HC Deb 13 July 1910 vol 19 cc469-514

Postponed Proceeding on Question proposed, on consideration of Question, "That a sum not exceeding £8,664,677 be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including Grants for the Building of New Public Elementary Schools and sundry Grants in Aid,"—[NOTE.—£5,400,000 has been voted on account.]

Which Question was, "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £100, in respect, of the salary of the President of the Board of Education."

Question again proposed. Debate resumed.


I quoted from a document just before the discussion was interrupted by Private Business, and I was not aware at the time that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield was the author of it. It is full of valuable information, especially as regards the actual increase of expenditure. When the discussion was adjourned I was saying that although we all are agreed upon the principle which provides free places in secondary schools for a certain number, we are not all agreed as to the propriety and rigidity of the rules applied by the Education Department. I think it would have been the most natural and best course to pursue, when looking for those elementary school children who were fitted for secondary schools, to find out how numerous they were. As to the ratio of existing secondary school accommodation, it differs enormously in various localities. It would, I should have thought, have been much preferable to have made a choice of districts and not lay down a hard and fast rule of 25 per cent. There are many secondary schools where money might have been spent in enlarging secondary education, so as to provide adequate scholarships, and even travelling scholarships, for those elementary boys who would make a good use of the secondary course, even if such authority should go outside their own district. No inquiry was made as to what proportion of elementary children could with advantage proceed to the secondary schools. The Board laid down a hard and fast rule of 25 per cent. of the total number of pupils admitted during the previous year. That is a point I should like to urge for reconsideration by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Education Department. If there is any unfit pupil in a secondary school he inflicts a double loss on the school. In the first place, he keeps out another boy who might be fit, and, in the second place, he certainly tries the tempers of the scholastic authorities, and, in the third, he is himself deserving of great pity, because he is in a position for which he is absolutely unfitted and for which no amount of secondary education would probably ever fit him. Originally established by the late President of the Board of Education, this rule was understood to mean that a quarter of the number of pupils at one time attending the secondary schools should be the proportion. This rule as at present interpreted is not at all the same thing. The parent's inducement to remove the child if he is not making progress is actually greater if the fees have to be paid. These cases increase, and in some instances become an incubus, educationally and financially, on the school. In some schools especially I believe, the number of free-places has amounted to 40 or 50 per cent. That would be a very great charge on an old grammar school with a decreasing income from tithes, as many of us know takes place at the present time. Against that it is laid down that a free-place is tenable for an indefinite time, unless the boy is so idle or undisciplined as to require expulsion; but I understand that the authorities are forbidden to warn him and commanded to inform the parents of the limitation of their powers as to the withdrawal of a boy. I submit it is casting rather a slur upon the headmaster and the authorities of the school to require that, and it looks as if the Board would not trust the headmaster or the education managers any further than they could see them. I quite understand that originally it was thought necessary to lay down this hard and fast rule of 25 per cent. I have no doubt means should be taken to prevent the elementary school children from obtaining places in the grammar school, for which they are not fit. I am perfectly aware of the argument, and I have no doubt there was a leaven of suspicion in the minds of the education authorities. For my own part, as governor of a grammar school, I must admit that I find no deterioration in the elementary school children who are admitted. We get them so young that they benefit from the society in which they mix, and we certainly have never suffered from their admission. On the contrary the class of boys who are admitted to many of the grammar schools reflect the greatest credit on the elementary schools from which they are sent. I should be very glad indeed if the right hon. Gentleman would give any indication of the possibility of reconsidering the 25 per cent. He will see, as we have, that the gradual increase in the number of free places has already crippled and diminished the income of the secondary schools, and it must tell very heavily upon them. I should be sincerely glad if he will see his way to consider the whole subject, in view of the very generous and honest way in which the grammar schools, especially when in receipt of the Grant, have endeavoured to carry out the wishes of the Board.


I rise to emphasise greatly the point so well made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in reference to the enormous increase of expenditure from local rates upon education, while at the same time there is no proportionate increase—in fact, an actual diminution—of the Grants received from the Imperial Exchequer. I hold in my hand a circular issued by the Association of Education Committees, which is a very large and representative body, who put their case, I think, very fairly and clearly. Making a comparison between the Government Grants received before 1902 and since 1902, it shows that since the advent of the Act of 1902 the proportion contributed by the central Exchequer has actually diminished, in spite of the enormous increase in the local expenditure. The Government Grants in 1902 represented 61 per cent, of the total expenditure on education, whereas in the year 1908–9 the Government Grant only represented 49 per cent. of the total expenditure, a considerable reduction from the previous Government Grant. In the years 1907–8–9 the expenditure increased by £750,000, whereas the income from the Imperial Exchequer diminished by £250,000. That is to say you increased the burden during those three years upon local ratepayers by something like £1,000,000. That increase has come, broadly speaking, from two sources. You have first new legislation. It is a very curious thing that this Parliament has seen fit to impose such important work as medical inspection of children and the feeding of school children without making any provision to assist the local authorities, who have this large sum of money to find. Though this is beneficent legislation and legislation which I voted for, and should vote for again, yet strictly speaking it is not educational work. What it amounts to is this, that when you get no increased funds from the Imperial Exchequer, you have to put those new burdens upon the already overburdened local ratepayers, and it means that in order to feed the school children and carry out the work of medical inspection, you must actually reduce some of your expenditure upon the work of education. I hope something will be done, especially in view of the speech delivered by the President of the Board of Education to-day, a speech, if I may venture to say so, which will be read with great interest by all educationists in the country who see it in to-morrow's paper, and a speech which shows breadth of outlook, real interest in the work of education and which, I venture to say, will stimulate to enthusiasm all those who have been working for many years without much encouragement in this most excellent work.

In addition to the additional cost by reason of the new legislation, the President of the Board has also done a great deal towards increasing our local burdens by the acts of his own Department. I do not quarrel with any of those Orders that have been issued from the Board, or with any of those new circulars upon educational requirements. It is certainly desirable to reduce the size of the classes. It is certainly very desirable that everything should be done to promote the efficiency of the schools, and that there should be more air space, better accommodation, and better school buildings. But the President of the Board of Education, when he was issuing those Orders, should, I submit, have some regard to the cost. It is an extraordinary thing that when you go to the President of the Board of Education and point out to him the extra expenditure involved by this very desirable policy of his, his reply is, "I have nothing to do with the cost; you must settle with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All I am concerned about is a sound educational policy." Then he gets into a corner and says, "Do you disagree with the circular? Are you in favour of my policy?" You say, "Yes," and then he says, "What are you wasting my time for? If you agree with it, why come here? I have nothing to do with the cost; go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer." If you are a simple, trusting person you, perhaps, go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and you point out to him that you want more money because of the policy of the Board of Education. He says, "Go to the President of the Board of Education; it has nothing to do with me He prescribes his policy; he must find the money." That interesting pro- cess of Spenlow and Jorkins may proceed from one Department to another until finally you go back home, and if you are chairman of an education committee you may have to apply for police protection.

That is the condition of things in the education world. I do not understand that doctrine. I thought a Cabinet was one and indivisible; I imagined that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Education were identical persons, as far as policy is concerned. I thought that the Prime Minister took the responsibility for the whole business, and that if the Cabinet agreed upon these matters, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is asked to find the money, which the President of the Board of Education needed for educational efficiency, that of course it was instantly forthcoming. I do not feel inclined to accept the explanation which has been given, and the local authorities are not inclined to accept it. They are really anxious to do this work; they are enthusiastic in desiring to improve the schools; they want continuation classes; they want improved secondary schools; they want better trained teachers; they are prepared to go in for medical inspection, the feeding of children, and for the whole progressive programme; but you must find them the money or, at least, a fair proportion of the cost. I respectfully suggest to the President that he should have this matter out with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that if they cannot agree between themselves they should refer to the Prime Minister to take the responsibility. We ought not to be told when money is needed for a purpose of this kind, and when the policy of the President of the Board of Education requires additional expenditure, that he cannot obtain money from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not a passive resister, but I believe that the local education authorities before long will take up the policy of passive resistance. I do know from my own experience that in many districts town councils have said to the local educational authority, "We will not grant a single penny for extra expenditure on the question of education. We have reached our limit, and if you have got to spend more money in one direction you must diminish expenditure in another."

The President of the Board gave the total figures this afternoon of the expenditure upon education in the country. I think those are very moderate figures. When I consider our expenditure in other directions I wonder that we grudge £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 extra for education purposes. It does not become a Member for a Sheffield constituency to suggest that you should not spend money for armaments, and if I were to suggest that I would lose my seat, but I do say this, that relatively to its importance upon the community you cannot afford to spend so much money upon armaments and to spend so little money upon education. There must be some sort of proportion in your expenditure. I do not agree with an hon. Friend who spoke this afternoon of so much of this money as being wasted on educational purposes. I believe our education funds are very wisely and economically spent. I do not think the inspectors are wasting their time. I do not think the official of the Department is a superfluous person. I believe we are excellently served both by the officials of the Education Department and the inspectors, and I do not speak without some little acquaintance with the administrative work. I think we ought to he entrusted with more money. When I contrast our educational system with those of our competitors abroad, when I realise and appreciate how much depends on the maintenance of our commerce and the extension of our trade and the well-being of our Empire from thoroughly trained, well-equipped manhood and womanhood, I think we are niggardly and parsimonious to a degree in our educational expenditure.

I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have given us three or four million extra this time from the Imperial Exchequer. I do wish that the President of the Board of Education would take a determined stand and would insist on having the money to carry out his policy. I am satisfied that anybody who heard the President this afternoon would realise that the schemes he has in his mind are sound schemes, and that there is elasticity and vigour and energy in the policy of the Department. Though I support that policy, and though I wish to offer my tribute of praise to the work that the President is doing, I have this very emphatic quarrel with it, that he does not find us enough money. Unless he is able to obtain from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a sufficient sum of money to relieve the overburdened ratepayers, educational work must come to a standstill, and that, in my judgment, would be a national disaster. I do hope and trust that the President of the Board of Education will not allow himself to be deluded by this Spenlow and Jorkins doctrine, and that we will not hear more of these specious excuses, but that in the future he will accept joint responsibility with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Cabinet, and find the money that we need to carry on our policy of education.


I would like to refer to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, particularly with regard to his comparison of the amount spent on education and the amount spent on naval expenditure; also with regard to the amount spent by this country and by neighbouring rival countries, such as France and Germany. I would insist upon the point which he brought forward, and try to show the vital importance to this country of this matter, not so much, perhaps, in the way of elementary education as in the higher education; and I will show in how far and greater a degree higher education is fostered by neighbouring rival countries. I listened with great attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, and I also took occasion to read a speech which he delivered last April. That speech was a speech almost entirely of detail. It was a speech dealing with such questions as construction, and school places, almost to the exclusion of every other topic; so that before I got to the end of that speech I was fain to inquire: "Is this the utterance of the great field marshal of education, or is it a discourse of a carpenter and joiner?" Today, I must say, his speech covered a greater variety of topics, but even then it was remarkable for leaving out what is perhaps the most vital interest of education, the dominant interest—education in its higher reaches. The arrangements of this country compare very unfavourably with France and Germany. To point the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, I will recall an article which appeared recently in "The Times" newspaper, a newspaper with which we on these benches are not always in agreement, but whose remarks on this occasion I heartily endorse. The article dealt with a very practical issue of education, namely, the immense educational facilities given by France and Germany, particularly the latter, to enormous engineering works which have been of the greatest practical utility. The "Daily Mail," referring to this matter, says:— Mr. Selby Bigge sets out to discover the reasons for the paucity of work in so many of our large electrical and other engineering works, when compared with the remarkable activity in most American, German, and other Continental works during the same period. And the pith of the whole article may be expressed in one phrase which I find here:— Germany is ruled by experts. We have the sporting and they have the scientific spirit. The article ends very judiciously by saying:— Let us try a judicious blend of both. It was asked, where are the funds to come from? That precisely was the point touched upon by the hon. Member for Sheffield. There is a perfect orgy of spending funds on naval construction. We spend money very well in elementary education. But for higher education, which should be the outcome of it, and which is most educative in the most practical sense of the word, the funds peter out. Shipbuilding and naval construction runs up to over £13,000,000. Education is hardly more. Technical education is put down at £556,000. That seems large, but it is not large comparatively. It is very small compared with the immense Budget of this country. Let me compare it for instance, with a little country like Switzerland. We have £556,000 set apart for technical education in this country. Switzerland, with a Budget of about £1,600,000, allots no less a sum than £150,000 for technical education—and, of course, it derives a corresponding benefit. Again, this sum which is allotted to technical education is not allotted to technical education in the sense which gives a real stimulus, and helps to make it a vital technical education. The greater part of that sum really goes to the mere upkeep of museums. Here again I would call the attention of the Committee to an article by a very competent authority, Sir Ray Lankester, one of the greatest men, I venture to say, of this century, and one whom this Government has left out of employment. When there was a danger of the services of Lord Kitchener not being made use of by the nation there was a great outcry, and a berth was promptly found for him. But if we could see things in their proper perspective, and appraise the relative value of things, I think we would come to the conclusion that the services of a man of great intellect, great learning, and great intellectual activity might be equally well sought for as well as those of a great leader of armies. Sir Ray Lankester in an article on museums makes this complaint:— Thousands, even millions of pounds have been expended on the building of musenms, on the purchase of specimens, on cases and cataloguing, and … that all these make the museums mere repositories. He compares this use of museums with the use made of museums in countries like Germany and France. This again is an extremely important question which might be left to the consideration of the President of the Board of Education. Sir Ray Lankester is greatly distinguished as a biologist. He has a great interest in these great biological museums. I notice the very small and inadequate sum set down in these Estimates for biological research. There is nothing equivalent in this country to the immense stimulus given to biological research by France and Germany; nothing like the biological museum established by the French Government at Roscoff, which attracts students not only from France, but from every part of the world.

I must just, in passing, say a word or two about Art. That comes within the category of the Estimates of the President of the Board of Education. It seems, usually, ridiculous in a Debate upon education even to speak upon art in this country. All these millions spent on naval construction! on elementary education! and we find set down for Scottish Art £1,000 and for Irish Art £1,000. That is equivalent to saying, to bring the matter down to something concrete and specific, that if a man had an income of £3,000 a year, and was thus living in comparative affluence, if he followed the example set by the President of the Board of Education, he would spend £1 1s. per annum on scientific education, and about 6d. for artistic refinement. £1,000 for Scottish Art! I do not know whether there are any Scotsmen here listening to me who are satisfied with that. I am reminded of the passage in Carlyle, in his wonderful "Sartor Resartus," where he begins:— A second man I honour, and still more highly: Him who is seen toiling for the spiritually indispensable; not daily bread, but the bread of life. Is not he too in his duty; endeavouring towards inward harmony; revealing this, by act or by word, through all his outward endeavours, be they high or low? Highest of all, when his outward and his inward endeavours are ours: when we can name him Artist; not earthly Craftsman only, but inspired thinker, who with heaven-made Implement conquers Heaven for us! After Carlyle has written that we have £1,000 for Scottish art! Shades of Carlyle, shades of Bobbie Burns, of Walter Scott, of Wilkie, and traces of McWhirter now living. One thousand pounds for Scottish art! This is the little feeble tallow candle lighted in a corner to illumine the vast expanse of our civilisation. I have insisted on Scottish art although it is on exactly the same plane as Irish art.


The hon. Member has already wandered far from the subject under discussion, which is the salary of the President of the Board of Education.


I shall endeavour to conform, Sir, but the President of the Board of Education has control over and directs the expenditure which gives impression and colour to the whole question of education in this country.


He does not control either Irish or Scottish art.


Very well, then, I will come to scientific matters, and I think the indictment weighs still more heavily against the right hon. Gentleman in regard to science. Higher education is so important in this country that I can only apply to it the phrase which Renan applied as far back as 1867 to the Germans. He said:— It is the university which makes the school. What won the victory of Sadowa was German science. What was true in 1867 was true in 1870, and what was true in 1870 is true in 1910. The Germans have recognised the immense advantage to their nation of encouraging in every possible way education in its highest reaches.

The French in 1870, after that disastrous blow, saw that their weakness was a defect of higher education, and, even reeling under the staggering blow of 1870, they set about to strengthen their nation, and, though paying off an enormous indemnity, they placed large and increasing sums in the hands of the Ministers for the cost of higher education. They increased their five millions francs to nearly eight millions in 1867. Jules Ferry increased it again, and in 1884 Waddington almost doubled that sum. These sums are enormous when compared with the sums allocated year by year for higher education in this country. I would illustrate the immense direct importance of it by one story that is well known to scientific men, and that is the story of the discovery of the aniline dyes. The discovery was made, it is said, by an Englishman named Perkins, but the trade was begun in Germany. As a matter of fact, though it was discovered by an Englishman, it was turned to the advantage of Germany by such men as Gay-Lussac, Berzelius, Wöhler, and Hoffmann. The great discovery of the aniline dyes, owing to the advance of science in Germany, gave the advantage of that discovery to the Germans, who built an immense and lucrative trade upon the results. The other day, in order to test in how far scientific education was encouraged in this country as compared with Germany, I looked up a German book called Virchow's "Jahresbericht der Fortschritte der gesammten Medizin," which simply means Virchow's "Year Book of Progress of all Medical Science." Medical science is a very definite and concrete thing, which comes within the scope of the Board of Education, and I find for every name of an Englishman contained in this book there are thirteen Germans.


I must remind the hon. Gentleman we are discussing the Education Estimates for the present year, and any Debate raised ought to be connected with the work which the Education Department is doing, or may do, during the current year. Only one day is allowed for that discussion, and I must invite the hon. Member to come to some practical point.


I will come to a practical point. The Germans have recognised the necessity of science, and have got all the advantages accordingly. But now to come to the practical point, I would appeal to the President of the Board of Education to continue scientific research, and I would make a special plea in favour of bacteriological research, and if it is necessary to narrow that further I would make a plea in favour of bacteriological research in so far as it has regard to combating tuberculosis, and to be still more definite I would make a plea in favour of that bacteriological research in regard to tuberculosis, which is being carried on at the eminent institution, St. Mary's Medical School, by Sir Almroth Wright, and with such splendid results. I believe that on 31st July there will be published a schedule of Grants of various medical schools, and I believe it is the intention of the President of the Board of Education to include amongst, those medical schools St. Mary's Medical School, and I urge on him to pay particular regard to the splendid and magnificent work, which certainly compares with anything that is being done in France or Germany, that is being done at that school. That work is being starved for lack of money. There we have a very definite and specific case, and certainly it is enormously important. I conclude with that point, and I ask the President of the Board of Education to very specially direct his attention to the splendid work done by St. Mary's Medical School, and I hope he may be able to give it a generous donation.


I beg to thank the President of the Board of Education for the promise he made this afternoon of the further Grant for necessitous school areas, and I trust he will not consider some of us too inquisitive if we press him for a little further information. We would like to know if the additional Grants which he hopes to make will include those twenty-one areas which are at present excluded from the receipt of any special Grant. We would like to know in other words whether Clause 4 of the Regulations which govern the present special Grant is going to be deleted or not. Of course, we all recognise that the time for a general reorganisation of all the Exchequer Grants in aid of elementary education is very much overdue. We also recognise that the special Grant which he has promised to extend today was originally intended to be quite of a temporary nature, but so long as that Grant is being continued we earnestly hope that all the authorities which comply with the Regulations originally laid down will have some share of the same. What was desirable or necessary four or five years ago is equally desirable, and in fact, more desirable at the present time, for whilst there has been an actual diminution in the Imperial Grants there has been a great increase in the services that are demanded from local authorities. This is particularly true of the services that are being demanded by successive Ministers of Education and successive Acts of Parliament, which come particularly under the rule of the Education Department. I do not think any Gentleman in this House will disagree with most of the Acts of Parliament, which have caused additional expense to local authorities during the last few years. We all believe in better school accommodation, in the feeding of school children, in the medical inspection of school children, and in the better staffing of the schools, but still we all recognise this means more and more money for local authorities, and this additional expense presses very hardly upon the poor and necessitous districts for which we have been pleading during the last three or four months in this House. We neither justify nor do we criticise this special Grant. All we say is that as it exists it should be administered in a just and equitable manner, and we are indeed glad to know from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that there is some chance of this being done in the immediate future.

Under Clause 4 some twenty-one areas are at present excluded from the receipt of any money under this Grant. If these twenty-one areas be included, it means a further expense of something like £20,000 per annum, but during the last four or five years the expenditure has increased so much that the £200,000 originally set aside to provide three-quarters of the excess expenditure over a rate of 1s. 6d. is short by something like £72,000, so that if we have an additional Grant of £140,000 I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find he has made some sixty or seventy areas in this country particularly happy. We press for this additional expenditure because we believe the money will be well spent, and because we believe this money is spent, not upon a local, but upon a national service, for of all the services of the country at the present time the most important, we believe, is the care and the education of the school children.


I wish to associate myself with what has fallen from hon. Members opposite, who have expressed regret that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education did not in his interesting speech allude to the subject which the Committee, and probably the country, most wishes to hear about, and did not say anything in recognition of the fact that for the last three or four years the Government has been placing burdens upon the shoulders of the education authorities without contributing anything at all, and for which they have made very little calculation as to the cost. I do not approach this subject as a ratepayer or as a Member of an education authority, but simply as one who wishes to see educational progress. I am perfectly sure there cannot be any educational progress until the Government recognise that the burdens they are placing upon the shoulders of the ratepayers of the country with regard to education are absolutely intolerable.

I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to certain unjustifiable and, I think, very absurd inequalities in the Grants which the Board of Education give to different parts of education. For instance, as far as I know, there is no reason why a teacher of handicrafts should rank below a teacher in the elementary schools, but whilst towards the training of a teacher in the elementary schools the Government gives no less than 58 per cent. of the cost, towards the training of a teacher in handicraft the Government only contribute 7 per cent. of the cost. There is also the training of a teacher in domestic economy. The Committee will agree, I am sure, that one of the most important and most useful spheres of educational activity is to train up the future wives in this country to provide decent homes for their husbands. Yet, while the Government contributes 58 per cent. of the cost of training elementary teachers, they only contribute something less than 10 per cent. towards the cost of training teachers in domestic economy, of which the supply is very bad at the present moment. The result is that a great many schools of domestic economy have ceased to exist. The schools at Birmingham, Norwich, and Shrewsbury have ceased to exist, and the London County Council have been forced to advise the discontinuance of the Northern Polytechnic. The Battersea Polytechnic is also in difficulties. They find that, whereas it costs £71 for the two years' training of a teacher in domestic economy, the Government only give £6 16s.

Again, there is the subject of technical education. It is a well-worn truism to say that if our workmen have to compete against the highly educated and skilled foreigner, they must themselves be highly skilled and educated. Thank goodness, there are still a great many trades where artistic and highly technical skill are of the utmost value. Some of the more progressive educational authorities, notably the London County Council, to meet this undoubted need have started some excellent day schools, where some very good work is done, for boys and girls. These schools are maintained at considerable sacrifice not only on the part of the educational authorities, but on the part of the pupils themselves, because they have to give up earning wages for two years. The educational authorities find these classes are extremely expensive to staff and to equip. Although the secondary school is not so expensive to equip, the highest amount of Grant that a pupil in one of these technical classes can earn is £3, whereas a pupil in a secondary school can earn £6.

I also wish to refer to the unsatisfactory progress which is being achieved in our evening schools. It is true that there has been an increase of 2 per cent. in attendance during the last year, but according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education there has been of children below the age of fifteen an actual decrease. The consultative committee on continuation schools estimated that the population between the ages of fourteen and seventeen amounted to 2,000,000; but of those 2,000,000, 1,500,000 never enter school either day or evening. We have often wondered why there is so much casual labour in this country as compared with foreign countries. There is, however, ample evidence in the reports of commissions, consultative committees, and other bodies, to show that there are evil influences which are not only inimical to the welfare of the children, but absolutely forcing them to graduate in the casual labour market. My opinion is that education is more or less a failure simply and solely because we do not carry it far enough. You have only to look at the figures of recruiting. No less than 74 per cent. of the recruits are not equal to standard four; of those 74 per cent. 43 per cent. are equal only to standard three, and 13½ per cent. are absolutely illiterate. That proves that a great deal of the money spent on elementary education is absolutely wasted. Personally I do not believe we shall ever level up this school education or do our duty by the rising generation until the Government takes its courage in both hands and enacts that attendance at evening schools shall be compulsory, and that employers of labour shall give time off to enable the children to attend those schools.

10.0 P.M.

Another point is in reference to Labour Exchanges. For some months the Exchanges have been registering children and supplying them to employers of labour, but as far as I know very few advisory committees have been set up. That delay is no doubt due to the negotiations between the Board of Trade and the Board of Education. Unfortunately the impression has got about that the object of the Labour Exchanges is not so much the welfare of the children as to "put up a good score." Perhaps that impression is unfounded; but I should like to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman an emphatic declaration that in these advisory committees the educational and not the industrial influence shall be paramount. I should also like an assurance that he will insist that in connection with every advisory committee there shall be paid organisers and paid investigators. Seventy thousand children leave school every year in London. London, I believe, is to be divided into twelve districts. It is quite obvious that to put upon voluntary workers the duty of placing 600 children every year is too much. It is an absolute necessity that there should be at least one paid organiser or worker for this work. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to make these advisory committees as efficient as anybody could wish. But unless they can be made satisfactory, I think we had better not have Labour Exchanges at all for placing boys and girls. Really, there is no necessity for them, as employers are only too anxious to snap up the children. Unless the advisory committee has statutory powers to insist that sweating employers shall not have the boys and girls, I think it would be a great mistake to spend the money of the taxpayers in doing harm to the rising generation.


Reference has been made by previous speakers to the relationship of the rates to Imperial Grants. It is often contended that it makes no difference out of which pocket the money comes. I would point out, however, that those responsible for education in municipalities, unless they are aldermen, have every third year to appeal to the electors, and if the rate is an increasing one, as it must be where you have efficient administration, these men are put up to be shot at by those who call themselves economists. Many of the most active spirits in municipal life have been driven out simply because of their desire for education and the advancement of the children. The municipalities will be pleased that the Education Minister has been able to induce the Cabinet to extend the period for the purchase of schools from thirty to fifty years. Municipalities have long felt a grievance on that matter, and I am glad that it is to be removed. The question I wish particularly to refer to this is. Parliament has laid upon municipalities and educa- tional authorities increased work, and where you have medical inspection and treatment most efficiently done, not only do the municipalities suffer in respect of the cost, but also in respect to the Grant. They have not only the heavy expenditure, but they are heavily penalised. Prior to 1903 the Code Regulations permitted that when a child was absent through illness it should not count as absence, but that a mark should be given, and allowance made therefor in the matter of the Government Grant. Since then that has been removed. You now have medical officers inspecting the children. If there is the slightest suspicion of measles, not only is the child in question removed, but those that have come in contact with that child are also removed. The result is that those absences tell against the school. If the medical officer chooses to close the school entirely there is no loss of the Grant. The President referred to Bradford. I have some very interesting figures bearing on this point from Bradford. They show that in the provided and non-provided schools there was a loss during last year because of different complaints—chicken pox, mumps, and so forth—of 36,436 attendances. That is the number as reported week by week from the schools. If a child is absent two weeks or more he will be reported each week, and so included twice or more in the above figures. My point is that each one of those cases tells against the Grant so long as this absurd system of giving Grants according to attendance is continued. Not only that, but they suffer in another way. When children are medically examined, the doctors sometimes find defective vision. It is very necessary that the eyes of the children should be carefully watched. Many children have, through neglect, suffered through life because of the strain on their eyes. Then cases of deafness are found. No sooner are children removed, and the attendances lost whilst the complaints are being attended to, than the Board comes along and refuses the Grant. What I want to ask the President to consider is whether he should not allow these cases to be specially marked. Very often there are the most cases in those towns where administration is most efficient, and I want the President to see that those schools and towns should not be penalised as is the case now for efficient administration.


I think the President of the Board of Education will take away from this Debate a strong impression as to the necessity for some readjustment of the imperial and local aid given to our schools in order that there may not be too strong a feeling against progress in educational matters on the part of the members of the local authorities. No one could have heard the interesting speech which the President of the Board of Education made without fully recognising the great weight of responsible duties which now falls upon the Board of Education and the difficulty of the many problems with which the Board have now to contend. If I venture to criticise any action of the Board I am sure it will be realised that it would be very strange if their activity, wide as it is, were not open to some criticism, and the President will recognise that what I say I say in no partisan spirit nor in any unfriendly spirit to the President or to the able experts who support him. I am quite certain that if the Board were freer than it is from political pressure it would still better respond to the educational needs and requirements of the country.

Mention has been made of the progress of technical education. I have had some experience of technical education, and I think it is very satisfactory to note that there is no part of the Report which has been issued by the Board in which progress is more marked than in the branch of the Board's work bearing upon technical education, whilst at the same time there is no branch which is freer from political and religious controversy. I am very glad to know that the co-operation which has taken place during the last few years between the Board of Education and the City and Guilds of London Institute—the pioneer of technical education in this country—has been attended with most excellent results. I think the President is a little pessimistic in suggesting that the students are not able, in consequence of their work during the day, to make satisfactory educational progress in evening classes. That is, of course, true as regards young students, and it is a very great advantage that manufacturers and other employers of labour throughout the country are beginning to realise the necessity of allowing their young apprentices to leave their work at an earlier hour in order that they may attend continuation classes. It is very satisfactory to note that in the higher technical classes which have been registered by the City and Guilds of London Institute during the last ten years the number of students attending these evening classes has increased from 34,000 to over 50,000. Those classes are held in the higher branches of technical knowledge, and are quite independent of classes in applied science and science generally under the Board of Education. But the number of students in those evening classes is not as great as it might be, and their ability to profit by the education they receive is less than it would be if their preliminary education were based on more practical lines. It is certain that all is not well with our elementary education at the present time. Complaints are heard from merchants and manufacturers that the boys who come to them are not as well grounded with elementary education as they might be expected to be. This is not wholly due to the fact that children leave school at too early an age. That is, I admit, far from being satisfactory, and I very much hope that increasing facilities will be given to enable children to remain at school till a later age than at present.

It is also not entirely due to the absence of proper facilities for continuation classes. We have heard in this Debate something as to the necessity for making attendance at evening classes compulsory. There is a great deal to be said for and against that. I am not now going to argue that point. But I feel quite certain that the children who come from our elementary schools would remember what they have learned for a very much longer time, and be better able to take advantage of any further instruction that they may receive if the education now given in our elementary schools were more practical and better fitted to adapt them to the occupation in which they are likely to be engaged. May I refer the House to the well considered judgment of the Poor Law Commissioners on this subject. They distinctly state that the education in our public elementary schools should be made less literary, and better calculated than at present to adapt the child to its future occupation. This serious indictment is made more than once in the Report of the Poor Law Commission. They recommend a thorough reconstruction of the curriculum—as well as of the aim and ideals of elementary education. The Board of Education themselves recognise the necessity of some fundamental change in the spirit of our elementary schools. I notice in the prefatory memorandum to the Code of 1907 it is stated that the Board are carefully considering the question of developing all forms of manual instruction in the curriculum. And in the memorandum attached to the Code of 1908 they also discuss the question, and say that at present they are not in a position to deal with the matter except by arranging for a Grant to be paid to a strictly limited number of experimental classes. Surely this is a very poor conclusion for the Board of Education to arrive at with respect to the recommendation of the Poor Law Commission. Why are not the Board in a position to deal with a matter which they themselves regard as urgent? Why do they simply offer a special Grant to a limited number of experimental classes which may make application? A thorough reconsideration of the curriculum as well as of the aims and ideals of our elementary school system certainly seems to require more active consideration than it has yet received on the part of the Board of Education. That is the first question which I desire to put to the President of the Board of Education.

I would just like to say a few words with regard to our secondary schools, to which reference has been made by other speakers. I must own that I have always had some misgivings as regards the policy on the part of the Board of Education in endeavouring to link up our elementary and secondary schools, and I should like to say at once, to disarm any criticism that may be made by Members on the other side, that I am completely in accord with those who recognise the justice, the necessity, and the national importance of giving full opportunity of development to the highest educational level to the ability of all children in whatever class or strata of society they may be found. But I feel in doing so we must also consider in giving that education the chance of enabling the children by means of it to obtain remunerative means of living. I notice in the introduction to the Board's Code it is stated that:— One of the objects of the elementary school is to discover individual children who show promise of exceptional capacity and to develop their special gifts. I would ask whether the ordinary examination by means of which the children in the elementary schools are selected is a means of discovering "individual children who show promise of exceptional capacity," and who have "special gifts," and I would ask, further, whether in the ordinary secondary schools as organised in this country there is any opportunity afforded by which such special gifts, even if they are discovered, can be properly developed? I cannot help thinking that the Board of Education adopted these Regulations without sufficient consideration, and it is satisfactory to know that we cannot blame the present President of the Board for having introduced these Regulations with regard to secondary schools. They were introduced by his predecessor, the present First Lord of the Admiralty, but I very much wish that the Board of Education, in considering the above way of linking up our elementary with the secondary schools, had given some consideration to the methods adopted in foreign countries, and I should say particularly in France. I venture to say that there are no workmen more intelligent, resourceful, inventive, and artistic than the French workmen. I would say, further, that there is no country in which education is organised on more democratic lines than in France; and, further, that in no country are better facilities afforded for the training, the formation and development of ability and talent wherever found. As regards the inventive powers of the French workman I need only refer to the early history of the motor car, the submarine, and the aeroplane.

In these French schools, into which the children from the elementary schools are drafted in much larger numbers than is proposed by the Regulations for the secondary schools in this country, the education is on distinctly practical lines. Boys and girls have the opportunity of developing any artistic abilities or constructive power they may possess. The curriculum is absolutely practical in every way, and, moreover, children who show great literary genius have the opportunity of being drafted from their elementary school into the secondary school, where there is every opportunity for this genius to be properly developed. These schools hold such a high position in the French system of organisation that the heads of commercial houses send to the headmasters asking them to supply boys and girls from those schools. There is no difficulty whatever, owing to the practical character of the education which the children receive, in finding at once employment when they leave the school. Can the same thing be said of the secondary school into which a large percentage of the children from our elementary schools are now drafted? I think I gathered from the statement of the President of the Board of Education that, out of 158,000 children now receiving instruction in State - aided secondary schools, 50,000 occupied what are called free places, and 15,000 entered under the Regulations recently issued by the Board of Education. I should very much like to know whether this large number of children, who are being educated in our secondary schools as now organised, are certain to find employment when they leave the schools. I should like to ask in what way a boy's chance of employment in commercial work is likely to be improved by learning that smattering of Latin which he will obtain in the few years in which he is being educated in the school? I quite agree with the hon. Baronet (Sir William Anson) that some secondary schools should give a sound classical education, and I should like to see Greek also introduced into some of the schools, but I very much doubt whether the children of the elementary schools would be better able to find employment when they leave school if they devote a year or two to acquiring a smattering of Latin or of Greek instead of learning science, mechanical drawing, and a knowledge of their own language which will enable them to write it with precision and accuracy.

But what are the Regulations of these secondary schools? Encouragement is given to the teaching of Latin and Greek. A curriculum including two languages other than English, but making no provision for instruction in Latin, will only be approved when the Board is satisfied that the omission of Latin is to the educational advantage of the school. That is a very good regulation, but although it may be for the educational advantage of the school, I very much doubt whether it is to the educational advantage of those particular children who are drafted into that school, and will afterwards have to seek employment in commercial or industrial houses. What is still more worthy of notice is that the very fact of encouraging the teaching of Latin has prevented, as the Board state in their Report, the teaching of German to the same extent as previously. Personally I cannot help thinking that a knowledge of German even would be of more use to boys drafted into these schools from our elementary schools than a knowledge of Latin. It must be remembered that this Regulation was due to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir W. Anson). When the Regulation was adopted it was not suggested that the scholars should be sent into these particular secondary schools. If the Board had considered the position in France or Germany I am certain they never would have adopted this Regulation. In Germany there are schools of the highest possible grade, which enable a youth to remain until he is eighteen or nineteen years of age and then to pass into one of the higher technical institutions, in which no Latin or Greek is taught, but where the education is arranged on such practical lines as to enable those who take advantage of the instruction given in these institutions to proceed at once into commerce or elsewhere. The French people tried the very experiment which we are now trying in the secondary schools at the expense, I fear, of the children sent there for further education. In a very able report written on the French schools, M. Martel, that distinguished French educationist, says:— If, by too theoretical an education, such as our masters are now giving nearly everywhere, we induce these children (most of whom are already inclined that way by the mistaken pride of their parents) on leaving school to swell the already overflowing ranks of writers, office clerks and competitors for minor posts in Government offices, we shall have spent the money of the communes and of the State upon a work not only useless but even dangerous; for with the millions thus improperly spent, we shall have led away from productive occupations hundreds of youths who, under better guidance, would have been useful to themselves, to society and to their country, and made of them in one word déclassés. In this matter reform is urgently necessary; we must revise our curriculum. That Report was published and issued by the Board of Education, and therefore they must be perfectly familiar with what it contains. I venture to say that it is equally necessary that we should revise the curriculum of our secondary schools into which these children are drafted unless we are prepared to allow them to remain wholly unable when they leave the schools to find employment except in the various occupations referred to in that Report. The writer of the Report says with reference to these schools:— In how many towns and villages in England is money … being unwittingly wasted in giving to a boy either an education which is quite unsuited to his capacities and which will leave him stranded and out of employment at the end of it, or else a base, fraudulent and spurious imitation of education, which is far worse in its effects on him than if the lad had gone out immediately to the work of life on leaving the elementary school. I hope that the Board of Education will carefully bear that in mind. In the higher elementary schools, education of this practical character is given, and opportunities are to be afforded to children from the elementary schools to remain in these higher elementary schools for a period of years. Whilst there are hundreds of secondary schools into which these children are being drafted, there are only at present forty-four higher elementary schools in which practical instruction of this kind is given. I am not aware that any of the children are sent under the Regulations from the elementary schools into these schools where they would receive useful and adequate education.

I may conclude what I have to say as regards these secondary schools with one or two suggestions. I venture to hope that the Board of Education will keep a very careful watch on the future career of the children who are now being educated therein. I think they should require returns to be made by the school, showing in what occupations these boys and girls are engaged. I would also support the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Lockwood), namely, that the masters in these schools should be free, at least, to offer advice to the parents of the pupils, who at present are unable to be removed unless for gross misconduct or incorrigible idleness, and that they should suggest to the parents that where the boy is taking no advantage of the education, he should be removed or transferred to some other school, where the education given will be better suited to his capacity. Further, I venture to suggest that schools somewhat similar to the higher elementary schools, or even the old organised science schools, provided a sufficient amount of English literature is taught in them, should be more generously supported by the Board of Education, so that a greater percentage of the children should be drafted into those schools, where they would receive the practical instruction which is so desirable for them. I bring these matters under the consideration of the President of the Board of Education because I really believe that immediate action ought to be taken with a view to preventing some of the evils to which I have referred, and which are likely to follow unless our education is improved. I have made these suggestions, I may say, in the interests of all classes of the population, but particularly of the wage-earning classes, because I feel that on their ability and on the improved education which they may receive in our secondary schools and higher elementary schools, the commercial future and stability of this Empire very largely depends. There is only one other matter with regard to the last suggestion made by the Board of Education with respect to university education. I will only say a few words upon that, because I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely to receive a deputation, at any rate, from my own university. I can only hope that the President of the Board of Education may be present, and may assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer when that deputation comes forward. We have today received a big volume, showing the large amounts which are now given from the Imperial Exchequer and the Board of Education for university education. I quite agree with an hon. Member on the left that larger sums might be given. I only want to say, in conclusion, that I hope the President of the Board of Education will take seriously into consideration the very great importance of co-ordinating all these Grants that are at present given by the Board of Education and the Board of Agriculture, and also from the Imperial Exchequer, so that our universities, instead of being, as some of them are dependent on Grants very much in the same way as are our technical schools, may have greater freedom and may receive aid, whether it comes from the Board of Education or from the Imperial Exchequer does not matter, in one lump sum, which they will be able to apply to the best of their abilities in the cause of higher education.


I have no grievance to bring forward and no complaint to make against my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education. On the contrary, I desire to join with other Members in congratulating him on the excellent work which he and the Board are doing. In this connection I cannot help repeating what I said when we recently discussed the various Departments of the Government. I regret very much that the status of the Board of Education was not dealt with in the same way as the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board. My right hon. Friend must not assume that I would have put his salary at so high a figure as the salaries of the presidents of those Departments, but in carrying out my principle of economy I would certainly have insisted on equality as between the Departments. Why should we say that the Board of Trade or the Local Government Board is more important than the Board of Education? I think it is a great pity that the matter was dealt with in such a piecemeal fashion. I listened with interest to the numerous appeals which came from both sides of the House that more money should be given to help the local authorities in dealing with this great work of education, but I would ask hon. Members on both sides to be a little reasonable in this matter. My hon. Friend, who represents one of the Divisions of Sheffield, made an appeal for no less than three millions. He said there were three authorities, the local authority, then the President of the Board, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that they were bandied about from pillar to post, while the only thing that was clear was that they could get no more money. My hon. Friend left out one great authority, the House of Commons; and if this House chooses to take the matter in hand it can deal with those appeals which are made—in a somewhat truculent form, I think—on too many occasions very effectively. I would suggest that before a grant is made in regard to any of these excellent purposes, that the whole question of educational expenditure in this country ought to be considered by a Committee of this House, and dealt with from top to bottom. I would ask my right hon. Friend not to listen too readily to all these requests made to him, and should some hon. Member put down a motion for a Committee to consider educational expenditure, I appeal to him to support such a claim. One reason why I press this claim was that we have not been told how large the total expenditure is. I think my right hon. Friend was speaking of England and Wales. He ought to include Scotland and Ireland, and if he includes rates and taxes and expenditure from all sources he would find in this matter that the House is dealing with a subject of national expenditure, which is more costly to the people than any other burden whatever.

I would venture to point out two or three aspects of the question. The first is that the great funds applied to education come from various sources in great profusion, and no one knows how much each of the different sources contributes. It was in 1833, I think, that the first Grant was given at all. Previous to that education was carried on in this country by private beneficence, and there are still vast funds contributed by good people to the help of this great work. No one knows how much those funds are, but they ought certainly to be considered in relation to the others. We have then the rates, which are a mighty charge, and the total of which no one knows nor the relation to expenditure as between one place and another. We do not know how much the Government give or how it is applied. Those sums ought to be considered in relation to one another before any change is made in the amount. Though the money Grants are equal, they are given under entirely different circumstances. The same Grant is given to a country school, carried on in a schoolhouse, given by some liberal donor, as is given in some great city; and in some great working-class centre that has sprung up, and where the building has to be provided out of the rates. The rates, too, differ in a most extraordinary degree in different places. In some places the rates contribute only 15 per cent. of the expenditure, while in London the rates contribute 70 per cent. of the expenditure. In some instances where the rates are least the wealth is greatest and the need is least, and in other places where the rates are highest the wealth is least; and there is immense demand for the work the education authorities have to carry on. Those great aspects of the case are much more familiar to everyone of the educational authorities I see before me even than I am. I only point the aspects out as good reason why the whole matter ought to be considered by the only authority that is adequate to consider it, and that is a Committee of the House of Commons. There is immense overlapping in the educational expenditure. A few years ago all the inspectors were under the Board. Now each of the local authorities has got inspectors, or many of them have, and certainly in London we have. We do not know which authority they are under nor how far there is overlapping in the work. I appeal to the common-sense of the House to say whether this matter is not sufficiently important, whether these appeals have not been going on long enough to make us agree that the time has come when the question ought to be considered from a business point of view. If any business man or committee of business men had to deal with this question the first thing they would do would be to see what we are spending now and how it was distributed That would give us some guidance in the direction of economy. I believe there is a vast limit for economy. In the reform of the Education Act of 1902 no attempt was made as to the regularisation of the Grants or of the financial control. There was no time for it. Now when there is a Liberal Government in power there is room for economy in expenditure without doing the slightest injury to the great cause of education. So I make only this one appeal to my hon. Friend: While I congratulate him most heartily on the way in which he and the able Board over which he presides are carrying on this work, I venture to ask him, with regard to this great question of education, whether he will not promise to give consideration to this idea, and, if an appeal should be put forward to appoint a Committee of this House to consider the whole question with a view of recommending to this House—which is the final authority—what is the best course to adopt, whether he will see his way to use the great influence of his high office in favour of that appeal?


At this late hour I have only a very few words to say. I am glad that the Debate has continued as it began, with only a very short interlude, without any disproportionate discussion over religious differences. I do not think that anyone who listened to the statement of my right hon. Friend at the beginning of the Debate could imagine that he would in any way try by administrative action to upset the arrangements of the Act of 1902. The hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University (Sir William Anson) was very friendly in his criticism. He did say what I thought was rather an exaggeration, that every case where a voluntary school was involved showed unfairness on the part of the Board of Education. I cannot think that what followed in the course of discussion quite substantiated that statement. The only case brought forward, whether it was made good or not, was the Towyn case. I would remind the House that my right hon. Friend exercised his discretion in that case, as he is constantly exercising his discretion in the triple consideration of economy of the rates, secular education, and the religious desires of the parents. He does, as a matter of fact, often give that discretion in favour of the denomination, and he often comes in for a good deal of criticism from his own friends. It is often quite possible, in the exercise of a discretion of that kind, to make out a case against the Department. But I must say that I think that the fact that criticism during the last two or three years has only found vent in two or three cases is a proof that the Department is not quite so unfair as a good many of its critics are apt in their general remarks to say.

I should like to say a word or two with regard to certain criticisms that were made, especially, I think, by the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University with regard to our dealings with secondary education. I think he is rather afraid that in some respects the Department is interfering too much. Whether that is so or not I think it is very important to bear in mind that the secondary education system of the country has been advancing in the last few years by leaps and bounds; that there had been not only the network of the secondary schools spreading all over the country, but that the existing schools have unquestionably been enormously improved in the character of the teachers and in their curriculum. There is no doubt but the Board has exercised much influence in these changes, and it is to a certain extent inevitable that when you are trying to work a system that will be adequate at any rate in quantity all over the country that a certain amount of uniformity will result from the pressure from the central authority. But having got this system from one end of the country to the other in secondary schools at the present time, the Board is doing its very best to encourage in every possible way through its inspectors diversity of effort on the part of these various schools, and I do not think, in fact, at any rate at the present moment, that the effect of a central bureaucracy will be to drive all schools into the one system.

The hon. Baronet (Sir W. Anson) took exception to one particular case at Abingdon in which he apparently thought that the action of the Board was directed to preventing Greek being taught in that particular school. Greek can be taught in that school. It is quite true that under the old scheme governing that school Greek and certain other particular subjects were required to be taught by the Charity Commission scheme which governed the trust. What has happened is that we extended to this school the latitude of teaching all subjects which are suitable for all secondary schools—a latitude which I think the hon. Baronet himself, during his administration, began to extend to secondary schools, and which we have extended to this particular school. We are not preventing the trustees making Greek part of the curriculum. We have only given latitude to include it and all other subjects that they like, and I may say that the governors never asked that Greek should be preserved when the new scheme was proposed.


I think the hon. Gentleman does not quite understand the nature of my criticism. It was that the governors asked that the education in the scale should be conducted on its own lines. They did not ask latitude, but they asked security.


As I understand the security depends upon themselves, there is nothing to prevent them continuing their course if they wish. There has been a certain amount of discussion as to the 25 per cent. of free places in secondary schools which are subsidised by the State. I think there is a certain amount of misunderstanding with regard to this. There is no hard and fast rule with regard to it. It is perfectly true that in return for the Grant which is given to secondary schools the State must necessarily have some kind of system upon which it is going to act, and unquestionably the policy is that the State in the secondary schools ought to know nothing of class distinction.

11.0 P.M.

If well-to-do people in some districts dislike the introduction into the school of 25 per cent. of some different class than have hitherto been in the school, it is not a matter of which we can take account. I do not think there is anyone in this House who has a stronger feeling about the maintenance of the tone of school than I have. I am a public school man. But there is good and bad in tone. If tone means class exclusiveness, then it is bad. If tone means gentlemanly behaviour I do not think much of it if it cannot infect 25 per cent. of boys who come in from outside. We think there will be far more benefit to those children who may want a little teaching in tone than the remainder are likely to suffer. The really important criticism is that this 25 per cent. of free places affects the financial position of schools. That is really the most important part of the objection. I think there is a good deal of exaggeration with regard to that argument. In the first place I must remind the House that when 25 per cent. of free places were in the first instance required, there was an increase in the Grant which was expected to cover very largely the financial loss. It may not have been sufficient in all cases, but all cases of financial difficulties are carefully considered. A reduction in the requirement has been made a very large number of cases. Out of 833 schools no less than 110 are not required to have the full 25 per cent. of free places. In these 110 cases there has been a smaller number of free places required, going as low in some cases as only 10 per cent. The Board of Education is still ready to take into consideration the cases of any schools that can come to us and show they are in a precarious position owing to this requirement. The whole system is being watched by the Board with the greatest care, and I do not think there are many schools that will in the long run suffer very severely by this new obligation.

The only other point on which I want to say anything is on the question of money. I do not think very much will be expected from me on that head. I can only say of all the people who want more money for education those who are in the position of responsibility at the Board of Education want it most. Although we are not in a position to say there is going to be any general increase in the Grants, we can, I think, show that we have been doing our part in assisting those of the public who feel the pressure of the rates by, at any rate, having induced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put a large sum at our disposal for necessitous areas. No final decision has been taken as to the basis of distribution, but the Government recognise that places that are really necessitous outside the present category of those which are now getting Grants for necessitous schools, ought to and must have assistance on the same basis as the others. The Board of Education feel that at the present juncture no very great advance can be made by them without considerably greater assistance from the State. I think we may be satisfied to-night with the enormous interest which the House has taken in this educational Debate, feeling that if money is forthcoming, if the State is able to do a good deal to help the local authorities, this House will be ready to go in for an even greater educational advance. The Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck), who made a very enthusiastic educational speech, spoke of the desirability of having committees appointed by the education authorities for helping children in the choice of their occupations. We already have a Bill on the Table for that purpose. I hope the House will be able to accept that measure when it comes up, and perhaps to treat it as a non-contentious Bill. I trust that next year, if we can get the money, we may be able to go on with even bolder legislation, dealing with such questions as the half-time question and with day and evening continuation schools, which interest the whole House, and to which the only serious obstacle at the present time in the eyes of most Members is the question of money. At this late hour I do not propose to go into other questions. We have had a lengthy discussion, and I know that many other Members would like to speak, but I hope that after this six or seven hours' Debate the Committee will allow the Vote to be taken.


I myself voted for going to bed at eleven o'clock, but as a certain number of Gentlemen on the other side seemed anxious that the discussion should be continued beyond that hour the least we can do is to try and oblige them. It is with a feeling of deep depression that many of us have heard the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. We have been glad to hear hon. Members opposite no less than ourselves urging upon the Government the necessity of providing further funds in relief of the Education Rate. I am always glad to have an opportunity of being in agreement with hon. Gentlemen opposite; but there is this difference between us and them. We are prepared to back up our opinions by our votes; they will slip away with their tails between their legs at the crack of the party whip. I do not want to go at length into the various reasons for the substantial rise that has taken place in our Education Rates, but I may mention that in the county from which I come the increases have amounted to the equivalent of a fourpenny rate since the present Government came into office.

I want to call attention to one matter in which the Government, without adequate cause and without compensating advantage, has contributed to the considerable rise of the rates, and that is by the alterations that have been made in the Code as regards teachers. We have been forced within the last four years to increase our staff of adult teachers from 1,500 to 1,900, and the increase has been almost entirely in the most expensive class of teachers. The last alteration has forced us to drive out scores of female supernumerary teachers. They are admirable teachers, but they have no union and no vote, and so the Board of Education and the Government pay no attention whatever to them. We are actually getting complaints that good, experienced teachers are turned adrift, and that their places are filled by young teachers who have great general knowledge, but who are by no means experts in imparting it. Those teachers who are put in get higher salaries than those who are turned adrift, and we have no evidence whatever that the education of our children is any better; in fact, a good many parents will tell you that it is worse.

Another cause of the increase of the rates are the eccentricities of inspectors. Some eminent lawyer—I think it was Solon—was talking about equity, and he referred to equity as "a roguish thing that varied with the Chancellor's conscience, and that might vary with the size of the Chancellor's foot." It is the same thing with the inspectors of schools. The requirements of the Board vary with the conscience of the inspector, and that may vary with the size of the inspector's foot. One thing quite certain is that whatever is demanded the county has to pay for. This is doing a great deal of harm to the prospects of education, because it is making education in rural areas even more unpopular than it was before. It is preventing the best men from embarking in the service of education. Everyone who has taken part in a county council election is quite aware of the truth of what an hon. Gentleman has said in this Debate, namely, that the candidate for the county council lays stress upon the fact that the Education Rate has gone up. The consequence is that the able and the pushing man in the village does not want to go on the education committee. The village candidate turns his attention to main roads and drains rather than to the schools. I believe that that is all for the bad. I know the right hon. Gentleman says that he cannot bring sufficient pressure to bear on the Treasury. I dare say he cannot, but as another hon. Gentleman said just now, this House can. I wish to appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken in the same sense as I am speaking to have the courage of their convictions and vote for this Amendment.

Mr. RUNCIMAN 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, 166; Noes, 134.

Division No. 92.] AYES. [11.15 p.m.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Raffan, Peter Wilson
Addison, Dr. Christopher Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Rainy, Adam Rolland
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Rea, Walter Russell
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Rendall, Athelstan
Alden, Percy Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Allen, Charles Peter Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Anderson, Andrew Macbeth Haworth, Arthur A. Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Hayward, Evan Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Henry, Charles S. Robinson, Sidney
Barnes, George N. Higham, John Sharp Roth, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick) Hindle, Frederick George Rowntree, Arnold
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Holt, Richard Durning Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo. Hooper, Arthur George Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Brace, William Hughes, Spencer Leigh Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Brigg, Sir John Illingworth, Percy H. Seddon, James A.
Bryce, John Annan Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Shackleton, David James
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Sherwell, Arthur James
Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid) Kemp, Sir George Simon, John Allsebrook
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) King, Joseph (Somerset, North) Soares, Ernest Joseph
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) Lambert, George Summers, James Woolley
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Leach, Charles Sutton, John E.
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood) Lehmann, Rudolf C. Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Chancellor, Henry George Levy, Sir Maurice Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Lewis, John Herbert Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)
Clough, William Lyell, Charles Henry Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Toulmin, George
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) M'Curdy, Charles Albert Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe) Verney, Frederick William
Cory, Sir Clifford John Mallet, Charles Edward Vivian, Henry
Crosfield, Arthur H. Manfield, Harry Walsh, Stephen
Crossley, Sir William J. Marks, George Croydon Walters, John Tudor
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Masterman, C. F. G. Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Davies, Ellis William (Elfion) Millar, James Duncan Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Mond, Sir Alfred Wardle, G. J.
Dawes, James Arthur Montagu, Hon. E. S. Waring, Walter
Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Waterlow, David Sydney
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C. Watt, Henry A.
Edwards, Enoch Muspratt, Max White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Elverston, Harold Nellson, Francis White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Falconer, James Nuttall, Harry Whitehouse, John Howard
Fenwick, Charles Ogden, Fred Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Furness, Stephen Parker, James (Halifax) Wilkie, Alexander
Gelder, Sir William Alfred Pearce, William Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd Pearson, Weetman H. M. Williamson, Sir Archibald
Gibbins, F. W. Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Gibson, Sir James Puckering Philipps, Sir O. C. (Pembroke) Wing, Thomas
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Pickersgill, Edward Hare Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Greig, Colonel James William Pointer, Joseph Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Pollard, Sir George H. Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Guest, Major C. H. C. Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Primrose, Hon. Nell James TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) Radford, George Heynes
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)
Adam, Major William A. Bird, Alfred Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow)
Arbuthnot, Gerald A. Brackenbury, Henry Langton Duncannon, Viscount
Archer-Shee, Major Martin Brassey, Captain R. (Banbury) Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Bridgeman, William Clive Falle, Bertram Godfray
Bagot, Captain J. Butcher, John George (York) Fisher, William Hayes
Baird, John Lawrence Calley, Colonel Thomas C. P. Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Carlile, Edward Hildred Gardner, Ernest
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Castlereagh, Viscount Gastrell, Major W. Houghton
Banner, John S. Harmood- Cator, John Gibbs, George Abraham
Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor Cautley, Henry Strother Gilmour, Captain John
Barnston, Harry Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.) Goldsmith, Frank
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.) Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Gooch, Henry Cubitt
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Clive, Percy Archer Grant, J. A.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Coates, Major Edward F. Greene, Walter Raymond
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Colefax, Henry Arthur Gretton, John
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall) Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward
Beresford, Lord Charles Dalrymple, Viscount Haddock, George Bahr
Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh Sanders, Robert Arthur
Hambro, Angus Valdemar Mackinder, Halford J. Sanderson, Lancelot
Hamersley, Alfred St. George Macmaster, Donald Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) Magnus, Sir Philip Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) Mason, James F. Starkey, John Ralph
Heath, Col. Arthur Howard Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Helmsley, Viscount Morpeth, Viscount Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Henderson, Major Harold (Berkshire) Morrison, Captain James A. Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)
Hills, John Walter (Durham) Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. Sykes, Alan John
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Newdegate, F. A. Talbot, Lord Edmund
Hope, Harry (Bute) Newman, John R. P. Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Newton, Harry Kottingham Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Hunt, Rowland Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Thynne, Lord Alexander
Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath) Nield, Herbert Tryon, Captain George Clement
Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven) Ormsby-Gore, William Valentia, Viscount
Jessel, Captain Herbert M. Paget, Almeric Hugh Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Kerry, Earl of Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) Walrond, Hon. Llonel
Keswick, William Perkins, Walter Frank Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Peto, Basil Edward Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Kirkwood, John H. M. Pollock, Ernest Murray Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Lee, Arthur Hamilton Pretyman, Ernest George Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Lewisham, Viscount Rawson, Col. Richard H. Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Llewelyn, Venables Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)
Lloyd, George Ambrose Ronaldshay, Earl of Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Rothschild, Llonel de Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)
Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Rutherford, Watson
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.) Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

Question put, "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £100, in respect of the salary of the President of the Board of Education."

The Common divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 163.

Division No. 93.] AYES. [11.25 p.m.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. Gibbs, George Abraham Newton, Harry Kottingham
Adam, Major William A. Gilmour, Captain John Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Goldsmith, Frank Nield, Herbert
Arbuthnot, Gerald A. Gooch, Henry Cubitt Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Archer-Shee, Major Martin Grant, James Augustus Paget, Almeric Hugh
Arkwright, John Stanhope Greene, Walter Raymond Peel, Hon. Wm. R. W. (Taunton)
Bagot, Captain J. Gretton, John Perkins, Walter Frank
Baird, John Lawrence Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward Peto, Basil Edward
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N. Haddock, George Bahr Pollock, Ernest Murray
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Pretyman, Ernest George
Banner, John S. Harmood- Hambro, Angus Valdemar Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor Hamersley, Alfred St. George Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan
Barnston, Harry Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) Ronaldshay, Earl of
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.) Hardy, Laurence Rothschild, Lionel de
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Heath, Col. Arthur Howard Rutherford, Watson
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Helmsley, Viscount Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire) Sanders, Robert Arthur
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Hills, John Walter (Durham) Sanderson, Lancelot
Beresford, Lord Charles Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Bird, Alfred Hope, Harry (Bute) Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) Hope, James Fitzalan Starkey, John Ralph
Brackenbury, Henry Langton Hunt, Rowland Staveley-Hill, Henry
Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury) Hunter, Sir Chas. Rodk. (Bath) Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Bridgeman, William Clive Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven) Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)
Brotherton, Edward Allen Jessel, Captain Herbert M. Sykes, Alan John
Butcher, John George (York) Kerry, Earl of Talbot, Lord Edmund
Calley, Col. Thomas C. P. Keswick, William Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Carlile, Edward Hildred King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Castlereagh, Viscount Kirkwood, John H. M. Thynne, Lord Alexander
Cator, John Lee, Arthur Hamilton Tryon, Capt. George Clement
Cautley, Henry Strother Lewisham, Viscount Valentla, Viscount
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) Llewelyn, Venables Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Lloyd, George Ambrose Wairond, Hon. Lionel
Clive, Percy Archer Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Coates, Major Edward F. Lockwood, Rt. Hen. Lt.-Col. A. R. Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Colefax, Henry Arthur Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. A. (S. Geo.,Han. Sq.) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall) MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Dairymple, Viscount Mackinder, Halford J. Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston) Macmaster, Donald Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow) Magnus, Sir Philip Worthington-Evans, L.
Duncannon, Viscount Mason, James F. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.) Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)
Falle, Bertram Godfrey Morpeth, Viscount
Fisher, William Hayes Morrison, Captain James A.
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.
Gardner, Ernest Newdegate, F. A.
Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Newman, John R. P.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Rainy, Adam Rolland
Addison, Dr. Christopher Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Rea, Walter Russell
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Rendall, Athelstan
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Allen, Charles Peter Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Anderson, Andrew Macbeth Haworth, Arthur A. Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)
Baker, Arnold T. (Accrington) Hayward, Evan Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Henry, Charles Soloman Robinson, Sidney
Barnes, George N. Higham, John Sharp Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) Hindle, Frederick George Rowntree, Arnold
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Holt, Richard Darning Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) Hooper, Arthur George Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Brace, William Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Brigg, Sir John Hughes, Spencer Leigh Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Bryce, John Annan Illingworth, Percy H. Seddon, James A.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Seely, Col., Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Shackleton, David James
Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Sherwell, Arthur James
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Kemp, Sir George Simon, John Allsebrook
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) King, Joseph (Somerset, N.) Soares, Ernest Joseph
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Lambert, George Summers, James Woolley
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) Leach, Charles Sutton, John E.
Chancellor, Henry George Lehmann, Rudolf C. Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Levy, Sir Maurice Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Clough, William Lewis, John Herbert Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Lyell, Charles Henry Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Toulmin, George
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) M'Curdy, Charles Albert Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Cory, Sir Clifford John M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe) Verney, Frederick William
Crosfield, Arthur H. Mallet, Charles Edward Vivian, Henry
Crossley, Sir William J. Manfield, Harry Walsh, Stephen
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Marks, George Croydon Walters, John Tudor
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Masterman, C. F. G. Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Millar, James Duncan Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Dawes, James Arthur Mond, Sir Alfred Wardle, George J.
Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire) Montagu, Hon. E. S. Waring, Walter
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Waterlow, David Sydney
Edwards, Enoch Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C. Watt, Henry A.
Elverston, Harold Muspratt, Max White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Falconer, James Neilson, Francis White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Fenwick, Charles Nuttall, Harry Whitehouse, John Howard
Furness, Stephen Ogden, Fred Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Gelder, Sir William Alfred Parker, James (Halifax) Wilkie, Alexander
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd Pearce, William Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Gibbins, F. W. Pearson, Weetman H. M. Williamson, Sir Archibald
Gibson, Sir James Puckering Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Philipps, Sir O. C. (Pembroke) Wing, Thomas
Greig, Colonel James William Pickersgill, Edward Hare Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Pointer, Joseph Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)
Guest, Major C. H. C. Pollard, Sir George H.
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) Primrose, Hon. Neil James TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Radford, George Heynes
Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Raffan, Peter Wilson

Original Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 135.

Division No. 94.] AYES. [11.35 p.m.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid) Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)
Addison, Dr. Christopher Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Allen, Charles Peter Carr-Gomm, H. W. Dawes, James Arthur
Anderson, Andrew Macbeth Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire)
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Chancellor, Henry George Dillon, John
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Channing, Sir Francis Allston Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)
Barnes, George N. Clough, William Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Edwards, Enoch
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Elverston, Harold
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) Falconer, J.
Boland, John Plus Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Fenwick, Charles
Brace, William Cory, Sir Clifford John Furness, Stephen
Brady, Patrick Joseph Crawshay-Williams, Ellot Gelder, Sir William Alfred
Brigg, Sir John Crosfield, Arthur H. George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd
Bryce, John Annan Crossley, Sir William J. Gibbins, F. W.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Cullinan, John Gibson, Sir James P.
Greig, Col. James W. Marks, George Croydon Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Masterman, C. F. G. Seddon, James A.
Guest, Major C. H. C. Millar, J. D. Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Mond, Sir Alfred Shackleton, David James
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) Montagu, Hon. E. S. Sherwell, Arthur James
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Mooney, John J. Simon, J. A.
Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Soares, Ernest Joseph
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Summers, James Woolley
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. Sutton, John E.
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Muspratt, M. Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Neilson, Francis Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Nuttall, Harry Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)
Haworth, Arthur A. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Hayward, Evan O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Toulmin, George
Henry, Charles S. Ogden, Fred Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Higham, John Sharp Parker, James (Halifax) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Hindle, Frederick George Pearson, Weetman, H. M. Verney, Frederick William
Hogan, Michael Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. Vivian, Henry
Holt, Richard Durning Philipps, Sir O. C. (Pembroke) Walsh, Stephen
Hooper, A. G. Pickersgill, Edward Hare Walters, John Tudor
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Pointer, Joseph Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Hughes, Spencer Leigh Pollard, Sir George H. Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Illingworth, Percy H. Power, Patrick Joseph Wardle, George J.
Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Waring, Walter
Jones, H. Hayden (Merioneth) Primrose, Hon. Nell James Wason, Rt. Han. E. (Clackmannan)
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Radford, George Heynes Waterlow, David Sydney
Keating, Matthew Raffan, Peter Wilson Watt, Henry A.
Kemp, Sir George Rainy, A. Rolland White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
King, Joseph (Somerset, North) Rea, Walter Russell White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Lambert, George Reddy, Michael Whitehouse, John Howard
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Rendall, Athelstan Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Leach, Charles Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Wilkie, Alexander
Lehmann, Rudolf C. Roberts, George H. (Norwich) Williams, Perry (Middlesbrough)
Levy, Sir Maurice Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) Williamson, Sir Archibald
Lewis, John Herbert Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Lyell, Charles Henry Robinson, Sidney Wing, Thomas
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
M'Curdy, Charles Albert Roche, John (Galway, East) Younger, William (Peebles and Selkirk)
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Rowntree, Arnold
M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe) Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.
Mallet, Charles Edward Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Manfield, Harry Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow) Llewellyn, Venables
Adam, Major William A. Duncannon, Viscount Lloyd, George Ambrose
Anson, Sir William Reynell Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark) Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)
Arbuthnot, Gerald A. Falle, Bertram Godfray Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Archer-Shee, Major Martin Fisher, W. Hayes Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh
Bagot, Captain J. Gardner, Ernest Mackinder, Halford J.
Baird, John Lawrence Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Macmaster, Donald
Baker, Sir Randoll L. (Dorset, N.) Gibbs, George Abraham Mason, James F.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gilmour, Captain John Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas
Banner, John S. Harmood- Goldsmith, Frank Morpeth, Viscount
Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor Gooch, Henry Cubitt Morrison, Capt. J. A.
Barnston, Harry Grant, J. A. Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.) Greene, Walter Raymond Newdegate, F. A.
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Gretton, John Newman, John R. P.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward Newton, Harry Kottingham
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Haddock, George Bahr Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Nield, Herbert
Beresford, Lord Charles Hambro, Angus Vaidemar Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Bird, Alfred Hamersley, Alfred St. George Paget, Almeric Hugh
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)
Brackenbury, Henry Langton Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) Perkins, Walter Frank
Brassey, Captain R. (Banbury) Heath, Col. Arthur Howard Peto, Basil Edward
Bridgeman, William Clive Helmsley, Viscount Pollock, Ernest Murray
Brotherton, Edward Allen Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) Pretyman, Ernest George
Butcher, John George (York) Hills, John Walter (Durham) Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Calley, Col. Thomas C. P. Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan
Carlile, Edward Hildred Hope, Harry (Bute) Ronaldshay, Earl of
Castlereagh, Viscount Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Rothschild, Lionel de
Cater, John Hunt, Rowland Rutherford, Watson
Cautley, Henry Strother Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath) Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.) Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven) Sanders, Robert Arthur
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Jessel, Captain Herbert M. Sanderson, Lancelot
Clive, Percy Archer Kerry, Earl of Bassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Coates, Major Edward F. Keswick, William Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Colefax, H. A. King, Sir H. Seymour (Hull) Starkey, John Ralph
Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall) Kirkwood, John H. M. Staveley-Hill, H.
Dairymple, Viscount Lee, Arthur Hamilton Steel-Maltland, A. D.
Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston) Lewisham, Viscount Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)
Sykes, Alan John Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Talbot, Lord Edmund Walrond, Hon. Lionel Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)
Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)
Thynne, Lord Alexander Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Tryon, Capt. George Clement Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Forster and Lord Balcarres.
Valentia, Viscount Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

May I ask whether there will be an opportunity to consider the Resolution on Report? There are many hon. Gentlemen who are anxious to speak on the question. This is a matter of very great interest, and several of my hon. Friends attach very great importance to points to which they wish to call attention, and which they have not been able to raise. In the circumstances, the Government ought to afford us an opportunity of discussing the matter on Report, and I hope they will tell us what they mean to do.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)

I do not know whether it is possible to give a day on Report. There are other questions which hon. Members are anxious to discuss, and it is difficult to find a day. It will be open to the Noble Lord to raise the question on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.


It is allotted.


Then he can do so on the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, on which any question can be raised. I am afraid I cannot undertake to give another day.


I think the right hon. Gentleman hardly appreciates that it was apparently well known that a large number of Gentlemen desired to take part in the Debate, and it is cold comfort to be told that they will have an opportunity on the Appropriation Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows perfectly well that there are many other questions of burning public interest to be raised on that Bill, and I hardly think the appeal of my Noble Friend should be met in that way.

Question put, "That the Chairman report the Resolution to the House."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 130.

Division No. 95.] AYES. [11.45 p.m.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Lambert, George
Addison, Dr. Christopher Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) Leach, Charles
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Edwards, Enoch Lehmann, Rudolf C.
Allen, Charles Peter Elverston, Harold Levy, Sir Maurice
Anderson, Andrew Macbeth Falconer, James Lewis, John Herbert
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Fenwick, Charles Lyell, Charles Henry
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Furness, Stephen Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Barnes, George N. Gelder, Sir William Alfred M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Gibbins, F. W. M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)
Barton, William Gibson, Sir James Puckering Mallet, Charles Edward
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) Greig, Colonel James William Manfield, Harry
Boland, John Pius Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Marks, George Croydon
Brace, William Guest, Major C. H. C. Masterman, C. F. G.
Brady, Patrick Joseph Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Millar, James Duncan
Brigg, Sir John Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) Mond, Sir Alfred
Bryce, John Annan Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Hardie, J. Keir Mooney, John J.
Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid) Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen, W.)
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood) Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Muspratt, Max
Chancellor, Henry George Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Neilson, Francis
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Haworth, Arthur A. Nuttall, Harry
Clough, William Hayward, Evan O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Henry, Charles S. O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Higham, John Sharp Ogden, Fred
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) Hindle, Frederick George Parker, James (Halifax)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hogan, Michael Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.
Cory, Sir Clifford John Holt, Richard Durning Philipps, Sir O. C. (Pembroke)
Crawshay-Williams, Ellot Hooper, Arthur George Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Crosfield, Arthur H. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Pointer, Joseph
Crossley, Sir William J. Hughes, Spencer Leigh Pollard, Sir George H.
Cullinan, John Illingworth, Percy H. Power, Patrick Joseph
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Radford, George Heynes
Dawes, James Arthur Keating, Matthew Raffan, Peter Wilson
Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire) Kemp, Sir George Rainy, Adam Rolland
Dillon, John King, Joseph (Somerset, North) Rea, Walter Russell
Reddy, Michael Summers, James Woolley Waterlow, David Sydney
Rendall, Athelstan Sutton, John E. Watt, Henry A.
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Taylor, John W. (Durham) White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Roberts, George H. (Norwich) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff) Whitehouse, John Howard
Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Robinson, Sidney Toulmin, George Wilkie, Alexander
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Trevelyan, Charles Philips Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Rowntree, Arnold Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander Williamson, Sir Archibald
Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Verney, Frederick William Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Vivian, Henry Wing, Thomas
Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) Walsh, Stephen Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Seddon, James A. Walters, John Tudor Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)
Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Shackleton, David James Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Sherwell, Arthur James Wardle, George J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.
Simon, John Allsebrook Waring, Walter
Soares, Ernest Joseph Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Adam, Major William A. Gibbs, George Abraham Nield, Herbert
Anson, Sir William Reynell Gilmour, Captain John Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Arbuthnot, Gerald A. Goldsmith, Frank Paget, Almeric Hugh
Archer-Shee, Major Martin Gooch, Henry Cubitt Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Grant, James Augustus Perkins, Walter Frank
Bagot, Captain J. Greene, Walter Raymond Peto, Basil Edward
Baird, John Lawrence Gretton, John Pollock, Ernest Murray
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Haddock, George B. Pretyman, Ernest George
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Banner, John S. Harmood- Hombro, Angus Valdemar Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan
Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor Hamersley, Alfred St. George Ronaldshay, Earl of
Barnston, Harry Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) Rothschild, Llonel D.
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.) Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) Rutherford, William Watson
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton) Heath, Col. Arthur Howard Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Helmsley, Viscount Sanders, Robert Arthur
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) Sanderson, Lancelot
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Hills, John Walter (Durham) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Beresford, Lord Charles Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Bird, Alfred Hope, Harry (Bute) Starkey, John Ralph
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) Hunt, Rowland Staveley-Hill, H.
Brackenbury, Henry Langton Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath) Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury) Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven) Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)
Bridgeman, William Clive Jessel, Captain Herbert M. Sykes, Alan John
Brotherton, Edward Allen Kerry, Earl of Talbot, Lord Edmund
Butcher, John George (York) Keswick, William Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Calley, Col. Thomas C. P. King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Carlile, Edward Hildred Kirkwood, John H. M. Thynne, Lord Alexander
Castlereagh, Viscount Lee, Arthur Hamilton Tryon, Capt. George Clement
Cator, John Lewisham, Viscount Valentla, Viscount
Cautley, Henry Strother Llewelyn, Venables Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) Lloyd, George Ambrose Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Clive, Percy Archer Lockyer-Lampson, G. (Sallsbury) Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Coates, Major Edward F. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.) Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Colefax, Henry Arthur MacCaw. Wm. J. MacGeagh Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall) Mackinder, Halford J. Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)
Dairymple, Viscount Macmaster, Donald Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston) Mason, James F. Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow) Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)
Duncannon, Viscount Morbeth, Viscount Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.) Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)
Falle, Bertram Godfray Newdegate, F. A.
Fisher, William Hayes Newman, John R. P. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Forster and Lord Balcarres.
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Newton, Harry Kottingham

Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Thursday); Committee to sit again to-morrow.

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker.

Whereupon Mr. EMMOTT, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, in pursuance of the Standing Orders.


On a point of Order. With regard to the statement just made by the Clerk at the Table, is it not a rule of the House that the absence of Mr. Speaker must be announced at the commencement of the Sitting? If it is not so announced, can it be announced in the middle or any period of the Sitting except at the commencement?


I know of no Standing Order that prevents it being announced at any time.