles Joseph	Napier, T. B.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Donelan, Captain A.	Nicholls, George	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Duncan, G. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Nolan, Joseph	Wiles, Thomas
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)	Yoxall, James Henry
Elibank, Master of	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Farrell, James Patrick	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Fenwick, Charles	O'Grady, J.
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.	Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Bridgeman, W. Clive
Ashley, W. W.	Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Bull, Sir William James
Balcarres, Lord	Bowles, G. Stewart	Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hunt, Rowland	Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.	Thornton, Percy M.
Cox, Harold	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Valentia, Viscount
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Liddell, Henry	Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart-
Craik, Sir Henry	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Younger, George
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Magnus, Sir Philip
Fletcher, J. S.	Mallet, Charles E.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Morpeth, Viscount	Frederick Banbury and Mr. Hicks Beach.
Hamilton, Marquess of	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)

*MR. BRIDGEMAN moved to omit the words "save as hereinafter provided," which referred to the power taken in Clause 3 for the local authority to defray the cost of food in certain cases. He understood that it was desired that this question of principle should be decided on his Amendment. He thought all hon. Members agreed that the existence of underfed children was proved, but some of them differed as to the cause and extent of the evil. He thought they were all of the opinion that if they were going to legislate upon this subject their object should be to do something which would undoubtedly contribute to the better health of the children of the country. A great many of them thought that if they once began to provide meals out of public money they would at the same time begin to undermine domestic and home life. The principle of Clause 3 was entirely wrong. If they were going to spend money in this direction he would far rather see money prizes given to the children of poor parents who sent them to school in a well-fed and nourished condition. In that way they would increase parental responsibility, and do a great deal more good, while probably not spending any more money. The provision of public money to feed the children would lessen the sense of parental responsibility and diminish any chance the child might have of getting the advantages of home life and the attention of parents. The number would be increased of careless parents who did not realise their duty towards their children, while careful parents who tended their children would have to contribute to the rates in order to find money for the careless. Hon. Members on the Labour Benches did not seem to be in the least afraid of that result. That was one course. He did not suppose that many people would contend that to put this obligation upon the rates was anything but a form of Socialism. Those who did contend that it was anything else would have an opportunity of proving it in their speeches later on. The issue was between Socialism and family life, and he was on the side of family life. The speeches of the hon. Member for Bradford and others below the gangway on the Second Reading of the Bill showed that they held it to be the duty of the State to feed the children of those who were not earning enough wages. That was a most dangerous proposal. He thought it would be better if hon. Members below the gangway would turn their attention to the raising of wages. In that course he would be fully in sympathy with them. He was all for workmen getting their fair share of the profits of trade, and he wanted them to use the money to pay for their own children, and not to say, "I am entitled to be paid by the State because I am unable to earn more than so many shillings a week." Socialism was at the bottom of Clause 3 of the Bill. Hon. Members below the gangway did not deny it. They called themselves the Independent Labour Party. Where was the independence? Independence was the very last word he should be inclined to use in connection with a proposal of this sort. There were many reasons besides those he had mentioned for thinking that the Bill would do harm. It was perfectly clear from the evidence that there had never been any serious attempt to raise money voluntarily which had not met with adequate support. He knew from his own experience that money enough could be obtained voluntarily to feed every child that was necessitous, for there was no object for which money could be more easily collected than the amelioration of the lot of children. Hon. Members said that charity was demoralising. It was as much charity to take money for this purpose out of the rates to which the man next door contributed—though he was not earning more than the man whose child was to be fed—as it was to be assisted by the charity of those who were able and willing to give it. The proposal of the Bill would encourage more mothers to take work out of doors, and where mothers worked out there was a much greater likelihood of children coming to school badly fed and badly clothed. In an investigation made by the Charity Organisation Society 124 boys were taken who were conspicuously above the average in physique, and it was found that in only thirteen cases the mothers worked out. On the other hand 110 boys were taken who were conspicuously below the average, and it was found that in fifty-seven cases the mothers worked out. Did hon. Members below the gangway believe that it was actually good for children that the mothers should work out? [An HON. MEMBER: Nothing of the kind.] It was bad for children to have mothers working out, and they should do anything they could to discourage it. Women who had worked among the poor were very emphatic in their opinion against throwing this charge upon the rates. At a meeting held in Birmingham in October, 1905, papers were read on this particular question, and a debate took place afterwards He would quote a few of the remarks which were made by ladies of experience— Dr. Ruth Wilson of the Salvation Army said that the Army never gave free food, but they had farthing breakfasts for children. The question should be considered from the widest point of view. They must not only think of the State cost, but of the social cost. Mrs. George Cadbury said she had discussed the subject with many working women, and they entirely disagreed with the proposed payment by the rates for food for school children. The rates already pressed heavily on the lower middle class. It would be best to try to get to the root of the evil by giving better teaching to the mothers and to the future mothers of the country. Miss Horn maintained that they should try to get the children better fed many years before they went to school at all. If mothers who did not know how to take care of children could only be trained in hygiene, there would be an enormous diminution in infantile disease and mortality [Laughter.] It was all very well to laugh, but if hon. Members did not believe what he stated they might kindly associate themselves with one of the societies which were helping to improve the conditions of the poor and to disseminate knowledge, not only in regard to hygiene, but also in regard to the feeding and clothing of children. If they did so they would see for themselves what was being done for the benefit of the children of the country. When the possibility of getting public money to provide meals for school children was put before people an increasing number of parents would take advantage of this fact, and at the same time many voluntary subscribers would cease to subscribe. It was not so much the actual cost in money which he dreaded as the social cost. He doubted whether much money would be recovered from the parents, and also whether it was the intention of many of those who desired this Bill that there should be much endeavour to recover it. Experience, except in the case of crippled children, had not shown that it was easy to recover; and the exception was explained by the greater readiness of parents to expend money on their sick and helpless children. Whether it was popular or not to say that one would vote for this proposal, he said he would not vote for it, believing it would mean the degradation of many people. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 18, to leave out the words "save as hereinafter provided.'"—(Mr. Bridge-man.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

DR. MACNAMARA

said they were now at the great principle of the Bill, and he thought it was a pity that the discussion had gone on for five and a half hours before reaching it. This matter was the central feature of the discussion in the Committee upstairs, and after the most painstaking consideration they carried by nine votes to three the proposition that in cases of great necessity public aid should be given. The three in the minority were the hon. Member for the Oswestry division, the hon. Member for Glasgow University, and the hon. Member for East Down. Amongst the nine was the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan, who crowned half a century of honourable political life by supporting the proposal to do something for those un-happy little scraps of humanity, hedged round as the proposal was by conditions for preventing economic abuse. Was the hon. Baronet a violent Socialist? That was a name which the hon. Baronet would be inclined to repudiate. He had himself for many years believed that voluntary agencies were sufficient to meet the work of feeding hungry children, but he was driven from that belief by the hard facts of the case. Voluntary agencies fluctuated, and the people who needed their aid most were often people of tender susceptibility who shrank from coming forward to receive it. It was only in the winter that it was easy to get money to feed children; the voluntary agencies always broke down in the summer time. At Easter time last year Sir John Gorst and himself visited Johanna Street School, and they found that what happened there was a very good illustration of what happened everywhere. The weather had suddenly got cold. There had been a long and serious strain upon the funds, and they were told that because of the failure of the funds the break -fasts and dinners next week were to be reduced by a half in order to eke the money out until the weather was milder than it had been for several weeks. For these reasons be was driven to the conclusion that voluntary aid could not be relied upon. He had every desire to strengthen parental responsibility, and it was the feeding of the children by charitable agencies that tended to sap that responsibility. It had been found in any number of cases that parents, whose children had received this assistance, were well able to afford, by spending a few pence less in self-indulgence, to pay for the food; but the charitable agencies had no means of following up those drunken, thriftless, and careless parents who ought to be punished. With the Bill the machinery for that purpose would be set up, and gradually a conscience would be developed among those parents, just as the enforcement of the attendance of children at school by the Act of 1870 had developed from a legal to a moral obligation upon the parents. There was any amount of evidence in the Reports of the Royal Commission and of the Departmental Committee to show that the voluntary agencies were insufficient to meet the case. The Physical Deterioration Committee of 1901, on which were Mr. Jackman, Mr. Shepheard, Father Brown and Canon Barnett, reported that— With scarcely an exception there was a general consensus of opinion that the time has come when the State should realise the necessity of ensuring adequate nourishment to children in attendance at school. It was said to be the height of cruelty to subject half-starred children to the processes of education, besides being a short-sighted policy, in that the progress of such children is inadequate and disappointing. And it was further the subject of general agreement that, as a rule, no purely voluntary association could successfully cope with the full extent of the evil. Even those witnesses who were inclined to think that its magnitude had been much exaggerated, did not question the advisability of feeding, by some means or other, those children who are under fed. provided it could be done quietly and without impairing parental responsibility. He agreed that that was so, but the Committee went on to say— It seems, further, that in a large number of cases voluntary organisations with the support and oversight of the local authority are sufficient for the purpose, and as long as this is so the Committee would strongly deprecate recourse being had to direct municipal assistance. Then the Committee went on— Circumstances, however, do arise which call for more immediate attention and in which the in the way of home provision of suitable food, school authority taking into account the difficulty and the number of children who attend school habitually underfed, are willing to provide regular and sufficient meals, and in such cases the Committee agree with the opinion of the Royal Commission on Physical Training (Scotland) that 'the preparation and cooking of these meals, where it is found necessary to provide them, ought to be regarded as one of the charges incident to school management.' And then the Committee continued— In some districts it still may be the case that such an arrangement would prove inadequate, the extent or the concentration of poverty might be too great for the resources of local charity, and in these, subject to the consent of the Board of Education, it might be expedient to permit the application of municipal aid on a larger scale. As a corollary to the exercise of such powers—which should be by scheme sanctioned by the Board—the law would have to be altered so as to furnish means, as was suggested in evidence, to compel the neglectful parent to take his full share of responsibility, and the Committee are sanguine that a few prosecutions to this end would have a most salutary and stimulating effect. This Bill was based substantially on the report of the Physical Deterioration Committee. Of the 137 county boroughs there were ninety-nine which had no voluntary associations or agencies to cover the ground, and he hoped that the Committee would approve of this clause which would enable these scraps of humanity to have some food given them when they were compulsorily driven into the schools.

* MR. EVELYN CECIL (Aston Manor)

said he had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for North Camberwell, and he could only say that he regretted the decision to which the hon. Gentleman had come. He did not agree with him about what he said as to voluntary agencies being unreliable wherever they had been tested. The hon. Gentleman had also stated that in many county boroughs there were not any voluntary agencies. That was quite true, but why should they not be established at once? He himself believed that many people would subscribe to them if properly organised. He felt very strongly that the clause would encourage wild socialistic theories and check the flow of charity. The hon. Gentleman had said that if the rates were given for providing food to the children it would develop a public conscience in regard to this matter of the feeding of children; but he could not follow that reasoning at all. He maintained that giving relief out of public funds would be much more dangerous to the public con-science than the giving of assistance by voluntary agencies. It was well known how members of public bodies were disposed to take part in a job, and it was far more desirable to have the administration of these funds out of the hands of municipal bodies, and put into the hands of voluntary committees whose administration might be relied upon to be more unbiassed. He greatly feared that the public administration of those funds would undermine the responsibility of parents in regard to the support of their children, and would open the door to public jobbery. This proposal world put a premium upon idleness and encourage a general belief that, no matter how many children a man had, the State would in the long run come to his assistance. That was a most objectionable outlook, and it was one which they should do all in their power to prevent. By this Bill, however, they were doing exactly the opposite, and were infringing, the elementary principles of political economy. He was as anxious as any Member of the House could be to do all that was possible for these poor, unfed children in really genuine necessitous cases. But everybody must be aware that it was extremely difficult to put a proper test as to what was a necessitous case and to be quite sure that they were not doing more, harm than good by offering public money to alleviate such cases. What they ought to do was to try to raise the whole conditions of life instead of offering a bribe to lower it. It was on these grounds that he objected to the principles of the Bill, which endeavoured to grant public money to these unfortunate children either out of State funds or the rates, with the result that in many cases the conscientious man, who could only just make both ends meet had to pay rates in order to contribute to the expenses of the un-conscientious man who could, if he liked, make both ends meet, but thought it better to throw his children on the public for support. Anybody who voted for this Bill really voted for Socialism pure and simple. There was no disguising it. Those who voted against this Amendment were really Socialists and nothing else. [Mr. KEIR HARDIE: We are all Socialists now.] No doubt his own definition of social reform would be very different from the hon. Member. He was extremely anxious to insure the application of charity where it was desirable, but he should certainly vote against this proposal. On the other hand he would suggest that if this proposal were not passed a stimulus would be given to other means being used either by individual effort or other voluntary agencies all over the country. He was sure that if the work was done in a systematic way they would get a large number of subscriptions to carry it out. In necessitous districts that might not be the case, but he thought it was true of other districts throughout the country If such a scheme were worked in a proper manner he thought a great deal could be done to secure permanent annual subscriptions towards the funds. If on the other hand they allowed this relief to be given in the way proposed by this Bill, he had the greatest fear of the result. He thought that it would lower the standard of home life, which they all wished to raise, and that rather than encourage their fellow citizens to lead higher and nobler careers they would be sapping the foundations of national life and independence. On these grounds he should support his hon. friend's Amendment.

* MR. KEIR HARDIE

said that if this Bill was Socialism it was framed on the model of the Unemployed Workmen's Act of last year. That Act enabled 1d. in the £ to be spent upon the provision of work for the unemployed. This Bill only provided for ½d. in the £ for unfed children. If it was pure Socialism to give ½d. from the rates for unfed children, what could be said of the Bill of the last Government under which they gave 1d. in the £ in order to provide grown men with work? He did not think the hon. Gentleman who had spoken so often that afternoon knew what it meant to them to sit there and listen to their wives being described as slatterns and themselves as spendthrifts. Their feelings were those of the toad under the harrow. It was absolutely untrue to say that they wanted their children to be quartered on the rates, but neither did they want children to be starved through the lack of ability on the part of the parents through no fault of their own to provide them with food. Might he remind the Committee that under this Bill the parent had no power to say that his child should be fed from the rates, because that question was to be decided by the local education authority. Under the new Bill which, they hoped, and still were hoping against hope, would become law shortly, there was provision made for medical examination, and necessarily the medical officers would be called in to assist the authority in deciding in the case of underfed children. Therefore the insinuation that was being put forward that under this Bill there would be an indiscriminate feeding of children of drunken and thriftless parents was to caricature the Bill and totally to misrepresent the ideas of those who supported it. They had heard a good deal about home life. What proposals had hon. Members to make who wanted to brighten home life? Would they support a Bill for the minimum wage? That would be Socialism. Let him give one fact as to the wants of communities. The Glasgow School Board had petitioned against this Bill, but hon. Members must bear in mind the fact that whilst petitioning against the measure they admitted the failure of local charity to deal with the question of meals for children, and asked that the power possessed in England by boards of guardians to feed hungry children should be conferred upon parish councils in Scotland. Last year a Committee of the Glasgow School Board was appointed to examine into this question, and they took fifteen schools as a test. In those fifteen schools the head masters reported that there were 1,363 children who appeared to be underfed, but the Committee did not accept the opinions of the head masters and said to the Charity Organisation Society, "Will you test these figures?" And the Charity Organisation Society inquired with all the care and minutiœ for which they were distinguished into 440 cases, and their report was that only forty could be classed as those of children who were undeserving to be helped because of the habits of the parents. But it was said that the children could be fed through private agencies. There were four agencies in Glasgow for providing meals, and all four fell short by 800 cases of being able to provide one miserable meal a day. This was not necessarily a case put forward on behalf of the destitute. What was true of Glasgow was true of London and other towns, and private charity could not cope with the cases of underfed children. He had been consulting with a man whose authority all Members must admit, namely, Mr. George Hookham, of Birmingham, who had spent his life in studying this question and who believed in parental responsibility and would not do anything to lessen it. But he strongly backed up and supported this Bill because of the failure of private charity. If this question was left to be dealt with by the boards of guardians the self-respect of the parents would not allow them to apply for relief, and therefore the children suffered. He hoped the Committee would not be contented until the question they were discussing was settled in the way which had been suggested. The appearance of the Front Opposition Bench and the attenuated attendance in the Lobby showed that the Opposition were not fighting this question. That being so, he hoped hon. Members who tad conscientious objections to the children having food put into their starving bodies would content themselves with protesting in the Lobby and not continue a protracted discussion which could have no effect.

MR. LAMBTON (Durham, S. E.)

said that the Committee had already agreed that the word "necessitous" should not be in the Bill. The Bill therefore only authorised the provision of meals to children.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

said Clause 3 only applied to necessitous children, and these words could only apply to Clause 3.

MR. LAMBTON

said that might be so, but if it were, they ought to have a Member of the Cabinet in the House to tell them so. The Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. Member for Merthyr must also remember that the Committee under the closure had already ruled out the whole of the clause. What they were objecting to now was the cost of the food of all the children being placed upon the rates. Then there was the question of the parental authority, which was a subject which could not be passed over lightly. A good deal had been said about parents' responsibility to their children, but it must also be remembered that children had responsibilities towards their parents, and that their sense of respect to their parents would be blunted if in the schools they were to be fed as well as taught. The Report of the Departmental Committee pointed out most distinctly that in the placing of the feeding of the children on the rates there was the danger of the parent losing the sense of responsibility to the children which ought to exist. For that reason he submitted that this discussion should go on and not be closed, as suggested by the hon. Member for Merthyr.

* MR. MALLET (Plymouth)

said he would like to follow the example of the hon. Member for Merthyr, to take the points of fact which were the real issue in this question and consider the extent of the evil. If they took the evidence given before the Select Committee, which was very full and valuable, they were driven to the conclusion that there were a great many evils besetting school children which it was their duty to try to cure, but that the actual want of food among them was a good deal smaller than many supposed. He did not wish to be guilty of any special pleading, but it was this evidence which effected him in coming to a conclusion. The hon. Member for Bath, in particular, had given some evidence based on eighteen years experience of Cardiff. The attendance officers at Cardiff, after close inquiry, came to the conclusion that the number of underfed children in Cardiff in the winter time was only 1 per cent. of those attending the schools, and that in summer the percentage fell below that. In London the Chairman of the Education Authority estimated the number of children in want of food at 2½ per cent. In West Ham they had a necessitous district and a district which took a very liberal view of its public obligations, but if they took the evidence given before the Select Committee by a Member of the Education Committee and Borough Council, Mr. Watts, they would find that in a group of necessitous schools containing 5,000 children there, Mr. Watts estimated the number of underfed children to be not more than 4 per cent.

MR. THORNE (West Ham, S.)

It is absolutely untrue.

* MR. MALLET

We cannot get rid of facts we do not like by statements of that kind

MR. CROOKS (Woolwich)

Trove your facts; do not manufacture them.

LORD R. CECIL

asked the Chairman whether it was in order for Members below the gangway perpetually to interrupt speakers in this manner.

THE CHAIRMAN

said he did not think the observation applied particularly to hon. Members below the gangway. He would like to say, however, that it was far too much the habit to interrupt Members who were addressing the House. The practice should be avoided except when the interruption was pertinent and for some special purpose. It only prolonged proceedings, and did no good whatever.

* MR. MALLET

said he did not want to say anything provocative or to class as facts what were only opinions. He was merely taking the evidence of the Select Committee upon which he had tried to base his view. That was the opinion expressed by Mr. Watts before the Committee. Let hon. Members take a case in Bethnal Green. There Mr. Scott, a teacher of twenty-three years standing, told the Committee that last Christmas he tried to test this question. He took his own school of 700 children, and picked out forty children who were ill-nourished, and seemed to be underfed. They then made investigation at the homes of the forty, not by means of ignorant visitors, but by specially trained visitors, and it was found that in only three cases was there any actual want of food, though there wore many of the forty children who required attention in other ways. The medical evidence was also important. The evidence of Dr. Ker, the medical officer of the London County Council, was very remarkable. Some years ago he was in Bradford and there he assisted in an examination of the children in one of the poorest schools in the city; he began by expecting to find a number of underfed children, but on working through the school he only found 2 per cent. of cases where the condition of the child was traceable to the actual want of food. In Blackburn another medical officer who made an independent inquiry found that under 2 per cent. of the children were in actual want of food. It was facts like these which, though they were in deepest sympathy with hon. Members opposite, made some of them ask themselves what were the real dimensions of this evil. Was it not after all a limited number who were afflicted in this way? Was not the want of food among school children a thing which ought to be attacked as a local and occasional evil to be relieved by charity, and not placed upon the rates as a permanent universal need? Were there or were there not charitable funds enough existing to meet the need? With respect to that again he could only quote expert opinions, but the evidence given before the Select Committee was astonishingly strong. It was perfectly true that one teacher in Walworth did say that he could have spent more money on dinners, had he had it; but he stated clearly and fairly that his committee gave dinners without much inquiry or investigation; that they spent £400 or £500, and only recovered £17 from the parents which shows that no great effort was made to diminish the cost; and that in many cases the parents of the children could afford to pay. But on the other hand the voluntary funds were ample as a rule. In West Ham, if anywhere, one would expect money to run short for charitable objects. But did that happen in this ease? Nothing of the kind. Mr. Watts thought the fund had met all the cases. He said they had no difficulty in getting money; that they "always managed to pay their way and carry forward a credit balance" If that was so in West Ham, surely voluntary funds ought to be sufficient elsewhere. At Bethnal Green Mr. Scott, examined before the Committee, said he did not think it would be difficult to find all the money necessary by means of voluntary subscriptions; he thought there would be money to spare. In Bradford, before the Guardians were called upon, money was always forthcoming. £3,000 was raised by the Mayor of Bradford in a few weeks. Then the Local Government Board allowed the guardians to pay, and immediately the voluntary efforts diminished. The Committee might depend upon it that once they made the rates available, the voluntary effort would fall off. The hon. Member for Merthyr had quoted Glasgow; but all the witnesses from Scotland called before the Select Committee were opposed to the feeding of children from the rates, and gave the strongest expression of opinion against the principle of this Bill. With regard to London Mr. Shepheard, the Chairman of the Education Committee, gave evidence to the effect that they had no difficulty in raising what money was wanted in London; that 80 per cent. of the parents paid, and that the rest was easily got from voluntary sources. Sir Charles Elliott, who had been Chairman of the Joint Committee for a good many years, insisted with regard to this question that it was not a matter of money; money, he said, was always to be got. If it was the fact that voluntary money was always forthcoming, were they in the House of Commons justified in throwing this overwhelming burden on the rates? Moreover, any measure of this kind which endeavoured to combine the two conflicting principles of raising money by voluntary subscription and using the rates was doomed to fail. There was hardly a single witness before the Committee who was not clear on the point that, if the rates were allowed to be used, private subscriptions would fall off. That had been conclusively proved both in Manchester and Bradford. In Manchester for twenty-six years they raised voluntary funds sufficient to meet their needs; then the Local Government Board Order came and the voluntary funds stopped. In Bradford, until the Local Government Board Order was published, the voluntary effort was sufficient, but directly the rates were put under contribution the voluntary subscriptions ceased. People did not think there was the same need of them. Let them take as a last point the case of France. Paris was often quoted with regard to the feeding of the children, but after all in France feeding at restaurants was a national habit, but in England the family meal together had always been the centre and the symbol of the home. In Paris they had some private contributions still, which were used mainly for clothing and so forth, although some little was given for food. But the figures in the report of 1902 showed that 1,400,000 francs had been spent in food, that of that amount parents had contributed 300,000 or 400,000 francs, but that private charity had only contributed 28,000 francs, or one fiftieth of the whole. That showed that once they made a public rate, private subscriptions fell away. Therefore, on the grounds he had urged, he ventured to support the Amendment.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

said the Amendment raised the point made by the Leader of the Opposition earlier in the afternoon, namely, whether the Government would take steps to secure that the whole of the cost should be recovered from the parents. He hoped the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would tell them what course the Government proposed to take in that regard. There was a very considerable difference of opinion with regard to whether or not there was any necessity for this. The hon. Gentlemen below the gangway told the Committee that it was necessary something of this sort should be done, because of the greatness of the evil. The hon. Member for Plymouth, on the other hand, told them that the number of necessitous children was very small, and he gave the figures. That was also the opinion of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, because in the Report of the Committee which he signed, it said that the inadequate feeding of the children attending public elementary schools was a real evil in some of the large towns. The reflection which was unnecessarily cast upon Members sitting above the gangway by the hon. Member for Merthyr when he said they were endeavouring to show that the poorer classes were either intemperate or thriftless was not justified. He had not heard a single word of justification for that accusation, except from a Committee of which the bon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was chairman. Practically running through the whole of the evidence was the statement that in many cases what the children were suffering from was the want of proper food or properly cooked food. One of the strong reasons he had for objecting to the Bill was that if it were passed in its present form it was certain to take away from the parents all responsibility for ascertaining what was best for their children, and how children could best be fed. What would happen would be that any number of parents would argue that if there was a good thing going they did not see why their children should be out of it. Then came the question as to the recovery of payment. If the funds required were raised by rates or taxes, the vast majority of working men would probably consider that they were justified in claiming their share in advantages provided out of the rates and taxes to which they were themselves contributors. Irrespective of the number who were anxious to pay, what possibility would there be of recovery? What steps were to be taken? Was the money to be collected every week, fortnight, or month? What would happen if after the children had received the food for a week, a fortnight, or a month, as the case might be, the parents moved into another district? He knew the number of people who removed in the district of Peckham. There were many midnight flittings. He did not think the hon. Gentleman had realised the great difficulties which must ensue if the authorities had to recover money from these people. Another very important point, the cost of these proposals. Certain information had been given to him with regard to the result in the district of West Ham. There were 300,000 inhabitants, of whom four-fifths belonged to the working classes. The pressure would be so overwhelming that the education committee would not be able to resist the demand for the provision of free breakfasts for all children in the schools, and in a little time a demand for free dinners would follow. The cost of feeding the 60,000 children in the schools with breakfast only would be £60,000, allowing only 1d. per head. If dinners were given at 2½ per head the cost would be £150,000, which with the £60,000 would make the total cost in West Ham £210,000 a year, or an addition to the rates of 3s. 6d. in the pound. The cost of feeding all the children in the schools of London would be £1,520,000. It was true that the Bill limited the expenditure to a ½d. rate and was founded upon the idea that a sufficient amount of money would be provided by voluntary effort which added to the ½d. rate, would provide one meal a day. That was the original idea, but the hon. Member for North Camberwell had told them that in his opinion it would be impossible to rely on voluntary agencies. Voluntary aid would fall off because the people who had been furnishing the subscriptions would be told that the children would be provided with meals without their assistance. He knew the cost was limited to a ½d. rate, but when the election came round the cry would be "Vote for an increase in the ½d. rate." Then there was the question of the Socialist element in the Bill. Hon. Members below the Gangway had denied that there was any such element in the Bill, but how could any man say that the provision of meals by the State for the children was not Socialism. [An HON. MEMBER: It is not provided by the State.] The Parliamentary Secretary had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out of Clause 3 the words "out of the rates," and that would no doubt be carried unless it was objected to by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. He did not see how any man could say that the provision of meals by the State was not Socialism. It was Socialism, whether the money came out of the local rates or out of Imperial taxes. Now it was proposed that the State had this obligation to find food; next it would be clothes; and then the State would have to provide other things. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh," and "Hear, hear."]

MR. CHIOZZA MONEY

I rise to a point of order. Is the hon. Member in order in discussing Socialism?

* THE CHAIRMAN

I do not see how Socialism can be kept out. I think the Amendment brings us directly to what is roughly called Socialism.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

said the hon. Member who rose to a point of order had no arguments to refute what he had said. With their overwhelming majority the Government would, no doubt, force this measure through without showing any reason for it, but he hoped Members of the Opposition would make a last stand for individual freedom and not be led astray into these paths of Socialism which would surely lead to the ruin of this country.

* SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER (Wiltshire, Chippenham)

observed that every one now was a Socialist more or less, for free education was Socialism, and having admitted free education a man could not logically deny the principle of this Bill. A number of witnesses appeared before the Committee which investigated this subject, and they gave direct evidence to show that in many cases the funds of voluntary agencies were not sufficient and more especially at other times of the year than during the winter. In Paris only a small proportion of the funds for the feeding of poor children came from voluntary agencies. He hoped that under this Bill private persons would continue to contribute, but he would not consider that the measure had been a failure even if private subscriptions fell off. Paris was not a good example, because there was no statutory requirement for recovering money from negligent parents; but although they had no compulsory powers under the Paris system no less than 58 per cent. of the parents voluntarily paid the fees for the meals supplied to their children. If they improved upon that system, as they did under this Bill, he thought the percentage of the parents who would pay for the meals of their children in this country would be larger than it was in Paris. There seemed to be an impression that the principle object of this Bill was a new-fangled Socialism which had never been tried before in any other country, but he wished to remind hon. Members that it had been tried in almost every country in Europe. The only fault he found with the measure was that it was ten years behind time; it had been carried out in other countries of Europe years ago. In Rome they had a scheme which was a combination of voluntary agency, of rate payment, and of a State grant. In the poorest districts of Rome between 94 and 98 per cent. of the parents paid for the meals their children had at school. He hoped when this Bill was in operation we should follow the Roman practice of payment for the meal prior to its being given. It got the children into good habits, and enabled the persons who had to provide the meals to know early in the morning how many they had to cater for that day. The scheme had worked with admirable success in Rome, and although it was perfectly true that in this instance private subscriptions had diminished, that had in no way militated against the success of the scheme or the benefits it had conferred upon the community. Were they going to depend upon the fluctuations of private philanthropy for the feeding of the children? We were spending in this country £28,000,000 a year upon the education of the children and in many schools they were under-fed. What was the good of spending these vast sums of money upon attempting to teach children who from their physical debility were quite incapable of receiving instruction? It seemed to him that upon the best principles of economy they were providing a sound scheme under this Bill, which had no pauperising element in it. The proposed scheme was far less pauperising than private agencies under which £30,000 a year was spent in an indiscriminate manner without that proper supervision and investigation which was necessary, which could only be given by statutory power, and which alone would enable them to use proper precautions. The Bill would create a statutory body upon which would be placed the obligation not only to teach the children, but also to see that they were not in a state of semi-starvation. This important question had been exhaustively examined by the Select Committee, and the evidence had convinced him that it was necessary to put this charge on the rates in order that the feeding of under-fed children might be-carried out on a sound system. That work could not be properly done under the old system.

MR. JOWETT

said the principle they were discussing on the Amendment was that of private voluntary subscriptions as against funds drawn from public sources, and if there was any town in the United Kingdom which had flogged this question out it was Bradford. It had been stated, that Bradford offered a good example of how, as soon as public funds were available, private subscriptions languished. He was in a position to give the facts. In September, 1904, such distress existed in Bradford that the teachers under the education authority were called together to give advice and impart knowledge as far as they were able, as to the extent of under-feeding among the school children, and they reported to the education committee that in their opinion some 3,000 children in the Bradford schools were insufficiently fed, and an organisation which had experience in feeding in Bradford for a great many years, substantially confirmed the teachers' statement. Such was the feeling of the education committee, on the facts being stated, that they immediately passed a resolution to the effect that they would feed such children as needed to be fed out of public funds, and run any risks that they might be running thereby, and that resolution was actually confirmed by the council. Such was the state of alarm among the well-to-do portion of the community at the idea of public funds being used for such a purpose, and fearing that it would establish a principle, that £3,000 was immediately subscribed to do the work. This was the point he wished to make. The £3,000 was not voluntarily subscribed for its own sake and in the ordinary way, but for fear of this bogey of the public coming in to do the work. But when that money was nearly finished there was no prospect of raising more, and there was not to-day. In Bradford there were four schools the scholars of which had been examined by the medical officer under the education authority, and only 23 per cent. of whom could be described as well nourished; 39 per cent. were below the normal and 38 per cent. were "bad to very bad." These were facts that ought to be noted, especially, when it was understood by the Committee that out of the 1,686 scholars in these schools only 145 were being fed under this marvellous and immaculate voluntary system. It had failed and failed entirely, and there was nothing for it but to support that Bill, which would do the work in a systematic way and recover the cost when necessary.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

said his hon. friend had referred to the testimony of a single headmaster in Bethnal Green. There were at least forty public elementary schools in Bethnal Green, and that to which his hon. friend referred was one where the circumstances were special and peculiar. It was not in any way a fair sample of the public elementary schools in Bethnal Green. The facts in connection with Turin Street School, Bethnal Green, absolutely contradicted the evidence which his hon. friend had quoted, for last winter no fewer than 130 children were found to be unfed or underfed. There were no funds collected in the ordinary way available for the feeding of those children, and they would have been altogether neglected but for the benevolence of a single individual, who paid for their food out of his own pocket. He was perfectly certain that the bulk of the headmasters in Bethnal Green would not at all concur in the testimony of John Scott, the headmaster whose opinion had been quoted.

MR. LOUGH

said the hon. Member for South-east Durham had asked whether the charge on the rates was only to be for providing food to necessitous children. Clause 3 said that— Where the local education authority are satisfied that owing to the necessitous character of the area, funds other than public funds are not available or are insufficient in amount to defray the cost of food furnished in such meals they may apply to the Board of Education, and that Board may authorise them to spend out of the rates such sum as will meet the cost of the provision of such food…. The words "necessitous character of the area" were rather unsatisfactory, because some districts might not be necessitous as a whole, although they might be in parts, and he hoped they might find words to give better expression to the intention of the Bill while retaining this test. The hon. Member for Plymouth had stated that in Paris only £1,000 out of £50,000 or £60,000 was found by voluntary contribution. While that statement was true, he would point out that £15,000 was found by the children themselves, so that only £40,000, or two-thirds of the whole cost, was found from the public funds. Last year 10,000,000 dinners were supplied to school children in Paris. He mentioned that figure to show what a mighty work was done with a small sum. In London there was no evidence to show that anything like £15,000 was paid by the children, and at present the voluntary system was attended with all the evils which flowed from such a system. Anybody who compared the London and Paris systems ought to be convinced that it was time to make a change in the Paris direction. It was not proposed by the Bill to introduce a system on a compulsory basis. The Government hoped that the voluntary system would be maintained, and that it would be successful. But if it was not successful, the local education authority would have power under the Bill to provide money out of the rates. He did not believe that the maximum amount spent in London would be £90,000 including the cost of machinery. The hon. Member who opened the debate in a very interesting speech was perfectly consistent, and said that something must be done; but he thought the charge should not be made on the rates. Such a Bill, however, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, would be a mockery, a delusion, and a snare; and no responsible Government could construct a Bill of that kind without money behind it. It should be remembered that the expenditure out of the rates under this Bill was limited to the produce of a halfpenny rate. It was quite evident that if children had to be fed, the work would cost money, but he insisted that the Bill bristled with safe-guards against undue expenditure. The cost could be recovered from the parents, the area must be necessitous—and there was no evidence that in the rural areas there would be any necessity for a rate at all —the money would only be needed if no other funds were available; the Board of Education must sanction the raising of the rate, and, as he had already stated, the rate could never exceed a halfpenny. A halfpenny rate all over the country would raise £360,000, but leaving out the rural areas, the cost in all the towns of the country would amount to only £250,000. The Committee ought to realise that as we spent £25,000,000 on compulsory education we should not grudge an additional £250,000, to make that education effective. The Bill had been constructed on economic principles, and the object was to humanise our educational system, and to get rid of this great scandal, especially when the cost was so paltry.

* SIR HENRY CRAIK

said it was not the fault of the Opposition that a question of this magnitude and importance had to be considered in an attenuated House at half past eight on a Friday night. But was that any reason why they should fail to state the arguments, which, in their opinion, rendered this proposal very dangerous? The hon. Member opposite talked about humanising the schools. He echoed that sentiment. He wanted to keep our schools humanised and not to be pushed into the hands of those who would degrade the schools and degrade the school attendance. He would not enter into social questions, but he desired to call the attention of the Committee to some points which had not received the attention they ought to have done at the hands of the Committee. An hon. Gentleman had spoken of the cost of the proposal in the Bill; but if the cost were three times as much, if it would accomplish a real good to the working classes of this country, he would not raise a difficulty on that score. If there was one delusion greater than another in regard to this Bill it was the miserable delusion as to the halfpenny limit to the rates. Was it possible to impose a limit if it were a question of preventing the starvation of children? He insisted that they could not limit the rate to a halfpenny if they dried up the sources from which hitherto they had obtained assistance towards the sustenance of these children. Moreover, by the proposals in the Bill they would discourage parents from discharging their natural duty towards their children. On the Second Reading of the Bill he had given a calculation as to the cost which this Bill would involve, and that had been received with jeers, but a few weeks afterwards, in answer to a Question put to the President of the Board of Education as to the cost which such a system would entail on London alone, the right hon. Gentleman's reply was precisely in the same proportion as that on which he had based his estimate. They were told that they would recover a good deal of the money from the parents. They had had the ease of Bradford quoted again and again, and he would like to give the answer which Mr. Crowther, who was responsible for the working of the system, gave to some questions which were put to him. The number of meals supplied to children was 109,132, and he was asked how many were paid for by the parents, and he said, "We have recovered from the parents voluntarily £1 19s. 3d." He was asked whether the game was worth the candle if prosecutions were instituted in the case of parents who did not pay. He replied that "it was not worth the candle, the guardians never expected it would be" and their expectations were fully justified, because the total amount recovered from parents by process was only £1. Once the expense was incurred, every manager of an industrial school and every local authority would tell them that the sum recovered after legal process was practically nil. Figures had been quoted with regard to the large proportion of children suffering from malnutrition, but that was not always caused by under-feeding; it was caused still more by defective housing, defective clothing, ill-judged feeding, and from a total absence of knowledge in many households of the most ordinary laws of health. If they burdened the ratepayers still further with providing these free meals, which were in many cases not wanted, they would raise an obstacle of the first importance to any effective dealing with the larger question of the sanitation of the nation, which he desired very much to see undertaken. He did not wish to deal with a very small part of a much larger question. He wished to call attention to one other point. A great portion of these children were provided for in homes, orphanages, and other institutions, in cases where they found parents unwilling or unable to do their duty. Would it do much good to give a child one meal daily and so enable the parent to retain it at home and employ that child in odd jobs and throw the burden of maintenance upon other people more than he was enabled to do at present? In many cases it was a happier and better lot that children of this class should go into the loving care of those who would attend to them in these institutions where they could stop the evils of malnutrition—where, instead of giving them the one meal a day they could supply the other essentials of health, and give them proper physical training, which was quite as important as the supply of meals. By means of the provisions of this Bill the remedy of the orphanage would be discouraged, and they would enable the thriftless parent, instead of doing that which was best for his child, to keep the child in degrading surroundings and employ his labour during certain hours of the day. He did not say that this was a characteristic of the working classes, but he did say that it did sometimes happen. Those were the real slanderers of the poorer classes, who said that the number of parents who would not meet their responsibilities was so large that the evil could only be remedied in the way proposed by this Bill. If a parent could not pay, let him do what he could at this moment — go to the Poor Law authorities and obtain the means of paying. [An HON. MEMBER: "Pauperising."] How could it be more pauperising if the money was taken from one local body rather than another? If it was pauperising to take money from the ratepayers through the agency of the Poor Law, how could it be anything else than pauperising to take it through the agency of any other public authority? He wished to express his earnest hope that the Committee would consider seriously before they made this enormous change in our social and educational system.

MR. HAROLD COX

hoped that hon. Members opposite would recognise in him, as he recognised in them, a sincere desire to improve the position of all the working people of the country. Social reform was a phrase often heard, and every Member of the House was in favour of social reform. But naturally they had to be very careful in laying down what kind of social reform it was of which they were in favour. He was sorry to say there were many Members of the House whose creed in social matters was a combination of bad economics and sloppy sentimentalism. They failed to think out where they were going. They saw a particular evil, and were anxious to remedy it, yet frequently did not look sufficiently far ahead to see that the remedy they proposed, instead of mitigating the evil, would accentuate it. The Unemployed Workmen's Act was perhaps one of the most pernicious Acts ever passed by this House. The whole point was really with regard to pauperism. A man was a pauper when he received public relief, from whatever source it came. Under the old Poor Law no one could receive relief without having to undergo some sacrifice in return. The evil of the system now proposed was that relief would be given without exacting any sacrifice in return. Of course if they gave a man something for nothing, there were plenty always ready to take it. If relief was given unconditionally it would inevitably breed the demand for more relief. The circumstances that led to this demand were said to be the difficulty the parent found to provide food for his family. The reasons for that were two. The man was either insufficiently paid or he spent his wages badly. If the man was insufficiently paid they should direct their efforts against the employer and compel that employer to pay a sufficient wage. If they adopted the proposals of this Bill it was tantamount to saying to the employers "Go on paying sweating wages, we will make it up to your workmen." If they subsidised the man who got insufficient wages they penalised the good industries of the country to subsidise the bad. That was not the way to increase the social prosperity of the nation. The obligation to send children to school was an obligation created by Parliament, the obligation to feed one's children was an obligation recognised by humanity ever since humanity had been. If a man had a sufficient wage and did not feed his children it could only be because his money was misspent. The fact was that hon. Members opposite had not faced in this matter—the question of drink. What they failed to recognise was that if they made it easy for men to shuffle out of their responsibilities they made it easy for them to drink away their wages. That was a question that Members opposite ought to face. It was a question often more important from the point of view of socialism than of individualism, because what would happen would be that if such a man were allowed to put his children on to the rates the country would be subsidising the inferior man at the expense of the superior. That was not the way in which to build up a strong State. If everybody was taught to lean on somebody else, on whom would the State lean? The only way to make a State strong was to make the members of it strong, and any measure which would allow people to shuffle out of their responsibilities would be disastrous to the State and to the individual.

Mr. LOUGH

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

MR. HUNT

asked whether the halfpenny rate was going to be used for the purpose of feeding all the children or only some of them. Unless hon. Members knew that, they did not know how to vote on this question. If it were made perfectly plain that only necessitous children were to be provided for out of the halfpenny rate he would be in favour of the Amendment. He could not quite see where the socialism came in, because, after all, the children were compelled by law to go to school. When all was said there was very little difference between feeding little children who were unable to feed themselves and feeding an able-bodied man who had to go to the workhouse. Apparently there was no doubt that there were a number of children who went to school insufficiently fed, and some part of the rates might be used for feeding those children, if it were made quite plain in the Bill that their parents would be made to pay if they were able to do so. It had also to be remembered that a hungry child was a cold child, and that the children who went to school insufficiently fed were often insufficiently clad as well. Of course it was only human nature when this feeding was done by charity that people not well off should say, "There is food going in the schools, my children may just as well have some of it as other people's." But if under this Bill they knew that if they were able they would be obliged to pay, the effect would be to stop a great deal of that sort of thing, and do good. He hoped the Government would make it clear that the halfpenny rate was to feed only the necessitous children. If they once began to feed all the children in all the schools they would not only go to a frightful expense, but would also go far to pauperise the children of the country.

SIR E. BOYLE (Taunton)

thought the Committee ought to face this matter boldly. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of a halfpenny rate, but it behaved the Committee to consider whether a halfpenny was any good at all. In such a district as West Ham, was it to be supposed that a halfpenny rate would do any good? The Committee ought to look this thing boldly in the face.

CAPTAIN CRAIG,

who spoke amidst constant interruption, was understood to say he was one of the three in the Committee upstairs who voted against this particular suggestion. It was a simple matter to oppose a popular vote, but it was very difficult to explain one's reasons for so doing. As one who desired to see that the children benefited by this measure were necessitous, he strongly disassociated himself from the views of the hon. Member opposite. The question he touched upon was the receipt of relief which came from the general community. All the evidence given before the Select Committee and all the Amendments which came from both sides of the House tended to show that the flow of natural and generous subscriptions towards the feeding of the children, which had, in the same way as any other great national movement, risen according to the necessities of the time and the case, would undoubtedly cease. He asked the Committee whether they thought if the hospitals were placed upon the rates they would get the same generous contributions towards thorn as now. Would the National Lifeboat Institution get the same generous assistance? People who at the present time rose to the occasion in the time of special necessity would not be inclined to do so if the institutions were put upon the rates. A great point had been made about the rate being only a halfpenny. If the local education authority was not to be allowed to incur any expense for food supplied by such moans it would be possible to keep it at a halfpenny, but while by one clause it was suggested that there should be a halfpenny rate, another suggested that whatever happened to be necessary for feeding the children should be supplied. For the first time during the progress of the Bill the Committee were discussing a charge to be put on the rates, which was absolutely unnecessary at the present time, but which would become absolutely essential.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member appears to be discussing Clause 3, and that I cannot permit. He must confine himself to the Amendment.

CAPTAIN CRAIG

said the hon. Member for North Camberwell had referred to the machinery of the Bill, and had said that hitherto there had been no machinery to recover from parents, but he did not think many people cared much about that. The machinery in the first clause if not perfect had at all events the unanimous approval of all Parties. But when the hon. Member in charge of the Bill mentioned that this fell upon the rates of the country, and that only the hardest cases rose from time to time, he still maintained that the hon. Member had not been able to justify in any sense his interference with the flow of charity by the imposition of a rate of a halfpenny here and a halfpenny there at the whim of those who happened to be members of the local body at a particular time. The machinery of this clause was very complete, and in that machinery the words of his hon. friend were included. If those words were omitted the authorities would have the opportunity of taking full advantage of all the charity which came into their hands. Having provided the machinery, the question arose as to whether that was not all that it was necessary for the State to provide. If any need arose they would then be able to say, "We are now prepared with everything if only generous contributors would come forward and supply the actual necessities for these poor children." That was a matter that would appeal to every Member of this House. The whole thing resolved itself into this, that they were going to put this burden upon the rates and make people paupers against their will. The last thing that men, women, or children wanted was to be put upon the rates. They disliked outdoor relief in any shape or form so long as they could scrape along in their own homes. He could not see why hon. Members who were in close touch with the labouring community should take it for granted that the people of this country were desirous of having the Bill thrust upon them. He had gone round several of the London schools to find out the real truth as to the necessity of State aid in this matter, and he was convinced from those inquiries that if such aid was given, voluntary assistance would cease altogether. If the rates were invoked, instead of leaving the matter to the generosity of private benevolence it would be a bad business indeed.

* MR. CLAUDE HAY

said he was a supporter of the Bill, and ever since the subject was first raised he had taken the keenest interest in seeing legislation brought forward. Under this Amendment it seemed to him there were two points which had been scarcely considered by the Committee. The first was that as local authorities now had the care of the children for educational purposes, it was their duty to see that under-feeding ceased. The Amendment would cut the ground from the local education authority in their desire to secure chat which was a necessary corollary of its obligations for the care of the children educationally. In the second place, they had not sufficiently considered the conditions under which the great majority of the working classes lived to-day. The great bulk of them now composed the urban population, and what was easy for them as parents living in the country, with all the advantages which cottage life gave, had become difficult, if not impossible, in the urban areas, jiving as they did in dwellings originally built for one family and now perhaps occupied by two, three, or even four families. How could parents bring up their children in a healthy manner, or see to their children's feeding when both parents were all day away at work? They must recognise that the parents of to-day had frequently not the means of carrying out their parental obligations. They had not the appliances, nor the accommodation, nor the time, and too often not the know-ledge efficiently to do the best for the child's regular, wholesome and economical feeding. They must face the fact that by this Bill they would largely destroy the incentive to voluntary subscriptions. If they tried to deal with this subject by tinkering they would be lending themselves to humbug. By using the word "may" in this Bill they were showing themselves to be cowards. The Bill did not go far enough.

THE CHAIRMAN

That has nothing to do with the question.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said this Amendment raised the whole pith of the question, and he hoped hon. Gentlemen in their votes would not be governed by narrow individualism, or by the question of whether voluntary subscription should or could deal with school feeding; but that they would realise that if the vast sums spent on education were to be effective it was their duty to see that the child was physically competent to receive the instruction provided. The condition of society made it imperative for the State to step in.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 130; Noes, 17. (Division List No. 473.)

AYES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Edwards, Prank (Radnor)	Menzies, Walter
Alden, Percy	Farrell, James Patrick	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Fenwick, Charles	Mooney, J. J.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Ferens, T. R.	Morgan, (J. Hay (Cornwall)
Barnard, E. B.	Ffrench, Peter	Murphy, John
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Nolan, Joseph
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexham)	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Norman, Sir Henry
Bellairs, Carlyon	Fuller, John Michael F.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Halpin, J.	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.)
Bethell, Sir J.H. (Essex, Romf'rd)	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Billson, Alfred	Hay, Hon. Claude George	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Boland, John	Higham, John Sharp	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Bottomley, Horatio	Hills, J. W.	O'Grady, J.
Bowerman, C. W.	Hodge, John	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Branch, James	Hogan, Michael	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Brodie, H. C.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Paulton, James Mellor
Brooke, Stopford	Hyde, Clarendon	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Illingworth, Percy H.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	Power, Patrick Joseph
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Jackson, R. S.	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Centr'l)
Byles, William Pollard	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Raphael, Herbert H.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Jowett, F. W.	Redmond, William (Clare)
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Kekewich, Sir George	Richards T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)
Clarke, C. Goddard	Laidlaw, Robert	Rickett, J. Compton
Clough, William	Lambert, George	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)
Cogan, Denis J.	Lamont, Norman	Rowlands, J.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Lewis, John Herbert	Seaverns, J. H.
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)	Lough, Thomas	Seddon, J.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Lundon, W.	Sherwell, Arthur James
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Crean, Eugene	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Cremer, William Randal	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Crombie, John William	Macpherson, J. T.	Strachey, Sir Edward
Crooks, William	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Sullivan, Donal
Delany, William	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Thorne William
Dobson, Thomas W.	M'Crae, George
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Toulmin, George
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Meagher, Michael	Walsh, Stephen
Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton)	White, Parrick (Meath, North)	Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Whitbread, Howard	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.	Cox, Harold	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Balcarres, Lord	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Valentia, Viscount
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Craik, Sir Henry	Younger, George
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Boyle, Sir Edward	Morpeth, Viscount	TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Bridgeman and Mr. Mallet.
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W:	Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Nield, Herbert

MR. LOUGH

claimed "That the Question 'That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question

'That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill' be now put.'"

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 126; Noes, 18. (Division List No. 474.)

AYES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Ffrench, Peter	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)
Alden, Percy	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Fuller, John Michael F.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Barnard, E. B.	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Beaumont, Hn. W.C.B.(Hexham)	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Grady, J.
Bellairs, Carlyon	Higham, John Sharp	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Benn, W(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Hodge, John	Paulton, James Mellor
Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'rd)	Hogan, Michael	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Billson, Alfred	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Power, Patrick Joseph
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Hyde, Clarendon	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Boland, John	Illingworth, Percy H.	Raphael, Herbert H.
Bottomley, Horatio	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	Redmond, William, (Clare)
Bowerman, C. W.	Jackson, R. S.	Richards, T. F.(Wolverhampt'n)
Branch, James	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Rickett, J. Compton
Brodie, H. C.	Jowett, F. W.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)
Brooke, Stopford	Kekewich, Sir George	Rowland, J.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Laidlaw, Robert	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Lambert, George	Seaverns, J. H.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Lamont, Norman	Seddon, J.
Byles, William Pollard	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Sherwell, Arthur James
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Lewis, John Herbert	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Lough, Thomas	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Clarke, C. Goddard	Lundon, W.	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Clough, William	Lyell, Charles Henry	Strachey, Sir Edward
Cogan, Denis J.	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)	Sullivan, Donal
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Thorne, William
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Macpherson, J. T.	Toulmin, George
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Walsh, Stephen
Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)	M'Crae, George	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Crean, Eugene	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)
Cremer, William Randal	Mallet, Charles E.	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Crombie, John William	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Whitbread, Howard
Crooks, William	Meagher, Michael	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Delany, William	Menzies, Walter	White, Patrick, (Meath, North)
Dobson, Thomas W.	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Mooney, J. J.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Murphy, John	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)
Farrell, James Patrick	Nolan, Joseph
Fenwick, Charles	Norman, Sir Henry
Feren, T. R.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
NOES.
Balcarres, Lord	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Craik, Sir Henry	Younger, George
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hay, Hon. Claude George	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hills, J. W.	Sir Alexander Acland-Hood
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.	Morpeth, Viscount	and Viscount Valentia.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Nield, Herbert
Cox, Harold	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Question put accordingly

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 128; Noes, 17. (Division List No. 475.)

AYES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Ferens, T. R.	Norman, Sir Henry
Alden, Percy	Ffrench, Peter	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Barnard, E. B.	Fuller, John Michael F.	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexh'm)	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Bellairs, Carlyon	Hay, Hon. Claude George	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Benn, W. (T'w'r H'ml'ts, S. Geo.)	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Grady, J.
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'rd)	Higham, John Sharp	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)
Billson, Alfred	Hodge, John	Paulton, James Mellor
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Hogan, Michael	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Boland, John	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Power, Patrick Joseph
Bottomley, Horatio	Hyde, Clarendon	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Bowerman, C. W.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Raphael, Herbert H.
Branch, James	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	Redmond, William (Clare)
Brodie, H. C.	Jackson, R. S.	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)
Brooke, Stopford	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Rickett, J. Compton
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Jowett, F. W.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Kekewich, Sir George	Rowlands, J.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Laidlaw, Robert	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Byles, William Pollard	Lambert, George	Seaverns, J. H.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Lamont, Norman	Seddon, J.
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Sherwell, Arthur James
Clarke, C. Goddard	Lewis, John Herbert	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Clough, William	Lough, Thomas	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Cogan, Denis J.	Lundon, W.	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Strachey, Sir Edward
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)	Sullivan, Donal
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Thorne, William
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Macpherson, J. T.	Toulmin, George
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Crean, Eugene	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Walsh, Stephen
Cremer, William Randal	M'Crae, George	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Crombie, John William	M'Laren, H. D. (Satfford, W.)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)
Crooks, William	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Meagher, Michael	Whitbread, Howard
Delany, William	Menzies, Walter	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Dobson, Thomas W.	Money, L. G. Chiozza	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Mooney, J. J.	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Murphy, John
Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Napier, T. B.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Farrell, James Patrick	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)
Fenwick, Charles	Nolan, Joseph	Pease.

NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F	Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Balcarres, Lord	Cox, Harold	Valentia, Viscount
Banbury, Sir Frederick George.	Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)	Younger, George
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Craik, Sir Henry
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hills, J. W.	Viscount Morpeth and Mr. Evelyn Cecil.
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Mallet, Charles E.

Clause 2:—

MR. HAROLD COX moved the insertion of the words "by way of prepayment." after "charged." He was convinced that it would be impossible to obtain payment after the consumption of the meal. The evidence on that point was conclusive, and he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 21, after the word 'charged' to insert the words 'by way of prepayment.'" —(Mr. Harold Cox.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. LOUGH

declined to go beyond the words of the clause. One object of the Bill was to enable local authorities to attend to destitute children immediately, but to wait for payment would defeat that object.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

said the only reason the hon. Gentleman had given for refusing to accept the Amendment was that the local authorities should be perfectly unfettered. The Amendment would have the effect of carrying out the desire of the hon. Member for North Camber well and others who attached importance to compelling parents to pay as far as possible for the food supplied to their children. It was quite true that it might possibly entail a certain amount of suffering, but it should be remembered that the Education Act had been in operation for the last thirty years, and that no attempt had been made during that period to pass a Bill of this sort. Therefore, the suffering which this Amendment would cause would not be any greater than had been experienced in the last thirty years. He hoped that on reflection the hon. Gentleman would come to the conclusion that he had made a mistake in not accepting the Amendment. He had made several mistakes this evening, and one was in regard to his own Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

said the hon. Member must address himself to the Amendment before the Committee.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

said he apologised. If the Amendment was not accepted, it was perfectly certain that the parents would not pay.

LORD BALCARRES

thought that a strong case had been made out for the Amendment. The insertion of the words proposed would not prevent the local authority from meeting the cases of the most necessitous children, while the parents could be proceeded against in the Court afterwards. There was no cruelty in that. Was it cruel to say that if a child had a meal the parents should be called upon to pay for it? He wished to point out that the Bill as it stood, and still more the Amendments put down by the Government to it, departed in many important particulars from the recommendations of their own Committee. In Paragraph 17 of the Report of the Committee a strong opinion was expressed that payment for meals should be made wherever possible.

CAPTAIN CRAIG

did not think that the hon. Member for Preston had really made out a case for his Amendment. He thought that hon. Members would agree that if meals were to be provided at all no restriction should be put on the authority which was to provide them; and therefore he hoped that the hon. Member would not insist on his Amendment.

MR. HAROLD COX

said he was sorry that he could not accept the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He considered his Amendment was of extreme importance, because there was overwhelming evidence that the money could not be recovered from the parents after the meals had been supplied. In nine cases out of ten the food supplied to the children was not what they wanted; and yet the parents would be forced to pay for it. A child might appear to the teacher to want food even after it had eaten the meal provided for it by its parents; and if the parents wished to make use of these State restaurants they could send the money with the child.

* MR. BOTTOMLEY

asked if it would meet the views of the hon. Member if each local education authority were furnished with a stomach pump?

Amendment negatived.

MR. HUNT moved an Amendment providing that the cost of the meals should not exceed one penny. There were many poor people who could not pay more than a penny for a meal for each of their children, and the effect of his Amendment would be to prevent the local authorities spending too much money on the provision of meals. If the children were to have any real benefit from the system, the meals must be made as cheap as possible.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 23, after the word 'amount' to insert the words 'not exceeding one penny per meal."—(Mr. Hunt.)

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. LOUGH

said he was sure the Committee would recognise the spirit in which the hon. Member had moved this Amendment, and the very kind feelings he had expressed towards the children. It was impossible however for the Government to accept the Amendment, because it would be an interference with the fixed principle that they should not interfere with the local education authority on these small points. The cost might exceed a penny, and it was impossible to lay down any rule. He therefore hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

*MR. HAROLD COX moved an Amendment the effect of which would be to enact that the charge for meals provided should be sufficient to cover the full cost of providing, cooking, and serving that meal, including the interest and depreciation on the capital expended on land, buildings, furniture, and apparatus. It seemed to him to be an error to start a State restaurant unless it was run upon profitable lines. He had put down this Amendment to cover every item of expense, and unless they did that they would incur loss. In dealing with necessitous children they would have to incur that loss. They had had that out before, but they were now dealing with parents who could afford to pay for these meals, but did not. If they sent their children to private schools they would have to pay the full cost of providing, cooking, and serving meals, including the interest and depreciation on the capital expended on the undertaking, and there was no reason when they were setting up these State restaurants why they should run them on business lines.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 23, to leave out from the word 'determined,' to the end of line, and insert the words 'sufficient to cover the full cost of providing, cooking, and serving that meal, including the interest and depreciation on the capital expended on land. buildings, furniture, and apparatus.'"—(Mr. Harold Cox.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'by' stand part of the clause."

MR. LOUGH

said the hon. Member's suggestion was framed upon business lines, but he had forgotten to allow for any profit, and had only given cost price. If the hon. Gentleman would look into the matter he would see that it was impossible to estimate the price of any meal. That was one objection to the Amendment. Another was supposing there was a voluntary fund in existence for the purpose of supplying these meals, there was no need to charge the full price of the meal, because it would be charged to a fund which would balance the yearly revenue and expenditure. If one of these canteens received an endowment, the children had a right to the benefit of that endowment, and the words of the Bill were to the effect that the price should be that which was fixed by the local education authority, who no doubt would have regard to facts of that sort. Having regard to all the circumstances he hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with the arrangement contained in the Bill and not press the Amendment.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

joined in the appeal that the Amendment should not be pressed. Secondary and higher grade schools were provided with accommodation of this sort at the public expense, and why should they discriminate in regard to the accommodation to be provided for very poor children? If the Amendment was carried they would have to ask the people who gave voluntary subscriptions not only to provide the whole price of the meal but to pay for the cost of the room. Surely it was out of the question to press people to provide food for the children and then not to find a place in which the children could eat it. The least they could expect was that the authority should provide a room in which the refreshments were to be supplied.

LORD R. CECIL

thought that this was an Amendment which they had a right to ask the Government to accept. When they raised the question of necessitous children they were referred to this Amendment as that upon which they could discuss the question of an unnecessary charge being thrown upon the rates. He thought they might get rid of this fiction and imposture of the voluntary fund, because everybody knew that after this Bill had come into operation there would be no voluntary fund as nobody would subscribe to funds in relief of rates. Whoever heard of anybody subscribing to funds to relieve rates?

MR. CROOKS (Woolwich)

They do so in the case of the Church schools.

LORD R. CECIL

was glad of that interruption because it showed the kind of ignorance with which they had to contend. The only thing that had kept the Church schools going was that the trustees and owners had still to provide sufficient expenditure in connection with the schools or they would not be allowed to receive a contribution from the rates. The case of Church schools had nothing to do with the matter, and he did not think that there was any case in which subsections had been included in a Bill for the purpose of carrying on an undertaking which would entirely relieve rates. He had no doubt himself that the effect of the Bill would be to destroy the voluntary funds. As the clause was drafted at present it was left absolutely and entirely without any kind of fetter on the local authority in deciding the price at which meals should be charged. They felt that there were some local education authorities who would not be above doing so, and who would perhaps think it their duty to provide these meals generally at a very much lower rate than cost price. They might conceive that that was the object for which they existed, and there was a great temptation to a local authority to do so if they could by their action obtain a certain amount of cheap popularity. Unless some kind of limit was put upon the local authority there was a serious danger in the clause. The hon. Member seemed to think that the limit suggested by the hon. Member for Preston was not the right one and that there was some other method of arriving at the cost which would include such questions as private subscriptions from voluntary sources. If the hon. Gentleman was prepared with alternative words which would carry out his idea, they would be prepared to consider them. But no alternative words were before the Committee, and the question was whether they were prepared to leave absolutely unfettered the discretion of the local education authority as to whether the parents should pay less than the actual cost of the maintenance of the child. If this was not to be a pauperising scheme, and they were not to provide a fund which would enable parents to evade feeding their children—if they did not provide that the parents should pay the actual cost of the meal, they were making a very extravagant proposition. He hoped that the Government would accept the Amendment.

MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)

asked whether the Amendment was in order. They had already decided that these authorities might associate with themselves in committee certain other people for the purpose of doing certain things, and that they might arrange apparatus convenient for executing such services. Was it now possible for the Committee to state that they could do nothing of the sort, that the parents themselves must supply the whole cost, and that the committee could not under any circumstances by aiding the education authority have anything to do with the matter?

* THE CHAIRMAN

said that, of course, under Clause 1 a committee might do what the hon. Gentleman suggested, but they had not to deal there with the question of the charge, and he thought this was a perfectly legitimate restriction or stipulation to make as regarded that charge.

MR. J. WARD

on a point of order, asked whether one could be said to be "aiding in" if one was going to charge for every fraction of the cost of that aid.

* THE CHAIRMAN

It is not clear to my mind that there must be a charge in every case. There may be parents who cannot pay as well as parents who can. Also the words "aid by furnishing" do not necessarily exclude a charge.

DR. MACNAMARA

thought that the words of the Bill might be looked into a little more closely. They provided that some charge should be made by the local authority. All the parents might be charged for was the mere victuals, and he thought there was a reasonable fear introduced that even under Clause 1 the local authority might charge a sum which did not cover the whole cost. On the other hand, the Amendment went further than was reasonable. It would add to the cost a certain portion of the capital charge. That would be a very large order, because these buildings were already in existence, and there was now no charge for them. Therefore, he did not think that they could say in the future when the parents paid the whole charge that they should pay something more for the cost of the buildings. Most Members dined in this House night after night and did not pay anything towards capital charges, there was an appropriation of £2,000 a year to the Kitchen Committee from public funds, and he for one did not feel pauperised in consequence. He suggested that the Amendment should read as follows:—" Sufficient to cover the full cost of providing the meal." That would give an assurance that the purpose of Clause 1 was fully carried out.

* MR. BRIDGEMAN

said he quite agreed with what had been said. He would certainly support this Amendment if some assurance was not given by the Government that they would take steps to recover the full amount of the meal. Earlier in the debate a discussion took place on limiting the provision of meals to necessitous and underfed children. They were then told by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill that these were two distinct points, the provision of meals to necessitous children, and the provision of meals for the children of parents able to pay. He had voted for the Government on that Amendment on the distinct assurance that the Committee were to be safeguarded on this point. The whole point of the argument of the hon. Member for North Camberwell was that the voluntary contributions had been so badly organised that they had done much harm in consequence. Now the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said he was going to allow this monstrous thing to continue and was going to provide meals for the children whose parents were able to pay, and who were able to drive to school in a carriage. He hoped the hon. Member would adhere to the distinct pledge given earlier in the evening on the strength of which he (Mr. Bridgeman) supported the Government against his own friends.

* MR. CHIOZZA MONEY (Paddington, N.)

said he rose to offer the most uncompromising opposition to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston and also to the suggested compromise of the hon. Member for North Camberwell. The provisions of this Bill represented not one-tenth of what was needed to meet the case, and it was the very minimum the Committee would consent to pass. If it was not too late to say a serious word on a Bill which was treated with so much levity by both sides of the House, he would say that the hon. Member for Preston did not recognise what represented the cost and profit of such a measure. Let the hon. Member walk over Westminster Bridge and go within a bow-shot of this House, and he would find the cost in the deteriorated people of a degraded race; in people from whom hon. Members would draw aside with contempt as they passed home from this House. They would find the profit, if profit could be found in such a measure, in a people out of whom anything could be made; a people of great genius who could be raised to a very high standard if attention was given to the feeding of the children; if a few pounds-were given to the feeding of the race in order that it might be brought up to its mean standard, which was a high one. As Professor Cunningham had pointed out, there was a mean inherited standard of the race which could be restored if one cared to do it.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is getting rather wide of the Amendment.

* MR. CHIOZZA MONEY

said he might be getting wide, and it might be also that what he had said was worthy of the serious consideration of the House.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must confine his observations to the Amendment.

* MR. CHIOZZA MONEY

said the least the public authority could do was to provide the buildings and the land and the machinery for the working of this Act, whether they relied on voluntary or public funds. But whatever they did, they must not trench upon the smallest minimum which could be accepted in a measure of the deepest importance to the country.

MR. LOUGH

said there were almost insuperable administrative difficulties in the way of accepting either the Amendment or the suggested modification. Either would involve a calculation as to cost which could not possibily be made. There might be very little feeding in summer and a great deal of feeding in winter, and in particular schools these meals would cost a great deal more if the price was put upon each meal. The price would be fixed taking the whole thing into consideration. It was a matter, he thought, that should be left in the hands of the local authority. He could not accept the Amendment in any form

LORD BALCARRES

acknowledged that a material difficulty had been pointed out. If the children had over-paid for a meal they had received, how was that to be put right? He considered he was right in supporting the Government in this, if the Amendment was unworkable. But would the Government tell the Committee frankly what they meant by cost. The cost as mentioned in the text of the Bill had been proved as far as possible to be not merely the cost of the food which the authority was entitled to recover, but the cost of land, buildings, furniture, apparatus, and such officers and servants as might be necessary for the preparation and service of such meals. If the hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that between this and the Report stage he would consider how far he could find suitable words to express his desire that the cost should be the total cost, as near as could be estimated, he (Lord Balcarres) would adopt the view of the hon. Gentleman. But the hon. Gentleman had hitherto avoided telling the Committee whether the cost was the actual cost of the victuals or the total cost of the meal. If the hon. Gentleman would explain what was the view of the Government he would simplify proceedings.

MR. LOUGH

said he had given the assurance before, and he desired to be perfectly candid in the matter. In the Bill as drawn, there was no necessity to provide the money part of it, and no restriction would be placed on the local authority as to what they might charge.

MR. SEDDON (Lancashire, Newton)

expressed some surprise at the variety of the arguments coming from below the gangway, but before dealing with those arguments he would like to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Preston to an Amendment he had on the Paper. The sole desire of the hon. Member for Preston was at first to see that every person paid for the food of the poor children. Now, instead of leaving only the burden of the payment of the food, he wished to throw an additional burden on the schools of people who were unable to bear it. The hon. Member did not know these elementary schools. His own children, who attended one, were cut to the heart at the condition of some of those children who attended with them, and whom the teachers, out of their own slender means, had fed. In many cases the parents of such children could not bear the burden which this Amendment would place upon them. The wages paid to many industrial workers absolutely forbade them to pay anything above the bare cost of the food provided for their children. If they were to provide meals for all the children, the least they could do was to say that those who were least able to bear the burden should be relieved from it.

* VISCOUNT MORPETH

said the hon. Member was labouring under some misapprehension. The Committee were not now dealing with necessitous children but with the case of children who were to pay for their meals, so the case of the necessitous children did not come in. He was prepared to see necessitous children fed under the Bill, and to see the canteen system provided for those children who could afford to pay, but he distrusted the bona fides of those who were endeavouring to exploit sympathy for the necessitous children in order to force on an unwilling Parliament and an unwilling country a universal system of State feeding of children which was not wanted. He was perfectly convinced that the country did not desire a compulsory system. It was merely a minority who was forcing its opinions on the majority. He remembered this question being raised on the London School Board twelve years ago, when the hon. Member for North Camberwell consistently supported it, although at that time the Liberal Party was more opposed to it than anybody else. It was because the scheme of the hon. Member for North Camberwell was a reasonable scheme-that the child who could not pay should be helped and the child who could pay should pay—that he should support it.

SIR W. J. COLLINS

said if the Committee adopted this Amendment it would not only go against the Report of the Select Committee, but against the Reports of the Royal Commission which inquired into the subject in Scotland and of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration.

* SIR HENRY CRAIK

said he was sorry on this occasion to find himself at variance with some of his colleagues on those benches. He was bound to agree with the unanimous Report of the Royal Commission in this matter. It was quite impossible clearly to distinguish the expenses that might be incurred in the provision of these meals. He, for one, should insist on the payment of the food from the parents. But it was a reasonable provision that there should be a room provided where children coming from a distance would be able to take their meals. It was part of the function of the school. Although he was willing that the parents should be pressed for the payment of the actual cost of the food, he was not prepared to say that every expense connected with its preparation should be included. He was unable, therefore, to support the Amendment.

MR. SEAVERNS (Lambeth, Brixton)

agreed with the Amendment. He had been an ardent supporter of the principles of the Bill as he understood them; but the Amendment and the clause to which it applied, dealt with meals to be provided as a matter of convenience and not with the meals for necessitous children. He understood, further, that it was a well recognised principle of the Bill, accepted by the promoters, that parents should not be relieved of their responsibility, except when they were in necessitous circumstances, and it was a simple elementary business proposition to appraise the cost of the meals supplied. Under the clause as it stood, a local authority would be able to charge merely a fraction of the cost, and it would prejudice very considerably the principle of the Bill.

MR. HAROLD COX

said the only objection urged by the Government seemed to be on points of detail. The Secretary to the Board accepted the principle.

MR. LOUGH

said he was entirely and absolutely against it.

MR. HAROLD COX

regretted that the hon. Gentleman had misled the Committee earlier when discussing the important point whether the Bill should be limited to necessitous children. He then pointed to his (Mr. Cox's) Amendment and said it would very greatly remedy the difficulty, apparently indicating the possibility of accepting its principle.

MR. LOUGH

said the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman was not in his mind at the time.

MR. HAROLD COX

said possibly the Parliamentary Secretary was referring to some other Amendment, which, however, covered the same principle. The hon. Gentleman had distinctly accepted the principle that in the case of non-necessitous children, the parents should pay the full cost. He gathered that his only objection was that it was difficult to ascertain the full cost. He, however, should have thought it was only a business proposition. He was quite prepared to accept the Amendment of his hon. friend behind him if that were more likely to satisfy the Parliamentary Secretary. He hoped, at any rate, that as the hon. Gentleman was to a large extent in sympathy with the view that non-necessitous parents should pay the full cost of the meals, he would undertake on Report to bring up some words to meet the case.

Mr. LOUGH

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 155; Noes, 25. (Division List No. 476)

AYES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Farrell, James Patrick	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)
Alden, Percy	Fenwick, Charles	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Ferens, T. R.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Ffrench, Peter	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Fuller, John Michael F.	O'Grady, J.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John	O'Kelly, James (Roscom'n, N.)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Paul, Herbert
Barnard, E. B.	Gulland, John W.	Paulton, James Mellor
Beale, W. P.	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexh'm)	Hardie, J. Koir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Power, Patrick Joseph
Bellairs, Carlyon	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Hart-Davies, T.	Raphael, Herbert H.
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd)	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Billson, Alfred	Hayden, John Patrick	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Redmond, William (Clare)
Boland, John	Higham, John Sharp	Rees, J. D.
Bottomley, John	Hodge, John	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)
Bowerman, C. W.	Hogan, Michael	Rickett, J. Compton
Branch, James	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Brodie, H. C.	Hyde, Clarendon	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Br'df'd)
Brooke, Stopford	Illingworth, Percy H.	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Ches.)	Jackson, R. S.	Rowlands, J.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Jowett, F. W.	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Kekewich, Sir George	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Laidlaw, Robert	Seaverns, J. H.
Byles, William Pollard	Lambert, George	Seddon, J.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Lamont, Norman	Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Sherwell, Arthur James
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Lewis, John Herbert	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Clarke, C. Goddard	Lough Thomas	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Cleland, J. W.	Lundon, W.	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Clough, William	Lupton, Arnold	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Lyell, Charles Henry	Strachey, Sir Edward
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)	Sullivan, Donal
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Thorne, William
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Macpherson, J. T.	Toulmin, George
Cooper, G. J.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd)	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Verney, F. W.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	M'Crae, George	Walsh, Stephen
Crean, Eugene	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Ward John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Cremer, William Randal	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Ward, W. Dudley (S'th'mpton)
Crombie, John William	Masterman, C. F. G.	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Crooks, William	Meagher, Michael	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Whitbread, Howard
Delany, William	Mooney, J. J.	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Dobson, Thomas W.	Morrell, Philip	Wiles, Thomas
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Murphy, John	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Nolan, Joseph
Elibank, Master of	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
NOES.
Balcarres, Lord	Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Cecil Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hunt, Rowland
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Keswick, William
Bowles, G. Stewart	Cox, Harold	Mallet, Charles E.
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)
Bull, Sir William James	Craik, Sir Henry	Morpeth, Viscount
Nield, Herbert	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)	Alexander Acland-Hood and
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Viscount Valentia.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel	Younger, George

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'by' stand part of the clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 158; Noes, 25. (Division List No. 477.)

AYES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Elibank, Master of	Norman, Sir Henry
Alden, Percy	Farrell, James Patrick	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Fenwick, Charles	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Ferens, T. R.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Ffrench, Peter	O'Connor, John (Kidlare, N.)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	O'Donnel, C. J. (Walworth)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Fuller, John Michael F.	O'Grady, J.
Barnard, E. B.	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Beale, W. P.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Paul, Herbert
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexh'm)	Gulland, John, W.	Paulton, James Mellor
Bellairs, Carlyon	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo)	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Power, Patrick Joseph
Bethell, Alfred	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Billson, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'rd)	Hart-Davies, T.	Raphael, Herbert H.
Boland, John	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Bottomley, Horatio	Hayden, John Patrick	Redmond, William (Clare)
Bowerman, C. W.	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn)
Branch, James	Higham, John Sharp	Rickett, J. Compton
Brodie, H. C.	Hodge, John	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Brooke, Stopford	Hogan, Michael	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Br'df'd)
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Ches.)	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Hyde, Clarendon	Rowlands, J.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Illingworth, Percy H.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Jackson, R. S.	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Byles, William Pollard	Jowett, F. W.	Seddon, J.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Kekewich, Sir George	Seely, Major J. B.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Laidlaw, Robert	Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.)
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Lambert, George	Sherwell, Arthur James
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Lamont, Norman	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Clarke, C. Goddard	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Cleland, J. W.	Lewis, John Herbert	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Clough, William	Lough, Thomas	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Lundon, W.	Strachey, Sir Edward
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Lupton, Arnold	Sullivan, Donal
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Thorne, William
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)	Toulmin, George.
Cooper, G. J.	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Trevelvan, Charles Philips
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd)	Macpherson, J. T.	Verney, F. W.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Walsh, Stephen
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Craik, Sir Henry	M'Crae, George	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)
Crean, Eugene	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Cremer, William Randal	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Crombie, John William	Masterman, C. F. G.	Whitbread, Howard
Crooks, William	Meagher, Michael	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Money, L. G. Chiozza	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Delany, William	Mooney, J. J.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Wiles, Thomas
Dobson, Thomas W.	Morrell, Philip	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Murphy, John
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)
Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Nolan, Joseph
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.	Bridgeman, W. Clive	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Balcarres, Lord	Bull, Sir William James	Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Cave, George	Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)
Bowles, G. Stewart	Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Hunt, Rowland	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel	Younger, George
Keswick, William	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Mallet, Charles E.	Seaverns, J. H.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Morpeth, Viscount	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)	Mr. Harold Cox and Sir Frederick Banbury.
Nield, Herbert	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Pease, Herbert pike (Darlingt'n)	Valentia, Viscount

MR. BOTTOMLEY moved to leave out lines 24 and 25 of Clause 2. He said the object of his Amendment was to secure that the local authority should not be put to the trouble of making independent investigations as to the ability of parents to pay, but that they should use the facilities offered for this purpose by the machinery of the Boards of Guardians. In such cases the order of the Guardians should be deemed sufficient authority to supply the meals. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 23, to leave out from the word 'authority to the end of the clause, and insert the words 'unless such parent shall be furnished with an order from the guardians of the poor law union in which he resides, authorising the provision of such meals at the cost of the guardians.'"—(Mr. Bottomley.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'and' stand part of the clause."

MR. LOUGH

said the Government could not accept this Amendment, which he felt sure would not be received with favour by the Committee.

MR. F. E. SMITH

called the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the difficulty which would arise if the words after "local education authority" in line 23 were retained, because they would introduce a very grave difficulty in the operation of the Bill. The words he referred to were "in the event of such payment not being made by the parent, the authority, unless they are satisfied that the parent is unable by reason of circumstances other than his own default to pay the amount, shall require the payment of that amount from the board of guardians." The meal had to be paid for by somebody, but if the authority were satisfied that the non-payment was not through a default of the parent they would not be able to recover from the guardians. In that case he wished to know who would pay. Clause 3 provided that "where the local authority are satisfied that, owing to the necessitous character of the area, funds other than public funds are not available or are in- sufficient in amount to defray the cost of the food furnished in such meals they may apply to the Board of Education." Those words "owing to the necessitous character of the area" wore a condition precedent to the application of the rates. On the whole machinery of this Bill, therefore, they were face to face with a contingency which had not been contemplated, and the position could only be dealt with by the clumsy method of a surcharge. Proposals of such a complicated and difficult nature ought not to be brought forward for discussion at half-past eleven on Friday night, and on that ground he moved to report progress.

Motion made, and question proposed. "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. F. E. Smith.)

MR. LOUGH

said he had never heard a Motion to report progress submitted on such an absurd ground. If there was no voluntary fund, the money would have to be provided under the powers given by Clause 3.

MR. JOHN O'CONNOR (Kildare, N.)

said there was a family likeness between all the Amendments on the Paper. The Committee had unmistakably pronounced its opinion over and over again upon the doctrinaire principles which had been enunciated ad nauseam by hon. Members who were moving Amendments. He submitted that in those circumstances the time had arrived when the Chairman might intimate to the Government that they might with satisfaction to the Committee, and with all due regard for the progress of business, use the powers reposed in them for the conduct of the proceedings of the Committee.

* LORD BALCARRES

submitted that it was not the province of any Member publicly to urge the Chairman to direct the Government to use the closure. He warmly protested against the gross breach of propriety on the part of the hon. Member. The Prime Minister was present, and if he thought that was a desirable course to take he would no doubt carry it into effect and move the closure. He protested against the hon. Member trying to dictate to the Chair.

LORD E. CECIL

asked the Government whether they could not devise some other means of disposing of the Bill more in consonance with fair discussion than the attempt to proceed with it now. The merits of the Bill deserved full discussion. It was not the fault of hon. Members on his side that the Bill was being discussed at that hour. He was not saying that it was the fault of the Government, but the Bill was introduced early in summer. Were the resources of civilisation exhausted, and was there no other method of proceeding except by continuing the discussion at twelve o'clock after a twelve hours sitting?

MR. KEIR HARDIE

said the resources of civilisation were not exhausted, and neither were the resources of those who desired to see this Bill become law. The Bill passed the Second Beading unanimously. It might, therefore, be assumed that the House were perfectly unanimous as to the existence of the evil with which the Bill professed to deal. The only question was what means should be taken to secure redress for that evil. The main question running through all the Amendments was whether public or private funds should be used for the relief of hungry children. If it was now twenty minutes to twelve, it was because of the weary reiteration with which hon. Members had said things scores of times without adducing a single new point. Those who professed to be defenders of the Empire should support this Bill, which was designed to make it possible for children to grow up more worthy of the Empire than had been the case in the past.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)

said there were many Members in all parts of the House who were ready to sit up until any hour in order that this Bill should become law. He protested against the wasting of the time of the Committee in discussing Motions for reporting progress, Hon. Gentlemen spoke valiantly earlier in the evening about sitting up all night, and at half-past eleven they wanted to report progress. In the Division Lobby on some of the Amendments they could only muster seventeen. He had had some experience in days gone by of minorities struggling to make their position felt, but he would have been ashamed to be one of seventeen. He hoped the Government would resist the Motion.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said they had been engaged on this Bill since one o'clock until now—that was for eleven hours. An ordinary sitting of the House lasted seven hours, and they were asked to report progress on the Committee stage of a Bill which had passed without a division its Second Reading, and which had been thoroughly threshed out after a long investigation by the Select Committee upstairs. He could not imagine anything more unreasonable than that they should allocate more time on the Bill at this particular stage of the session. As his hon. friend had pointed out, the numbers supporting the Amendments which had been moved varied from only fifteen to twenty-five, and in the whole of his Parliamentary experience he had never known of a small fraction of the House—indeed a small fraction of a Party—asking at the end of such prolonged debate that progress should be reported. What object had they in adopting the tactics hon. Gentlemen had pursued? There was a similarity beyond measure in the Amendments moved, and there must be some reason behind these manœuvres. He himself did not know what it could be. The main principles of the Bill had been threshed out again and again, and approved of by the House; and there had been complete discussion of the Bill in Committee upstairs. If Parliamentary procedure meant anything at all this Bill must be carried through that night at all costs, even against the opposition of a small minority of a small Party in the House.

MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH

said he was not opposed to the principle of the Bill, but he thought that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman which would alter the machinery of the Bill should be fully discussed. He hoped that some amicable arrangement might be come to; and it should be remembered that however small the minority might be, minorities had their right. [An HON. MEMBER on the MINISTERIAL Benches: What about the rights of the majority?]

SIR. FREDERICK BANBURY

said that if the Prime Minister had not sprung the resolution on the House to take this Bill after five o'clock, there would have been a very much larger number of Members

of the Opposition present, and he therefore asked that the right hon. the Prime Minister should re-consider his decision and allow progress to be reported.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 23; Noes, 152. (Division List No. 478).

AYES.
Balcarres, Lord	Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Craik, Sir Henry	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Bowles, G. Stewart	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hunt, Rowland	Younger, George
Bull, Sir William James	Keswick, William
Cave, George	Morpeth, Viscount	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.	Nield, Herbert	Alexander Acland-Hood and
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)	Viscount Valtentia.
NOES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Dobson, Thomas W.	M'Crae, George
Alden, Percy	Dolan, Charles Joseph	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Mallet, Charles F.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh.)	Masterman, C. F. G.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Meagher, Michael
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Elibank, Master of	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Barnard, E. G.	Farrell, James Patrick	Mooney, J. J.
Beale, W. P.	Fenwick, Charles	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexhm)	Ferens, T. R.	Morrell, Philip
Bellairs, Carlyon	Ffrench, Peter	Murphy, John
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)	Fuller, John Michael F.	Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)
Billson, Alfred	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Norman, Sir Henry
Boland, John	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Bottomley, Horatio	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton.	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)
Bowerman, C. W.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Branch, James	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Brodie, H. C.	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	O'Grady, J.
Brooke, Stopford	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Paul, Herbert
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh.)	Hart-Davies, T.	Paulton, James Mellor
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Hayden, John Patrick	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Power, Patrick Joseph
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Higham, John Sharp	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Byles, William Pollard	Hodge, John	Raphael, Herbert H.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Hogan, Michael	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Redmond, William (Clare)
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Hyde, Clarendon	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Illingworth, Percy H.	Rickett, J. Compton
Clarke, C. Goddard	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Cleland, J. W.	Jowett, F. W.	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Clough, William	Kekewich, Sir George	Rowlands, J.
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Runciman, Walter
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Laidlaw, Robert	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W)	Lambert, George	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Lamont, Norman	Seddon, J.
Cooper, G. J.	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Seely, Major J. B.
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E Grinst'd)	Lewis, John Herbert	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Lough, Thomas	Sherwell, Arthur James
Crean, Eugene	Lyell, Charles Henry	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Cremer, William Randal	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk, B'ghs)	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Crombie, John William	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Crooks, William	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Macpherson, J. T.	Strachey, Sir Edward
Delany, William	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Sullivan, Donal
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)	Thorne, William
Toulmin, George	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)	Wiles, Thomas
Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Wedgwood, Josiah C.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Verney, F. W.	Whitbread, Howard
Walsh, Stephen	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)	White, Patrick (Heath, North)

Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. RAWLINSON

said he could "not understand the attitude of the Government. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education stated just before the Motion to report progress that he had got an answer ready to the point which had been raised by his hon. friend, but was allowing the Amendment to go by without giving that answer. He submitted that there was a great deal in the point which his hon. and learned friend had raised, and if the hon. Gentleman would take the advice of any of the hon. and learned Members on his own side of the House he would find that that was so.

Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND

He will be a great fool if he does.

Mr. RAWLINSON

said that any hon. or learned Member on the Government side of the House would agree that the Bill was wrongly drafted at this particular point. The point was a perfectly simple one, namely, that, the local education authority, not being paid the price of a meal, unless they were satisfied that the parent by reason of his circumstances was unable to pay the amount, should call upon the Poor Law unions to recover that amount. In the case of a deserving parent what remedy had the local education authority under the Bill? There was no remedy against a person who by no fault of his own was unable to pay the cost of a meal given to his own child. It was understood, however, that somebody should pay, and the hon. Gentleman said that there might be voluntary funds to come down upon; but equally there might not be, and the local education authority were in that case to pay the cost of the meal and there were no means of recovering the money. He emphasised the point which his hon. friend the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool had made, and he ventured to say that there were no sources from which any voluntary contributions would be forthcoming.

MR. LOUGH

said that if the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated his point more briefly he would have given him a reply to his question at once. If there was no money in the canteen fund and no voluntary fund they would have to fall back upon Clause 3. The money came out of the funds of the canteen committee, and if the canteen committee had not got the money they must take means themselves to put themselves in funds.

MR. F. E. SMITH

thought the Committee would recognise that this was a question of substance. He had hitherto supported the Government on this measure, and the only reason he moved to report progress was that he thought the hour was too late at which they ought to decide so important a question. He thought there was a casus missus in the Bill, and he was satisfied that every reasonable man who looked at the Bill and the Amendment would see that the case raised had not been met. The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Education had been most inadequate. The hon. Gentlemen said that if there was no money in the canteen and no voluntary fund, they could fall back upon Clause 3; but they could not do so, as any lawyer would tell the hon. Gentleman.

MR. LOUGH

said that he had already stated that the words in regard to the necessitous character of the area were unsatisfactory, and that later on he was going to insert other words on the point. He had stated this in the absence of the hon. Member.

MR. F. E. SMITH

said he had been present the entire day. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."] He really did not know why he should be exposed to the discourtesy of an interruption which meant a denial of his word. He repeated that with the exception of an hour and a half he had been in the House or within its precincts the whole day. If the hon. Gentleman had told him when he first raised the point which the hon. Gentleman now appreciated that he intended to amend the words in reference to the necessitous character of the area, he should not have pursued the subject. Now that he was assured that the hon. Gentleman was going to deal with the real and practical difficulty he would not detain the Committee for another moment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. BOWLES moved to insert a proviso to the effect that a statement of all payments due from a parent in regard to meals furnished to his children should be rendered to him weekly. He thought the Amendment explained itself, but the question which it raised would have to be considered. Clause 2 set up extremely drastic and entirely novel machinery under which the parent of any child supplied with a meal under this Bill might be sued for an amount debited against him by the local education authority, and that being so, it seemed to be mere common justice that they should take every means in their power, either in the form of his Amendment or in some other way, to see that a parent was not without notice pursued into Court, and perhaps from Court to Court, in respect of a civil debt for a meal for which he did not ask, which he did not want, which perhaps he did not know was given, and in regard to which no real moral responsibility rested upon him. They were bound to ensure that the person pursued knew that a debt was being incurred week by week, and therefore he suggested that a weekly account should be rendered. It seemed to him most undesirable to go on piling up the account from month to month and then suddenly bring a man before the magistrates. This was a very serious matter indeed, affecting a great number of poor men who might be faced with a large debt suddenly without their knowledge. The Committee must remember that these men could not appreciate the Acts passed by this House, they only knew that their children were being fed, but they might not know that they could be sued for the cost as a civil debt. Unless some provision such as he suggested was made a great injustice would be inflicted upon men who had done no wrong. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 24, after the word 'and' to insert the words 'a statement of all payments due from him in respect of such meals shall be rendered to each parent weekly,'"—(Mr. Bowles).

Question proposed, "That those words be inserted."

MR. LOUGH

hoped the hon. Member, who took a great and friendly interest in this Bill, would not press this small point any further, but allow the Committee to come to Amendments of more importance. The suggestion made with regard to weekly accounts was not a bad one, but it would be great presumption on the part of Parliament even to suggest any such thing. It was a matter which should be left to the local authority, which would, he was sure, do nothing unfair.

SIR WILLIAM BULL (Hammersmith)

said that everyone must be aware that the workman's budget was carefully made up, and it was absolutely necessary that he should know what he had to spend week by week. The landlord and the insurance companies both knew that if they missed calling on a Monday they did not get their money, and trouble resulted between the workman and his wife. It was necessary that the Legislature should lay down once and for all that this money should be paid every week. He hoped the Parliamentary Secretary would accept the Amendment which he had admitted was reasonable and just.

LORD BALCARRES

commented upon the unsympathetic manner in which this perfectly reasonable Amendment had been met. He agreed that it might not be necessary to put it in the Bill, but it ought to have been met more sympathetically. He would not go into the question of obstruction, but in justice to himself and his friends, he must point out that a substantial amount of time had been occupied by hon. Gentlemen not on the Opposition benches, and that the debate had been exacerbated and prolonged by hon. Members below the gangway. Rules should be prepared by the Board of Education and circulated among local education authorities with regard to this admittedly reasonable proposal. He hoped it would not be lost sight of.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

said if the hon. Member in charge of the Bill had given an intimation that something would be done such as had been suggested by the noble Lord there would have been no trouble, but all he had asked the House to do was to discuss some other Amendment. How was a man to know his child was receiving food unless something of this kind was done? Besides which, a working man might not desire his child to receive the food. A child might go to school, see other children receiving food and, childlike, receive it without the knowledge of his father or mother, and then a fortnight afterwards the parents would be presented with a bill which they had never expected and had not provided for. The hon. Member had not answered that point; he seemed to think that the education authority was such an authority that no direction should be laid down to guide it. He wondered that the hon. Member did not bring in a Bill of one clause to say that with regard to meals for children it should do as it liked. Then after a few hours discussion the closure might have been moved and they could have all gone home to bed.

Amendment negatived.

MR. LOUGH moved Amendments providing that in the event of payment not being made by the parent it should be the duty of the local authority to require payment from that parent, and any such amount might be recovered summarily as a civil debt. He said that his object was to get this prolonged and controversial question of the guardians out of the Bill. He thought the Bill would be more simple in the form in which this proposal would leave it.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 24, at the end, to insert 'it shall be the duty of.'"—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

LORD R. CECIL

said he was not quite sure of the effect of the words the hon. Gentleman used when he said that the debt was to be recovered in a summary manner. He wanted to know the effect of those words. He was sorry to trouble the hon. Member, because they had nothing to complain of and much to be thankful for in the invariable courtesy he had shown. He wished he could say as much for others. He sympathized with the hon. Gentleman in this matter because this was a matter of pure administration, and he had not a single legal member of the Government to assist him. He had neither the Attorney nor the Solicitor General, the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Secretary of State for War, neither had he the assistance of the President of the Board of Trade, and even the Prime Minister had gone to bed. Another question he wished to put to the hon. Gentleman was, would he not throw on the local education authority the duty of making inquiries as to the means of the parents? That was, he took it, no part of the general duty of the education authority, and if it were imposed on it would it have sufficient machinery at its disposal under existing circumstances to carry out the duty?

MR. JOHN WARD

said it was well known to parents who had children in attendance at elementary schools that the educational authorities had very elaborate machinery for making inquiries. A child was not away from school for many hours before an inquiry officer was on the spot. He soon found out the ages of the children, and the means of the family, and all this information was collected at the present time in a most methodical manner. In his opinion, therefore, they were the proper people to make the investigation.

MR. LOUGH

said he could not help smiling when the noble Lord with all his legal experience questioned him as to the legal effects of this provision. He surely better understood these matters than a mere layman. He could not assure the noble Lord that in very recalcitrant cases imprisonment might not follow, but he could tell him that the result of inquiries was that the school attendance officer would be quite as well able to discharge these duties as the guardians.

SIR WILLIAM BULL

Will the proceedings be in the police court or county court?

SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: The police court.

* MR. CAVE

said it was unfortunate that those who took a real interest in the Bill should be called upon to discuss it at that late hour. He was not opposed to the measure in principle, but he thought it was a great mistake to throw upon the education authority the duty of collecting these small sums from parents. Hon. Members would remember that originally the education authority was charged with the duty of collecting the school fees. It was an odious and difficult task, and it was partly owing to that that the system of fees was ultimately abolished. He thought it was a thousand pities now to impose on the authority a similar duty; and he was satisfied that the result would be that the Bill would shortly require to be amended. Could they not adopt a totally different plan—say one of prepayment? In any case he held the view that it would be better that the education authority should be entitled to recover the whole amount in default by precept from the guardians, who, if they deemed fit, should have the right to sue individual parents.

* MR. BRIDGEMAN

said the Prime Minister, before he left the House, told them they ought to pass the Bill through quickly, because it had been thoroughly thrashed out by a Select Committee. But this particular Amendment went entirely behind the decision which the Select Committee arrived at. They came to the conclusion that it would be better to leave this duty to the Board of Guardians; now an exactly opposite proposal was being made, and the Government must expect to have it fully discussed. Could not the Minister in charge of the Bill give some better explanation of the reasons for the change? He thought it would be an extremely bad thing for the education authority to have this unpopular duty placed upon it.

* VISCOUNT MORPETH

complained that hon. Members around him were subjected to continual interruptions by hon. Members who would not take the trouble to discuss the Bill properly.

THE CHAIRMAN

I hope the noble Lord will be good enough to confine himself to the Amendment.

* VISCOUNT MORPETH

said he and his friends had been charged with obstruction, but he himself had voted for an Amendment which would give the sole charge of this matter to the education authority and would not bring the guardians on the scene. But while he was seeking to explain his reasons, he was interrupted in a most unmannerly manner.

MR. CROOKS

On a point of order. If we make remarks either of approval or disapproval, we are continually reprimanded by hon. Members above the gangway. If we are to be accused of unmannerly interruptions I can promise hon. Members a lively time.

THE CHAIRMAN

That is not a point of order.

MR. J. WARD

Is it in order to describe an hon. Member's attitude in this House as unmanly and unmannerly, and is it also in order to say we have no knowledge of the Bill?

THE CHAIRMAN

There has been a great deal of interruption. I do not think the word "unmanly" was used in the sense of "cowardly," or I should have declared it an unparliamentarily expression. "Unmannerly" is not out of order.

* VISCOUNT MORPETH

said it might have been a fault of pronunciation on his part, but he did not use the word "unmanly." He described the interruption as "unmannerly." He had been claiming for himself that he had not discussed this question in a factious or obstructive spirit. He intended in this case to support the Government proposal, but at the same time, he would point out that it would throw an extra burden on the attendance officers, the staff of whom would probably have to be doubled in some districts. With the continually growing expenditure on education, the Government should take into consideration the increased cost which this Bill would involve, and should facilitate the work of the authorities by making some extra grants to meet the extra charge the Government were imposing upon them.

LORD BALCAEEES

recognised there was a difficulty about the Amendment. It was an Amendment which no doubt might appear simple on the face of it, and possessed most desirable aspects from certain points of view. But really the question was not merely one of transferring from one authority to another the responsibility under this Act. The consequences might be much more far-reaching. He thought anyone who was acquainted with the work of education committees knew there was no local government work in which there was less friction between officials and parents in regard to the payment of fees. That had been swept away and practically the only remaining ground of friction, which was extremely rare, was in the case of insistent non-attendance of the child at school. He supposed it was no use appealing to the Government between now and the Report stage to alter the matter, but they were re-introducing the police court and the possibility of imprisonment for anyone who did not pay up for these meals. That was a great danger, and would either end in decreased administrative educational efficiency, or, what was equally serious, a, determination on the part of the local education authority to refrain from asking for payment for the meals. In either sense there was an element of danger.

MR. HAROLD COX

said this was a very serious matter, and it lay at the base both of the Select Committee's Report and the recommendation of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration. The Inter-Departmental Committee declared most emphatically that the children should not be made the subject of experiment without the concurrence of the Poor Law authorities. The Committee considered that by the combination of the Poor Law authority with the education authority, the community might be protected from the consequences of the somewhat dangerous doctrine that free meals were a necessary concomitant of free education. Yet the Government were now proposing to do away with the concurrence of the Poor Law authority. He feared the result would be that in a very few years these meals would be absolutely free.

MR. WALSH (Lancashire, Ince)

believed the Government had proposed the most effective way of getting payment from the parents who were able to pay. If there were one thing upon which the House was agreed it was that the particular authority who performed this special work should be charged with the duty of collecting the money. The area of the poor law authority was not at all coterminous with that of the local education authority, and meals might be provided by a particular local education authority, and yet the duty of collecting the money might be thrown upon another authority that had no effective or direct or indirect control over the matter. Labour Members had been taunted with remaining quiet, but to every reasonable argument that was put forward they were willing to give the most serious attention.

Amendments proposed— In page 2, line 26, to leave out the word shall,' and insert the word 'to.' In page 2, line 2, leave out from the word 'from,' to end of line 11, and to insert the words that parent, and any such amount may be recovered summarily as a civil debt.'"—(Mr. Lough.)

Amendments agreed to.

SIR WILLIAM BULL moved an Amendment to prevent a parent from being committed to prison for any default of payment of the cost of meals supplied to his children. This was a very modest proposal, and he hoped the Government would accept it.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, after the words last inserted, to insert the words 'provided that under no circumstances shall a parent be convicted for default in payment of any sum under this Act."—(Sir William Bull.)

Question proposed, "That those words be then added."

MR. LOUGH

said he hoped the hon. member would not press this Amendment. There was no possibility of a committal unless it was proved that the parent had means and would not pay.

MR. RAWLINSON

said that apparently the hon. Member was under the impression that these proceedings would be taken in the County Court, because he said that imprisonment could only take place in case it was proved that a man had means and would not pay; but that was not the case. Surely it was a small concession to prevent a parent being imprisoned for such a trifling matter.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said this was a point which ought to be made quite clear. Evidently lawyers were not agreed upon it, and the hon. Member in charge of the Bill had not given a satisfactory definition. He trusted that their doubts would be set at rest by some words being added which would ensure that no parent could be imprisoned for non-payment of this charge.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S. W.)

said the conditions under which a person was proceeded against in a civil case were exactly the same as in the

County Court, because they had to prove that when the order for payment was made the person had the means to pay. The procedure was just the same in both cases.

MR. NIELD (Middlesex, Ealing)

thought this was a very proper Amendment to make. He was quite sure that the proposal which had been made was the only one that was reasonably practicable. Although in theory the orders made in a Court of summary jurisdiction and in a County Court were supposed to be founded upon ability to pay and refusal to pay, yet in practice it was very different. At the present time the onus of proof was upon the person who was seeking to commit the debtor to show that he had the means to pay, but that was not so under this Bill.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 22; Noes, 126. (Division List No. 479.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.	Hunt, Rowland	Talbot, Lord B. (Chichester)
Balcarres, Lord	Jowett, F. W.	Thorne, William
Bowerman, C. W.	Keswick, William	Valentia, Viscount
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.	Macpherson, J. T.	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Cooper, G. J.	O'Grady, J.	TELLERS FOR THE Ayes—Sir
Crooks, William	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn)	William Bull and Mr. Glaude Hay.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Seddon, J.
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
NOES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Higham, John Sharp
Alden, Percy	Cox, Harold	Hills, J. W.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)	Hodge, John
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Crean, Eugene	Hogan, Michael
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Delany, William	Hyde, Clarendon
Barnard, E. B.	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Illingworth, Percy H.
Beale, W. P.	Dobson, Thomas W.	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexh'm)	Dolan, Charles Joseph	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Bellairs, Carlyon	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Laidlaw, Robert
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Lambert, George
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Lamont, Norman
Boland, John	Elibank, Master of	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Branch, James	Farrell, James Patrick	Lewis, John Herbert
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Fenwick, Charles	Lough, Thomas
Brodie, H. C.	Ferens, T. R.	Lyell, Charles Henry
Brooke, Stopford	Ffrench, Peter	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh.)	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Fuller, John Michael F.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)
Byles, William Pollard	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	M'Crae, George
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Gulland, John W.	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Gwyna, Stephen Lucius	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Clarke, C. Goddard	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Masterman, C. F. G.
Clough, William	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Meagher, Michael
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Hart-Davies, T.	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Corbett, C H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)	Hayden, John Patrick	Mooney, J. J.
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Rickett, J. Compton	Walsh, Stephen
Morrell, Philip	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)
Murphy, John	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Rowlands, J.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r	Runciman, Walter	Whitbread, Howard
Nield, Herbert	Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Norman, Sir Henry	Seely, Major J. B.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid	Sherwell, Arthur James	Wiles, Thomas
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Paul, Herbert	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Younger, George
Paulton, James Mellor	Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.)
Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Sullivan, Donal
Raphael, Herbert H.	Toulmin, George
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Redmond, William (Clare)	Verney, F. W.

MR. LOUGH

said the hon. Member for Blackpool had given notice of an Amendment, but as the hon. Member was not present he would move the Amendment. If he approved of an Amendment he was always ready to support it from whatever quarter of the House it came.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 11, at end to add 'and the local education authority shall pay over to the school canteen committee the money so recovered, or such portion thereof as may represent the cost of the food furnished by the committee to the child, in respect of whom the payment is made.'"—(Mr. Lough.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed.

Clause 3: —

MR. JOWETT moved the omission of the words requiring the local education authority to be satisfied as to the "necessitous character of the area," and the substitution of words entitling any of the children attending an elementary school to receive meals if they were unable by reason of lack of food to take full advantage of the education provided for them. There would be a difficulty in getting local authorities to declare that their respective areas were necessitous ones. He had known instances where there had been distress which demanded exceptional measures in the localities, but there had been hesitancy on the part of the community, especially in commercial districts, to admit that they were in such a state. The words of the clause would perhaps prevent any town in England declaring itself a necessitous area.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 12, to leave out from the word 'authority,' to the word 'funds,' in line 13, and insert the words 'resolve that any of the children attending an elementary school within their area are unable by reason of lack of food to take full advantage of the education provided for them, and,'"—(Mr. Jowett).

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

MR. F. E. SMITH

said this Amendment would completely meet an objection which he raised on an earlier stage of the Bill.

MR. LOUGH

said the Amendment met a promise which he made at an earlier stage, and he accepted it. He admitted that the words in the clause were unduly restrictive, and that they would apply to London and many other large areas in which the necessity might not be general.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 25, to leave out from the third 'the,' to end of clause, and to insert the words 'parish or parishes which, in the opinion of the council, are served by the school.'"— (Mr. Lough.)

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

opposed the clause on the ground that it was wrong to allow public money to be spent for this purpose. It had been argued that as the rate to be charged was only one halfpenny in the pound the obligation put on the ratepayers was not onerous. He did not care for the purpose of his argument whether the rate was onerous or not. There was a principle involved, and he did not believe that the ratepayers should be called upon to contribute to the keeping of other people's children when in many cases the parents were able to provide for them themselves. Parental responsibility should be strengthened and not weakened. He believed it would be weakened once they gave power to the local authorities to provide food for children out of the rates. They could not stop at a halfpenny rate, for it would not be sufficient to provide the funds which would be required under the Bill. If they once admitted the principle they would be embarking on a very dangerous course. In the future, people, whether they were able to maintain their children or not, would say not only that they should have their education free, but that their children should be provided with food. That was an attitude which ought not to be encouraged. Moreover, if this principle were carried out, it would encourage young people of nineteen or twenty to marry although there was very little prospect of their having

permanent employment. There was another point, viz., that this would be a direct inducement to employers to lower wages; and that, in the end, would affect all classes of the community.

MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH

said that so far as he understood the clause, it dealt with those cases in which there was not a sufficient supply of voluntary funds. What he wanted to know was whether they were to rely on the rates for the cost of the meals, or on the funds which were placed at the disposal of the local education authority by this House. He himself understood that the local education authority was not to use the funds voted by this House for the purposes of this Act

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, that is so.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 132; Noes, 17. (Division List No. 480.)

AYES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Fenwick, Charles	Masterman, C. F. G.
Alden, Percy	Ferens, T. R.	Meagher, Michael
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Ffrench, Peter	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Mooney, J. J.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Fuller, John Michael F.	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Barnard, E. B.	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Morrell, Philip
Beale, W. P.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Murphy, John
Beaumont, Hn W. C. B (Hexham	Gulland, John W.	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Bellairs, Carlyon	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r)
Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo	Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)	Norman, Sir Henry
Boland, John	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Bowerman, C. W.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Branch, James	Hart-Davies, T.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Brodie, H. C.	Hay, Hon. Claude George	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Brooke, Stopford	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Grady, J.
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J.T. (Cheshire	Higham, John Sharp	Paul, Herbert
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hodge, John	Paulton, James Mellor
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Hogan, Michael	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Byles, William Pollard	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hyde, Clarendon	Raphael, Herbert H.
Clarke, C. Goddard	Illingworth, Percy H.	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Clough, William	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Redmond, William (Clare)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Jowett, F. W.	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Rickett, J. Compton
Cooper, G. J.	Laidlaw, Robert	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)	Lambert, George	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Lamont, Norman	Rowland, J.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemonth)	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Runciman, Walter
Crean, Eugene	Lewis, John Horbert	Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)
Crooks, William	Lough, Thomas	Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Seddon, J.
Delany, William	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)	Seely, Major J. B.
Dobson, Thomas W.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B)
Dolan, Charles Joseph	Macpherson, J. T.	Sherwell, Arthur James
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Edwards Clement (Denbigh)	M'Crae, George	Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)
Elibank, Master of	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Farrell, James Patrick	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Sullivan, Donal	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton	Wilson, V, T. (Westhoughton)
Thorne, William	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Toulmin, George	Wedgwood, Josiah C.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Trevelyan, Charles Philips	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Verney, F. W.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Walsh, Stephen	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent	Wiles, Thomas
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex, F.	Cox, Harold	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Balcarres, Lord	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Valentia, Viscount
Bowles, G. Stewart	Hills J. W.	Younger, George
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hunt, Rowland
Bull, Sir William James	Morpath, Viscount	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.	Nield, Herbert	Frederick Banbury and Sir
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel	Henry Craik.

Clause 4:—

* MR. BOWLES

said he wished to move an Amendment, the object of which was to provide that where a parent had failed to pay the amount demanded under the Act he should not be entitled to exercise the privilege of the franchise. This was a matter to which he attached very serious importance, and he was sorry that it was necessary to raise it at that late hour. The principle for which he was contending was one which he believed up to that moment had been universally accepted in this country, namely, that where a man accepted public charity, as for instance where a man allowed his children to be fed at the public expense, that man should not be in a position to vote for the continuance or possible increase of those favours at the hands of the public. That was a simple and intelligible position. What was the alternative? It was that in the future in this country alone, of all the countries of the world, it was to be solemnly decreed that a man might accept public charity and yet be a party by his vote to continuing to impose the burden of his own private expenses upon his fellows, and upon the community. He really felt surprised that in a British House of Commons it should be necessary to ask for more than a passing consideration for a principle of this kind. Unless the principle which he had indicated were adhered to, they would be wilfully and with their eyes open conniving at the creation of a great privileged class-a class living at the public expense and upon public charity. Yet in spite of that, they were under this Bill to have the power of giving a vote in order that the charity upon which they lived might be continued. He earnestly hoped that the Government, even at that early hour of the morning, and at the fag end of the session, would give serious consideration to the subject before they infringed a principle upon which he believed the self-respect-to put it no higher-of the great masses of the population of this country depended

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 27, to leave out from the word 'child, to the word 'shall' in line 29."—(Mr. Bowles.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. LOUGH

said the case was not so simple as the hon. Gentleman suggested, as there were many exceptions to this rule of disfranchisement, and if there were not he thought they would be bound to make an exception in this case. The tendency in these days was not to impose these restrictions. The rules of the Bill were very strict; the proposal would be a great hardship that a man should be disfranchised for such a trivial matter as this, especially seeing that in some cases the child might be fed without the consent of the parent. The Bill provided that the parent should be pursued and the Committee had discussed the matter very fully. Certainly he would disfranchise parents convicted of cruelty, but he thought that, on the whole, the Committee would feel that the provisions of the Bill were quite stringent enough, and were in accordance with any precedent which existed.

* MR. HAROLD COX

felt with the hon. Member opposite that this was a very serious matter. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite spoke as if the franchise was a right, but he denied that in toto. A man might have a right to govern himself, but he had no right to govern his neighbour. The franchise gave a man the power to govern his neighbour, and deal with his neighbour's money. That was a privilege, not a right, and if a man failed to discharge the primary duty of feeding his own children he was not worthy of that privilege of ruling over his neighbours. In other words, he was not worthy of the franchise.

SIR HENRY CRAIK

said that if a man did not fulfil the primary obligation to feed his children, the Financial Secretary to the Board of Education urged that he should not be deprived of the franchise. If that was the view of the Government, and of the Committee, he was sure it was not shared by the great bulk of the working men of the country. They would certainly have to express their conscientious convictions by voting against this proposal, which was, in his opinion, degrading and insulting to the working men of the country, and that it was illogical was shown by the fact that while we did not condone a man's failure to feed himself, it was proposed to condone his failure to feed those who wore dependent upon him.

MR. ROGERS

said the clause meant that, if a man was unable to pay when on some occasion a meal of bread and milk was given to his child at school, he should not be disfranchised. He cordially agreed with the clause, and thought that it was a fair one. He considered that it would be a monstrous thing to disfranchise under such circumstances. He instanced the case of a woman who was the breadwinner for the family. [Cries of "She has no vote."] She had a municipal vote. It was monstrous to propose to disfranchise her because her child received a cup of hot milk at school, and to take away from her the power of influencing the appointment of parish officials.

SIR FREDERICK BANBUEY

said the more provision of the meals did not disfranchise, and the Amendment of his hon. friend was, in his judgment, less drastic than the clause itself. Therefore he did not care whether they voted upon the Amendment of his hon. friend or upon the clause. To disfranchise a father for the provision of a meal would he admitted be rather hard, but his hon. friend had proved that it was only in the case of failure to pay that disfranchisement should follow. For his part he thought this was the most vital part of the Bill. He did not believe that it was advisable to allow a man who had received money from the State or from the rates to vote. The Government however were going to pub power into the hands of people who had no property and who had received help to vote for a proposal that they should receive more money. Yet they spoke about bribery and corruption! They passed Acts of Parliament against those offences, and if a candidate took a sovereign out of his pocket and gave it to a voter he was penalised. This proposal was far and away beyond anything of the sort. [Ironical cries of "Shocking."] It was all very well to talk about "shocking," but they had had revelations at West Ham and Poplar which he considered shocking. He contended that either the carrying of this clause or the rejection of this Amendment would load to a great deal of corruption. People of the class concerned who had a vote would be given the idea that the only object of the vote was to get what they could instead of its being the duty of the elector to do his best for his country. Under these circumstances he was prepared to vote either for the Amendment of his hon. friend or against the clause whichever they decided to do.

Amendment negatived.

MR. BOWLES moved an Amendment extending the limitation of the clause to the case where the local authority is satisfied that the failure of the parent to pay is due to his own default. The man he was after was the man who accepted charity for his child when he could pay and would not, and where it was obvious that the education authority was aware of it. That was the man whom this House ought not to afford any protection to or afford any excuse for. He submitted that this Amendment was a moderate and reasonable one. They did not want these blackguards and defaulters to have a vote. Any man who refused to pay when he was able to do so was a miserable scoundrel, and he ought not to be allowed to vote. He hoped the Government would receive the Amendment in the spirit in which it was moved. It was actuated by a desire not to interfere with or infringe the merits of the Bill but to safeguard its operation. He begged to move:—

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 33, after the word 'furnished' to insert the words 'or unless the local education authority is satisfied that the failure of the parent to pay the amount demanded under this Act is due to his own default'"—(Mr. Bowles.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. LOUGH

said that this Amendment was even more impossible than the last. The hon. Member, having had some experience, knew the difficulty attaching to the fact of not knowing at a particular moment whether a man had a vote or not, and how it affected even members of this House. It was necessary that such a matter should be clear, and this Amendment was not at all clear. Who could prove whether the local education authority was satisfied even if the man was brought before them? There was a good idea at the bottom of the hon. Gentlemen's suggestion, but the Amendment was not framed in accordance with what were called "terms of art." He could not accept it, because it would not work.

LORD R. CECIL

said the Committee was indebted to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he had raised the spirits of the Committee. Although the speech was unimpeachable in its tone it was not so in its argument. The hon. Gentleman admitted that the Amendment was admirable in substance; that the underlying idea was excellent, but because it was not clothed in what the hon. Gentlemen called "terms of art" the Government must reject it That was an illuminating statement, but he would point out that the Government sometimes took a different view and, when they considered an Amendment was improperly drafted but right in principle, they said that they would take care that something was done on Report. It was quite clear that when a man was sued for non-payment for his child's dinner, and it was proved that the non-payment was not due to want of means but to a perversity of spirit, the man ought not to be allowed to exorcise the franchise. He suggested that the hon. Gentleman should consult those excellent advisers that were some- where at the disposal of the Government and see if the Amendment could be clothed in "terms of art."

MR. LOUGH

said he was surprised when he saw the Amendment on the Paper that it had not been taken in hand by the hon. Member for Kensington or the hon. Member for Oxford University and clothed in terms of art. A man might make default quite innocently and quite consistently with his ability to pay. Did the hon. Gentleman suggest that a man who made default through inability to pay, was to be disfranchised? If the hon. Gentleman had asked one of his legal friends, they would have given this Amendment some of those terms of art that would have saved it from being absurd. A more meaningless, absurd, and ridiculous Amendment had never been put upon the Paper.

MR. JOHN O'CONNOR

said the education authority had no criminal jurisdiction at present, but it was proposed by this Amendment to place in their hands the power of inflicting a penalty upon a person who might innocently make default in payment. He hoped he had succeeded in pointing out a defect in this very artless Amendment.

MR. BOWLES

thought the hon. and learned Member had a little misunderstood the effect of the Amendment. He had said it would have the effect of converting the education authority into a court of law, and that that would be a ridiculous thing to do, but if so then it was a ridiculous thing which the Bill had already done. He would like to direct the hon. Member's experienced attention to Clause 2, which provided that the local education authority, before a parent could be charged at all for any meal, had to be satisfied that the parent was able to pay, or unable to pay by some reason not of his own default. The hon. Gentleman had declared that default was perfectly consistent with innocence, but the default which his Amendment contemplated was not so consistent.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."

LORD E. CECIL

asked what was the exact meaning of the last part of the clause. Why should conviction and service of a sentence involve disfranchisement. It appeared to him that the scheme of the clause was that mere failure to pay for a child's meals would not disqualify a man from voting, even if that failure were due to his own default. But if in addition to that and of the qualifying period he was convicted of cruelty to or neglect of the child, he was to be disqualified. He did not see why that should be so. Under the ordinary law, if a man had been convicted but had not served his sentence he was disqualified, but surely if he had served

his sentence and expiated his crime he ought not to be disqualified.

MR. LOUGH

said he could not quite understand the point raised by the noble Lord, but he would undertake to look into the matter before the Report stage.

MR. RAWLINSON

doubted if there was any necessity for the clause at all.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 133; Noes, 15. (Division List No. 481.)

AYES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	O'Grady, J.
Alden, Percy	Gulland, John W.	Paul, Herbert
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Paulton, James Mellor
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Barnard, E. B.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worestr)	Raphael, Herbert H.
Beale, W. P.	Hart-Davies, T.	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B (Hexham)	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Redmond, William (Clare)
Bellairs, Carlyon	Hayden, John Patrick	Richards, T. E. (Wolverh'mpt'n)
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Higham, John Sharp	Rickett, J. Compton
Boland, John	Hodge, John	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Bowerman, C. W.	Hogan, Michael	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Branch, James	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Rowlands, J.
Brodie, H. C.	Hyde, Clarendon	Runciman, Walter
Brooke, Stopford	Illingworth, Percy H.	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T(Cheshire)	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Jowett, F. W.	Seddon, J.
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Seely, Major J. B.
Byles, William Pollard	Laidlaw, Robert	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Lambert, George	Sherwell, Arthur James
Clarke, C. Goddard	Lamont, Norman	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Clough, William	Lewis, John Herbert	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Lough, Thomas	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Lyell, Charles Henry	Smyth, Thomas F. (Letrim, S.)
Cooper, G. J.	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Sullivan, Donal
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Macpherson, J. T.	Thorne, William
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Toulmin, George
Crean, Eugene	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Crooks, William	M'Crae, George	Verney, F. W.
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Walsh, Stephen
Delany, William	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Masterman, C. F. G.	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)
Dobson, Thomas W.	Meagher, Michael	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Dolan, Charles Joseph	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Mooney, J. J.	Whitbread, Howard
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	White, J. D. (Dumbartons hire)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Morrell, Philip	White, Luke. (York, E. R.)
Elibank, Master of	Murphy, John	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Farrell, James Patrick	Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw)	Wiles, Thomas
Fenwick, Charles	Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Ferens, T. R.	Norman, Sir Henry
Ffrench, Peter	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)
Fuller, John Michael F.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.	Bridgeman, W. Clive	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Bull, Sir William James	Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)
Bowles, G. Stewart	Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.	Cox, Harold
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir
Morpeth, Viscount	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Henry Craik and Mr. Younger.
Nield, Herbert	Valentia, Viscount

Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

Clause 5:—

Amendments proposed— In page 2, line 38, after the word 'borrowing,' to insert the words 'and as to the manner in which the amount which would be produced by any rate in the pound is to be estimated.' In page 2, line 39, at end, to add the words 'and to the estimate of the produce of any rate in the pound for the purposes of this Act.' 'In page 2, line 39, at end, to add the words '(2) Any expression to which a special meaning is attached in the Education Acts, 1870 to 1903, shall have the same meaning in this Act.' In page 2, line 39, at the end, to add the words, 'except that for the purpose of this Act the expression shall include any child in a public elementary school.'"—(Mr. Lough).

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:—

Amendments proposed— In page 3, line 1, to leave out from beginning, to the word 'no,' in line 3.' In page 3, line 3, after the word 'teacher,' to insert the words 'seeking employment or employed.' In page 3, line 6, to leave out from 'meals' to end of clause."—(Mr. Lough)

Amendments agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

DR. MACNAMARA

said they agreed unanimously upstairs that regulations should be made by the Board of Education so that no teacher should be required to give up the mid-day rest to assist in the provision of the meals, although many teachers did it voluntarily with great pleasure. They also agreed that it was desirable that the ordinary school rooms should not be used for the purpose of serving the meals, but the latter provision had now been struck out, and he understood the reason was that in a small country school the stipulation would prevent meals being provided. He hoped, however, the Parliamentary Secretary would give an undertaking that regulations would be issued that meals should not be served in the ordinary school rooms in the large schools of towns.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

said there were large schools in which the meal took the form of bread and milk in the morning, and in such cases there could be no objection, but soup and so on at mid-day ought not to be served in those school rooms.

MR. LOUGH

said the reason for leaving out sub-section (b) was substantially as stated by the hon. Member for North Camberwell. He would not promise that regulations should be issued because "regulations" had a technical meaning; but the point the hon. Gentleman wished to secure undoubtedly would be attended to by the Board of Education. The reason for leaving out sub-section (b) was that there were ample powers to see that no damage was done to any room in which teaching was conducted, and those powers would be put into operation if necessary.

MR. WEDGWOOD (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

said he would like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with sub-section (a) as he had dealt with sub-section (b) and reserve the matter for regulations rather than make statutory provisions. He had no desire to penalise teachers, but as the subsection stood it would have a limiting effect for all time. He wanted the Board of Education to retain the power, if necessary, to require teachers to serve these meals, which very often consisted merely of bread and milk, in which case it seemed to him essential to leave it in the power of the Board to require the teachers to assist. In many country districts it would be impossible to apply the Act without the services of the teachers, and there would come a time when these meals would be more or less universal.

THE CHAIRMAN

The question I have put is that this clause stands part. The hon. Gentleman seems to be dealing with an Amendment to the clause which is not now in order.

MR. WEDGWOOD

said he did not want the clause to stand part because it would mean that the Board of Education would not be able to compel the teacher to assist in this matter. The time would come when mastication and manners would be in the syllabus and it was just as well that they should arrange for it beforehand.

Clause 7—

Amendments proposed— In page 3, line 11, after the word 'Scotland,' to insert,—(a) 'Scotch Education Department' shall be substituted for 'Board of Education."' In page 3, line 12, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words 'shall be recoverable as if such amount were a sum or sums of aliment within the meaning of The Civil Imprisonment (Scotland) Act, 1882, 'shall be substituted for the words 'may be recovered summarily as a civil debt.' In page 3, line 12, to leave out from the word 'authority,' to the word 'and,' in line 14. In page 3, line 17, after the figures '1893,' to insert the words 'the Education (Scotland) Acts, 1897 and 1901,' and 'The Education of Defective Children (Scotland) Act, 190b'."' In page 3, line 17, at the end, to add,—'(b) the amount which would be produced by a rate of one halfpenny in the pound shall be estimated in accordance with regulations made by the Scotch Education Department.'

SIR HENRY CRAIK

said these were very grave and far-reaching proposals. He wished to point out to the Committee what was involved. There were in Scotland voluntary schools and rate supported schools. Did the hon. Gentleman perceive that, under the proposals he was now making, he was giving the school boards in Scotland the power to contribute for the purposes of this Bill to voluntary schools? That was an absolutely new point, and was certainly a matter which ought not to pass sub silentio at this late hour.

MR. EUGENE WASON (Clackmannan and Kinross)

said he had remained in attendance all these hours to see that the Bill was applied to Scotland. So far as giving assistance to voluntary schools was concerned, speaking as a Liberal Member, he had no objection whatever, and he did not see why in regard to this Bill they should not have the same facilities as the board schools. This was not a matter of religious opinions, but simply a Question of feeding the children, and therefore the voluntary schools were entitled to the benefits of this Act just as much as any other schools.

Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR

said he approved most heartily of what the hon. member for Clackmannan and Kinross had said. He thought all hon. Members would be ready to associate themselves in the general desire to feed the children of the poor no matter what schools they happened to be in.

Mr. YOUNGER (Ayr Burghs)

said he thoroughly agreed with what had been said by his hon. friend opposite. He was associated in his constituency with some of the voluntary schools and up to the present moment had been somewhat afraid that voluntary schools in Scotland would have been shut out from the advantages of the Bill. He was very pleased indeed to learn that this would not be the case.

Amendments agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed— "That the Clause as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir HENRY CRAIK

complained that the application of this Bill to Scotland had not in any way been discussed in the House. When the matter came before the Select Committee a full opportunity was offered of hearing evidence from Scotland, but a proposed to restrict the number of witnesses came not from the Opposition but from the Ministerial side. The members of the Opposition wore ready to listen to any amount of evidence from Scotland. Only four witnesses were brought from Scotland, and they wore the Chairman of the Glasgow School Board, the Chairman of the Edinburgh School Board and another member of that body, and also an independent gentleman who was a relative of the hon. Member for Leith Burghs. Every one of those witnesses expressed opinions adverse to the application of this Bill to Scotland. The Edinburgh School Board had petitioned against the Bill, and the Glasgow School Board had done precisely the same thing. The Bill was inapplicable to Scotland, but at three in the morning it was proposed by a single clause to apply it to that country. If his colleagues in the representation of Scotland thought that fair treatment, he could not agree with them. It was an absurdity to say that in the application of the Bill to Scotland "school board" should be substituted for "local education authority." The local education authority was a great municipal body elected on a thoroughly popular franchise to deal with a vast variety of subjects of which education was only one. The school board dealt with nothing but education, and it was elected on the cumulative vote which most people thought required revision. Was that the body to which they were prepared to hand over the important duties under the Bill? The duties were entirely alien to those which the school boards had hitherto performed. They were to be taken away from the bodies administering the Poor Law. The term "public elementary school" was entirely unknown in Scotland, and at the last moment they were told that a new definition was to be introduced. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that this would lead to serious complications He would be surprised if Scottish Members opposite were not prepared to lift their voices against this method of conducting Scottish business. The application of the Bill to Scotland was contrary to the whole of the evidence laid before the Select Committee, though the Committee had by a small majority decided to include Scotland. He for one protested against the proposal.

* MR. McCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)

said he rose because he did not wish the Committee to think that the hon. Member had expressed the opinion of Scotland. He had listened with amazement to the speech, for after all the Bill was really initiated in Scotland. The present agitation was set a going by the recommendations of the Royal Commission on which the hon. Member and himself had the honour of sitting. He would remind the hon. Member that he had then agreed that the preparation and cooking of these meals when it was found necessary ought to be regarded as one of the charges incident to school management, and yet the hon. Member now stated that Scotland did not wish such a Bill. He did not know whether the hon. Member would say that he spoke for the working classes of Scotland, but if he would go and address a meeting in any part of Scotland he would find whether he would be supported in the view which he had stated.

* MR. GULLAND (Dumfries Burghs)

, said that the best answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow University was that the Bill was optional, and that school boards who did not want it were not obliged to put it in force. There were some school boards who did wish the Bill. At any rate the application of the Bill to Scotland would draw the attention of people to the subject of the feeding of school children, and they would organise means, either by subscriptions or by the application of the rates, whereby poor children would be attended to better than they had been in the past. It was true that Edinburgh School Board decided against the original Bill by 11 to 2, but on the amended Bill the numbers were changed to 9 against 5. A large minority of Glasgow School Board had petitioned in favour of the unamended Bill. This question had been described as a controversial one. He hoped that when it was taken out of the way by the passing of this Bill there would be a clearer field to carry out the real educational reforms which Scotland wanted.

MAJOR SEELY (Liverpool, Abercromby)

reminded the hon. Member who moved the omission of the clause that he himself sat on the Commission which established the fact that 30 per cent. of the children in many of the districts of Edinburgh were through under-feeding incapable of receiving physical training. The Committee had seen a good deal this evening of the opposition of the overfed Member to the under-fed child. He only rose to say that the opposition was even more unjustifiable as applied to Scotland than as applied to England.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

said that the fact that working class opinion in Scotland was in favour of the Bill was shown by petitions from the Trades Congress and the trades councils of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Leith, Dundee, Aberdeen, and Ayrshire. He was told that five members of the School Board of Glasgow desired to give evidence before the Committee upstairs, but were prevented from doing so. He mentioned these facts because it was said that there was no opinion in Scotland behind the Bill.

SIR HENRY CRAIK

said the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division had thought it proper and consistent with good taste to refer to him as one of the overfed members; he could only say—

MAJOR SEELY

I wish to explain that the hon. Gentleman was not of those to whom I referred as overfed.

SIR HENRY CRAIK

said there were some hon. Members who had been sitting in the House since noon on Friday. They were glad to think that the hon. and gallant Member had fared more sumptuously than themselves. He had been asked by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh how he could reconcile his present action with the Report he signed in common with the other members of the Royal Commission. He could only say that what he and his friends advocated in the Select Committee was precisely on the lines of what he had advocated here to-night. The Royal Commission distinctly drew the "line at food, and that was the answer he wished to make to the hon. Gentleman opposite.

Clause 8: —

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. HAROLD COX

said that as this Bill had nothing whatever to do with education, he suggested that it should be described as the Pauperizations Bill.

* DR. MACNAMARA

said, as a man who had worked many years for the principle of this Bill, he wished to thank the Labour Members for having taken this Bill up and especially the Member for Westhoughton for having given it 'his place in the ballot; the Government for having given time for the consideration of the Bill; and also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education for so ably conducting it through Committee during the last fourteen and a half hours.

* MR. KELR HARDIE

said that he and his friends appreciated very much indeed the way in which Members in all parts of the House had exerted themselves to get this Bill through; and he was sure that he expressed the opinion of all his friends when he said that he appreciated the genial humour with which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary had piloted the Bill through Committee.

Bill reported; as Amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 306.]'