Commons Sitting of 13 May 1915

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock. Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Wednesday next.
London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 9th June.
Great Central Railway Bill,
Ordered, That, in the case of the Great Central Railway Bill, Standing Orders 220 and 246, relating to Private Bills, be suspended, and that on the return of the said Bill by the House of Lords with an Amendment, such Amendment (if Unopposed) shall be considered forthwith.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Conway Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Sea Fisheries (Cardigan Bay) Provisional Order Bill,
Sea Fisheries (Poole) Provisional Order Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Message from the Lords,—That they have agreed to—
London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Bill.
Ascot District Gas and Electricity Bill, without Amendment.
Railway Bill (Group 1).
Sir John Tudor Walters reported from the Committee on Group 1 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

EAST INDIA (FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND BUDGET).
Return presented relative thereto [Address 12th May; Colonel Yate]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 233.]

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the under-mentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
City of Manchester;
Borough of Aldeburgh
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES) (ESTIMATE, 1914–15).
Estimate presented of Charge for Ordnance Factories for the year 1915–16 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 234.]
RETAIL COAL PRICES (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Minutes of Evidence, with Appendix, of the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into the Causes of the present Rise in the Retail Price of Coal sold for domestic use [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Interim Report on the Work in connection with the War at present undertaken by the Medical Research Committee [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    TURKEY (INTERNMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS).
    Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if all British subjects in Constantinople are being interned in Turkey; and, if so, can he say on what grounds such action is being taken by the Turkish Government?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): I have no information to show that all British subjects in Constantinople are being interned, but inquiries are being made.

    GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY (INTERNMENT).
    Sir EDWARD CARSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state approximately how many British subjects are at present allowed to remain at large and uninterned in Germany, and how many German subjects are, uninterned in the United Kingdom?
    Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Government have no information as to the number of British subjects who are at present in Germany uninterned. We have received a list of 513 persons who have been released from Ruhleben up to the 20th ultimo. Some of these persons are now serving in the German Army and a considerable proportion of them have German names. With regard to the second part of the question I am informed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the total number of Germans and Austro-Hungarians at large in the United Kingdom is 24,000 men and 16,000 women. Separate figures as to the number of Germans at large are not available.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of those British subjects who have been released, and who are now serving in the German Army, are naturalised?
    Sir E. GREY: I have no further particulars.
    Mr. KING: Do the figures of 21,000 men and 60,000 women include children, or are there children in addition to those?
    Sir E. GREY: These are questions of fact. These figures can only be obtained from the Home Office. The only particulars I have are those I have given in answer to the question.

    CONSTANTINOPLE.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Government of Roumania has been influenced by the view that a change in the possession of Constantinople may be to the detriment of that country; can he state whether any agreement has been arrived at between the Allies as regards the future of Constantinople in the event of its fall; and, in such case, can he state what commitment was entered into by His Majesty's Government?
    Sir E. GREY: It would not be in the public interest, and it might gravely prejudice the progress and prospects of the War, if public statements were to be made at this moment on important questions of policy such as this.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the Governments of Australia and New Zealand be consulted in regard to the disposal of Constantinople in conformity with the pledges given—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.

  DARDANELLES.

    BRITISH AND TURKISH LOSSES.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Lord Fisher, in the course of the consultation regarding the March attack on the Dardanelles, expressed the view that it would be wiser to wait for the co-operation of a military force; and, if so, who overruled such advice?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): Before answering the question on the Paper, I may give the House some information I have received. I regret to say that we have just heard from

    1795
    the Admiral of the Dardanelles that the battleship "Goliath" was torpedoed last night in a torpedo attack by destroyers when she was protecting the French flank just inside the Straits. There are 20 officers and 160 men saved, which, I fear, means that over 500 lives have been lost. The Admiral has also telegraphed that the submarine E 14, which with so much daring penetrated the Sea of Marmora some time ago, has reported that she has sunk two Turkish gunboats and another large Turkish transport. I thought the House would wish to have that information.
    With regard to the hon. Member's question, I am sure this House will not approve of this kind of question, which is calculated to be detrimental to public interests of serious importance. The unity and integrity of the Board of Admiralty ought not in time of war to be impugned by any Member.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman come to that decision last week, before he answered a question of a similar character put by his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Kellaway)?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no conflict between my answer on this occasion and the answer I gave then.

  MERCHANT TRANSPORTS (NAVAL DISCIPLINE).
  Mr. PETOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the memorial signed by fifty-three masters of merchant transports, dated 23rd October last, to the Director of Transports, asking that crews serving in the ships engaged in the Government duty of transporting troops should be brought under the provisions of the Naval Discipline Acts, 1866 to 1909, and the report of the Director of Transports to the First Lord of the Admiralty of 6th March last, urging that seamen so employed should be brought under naval discipline, he has now decided to take this course?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The question of the terms and conditions
  1796
  under which crews of transports are engaged is one to which close attention has been and is being given.
  Mr. PETO: Has the right hon. Gentleman had his attention called to the cases now being reported in the papers where exemplary punishment has had to be administered by the civil authority, owing to breaches of discipline, to men engaged in transport?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir, the whole matter is receiving close attention.

  IRISH RAILWAYS (BONUS).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in reply to his circular, several Irish railway companies have agreed to meet the men's representatives to discuss the question of War bonus given on the terms and conditions as it is given in England and Scotland; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): If this question refers to companies not covered by my answer of yesterday I may state that such, companies are, I understand, already granting a War bonus to their employés, and are willing to discuss with them the question of its sufficiency.

  BRITISH INDUSTRIES EXHIBITION.
  Mr. NEWDEGATEased the President of the Board of Trade if he will ascertain by what means the German commercial agent, who assured representatives of British industry that after the War Germany would speedily undersell British trade, obtained a ticket to visit the British Industries Exhibition, at the Agricultural Hall, Islington, on 11th May, as such tickets are issued by the Board of Trade?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Upwards of 45,000 invitations have been issued by the Commercial Intelligence Branch of the Board of Trade, most of the names having been obtained from lists of customers supplied by exhibiting firms. Every effort was made to prevent any of these invitations falling into unfriendly hands, but the hon. Member will appreciate the great difficulty of ensuring this absolutely when dealing with such large numbers.

  COAL PRICES.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked what steps the Government have taken in carrying out the recommendations of the Committee on the retail price of coal; and whether any effort has been made to secure action on the part of the Scottish coalowners in restricting the price of coal to home consumers?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: In addition to the action stated in my answer to the questions asked by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members on the 28th April, an Order in Council has now been issued restricting the export of coal to neutral countries as from to-day. The Scottish coalowners were represented at the Board of Trade Conference at which the following resolution was passed:—
  "This meeting of coalowners, having a desire to moderate the prices of coal for home consumption as far as may be practicable in the interest of the country, recommend that the question of the prices of such coal be considered by the coalowners in the various districts with this object in view."
  Mr. MILLAR: Is it not the case that coalowners in the Midlands have already agreed to restrict the price of coal for home consumption, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the Scottish coalowners do the same?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not aware of the exact steps which have been taken by Midland coalowners, but I am conferring with them this week, and if my hon. Friend will put a question on the subject I hope to be able to give him the information next week.
  Mr. MILLAR: In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman also take the opportunity of conferring with the Scottish coalowners and try to get them to take the same action?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, I am doing so as rapidly as I can, but I cannot see them all at once.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the coalowners in the North of England have raised the price of coal in one day by 7s. 6d. per ton for household consumption?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, I have heard of some of these instances, but have not been able to verify them. Any information which is sent to me will be valuable.

  ALIEN ENEMIES IN UNITED KINGDOM.
  Sir R. COOPERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the approval of the German people of the use of poisonous gas and the poisoning of water supplies, he is aware that the presence of a large number of alien enemies at large in this country constitutes a grave danger to a large proportion of the lives of British citizens; and will he forthwith intern or deport all alien enemies, whether naturalised or not?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is making a statement to-day which will, I think, cover this question.
  Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the armed forces of the German Government, acting on the instructions of their Government, have deliberately murdered numbers of British women and children, and in view of the feeling in this country against persons of German parentage being allowed to remain in this country now or after the War, and to prevent rioting, will he deport forthwith to Germany all persons of German parentage, whether naturalised or not, interning those liable to military service till the end of the War?
  Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether he will provide an early opportunity for the House to consider the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for the St. Augustine Division of Kent? [That the restrictions placed on the liberty of Alien Enemies resident in the United Kingdom are insufficient under existing circumstances to secure the safety of the country.]
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): In answer to these questions I must refer to the statement which I shall make later.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there is interned at Handforth Camp

  1799
  as an alien enemy a youth, whose nationality is doubtful and can only be technically German since he has not resided in Germany since he was six months old, who took steps long before the outbreak of War to become a naturalised British subject, and after the outbreak of war desired to enlist; and whether there is any tribunal before which this young man, or others in similar conditions, can state his case and have an opportunity to prove good will?
  Mr. TENNANT: It is permissible for any interned alien to state his case either to the commandant of his camp or direct to the War Office, when it would receive attention. The case of the youth mentioned in the question was fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the answer he gave on the 11th instant, and this hardly appears a suitable occasion for extending the benefit of the doubt, if any such doubt in fact exists.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Secretary of State will advise such remission of the sentences passed at Douglas upon German soldiers who escaped from custody as will render them consistent with the sentences passed at Chester upon German officers for a similar offence?
  Mr. TENNANT: I cannot, on the information afforded, identify the cases to which my hon. Friend refers. No German soldiers are or have been interned at Douglas.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if Germans, either naturalised or not, are allowed to leave this country for Germany except in exchange for a British subject interned in Germany?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Except in the case of the specific exchange of Consular officers the issue of permits to leave the United Kingdom to women and children, men under the age of seventeen and over the age of fifty-five, and
  1800
  ministers of religion and doctors has not depended on personal exchange. The permits have been granted in accordance with the agreement with the German Government, which was that all persons of these classes should be allowed to return.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: May I ask was a man like Major Bruno Schmidt-Reder, who was let out of an internment camp, exchanged with anybody?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think so, but perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a more general question: Whether persons at military internment camps are allowed to go back without being exchanged?
  Mr. McKENNA: It depends whether they come under the definition of being men under the age of seventeen or over the age of fifty-five, or are ministers of religion or doctors.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of making an exchange compulsory in all cases?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not a question of exchange, because all persons of those categories are allowed to depart from this country or from Germany.
  HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
  Mr. McKENNA: That is what I understand is the condition, and if the agreement has not been carried out I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the Foreign Office. I have no knowledge of it.

  TEMPERANCE DRINKS (ALCOHOL).
  Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Inland Revenue authorities demand duty on all beverages containing over 2 per cent. of proof spirit; whether that is approximately equivalent to 1 per cent. of alcohol; whether any considerable quantity of beverages are in fact being sold as temperance drinks or without having paid duty; and whether, if that is so, he will take steps to see that the revenue is no longer defrauded?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Acland): Two per cent. of proof spirit is approximately equivalent to 1 per cent. of alcohol, but the Customs and Excise authorities do not demand duty on all beverages containing more than 2 per cent. of proof spirit, as some of them are not taxable. If a drink sold as a temperance drink falls within the definition of beer it is liable to duty if it contains more than 2 per cent. of proof spirit; if it does not fall within that definition it is not liable to duty. I have no reason to think that any considerable quantity of drinks sold as temperance drinks which are liable to duty escape the charge to duty.

  CORRESPONDENCE FROM HOLLAND.
  Mr. FELLasked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the fact that German letters are now being freely delivered in this country, having been addressed to German agents in Holland and by them forwarded in covering envelopes; if correspondence from Holland is examined by the Censor; and, if not, why this condition of affairs is allowed to continue?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): The delivery of such letters is permitted provided that the contents are harmless. All correspondence from Holland is subject to examination by the British military censors.
  Mr. FELL: Is it carried through in every case? Are all Dutch letters opened and examined?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: They are not censored by the Post Office. That duty falls upon the military censors, and I understand they do so in practically every case.

  POSTAL EMPLOYES (EARNINGS).
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked what is the maximum amount which could be earned by a sorting clerk or telegraphist in London at the maximum of 65s. who had performed sixty hours in a single week; whether it is possible for a man employed in a Class V. provincial office to earn more than £3 for the same number of hours; and what is the total number of men who have earned £11 in a single week, and the actual number of hours
  1802
  such men have performed to earn this sum?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: A male telegraphist in London at the maximum of his scale I and in receipt of technical and language allowances of 3s. and 2s. 6d., respectively, would receive £4 14s. 6d. for sixty hours' work on week-days in a single week. A male sorting clerk and telegraphist at a Class V. office in the provinces in receipt of the maximum wages, plus technical allowance, would receive £3 0s. 6d. for the same number of hours. I regret that no information is available which would enable me to state the total number of men who have earned as much as £11 in a single week, but such cases are few in number, though six are known to have occurred in one week in last August, entailing very long hours indeed. The actual number of hours worked in order to earn as much as £11 in a week would vary with the pay of the officer concerned.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: What is the amount a man may receive, apart from technical special allowances, which are exceptional?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I should have to calculate that. If the hon. Member puts a question on the Paper I will give him the information.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that the question refers to the general clerk and not to the special, whose figures he has quoted?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: A great number of people are in receipt of this allowance. My answer was quite as general as if had answered the hon. Member's supplementary question.

  ADMIRALTY PURCHASES (SCOTLAND).
  Mr. WATTasked what percentage of the purchases made by the Admiralty during the month of April were made with Scottish firms with places of business in Scotland?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The purchases made during April were very numerous, and a Return giving complete information on the point raised would require an amount of detailed work which, I am afraid, cannot at present be undertaken. My hon. Friend may rest assured that Scotland receives a good share of Admiralty work.

  GERMAN RESIDENTS IN GREAT BRITAIN.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any information as to the steps, if any, that have been taken by German residents in this country publicly to protest against, and to dissociate themselves from, the conduct of the German Government in flagrantly violating Conventions of The Hague to which they were parties, and in authorising or permitting murderous attacks on civilians, including women and children? [I may explain that this question was handed in before any protest appeared in the public Press.]
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no information beyond what is derived from the Press.

  THEATRE AND MUSIC HALL PERFORMERS.
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of men of military age who are now engaged in the chorus of the theatres and music halls of the Metropolis at the present time; and if, in view of the effect of the presence of a large number of young men who should be serving their country being exhibited nightly on other young men in the audience, he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The inquiry which is being made as to the number of men who can be spared for enlistment from the several industries have not yet reached the theatrical profession, where the numbers are comparatively small; but I will consider what steps can be taken in the matter.
  Mr. FELL: Is it not less a question of the actual numbers than of the example which those men set by appearing publicly for young men to see them?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes.

  NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENTS (DARDANELLES).
  Mr. FELLasked the Solicitor-General if newspaper correspondents are
  1804
  allowed to accompany the Expeditionary Forces at the Dardanelles and send for publication long detailed accounts of the operations there which appear in the Press promptly; and if he will say what is the reason why this theatre of operations is alone given this privilege of publicity?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir. A very limited number of correspondents has been sent to the Dardanelles. The admission of correspondents with the British Forces in France has been regulated so as to comply with the conditions being followed by the French military authorities in regard to the presence of correpondents with the French Forces. From time to time British and French Press representatives have been allowed to pay visits of limited duration to their respective Armies. The circumstances in which the operations are being conducted in France and the Dardanelles are essentially different for these purposes.
  Mr. FELL: Are these correspondents in the Dardanelles there with the sanction of the French authorities?
  Mr. TENNANT: That really does not arise there in the same degree as on the Continent.

  MILITARY USE OF SCHOOLS (LIVERPOOL).
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that at least six schools in Liverpool have been taken over by the military authorities, with the result that the scholars have only one long session per day; whether he is aware that only the top floor of the Midland Adelphi Hotel is now being occupied by the military authorities; and whether he will take action, in co-operation with those responsible, to secure that the whole of the hotel in question, together with other similar buildings, may be utilised to ensure that the education of the children of the working men of Liverpool may not be prejudiced through the continuance of the present arrangements?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Dr. Addison): Four existing schools and three new buildings in Liverpool are being used

  1805
  as military hospitals. The scholars are attending four other schools on the double shift system, no suitable temporary accommodation being available. I do not know for what, if any, military purposes the Midland Adelphi Hotel is being used. The Committee, which my right hon. Friend appointed to deal with the matter, inspected a number of buildings in Liverpool, the use of which for military hospitals instead of schools was suggested, but they all proved unsuitable. The use of the Midland Adelphi Hotel was not suggested, but we will see whether the suggestion has been considered.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, that there are many buildings used only one day a week—I mean churches and chapels—in Liverpool and elsewhere which might be used for the military authorities?
  Dr. ADDISON: All these matters are being carefully considered.

  PRIZE COMMITTEE CLAIMS.
  Sir E. CARSONasked the Attorney-General if he could state, as promised, the amount of the claims which up to this date have been presented to the Prize Committee instituted by the Government?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): The total amount of the claims sent in for the consideration of the Prize Claims Committee up to 1st May is £223,295 10s. 9½d. The total amount of the claims which it is estimated would be recommended for allowance by the Committee is about £103,000, i.e., at a rough estimate, about 2.7 per cent. of the total estimated value of condemned ships and cargoes. The total amount which it is estimated would be recommended for allowance by the Committee in respect of claims made against ships which have been condemned is about £34,033, i.e., about 2.6 per cent. of the total estimated value of such ships.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any claims that have been received or recommended for allowance come from alien firms?
  Sir J. SIMON: The only claims that can be considered are claims made by British or neutral countries.

  CIVIL SERVANTS (BONUS).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was able to reply to the proposals for arbitration on the question of a war bonus for Civil servants addressed to him on the 27th April by the Civil Service Federation; and, if not, will he say when a reply may be expected?
  Mr. ACLAND: My right hon. Friend very much regrets that he is not yet in a position to reply, but hopes to be able to do so next week.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TREASURY ISSUES).
  Mr. CHAMBERLAINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could communicate to the House the result of the inquiry which he promised to make of Lord St. Aldwyn as to the attitude of the Treasury Committee on new issues towards the London County Council new building scheme for schools?
  Mr. ACLAND: Lord St. Aldwyn has intimated to my right hon. Friend that the Committee on Fresh Issues did not formally consider the application as they were informed that it had already been sanctioned by the Cabinet. Lord St. Aldwyn added that if the case had been formally considered by the Committee, he felt sure they would have refused to sanction it.

  ESTATE AND DEATH DUTIES.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount received in respect of increased Estate Duties under the Finance Act, 1914; and the total value of personalty which has passed and duties which have been actually paid thereon under the Death Duties (Killed in War) Act, 1914, since the beginning of the War?
  Mr. ACLAND: The total amount received up to the 31st March in respect of the increase in the rates of Estate Duties under the Finance Act, 1914, was, approximately, £870,000. The total value of the personalty referred to in the second part of the question in respect of which duty was paid up to the 31st March was, approximately, £1,600,000, the amount of duty being about £72,000.

  PRINCE OF WALES' RELIEF FUND.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether he will indicate which Members of the Government are members of the executive committee of the Prince of Wales' Relief Fund; and whether, having regard to the magnitude of the fund and to its national objects, he will consider whether the Government will now, by legislation or otherwise, undertake responsibility for the administration of such charitable sums?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Secretary for Scotland are now the only Members of the Government who are members of the executive committee of the National Relief Fund. I think there are objections to the Government undertaking the responsibility for the administration of a charitable fund consisting solely of voluntary subscriptions.
  Sir W. BYLES: Considering the enormous magnitude of the amount does not the Prime Minister think it desirable that there should be some official control of the distribution of many millions of money?
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Is it not a fact that a scheme is suggested for taking charge of this scheme?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of it.
  Mr. KING: Is it not the fact that this fund will in some measure come under the control or rule of the Charity Commissioners?

  GERMAN VIOLATION OF CONVENTIONS.
  Mr. DAVID MASONasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of bringing to the notice of the neutral Powers the flagrant violations by Germany of the rules and usages of civilised warfare and the conventions to which the Powers are signatories, as more likely to load to action on the part of the neutral Powers, rather than awaiting their taking the first steps in the matter?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I see no reason to modify the answer which I gave on this subject on Monday last.
  Mr. MASON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider it advisable that the
  1808
  printed Report just issued by Lord Bryce's Committee should be brought to the notice of these neutral countries?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am sure that Lord Bryce's Report will be read all over the world.
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: Would it not be advisable to let every householder all over the country have a copy of it?
  Mr. NEVILLE: Would it not be well to have it read in public?

  TEMPORARY CIVIL SERVANTS.
  Mr. HORNERasked whether, in view of the fact that the services of many temporary Civil servants have been dispensed with by Goernment departments owing to the War, His Majesty's Government will use their best endeavour to employ these men in some other capacity in departments in which men are required?
  Mr. ACLAND: I should be glad if it should prove possible to make such arrangements, but it would, of course, depend on the nature of the qualifications of the persons whom the hon. and learned Member has in mind whether they could advantageously be employed in other Departments requiring assistance, inasmuch as the emergency work required is ordinarily little more than routine clerical work.

  LANDOWNERS AND FARMERS (MILITARY OPERATIONS).
  Colonel LOCKWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can fix any date for the payment of damages to small landowners and farmers who have been deprived of their living through the military operations carried out on the land in their occupation?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. Baker): I understand that the Royal Commission propose to consider these cases immediately and to dispose of them as rapidly as circumstances admit.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many small farmers are almost penniless through these claims not being paid?
  Mr. BAKER: I believe that the Royal Commission is going to consider them this week.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: What is the machinery to be adopted in assessing the value of the claims?
  Mr. BAKER: That will be for the Royal Commission to determine.

  SLWCH CAMP, BRECON.
  Mr. ROBINSONasked whether it is now the intention of the War Office to make use of the huts erected several months since at the Slwch Camp, Brecon; and, if so, what battalion is to be housed there?
  Mr. TENNANT: Slwch Camp is utilised for recruits passing through Brecon Depot, of which it forms part, but it is not proposed to use either this or other depots as permanent stations for units.
  Mr. ROBINSON: Is it not intended to use these huts at all, and, if not, then for what purpose have they been erected?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes. I have just informed my hon. Friend that it is proposed to use them for recruits passing through the depot of which they form a part. They are to be used only as part of the depot.

  BRITISH ARMY (COMMANDS).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state when it is proposed to publish a gazette filling up all the higher commands in regiments which have been vacated owing to casualties during the War?
  Mr. TENNANT: The filling of vacancies in regiments and battalions is a matter in which the Commander-in-Chief in the field is concerned, and it is not merely an automatic clerical process as is sometimes supposed. All the vacancies are dealt with as soon as they occur, when the necessary information as to the fitness of the officers next in succession is available. I dealt with the question of promoting officers to temporary rank in an answer to the hon. and learned Member for York yesterday.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked why it is essential to keep the names of generals commanding divisions and brigades of the British Army from the enemy while permitting the publication of similar information in regard to the Canadian forces?
  Mr. TENNANT: I think this question is covered by the answers I gave to the hon.
  1810
  Member on the 20th April. I will ask him to accept my assurance that it is undesirable in the military interest to make public, and as a consequence to correct from time to time as necessary, an authorised list of the names of the generals comcanding divisions and brigades.

  CANADIAN TROOPS, SALISBURY PLAIN.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on the 23rd November, 1914, £5 14s. was sent in a registered packet by the officer commanding the 16th Lancashire Battery of the Royal Field Artillery at Sutherland to Corporal W. W. Breese, for pay to himself and five men who had been dispatched to Salisbury Plain for the purpose of building additional huts for the Canadian troops; whether such money never reached the corporal; and whether the War Office will take steps to compel the Post Office to refund the amount?
  Mr. TENNANT: I understand that the facts are as stated in the first two parts of the question. The policy of compulsion cannot be entertained, as the hon. Member suggests, but the matter is being further investigated. The orderly Donagher is now serving with the Expeditionary Force.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Postmaster-General as to where this money has gone and get it back?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have informed the hon. Member where the money is. The receipt was signed by the orderly Donagher.

  BILLETING WITH GERMANS.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked if soldiers belonging to the force known as the Welsh Bantams are being billeted at Deganwy in the house of a Mrs. Brown who is a German and has a brother in the German Army; and if such a practice is in accordance with War Office regulations?
  Mr. TENNANT: The billeting of soldiers in houses occupied by alien enemies is avoided when it is known that the occupants are alien enemies, but I cannot say until I have received a report what the precise facts may be in the case mentioned in the question.

  CAPTURED TROPHIES (EXHIBITION).
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked if it is intended to arrange a public exhibition of guns and other trophies of War captured from the enemy?
  Mr. TENNANT: The matter is under consideration.

  TEMPORARY ASSISTANT CHEMISTS (WOOLWICH).
  Mr. LYNCHasked whether the conditions of appointment of temporary assistant chemists in the chemical laboratory of the department of the chief inspector, Woolwich Arsenal, have been recently improved; if so, to what extent; whether the department has now any difficulty in securing sufficient temporary assistant chemists properly qualified for the work entrusted to them; and whether the staff of the chemical department is now adequate for the work given to it without working overtime?
  Mr. BAKER: Yes, Sir. The chemists referred to are now paid at rates varying from £120 to £150 per annum, the previous rate being £2 0s. 6d. a week. The vacancies are not all filled, but no difficulty is anticipated in obtaining the requisite number of qualified chemists. Overtime, I am afraid, cannot be altogether avoided, as the work is fluctuating in character and often of great urgency.

  WIRELESS APPARATUS, DUBLIN.
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked whether an unauthorised wireless apparatus was recently discovered on the premises of a post office in county Dublin; if so, will he explain why it was not discovered earlier; what punishment has been awarded to the person or persons in whose possession it was found; and what steps have been taken to secure that no similar installations still remain undiscovered in other places throughout the country?
  Mr. TENNANT: The War Office have no information on this point. I have communicated with my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, and, though special inquiry has been made, nothing has been discovered of any such unauthorised wireless apparatus.

  GAS POISONING OF TROOPS.
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has yet been able to ascertain that, a fortnight before the Germans began to use poisonous gas as a weapon of war, the official eye-witness with the British Army stated that a warning had been received of the enemy's intention to use it; and if he will say what steps were taken in consequence of that warning to supply our troops with protection against the gas?
  Mr. TENNANT: As a regular practice, prisoners are interrogated by the Staff at the front. Any such statement as that, referred to would be considered by the military authorities with reference to any possible action. I am not aware, however, that this prisoner gave information as to which of the many possible gases his compatriots would use, and it would hardly have been possible in a fortnight to have provided protection against all possible kinds of gases.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Were any steps taken to provide protection?
  Mr. TENNANT: The officers in command at the front did not make any application for any form of protection.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Was any intimation conveyed during the earlier period of the War that the Germans were likely to use gas?
  Mr. TENNANT: There was no warning at all conveyed to the War Office. If any warning was conveyed, it was conveyed to officers at the front.
  Mr. McNEILL: Did these officers convey it to the War Office?
  Mr. TENNANT: They did not.

  RATION ALLOWANCE TO OFFICERS.
  Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether ration allowance to the officers employed at the War Office has been stopped; and, if so, whether, seeing that this inflicts hardship on many officers temporarily employed at the War Office who are unable to make any arrangements for living in the neighbourhood, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. BAKER: No issue of this allowance to officers drawing the special rates of pay provided for the War Office has been made since 3rd April pending a final decision on the question, which it is hoped will be arrived at shortly.
  Mr. PETO: What is the reason for differentiation in the case of those employed at the War Office?
  Mr. BAKER: It is a question of the interpretation of regulations.

  SCOTTISH-CURED HERRINGS.
  Mr. SUTHERLANDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Scottish-cured herrings form a staple article of the dietary of German working-men; whether the refusal of German prisoners to use them in this country arises from the higher standard of living to which they are now being accustomed or to the want of knowledge of proper preparation of the herrings on the part of those in charge of the arrangements; whether, if the former is the fact, he will state what steps he will take to give them the same sort of food here as they receive at home; and whether, in the other case, he will employ a few experts in the preparation of such food to superintend its preparation and distribution in the camps?
  Mr. TENNANT: I informed my hon. Friend as to the results of the experiments with the Scottish-cured herrings on the 6th May. As I stated, they were not successful, and I fear that I do not see my way to press the matter further.
  Mr. WATT: In view of the very severe blow which the fishing trade has experienced on account of the War, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it his duty, especially as a Scottish Member, to make a great effort?
  Mr. TENNANT: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. I thought that it was my duty some months ago, and I went a very long way to make successful experiments, but all the reports were against me.
  Mr. WATT: Experiments in one camp?
  Mr. TENNANT: No; the hon. Member is mistaken. I made several experiments.

  PERFECT AND COMPANY.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will explain why, if Mr. Frank Knowles and Mr. Raymond Wells are Government servants in receipt of salaries, and the wages of Perfect and Company's employés are paid by the Government, it should be necessary to have any transactions with Perfect and Company at all, seeing that this firm is simply these two gentlemen in their combined capacity; will he define the exact duties of Mr. Knowles and Mr. Wells, what salaries are paid to them, and whether they receive any remuneration from the Government in addition to these salaries; at what date was the form of remuneration of Mr. Knowles altered from payment by fee into payment by salary; whether Mr. Lloyd is employed by one or other of these two gentlemen or by both combined, and how he can reconcile the employment of Mr. Lloyd on other than Government work with his statement that Mr. Knowles has, since the War, devoted his whole time to the Government's work; whether Mr. Wells has had any training as a practical butcher; if so, under what firm, and how long was he in their employment; and whether, through Perfect and Company or otherwise, any persons employed by Weddel and Company, or employed on the market to sell Weddel and Company's goods by firms who are Weddel's agents, have been employed to inspect goods intended for the troops?
  Mr. BAKER: The answers to the various parts of the hon. Member's question, taken in order, are as follows: The firm of Messrs. Perfect and Company place at the disposal of the War Department the services of their two principals and a certain number of their employés. The whole of the employés of the firm are not engaged on Government work, and the firm continues to exist for the transaction of private business. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Wells are employed in supervising and arranging for the discharge, storage, inspection and distribution of the meat supplies for the troops. The salary paid to each of these gentlemen is 7½ guineas a day; payments are also made to Messrs. Perfect and Company on account of wages of employés and certain out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the War Department work. The alteration in the remuneration of Mr. Knowles was made as from the commencement of the War. Mr. Lloyd is not employed by either Mr.

  1815
  Knowles or Mr. Wells individually, but by the firm of Messrs. Perfect and Company. The fact that Mr. Knowles is employed wholly on Government work does not appear to be in any way inconsistent with the fact that Mr. Lloyd is not so employed at all. Mr. Wells, as already stated in answer to a previous question, has no training as a practical butcher, but has undergone the course of training prescribed by the Royal Sanitary Institute for meat inspectors. One of Weddel and Company's employés is now employed by Messrs. Perfect and Company to assist in Government work.
  Sir R. COOPER: Have this firm of Perfect and Company large contracts with the War Office at the same time that its principals still hold official positions at the War Office and have inside information and influence?
  Mr. BAKER: It was explicitly stated in reply to a question that this company have not only no contract with the War Office, but no contract with anybody.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Is not seven and a half guineas a day rather a large sum to pay?
  Mr. BAKER: No, I think not, in view of the services they are rendering; they are giving their whole time.

  NERVE STRAIN AND MENTAL DISTURBANCE (TREATMENT).
  Mr. RENDALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state what arrangements have been made by the War Office to provide hospital treatment on purely medical lines for cases of nerve strain among the rank and file where each case may be sifted and diagnosed on arrival in England before being placed in charge of medical officers (Royal Army Medical Corps) who have been taken over from the asylum service?
  Mr. TENNANT: At large hospital centres in France specialists in nervous diseases, not alienists, see all cases of nerve strain and determine to which clearing hospital the cases should be sent on arrival in England. At these hospitals the cases are carefully gone into and those which are suitable are transferred to certain special hospitals, which are quite distinct from what my hon. Friend calls the asylum service.
  Mr. RENDALL: Will the soldiers who are placed in such hospitals, which are really asylums, have the same right of appeal against decisions as ordinary civilians?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not quite understand the question; perhaps my hon. Friend will put a fresh question.
  Mr. RENDALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of providing for the treatment of transiently acute cases of mental disturbance among soldiers by the methods applicable to delirious (toxic) cases in general hospitals, with a view to keeping them apart from lunacy and asylum management?
  Mr. TENNANT: The cases mentioned in the question are dealt with at either "D" block, Netley, or Napsbury Military Hospital. These cases are kept absolutely apart from certified mental cases and the hospitals are under War Office management.
  Mr. RENDALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that by the provisions of the Mental Treatment Bill now before the House the soldier disabled by nerve strain will be liable, when discharged uncured from the Army, to be placed, at the discretion of one doctor, for six months under care and treatment in an institution intended for the insane; that there is no provision in the Bill for any appeal to a magistrate; and will he undertake to propose or accept an Amendment whereby the ordinary safe guards extended hitherto to all British subjects protecting them from unjust treatment may be made equally applicable for the protection of soldiers?
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I think my hon. Friend has misunderstood the object of the Bill, which was to secure suitable treatment of cases of nerve strain without compulsory detention; but I need not go further into the matter, as I hope that arrangements for this purpose may now be made without legislation and that it will not be necessary to proceed with the Bill.
  Mr. RENDALL: Will the soldiers have right of appeal to the magistrates in the same way as civilians?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think my hon. Friend must put that question to the War Office.

  CLOTHING CONTRACTS.
  Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the proportion which Scotland usually gets in any distribution of a common fund is one-ninth, or over 11 per cent.; whether he is aware that the share of the recent clothing contract given to Scotland was only 4¼ per cent. of the total; and whether, in these circumstances, he proposes to increase the contract with the Scottish makers?
  Mr. BAKER: I am not aware of the fact stated in the first part of the question, but I do not think that if correct it would form a sound basis for the calculation proposed. As I recently informed my hon. Friend, Scotland obtained a considerably larger share of the contract in question than it would strictly have been entitled to on the basis of manufacturing capacity as indicated by the total number of garments tendered for by Scotch firms.
  Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that during the fulfilment of the earlier contracts for clothing made by his Department for the New Army representations were made by his Department or their agents to the smaller makers in Scotland that if they put in more machines sufficient orders would be given by the War Office to keep them going for some time; and that in the placing of the recent contract these promises have been entirely ignored, with the result that some of the smaller makers there are practically ruined; and whether, under these circumstances, he can place a further order with the smaller makers?
  Mr. BAKER: I am unable to discover that any representations of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend were made.

  ARMY FOOD SUPPLIES.
  Mr. HODGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that complaints are reaching the parents of soldiers of one of the Manchester regiments in training at Grantham as to the quality and lack of quantity of food supplies; and can he state whether the supply of food is in the hands of a contractor?
  Mr. BAKER: I understand that information to this effect has been received from
  1818
  a newspaper; the General Officer Commanding, however, reports that he has received no complaints and that the supply services at the camp are well administered. The supply is not in the hands of a contractor. The food is of the best quality and is supplied from Government store.

  KRUPPS' PATENT FUSES.
  Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, seeing Krupps' patent for fuses expired last July, he will say who are the two firms in this country who entered into private arrangements with Krupps to continue the payments; whether His Majesty's Government have paid these two firms and other firms a price for fuses which includes a royalty of 9d. per fuse and in some cases 1s. per fuse; whether this represents a charge of £5,000 per day; and will he say why should His Majesty's Government pay royalty on a patent which has expired?
  Mr. BAKER: Royalty, as such, is not being paid by His Majesty's Government. The firms in question, before the War, made commercial agreements with the patentees by which, in return for the disclosure of certain trade secrets relating to these fuses, the payments were to be continued after expiry of the patent. These arrangements, no doubt, affect the prices charged, but, as I have already stated, the legal position under present conditions is now the subject of inquiry.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the price settled by His Majesty's Government goes actually to the manufacturers, and that the money is not paid to Messrs. Krupps; and, if this money is not paid to Messrs. Krupps, is he aware that it is sent to a special fund to be handed over to them after the War?
  Mr. BAKER: I think the whole question as to what will happen to commercial profits due to Germany cannot be held to be settled, and this matter no doubt will be treated on its merits.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Will the hon. Member communicate the results of the inquiry to the House?
  Mr. BAKER: Certainly.

  OFFICERS' EXPENSES.
  Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any extra allowance is granted to officers ordered to proceed abroad and who have been put to considerable expense in procuring another kit for warm climates?
  Mr. BAKER: Grants have been made in cases of this nature where the circumstances justified them, and consideration will be extended to similar cases arising in future.

  OPERATIVE DYERS (BONUS).
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware of the fact that Messrs. R. and J. Partington, Moorside, Swinton, Manchester, manufacturers and dyers, a firm engaged on Government contracts, have declined to pay their operative dyers the War bonus of 3s. per week which nearly every firm of dyers in the country are paying, and will not even acknowledge communications addressed to them on the subject by the trade union concerned, and that a strike has occurred in consequence; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. BAKER: I have no knowledge of the facts stated in the question. I may add that the firm does not at present hold any War Office contract.

  MUNITIONS FROM NORTH AMERICA.
  Sir R. COOPERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if a contract has recently been made for a considerable supply of munitions of war from North America without the intervention of Messrs. J. P. Morgan and Company, of New York; and whether Messrs. J. P. Morgan and Company were to receive a commission or honorarium of about four million dollars from the contracting parties for waiving their rights under their agreement with the War Office?
  Mr. BAKER: Yes, Sir, certain contracts for munitions of war have recently been placed in North America without the
  1820
  intervention of Messrs. J. P. Morgan and Company. I am not aware that any commission or honorarium is being paid by the parties concerned to Messrs. Morgan, nor is it understood to what rights the hon. Member refers.
  Sir R. COOPER: Is it not the fact that Messrs. Morgan and Company hold a contract under which they are entitled to say whether a contract shall or shall not be placed in North America?
  Mr. BAKER: No; quite the reverse. The English Government has a perfectly free hand.

  PROFICIENCY PAY.
  Mr. MOUNTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that repayment of proficiency pay is being demanded from men now serving in the National Reserve whose former service has been in the Royal Navy, even in cases where such men have been promoted to the rank of non-commissioned officer in the force in which they are now serving; and whether, in view of the hardship which is thereby entailed on such men, he will see whether the order demanding such repayment can be cancelled?
  Mr. BAKER: If the hon. Member will give me particulars of the cases which he has in mind, steps will be taken to see that no undue hardship is caused by the recovery of these overissues.

  ACTING-PAYMASTERS.
  Mr. HORNERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office (1) if he will state definitely what is the status of an acting-paymaster; and (2) whether the Department to which acting-paymasters belong is essentially military; whether they are responsible for the correct issue of large sums of public money and their work is supervised by military officers; whether they have under their control, without any powers of discipline, soldiers varying in rank from private to quartermaster-sergeant; whether he is aware that their duties are as difficult, arduous, and important as those of many officers in other non-combatant corps; and whether, if it is not deemed advisable to

  1821
  give temporary commissioned rank to all acting-paymasters, some arrangement could be made by which a certain proportion of them could be granted this rank on the recommendation of each regimental paymaster or otherwise?
  Mr. BAKER: An acting-paymaster is generally a temporary civilian officer serving in an Army Department. The Department in question is largely but not wholly military in its personnel. The duties of acting-paymasters are generally to assist the officers of the Department in the supervision of clerical work connected with payments and accounting. Some of this work is performed by soldiers and some by civilians. The military discipline of the soldiers is in the hands of the military officers of the Department, and no difficulty arises from this arrangement. The fact that clerical duties are difficult, arduous, and important does not in itself call for their discharge by military officers. In a few cases, where it has been found necessary to send acting-paymasters to join the Army in the Field, they have been given military commissions; but for their duties at Home this is not necessary.
  Mr. HORNERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that several acting-paymasters applied for commissions in the combatant forces, that in many instances no reply whatever was given to them, and that in many other instances the reply was to the effect that they were not eligible for commissions, as they were under agreement to serve as acting-paymasters; and whether he can give an undertaking that in future no obstacle will be placed by the War Office in the way of those acting-paymasters anxious to obtain those commissions and capable of serving.
  Mr. BAKER: I am not aware of any such cases as those referred to; but I can assure the hon. member that the War Office will place no obstacle in the way of eligible Acting Paymasters who desire to apply for Commissions in other Arms of the Service.
  Mr. HORNER: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the list, if I hand it to him, of those men who have applied and been refused?
  Mr. BAKER: Yes; certainly.

  ROYAL INDIAN MARINE.
  Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether a reply has yet been received from the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty sanctioning the grant of the naval medal to the officers and men of the Royal Indian Marine for services in the Persian Gulf during the years 1909–14, and if the medal rolls have yet been prepared; and what further steps have been taken regarding the distribution of prize money to the-officers and men of the Royal Indian Marine who were entitled to it for the same services, with especial reference to the operations prior to the outbreak of War?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): The-Secretary of State is not yet in possession of the decision of the Admiralty on the question of the grant of the naval medal to officers and men of the Royal Indian Marine. The Government of India have informed the Secretary of State that no officers and men of the Royal Indian Marine have performed services in the Persian Gulf of a kind for which prize money can be awarded, though there may be grounds for the grant of a small monetary reward in the case of the "Minto."

  GERMANS IN INDIA.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Under - Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information as to the number of Germans in India who now hold Government contracts or are employed in any capacity by the Government?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Secretary of State has no detailed information on the subject. The general condition of admission to Government service in India is, with one or two exceptions, that the candidate must be a British subject. In many important Departments there is the further condition that the candidate must be a natural-born British subject and that at the time of his birth his father must have been a British subject, either natural-born or naturalised. As stringent measures have to be taken by the Indian Government to put an end to trading in India by firms or companies containing a hostile element and to intern enemies' subjects, it is highly improbable that any German subject now holds a Government contract in India.

  DOUBLE-COMPANY COMMANDERS (INDIA).
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary for India whether, when one of the four double-company commanders in a battalion is detailed to command the depôt of a regiment and another officer is appointed in his place to command a double company in that battalion on active service, such last-mentioned officer is precluded from drawing staff pay on the ground that staff pay cannot be allowed for more than four double-company commanders in any one battalion; and whether, in the case supposed, staff pay can be allowed to the officer in question as a special case.
  Mr. ROBERTS: It has been decided, as a special measure during the War, that in the case in question if four-squadron or double-company commanders are serving with a regiment in the field they shall all receive the pay of their appointments.

  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (CLERICAL STAFFS).
  Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a decision regarding the increases of pay to the clerical staffs of His Majesty's dockyards and naval establishments has yet been arrived at; whether the terms can be communicated to the House; and, if a decision has not yet been reached, can a date be given when it may be expected?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The matter referred to in my hon. Friend's question is still under consideration. I hope that an announcement may be made shortly.

  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
  Mr. PRATTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether separation allowance is payable in respect of the children of a soldier who are boarded out by the local authority and where the soldier makes no allotment?
  Mr. BAKER: If a child already drawing separation allowance is boarded out by a local authority, the payment of separation allowance is continued. If the child was boarded out prior to the father's
  1824
  enlistment, separation allowance is only paid in continuance of a previous regular payment by the father.

  NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENTS.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether the military correspondent of the "Times," Colonel Repington, is now staying at the British Headquarters and is sending dispatches to his newspaper which are censored by a member of the General Staff; is the arrangement within the knowledge of, or has it the approval of, the Minister for War; and is it proposed to grant similar facilities to other military correspondents and critics?
  Mr. TENNANT: The Secretary of State has no knowledge of Colonel Repington's whereabouts.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Will my right hon. Friend ascertain whether special facilities are being given to this newspaper, and, if so, will similar facilities be given to other members of the Press?
  Mr. TENNANT: I will make inquiries, but I can make no promises.

  China and Japan.
  Mr. YEOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he proposes to lay upon the Table any Papers in connection with the recent developments in China, so that Members may have an opportunity of studying all the facts of the case?
  Sir E. GREY: It is for the Governments of China and Japan to make public the important features of the agreement between them or of their negotiations. I cannot do that, but I should welcome any publicity that the Governments of Japan and China feel able to give.
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his recent inability to give the House of Commons information regarding the nature of the demands that had been made by the Japanese Government upon China is to be taken as signifying that it is the policy of the Government to give pledges of secrecy to foreign Government in connection with matters vitally affecting British interests?
  Sir E. GREY: There is no question of policy involved. It is one solely of fact. I am unable to publish information given me confidentially by another Government. I could, of course, refuse in future to receive any information from any foreign Government except on condition that I publish it at once, but I do not think it would be for the public advantage that I should do that, and as long as that is so I must sometimes be placed in the invidious position of being in the possession of information that I am unable to give to the House.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will not this procedure prevent the right hon. Gentleman from informing the House of the representations made by the representatives of the Government in foreign countries?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not quite understand the hon. Member's question. Does he ask whether it will prevent me from informing the House of representations made by the British Government?
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Yes.
  Sir E. GREY: I did not understand that to be the hon. Member's question. He asked me whether I could state the nature of the demands made, not by British representatives, but by the Japanese Government.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see that if all information is refused because the information has been received from a foreign Government in secrecy, it puts him in the position of not being able to make public information received from the representatives of this country in foreign countries?
  Sir E. GREY: Of course, I may be placed in that position when information is given to me confidentially. That is exactly the invidious position in which I must sometimes be placed unless I refuse to receive the information, in which case I should be able to say that I could not tell the House anything, because I did not know it.
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the fact that the Chinese Government opposed the demands made by the Japanese Government, and only came to terms after the delivery of an ultimatum and threat of enforcement by arms, indicates that the action of the Japanese Government has been in violation of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty for the maintenance
  1826
  of the independence of China and of equality of economic opportunity in that country; and can he state whether any assurance has been given to the Chinese Government that His Majesty's Government adheres to these principles?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In reply to the second part, no such assurance was asked for or required. No breach of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty has occurred.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received from His Majesty's representative at Peking an official copy of the text of the Japanese final Note; and, if not, whether he will endeavour to obtain one?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Government have received a telegraphic summary of the Japanese Note referred to, both through the Japanese Ambassador and from His Majesty's Minister at Peking, and an official copy of the text will no doubt follow by post.

  Vaccination (Ireland).
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the same facilities exist in Ireland as in England to enable conscientious objectors to have their children exempted from vaccination; and, if not, whether, having regard to the growing demand for exemption in Ireland, he will take steps to introduce legislation assimilating the law in the two countries?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I am not aware of any general demand for a change in the existing law as regards Ireland, and I do not consider the present a suitable opportunity for legislation on this subject.

  Boyne Canal.
  Mr. P. WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present position of the Boyne Canal; if it is derelict, whether the liquidator of the company that worked it has still any control over it; and whether, if the Meath County Council decide to take it over, he is prepared or will take steps to be in a position to hand it to that body free of any liabilities whatsoever?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am advised that the canal is technically derelict, but the proprietors can only be released from their obligations by an order of the Board of Trade following on the grant of a warrant for the abandonment of the canal. An application for the issue of such a warrant and the transfer of the canal to the county council would be carefully considered, but I cannot say what the liabilities of the council would be until a definite scheme has been submitted and full inquiry made.

  Drogheda (Shipping Strike).
  Mr. WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether representations have been made to him on behalf of stock-owners in the county of Meath and adjoining areas as to the great importance of an immediate resumption of sailings from the port of Drogheda; if he is aware that on behalf of the workers in a shipping strike at present in existence the Board was invited to arbitrate; what action was taken; and whether he will approach the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company to submit any difference with their workers to arbitration?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: My attention has been called to this matter, and I am now in communication with the company.
  Mr. WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the statutory obligations of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company to maintain a regular service of boats from Drogheda and, in the event of their not being fulfilled, what is the penalty; whether he is aware that an alleged pooling arrangement exists between the London and North-Western Railway Company and the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, whereby merchandise or animals shipped from Dublin per London and North-Western Railway Company from the country surrounding Drogheda is in part credited to the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, thereby rendering it unnecessary for the latter company to cater for the trade of their own district; and whether, having regard to the general dissatisfaction given and the injury to public interests inflicted by the action of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company upon the interests of the area they were intended to serve, he will grant an inquiry into the manner in which they have discharged their Parliamentary
  1828
  obligations since their purchase of the Drogheda Steam Packet Company?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company were empowered by their Steam Vessels Act of 1902 to run a service of vessels between Fleetwood and Liverpool and Drogheda, but the Act provides no penalty in the event of the service not being maintained. Particulars of an agreement for pooling receipts from competitive traffic between the London and North-Western, Midland, and Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Companies were published in 1909, but this agreement would seem to be superseded for the time being by the arrangements between the Government and the railway companies of Great Britain, under which receipts from all traffic, including steamboat traffic, are pooled. I do not think that an inquiry as suggested by my hon. Friend would serve any useful purpose.

  Sugar-Using Manufacturers.
  Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is in a position to state whether any further concession can be made to sugar-using manufacturers now that the supply of Mauritius crystals is becoming exhausted?
  Mr. McKENNA: The subject is receiving the attention of the Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply. It presents many considerable difficulties, but I hope to be in a position to announce the decision of the Commission at an early date.

  Messrs. Drummond's Works (Guildford).
  Sir R. COOPERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if an official inquiry has been, or is being, held into the cause of the fire at Messrs. Drummond's lathe works at Guildford; and will he publish the decision of such inquiry when completed?
  Mr. McKENNA: The circumstances of the fire have been investigated by the local police and factory inspector. The fire started in the engine room, and the old factory where there is a Diesel engine and two other oil engines. The old factory was burnt down, but the new one adjoining was saved. The origin of the fire was not ascertained. I understand that the firm hope to have the works restarted by the end of this week.

  Registered Packet (Alleged Fraudulent Receipt).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a registered packet containing £5 14s. was on 23rd November, 1914, dispatched by the officer commanding the 16th Lancashire Battery, Royal Field Artillery, to Corporal W. W. Breese at Salisbury Plain; whether such letter was signed for by H. C. Donagher, military orderly of the Royal Engineers; whether as a matter of fact there is no such person in existence; and whether he will take steps to refund the money to the battery in question?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The letter was duly delivered to the signature of the authorised post orderly, H. G. Donagher, who, I am informed, was 2nd corporal, No. 605, of the 1/2nd Hampshire (Works) Company, Royal Engineers, and was appointed post orderly by the Camp Commandant, Lieutenant-Colonel Moore, of the Canadian Forces, and is now with the Expeditionary Force. The responsibility of the Post Office ceased with the delivery of the letter to Donagher.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly wait and see what answer the War Office gives to the identical question I am asking them?

  Disease Transmission by Flies.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the President of the Local Government Board what steps, if any, have been taken to inform the public as to the danger to health involved in the transmission of disease by flies under existing war conditions; whether any leaflets have been published on the subject, and, if not, whether the leaflet published by the Zoological Society of London will be utilised; and whether steps will be taken to set up a small Committee to deal with the subject?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The Board have issued seven reports on "Flies as Carriers of Infection," and they have during the last few years warned local authorities by circular, at the beginning of the summer, of the dangers of allowing accumulations of refuse, which may form breeding grounds for flies, to remain in the neighbourhood of dwellings. They have for some time past been urging individual local authorities who are not dealing satisfactorily with
  1830
  the refuse of their districts to improve their methods. In a circular letter, which is about to be issued, attention will again be drawn to the matter. The War Office and my Department are co-operating in this, as in other matters affecting the health of the troops and of the civil population. A number of local authorities have issued posters and leaflets on this subject. I am considering the preparation and issue by the Local Government Board of a series of model leaflets on this and other health subjects, which local authorities could use if they so desired. I hardly think it necessary to appoint a committee.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any communication has taken place between the English and French authorities upon this point?
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: Not so far as I am aware.

  School Fees, Liverpool.
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that in a large number of the elementary schools of Liverpool fees are still imposed; whether the conditions under which fees were imposed are reviewed from time to time; and whether any inquiry is held by the Board before consent is given to the imposition of fees in new schools?
  Dr. ADDISON: Fees are charged in sixty public elementary schools in Liverpool. In forty-eight of the fee-charging schools the right to charge fees arises from the provisions of Section 2 of the Elementary Education Act, 1891, and is not conferred by the Board under Section 4 of the Act or subject to conditions imposed by them under that Section; in the remaining twelve it does not appear that any occasion has arisen for a review of the conditions on which the Board's sanction was given. Before consenting to a charge of fees the Board assure themselves by inquiry that the conditions prescribed by Section 4 of the Act are satisfied. For further information I may refer my hon. Friend to the answers given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for North Somerset on the 18th May, 1914, copies of which I am sending him.
  Mr. KING: Has there been any improvement since answers were given to me on this subject over a year ago?
  Dr. ADDISON: I have no information to give in addition to my answer.

  Elementary Education (England and Wales).
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked the President of the Board of Education what has been the annual expenditure on elementary education in England and Wales during the last five years; what portion of such expenditure was raised from rates and from the Imperial Exchequer, respectively; what has been the annual expenditure of local education authorities in the erection and enlargement of council schools during the same period; and what portion of such expenditure was raised by loans?
  Dr. ADDISON: The tables which are being circulated with the Votes give particulars of the annual expenditure of local education authorities in England and Wales. They do not include the expenditure on the small number of public elementary schools which, under Section 15 of the Education Act, 1902, are not maintained by local education authorities; nor do they include expenditure on schools for blind, deaf, defective, or epileptic children not maintained by local education authorities. No figures are yet available for the year 1914–15. For the year 1913–14 particulars of the expenditure out of loans are not yet available, and the particulars of expenditure other than out of loans, as given for that year, are not final; they may be taken, however, as approximately correct. [See Written Answers this date.]

  Procurators Fiscal.
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether he has had any official complaints from any of the four districts where the procurators fiscal are over seventy years of age as to the difficulty of getting prosecutions entered on by reason of the unwillingness of these procurators fiscal to prosecute; and, if so, will he say what action he has taken, or proposes to take, so that the lieges are properly protected by the prosecution of criminals?
  The HON. MEMBER: This question has been subedited. It should read "any official or unofficial complaints."
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): The answer to the first part of my hon. and learned Friend's question is in the negative. The second part therefore does not arise.
  Mr. WATT: Is that because the word "official" has been used?
  Mr. MUNRO: The answer I have given is equally applicable in either case.

  Arbitration in Farm Disputes (Scotland).
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that in all recent legislation dealing with the fanning interests only one arbiter is permitted in settling all disputes; whether he is aware that many insurance companies doing business with farmers, and in particular a company called the General Accident Insurance Company, of Perth, have a clause in their policies insisting on two arbiters and an oversman being appointed on every disputed claim, and that this leads to great delay, expense, and loss; and whether he will introduce legislation making insurance companies submit to a single arbiter?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have no knowledge as to the terms of the policies issued by the insurance company referred to, and am not aware that there is any case for legislation on the lines suggested by my hon. and learned Friend.

  Small Holdings (Scotland).
  Mr. P. WHITEasked the Secretary for Scotland how much money has been advanced in each of the last four years for the purpose of creating small holdings in Scotland, the area acquired, the number of holdings established, and the unexpended balance in hand at the end of last year?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Board of Agriculture for Scotland has been in existence only three years, and in each of these years £200,000 was advanced to them for the purposes of the Small Landholders Acts, 1886–1911, which include the creation of small holdings, and also include the general service of agriculture in Scotland. In the year 1911–12, £35,000 was advanced to the Congested Districts Board for Scotland for similar purposes in the congested districts of Scotland. Up to 31st March of this year, 451 new holdings and 243 enlargements had been constituted on approximately 50,000 acres, and several hundred more are in course of being constituted. The balance on the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund at 31st March of this year

  1833
  was approximately £450,000, but my hon. Friend will understand that part of this is earmarked for existing schemes and other agricultural purposes.

  Spirit Taxes.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the number of gallons of spirits imported from our Colonial possessions during 1914, the amount of tax per gallon to which these spirits were subjected, and the amount of tax per gallon paid by similar spirits produced in this country?
  Mr. ACLAND: The number of gallons of spirits imported was 4,819,000 gallons, at rates of duty varying from 15s. 1d. per proof gallon to £1 5s. 1d. per liquid gallon, according to the nature of the spirits. The duty on spirits produced in this country was 14s. 9d. per proof gallon.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. JOHN WALSHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, having regard to the delay in the completion of land purchase in Ireland and to the deficiency of Section 65 of the Irish Land Act, 1909, in benefiting only a small percentage of the future tenants then in Ireland, of which there are several thousands at present debarred from getting fair rents fixed, whether the Government will this Session introduce a short amending Land Bill to this Section 65 giving those excluded future tenants the right to enter the Land Courts and get fair rents fixed, or allow such a Bill to be introduced by unofficial Members with a view to its subsequent adoption?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The provisions of Section 65 of the Irish Land Act, 1909, were expressly designed to meet the case of tenants who had been evicted from their holdings and subsequently reinstated as "future" tenants, and there is no analogy between their case and that of new tenants who have entered into their contracts with their eyes open. The answer at the present time must be in the negative.
  Mr. HORNER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is now definitely settled by the Irish Executive and the Treasury to put an end to the fixing of fair rents as far as possible in Ireland?

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what business will be taken next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we shall take the Report of the Budget Resolutions, and various stages of small Bills on the Paper.
  On Tuesday we shall give the House an opportunity of discussing the Report of the Committee on Naval and Military Pensions and Grants.
  On Wednesday we hope to take the Adjournment Motion. I may say that we propose asking the House to resume its sittings on Tuesday, 8th June.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman can he make any statement about the Welsh Church Bill, as to whether he really does intend to proceed with the Bill or what he means to do?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is our intention to proceed with the Bill.

BILL PRESENTED.
  HOUSING (ROSYTH DOCKYARD) BILL.
  "To facilitate the early provision of dwellings, etc., for or for the convenience of persons employed by or on behalf of the Admiralty at Rosyth Dockyard." Presented by Mr. McKINNON WOOD; supported by Mr. George Lambert; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]
ALIEN ENEMIES IN UNITED KINGDOM.
  GOVERNMENT DECISION.

    STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): In accordance with the undertaking I gave the House yesterday I ask the indulgence of the House, in order to fulfil that undertaking, to state
    1842
    the plan which the Government propose to adopt with regard to the treatment of alien enemies in this country. Persons of hostile origin residing in this country will be divided into two classes—those who have been naturalised and have therefore become British subjects, and those who have not. Dealing first with the non-naturalised aliens, there are at this moment 19,000 interned and there are some 40,000 (24,000 men and 16,000 women) at large. We propose that in existing circumstances, prima facie, all adult males of this class should, for their own safety, and that of the community, be segregated and interned, or, if over military age, repatriated. This will not require fresh legislation. We recognise that there will be cases which call for exceptional treatment. The women and children in suitable cases will be repatriated, but there will, no doubt, be many instances in which justice and humanity will require that they should be allowed to remain.
    It is proposed to set up an advisory body of a judicial character, somewhat similar to that presided over by the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke), by which applications for exemption from the general rule of internment can be considered. The Home Secretary will be responsible for ascertaining who are the persons to whom the policy now announced applies. As soon as the naval and military authorities have provided the necessary accommodation, those who do not secure exemption from the advisory body will be interned.
    In the case of the naturalised aliens, who are in law British subjects (numbering about 8,000), we think the prima facie presumption should be the other way; but exceptional cases, established to the satisfaction of the advisory body will be specially dealt with. There must be a power of interning in cases of proved necessity of danger.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Did the right hon. Gentleman make any Motion?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I desire to say that I heartily welcome the statement which

    1843
    the right hon. Gentleman has just made. It is quite evident that the country is thoroughly aroused on this question and is liable to get out of hand. After what has happened, of which we have further evidence in the report which appears to-day, nobody can be surprised. I think I may say further that, however much we deplore, and everyone does deplore, outbreaks such as have been taking place, however strongly we feel that they are contrary to the whole instincts of this country, and however strongly we feel also that the Government and, to whatever extent we have influence in the matter, the House of Commons should prevent such outbreaks, yet I cannot say that it is entirely with regret that I see this evidence of what the feeling of the country is, however deplorable the manifestation of it may be, for it shows that we as a nation are now realising that this is not a war between armies but a war between nations, and every individual, whether civilian or not, has got to throw his weight into the scale. These outbreaks are in every way deplorable. In my opinion the best way, perhaps the only satisfactory way, to end them, is to convince the country that the Government share its sympathies, and are determined, of their own initiative, to do everything in order to make it certain that we shall run no risk from these enemies within our midst. That is, in my opinion, the only satisfactory way to end these disturbances.
    In what I am now going to say I hope, indeed I am sure, that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the House will think that I am making any attack on the Government. There have been many discussions on this subject during the War, and I have taken part in every one of them. As it happens, I am one of those who thought that the Government were not taking quite sufficient action in connection with this matter. I may have been quite wrong, for they have evidence which I have not; but, at all events, I am sure that everyone who has been present at those discussions will agree with me in saying that it was evident that the Government were not quite as advanced as the
    1844
    House of Commons in regard to the matter; and I think we may say, further, that even the House of Commons was not so advanced as the general feeling of the public outside. From the first, throughout this War, I have very much disliked, and I have persistently avoided, taking any share of responsibility for the action of a Government over which I could have no possible control; but I thought the question in regard to these outbreaks so serious, from the point of view of the national credit, if nothing else, that I took the liberty of discussing the matter with the Prime Minister yesterday. After hearing the course which the Government proposed to adopt, and which the right hon. Gentleman has outlined to-day, I said to him—and I think it right to say it publicly—that I could think of no better plan than that which is now proposed to the House of Commons.
    The plan, as I understand it, is this: So far as alien enemies who are not naturalised are concerned all of them of military age are to be interned, and the others are to be either interned or repatriated. Everyone, however, will agree with the exceptions which the right hon. Gentleman has made. Nobody wishes to impose unnecessary hardship on innocent people, and the arrangement which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed of a Committee, the names of the members of which are not given, but which I feel sure will command the confidence of the House, will satisfy us that a definite, reliable policy is being carried out. Nobody will desire to see interned anybody who could safely be left at large in this country. But that does not end the subject. There are also Germans who are British citizens. I would be the last to suggest that British citizenship, having been given, should count for nothing. Therefore the presumption which the right hon. Gentleman sets up seems to me the right one. Indeed, I do not think there is anyone in this House who would suggest that everyone of German origin should be interned. I know myself more than one case where men born in Germany have sons fighting for us in our Army. Nothing could be more intolerably unjust than that men of that kind should be interned,

    1845
    when perhaps their own sons have fallen in the War fighting on our side. We all feel that. On the other hand, at a time like this, there can be no neutrals in Great Britain. Everyone who is not for us is against us.
    4.0 P.M.
    I believe it is the case that under German law a man may take out British naturalisation papers without losing his German nationality. I actually read a statement in the Reichstag pointing out as a reason for the particular Bill which authorises that, that, for instance, men could not join our Stock Exchange unless they became British subjects. Obviously, that being the case, many men must or may have become British subjects purely for that reason, but who have not changed their feelings and who are as strongly in sympathy with Germany as if they had spent their lives there. They are a danger to this nation; and I say that, in my opinion, the higher the position they occupy and the greater their wealth and influence the more power, if they have the will, they have to injure us. Therefore, if there is any class which should be closely regarded, it is precisely that class of German citizen in our midst. The proposal which the Prime Minister has made for dealing with these seems to me a good one—at least, I cannot think of a better. It seems to me far better than to make a hard and fast rule that everyone who has not been naturalised for five years, for instance, should be interned. It enables cases of this kind to be dealt with upon their merits, and while nobody wishes to act unjustly, we do wish to feel that this danger is being guarded against and that the Government are taking adequate steps to meet it. I have said this always, and for this reason: we are all anxious to stop these discussions, and I think that the best chance of stopping them is that the people outside should realise that adequate measures are now being taken by the Government to deal with this evil. I hope they are. I think they are. I say, further, I hope I should be the last—certainly I should despise any Government that did it—with a view to stopping popular clamour to do something which I
    1846
    myself thought unjust. That is not, in my opinion, so in this case. It is a real danger, and it is right and proper that the Government should deal with it, and that the country should recognise that it is adequately dealt with by the Government.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I am sure the House has heard with satisfaction the announcement of the Prime Minister. So far as I can judge, it covers three different proposals. The first is that all Germans of military age are to be immediately interned. The second is that all Germans over military age are to be deported. The third is that both interned and naturalised German subjects should have an appeal to a judicial tribunal. I am bound to say that the Government have taken a very important step forward in regard to the demands that have been made. I would only offer one or two suggestions in regard to the matter. In the first place, the judicial tribunal is undoubtedly absolutely necessary, not only for those who are to be interned, but for those who are already interned. I am sure that Members of the Committee who have visited the camps are unanimous in agreeing that there are cases which certainly require very careful and impartial consideration. I would further say that I think one tribunal is not sufficient. Taking the naturalised subjects alone—there are 8,000 of them—I think it may readily be assumed that every one will want to state his case, and how long it will take for one tribunal to hear every application I hesitate to contemplate.
    I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that there should be more than one tribunal. I suggest to him, if possible, that there should be a judge of the High Court. I understand that at present judges of the High Court are not overworked, and it might possibly be arranged that the Court could spare one judge, possibly two judges, to deal with this matter in order to give us complete satisfaction that no injustice is done beyond the country's necessity. We might even go further, and have more than two judges, because there are hundreds of men in the camps to-day who would like the right of appeal owing to the slipshod manner—without any concentrated or considered plan at all—by which they were interned. Undoubtedly injustice has been done in this way. It is right, therefore, if possible, that every man now interned and

    1847
    every man who may in future be interned should, at any rate, have the right to state his case before some impartial tribunal. I am bound to say that the announcement which the Prime Minister has made in regard to the Germans who have become "nationalised"—I prefer the word rather to "naturalised"—in this country will be received with great satisfaction. I understand that unless a nationalised German subject can prove to the satisfaction of the tribunal that is to be set up that he is a person who ought to be at liberty, he also will be interned?
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I have had the advantage of reading the reply, and I stated that in order to get out what is the exact position? Is it the case that a German subject who has become nationalised over here is not to be dealt with in any way whatever? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]
    The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman did not do me the justice to follow what I said. I said that in the case of naturalised aliens who are British subjects, and who have a statutory right to continue as British subjects, that the presumption prima facie is they should not be subject to special treatment. That presumption is liable to be rebutted, and will be if evidence is produced to the satisfaction of the Advisory Committee that they should be dealt with.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: They are assumed to foe innocent unless evidence is produced that they are guilty?
    The PRIME MINISTERwas understood to assent.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I presume that it will be open for anyone to supply that evidence?
    The PRIME MINISTERassented.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: That is a considerable step forward. I welcome with gratitude the announcement of the Prime Minister, and I hope that this question may be removed from the region of controversy.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: May I ask whether each and every case of a naturalised alien will be considered by the tribunal, or only considered at the request of a naturalised subject, or at the demand of some other person?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I think we may leave that very well to the tribunal itself. One case will very often govern another, or a dozen. I think we may leave it to the tribunal to see that justice is done.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Then each one need not apply?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Not necessarily.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am certainly very grateful to the Government that they should have taken so important a step forward. Generally the proposals, I think, will satisfy the legitimate demand of the people of this country that something effective should be done in this matter. I do feel myself that the events of the last fortnight have made a very great change. I for one was prepared to regard the ordinary presuppositions about men as being applicable to Germans. I think, after poisonous gas, after the "Lusitania," and the terrible Blue Book now published, it is really absurd to suppose that we have any right to think that the Germans are not capable of any crime. We have no right to assume that they will act as ordinary human beings, and we are therefore, bound to take all possible precautions to protect ourselves and the people of this country against the most dastardly, treacherous, and cruel attacks that the mind of man can conceive. As to the particular proposals made by the right hon. Gentleman, I entirely agree with the general scope of them. I am going to put one or two points, if I may in order that the matter may be quite clear. I understand that Germans of military age are to be interned as soon as possible?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I was not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman's words meant that, and I am glad to see that he assents to that—that as soon as ever that can be done they are to be interned. Again, any interned German or any interned enemy is to have the right of appeal to this tribunal that is to be set up so that he can come out if he satisfies the tribunal that it is in the public interest and the public safety that he should be let out. [HON MEMBERS: "No!"] I understand that in the proposals of the Government there is to be the right of appeal to this tribunal for every interned German. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I should have thought that

    1849
    was common, ordinary justice. Such an appeal already exists, I understand, to the commandant of the camp, and to the War Office, but I think it is infinitely superior that an appeal should be to a judicial tribunal, both in the interests of the Germans and still more in the interests of the community. Let us be clear. I understand with reference to Germans who ace not of military age, and German women, that they are, subject to any appeal that they may put forward, the Prime Minister said repatriated, but I suggest, strictly speaking, that all we can do is to remove them to some neutral country. If that is so, that will be "expatriation." Let us say "deported." I do not know quite what system the right hon. Gentleman contemplates as regards women. There must be some interval granted for appeals; there must be some system. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman contemplates with regard to that—perhaps some system of bail; someone making themselves responsible for the good behaviour of these people until their case is heard. I understand the broad principle to be that they are to be deported unless they can show a reason to the tribunal entitling them to remain in this country. My hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Bigland) is anxious to know what is the limit of military age.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Seventeen to fifty-five.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: That is the German limit. I am a little more in doubt as to what exactly the right hon. Gentleman means with regard to naturalised Germans. A good deal will depend upon the principles laid down for this tribunal to carry out. I hope very great care will be taken as to the exact wording used in reference to them. My own view, for what it is worth, is that wherever there is any ground of suspicion affecting a naturalised German, he then ought to be in the same position as an unnaturalised German; in other words, the moment there is any ground of suspicion at all he should be required to establish that he is a loyal subject of His Majesty the King. I think it rather important that that should be the general principle laid down in regard to naturalised aliens, because we all are conscious of the very strong suspicion in the public mind, and I have no reason to doubt that the most dangerous aliens in our midst are those
    1850
    who have got their naturalisation. One word in regard to the tribunal. I entirely agree with what fell from the right hon. Gentleman. I think it is very desirable, if possible, that the services of a judge should be secured for this tribunal. And, if more than one branch of the tribunal is necessary, that a judge should preside over each branch. I do hope that this new departure by the Government will mean the abandonment of what, in spite of what the Home Secretary was good enough to say the other day, I must still regard as dual control. It is quite true that I understand that the question of internment and non-internment is to be handed over to the War Office. The question of registration still remains in the hands of the Home Office.
    But it is really almost impossible to distinguish and try and draw a line sharply between the two classes of cases. The man who is allowed to remain registered is evidently purely under the control of the Home Office, whereas the moment he is interned he comes under the control of the War Office. The actual point when his transfer from the Home Office to the War Office is involved is what you certainly must regard as dual control. I do hope we shall see an end of that altogether, and that there will be no more dual control. I should also like to add an extra to what the Prime Minister said, and ask if some means could not be found to facilitate discussion of the question of the exchange against English prisoners in Germany. I do think that the present system by which the War Office, the Foreign Office, and in some cases the Home Office also, have to be consulted is unnecessarily cumbrous, and that it would be a far better plan that some Interdepartmental Committee, possibly even of the same type which we are setting up now, should be charged with the whole of this question, and be able to put it through, where it can be put through. I am certain of this, as we all desire that every English prisoner in Germany should, if possible, be brought back to this country.
    Mr. EUGENE WASON: I have no fault whatever to find with the course that has been adopted by the Government, but I want to put a specific question to the Prime Minister. I have in my mind at the present moment a man born in Schleswig-Holstein before it was annexed by Germany. He has lived in this country more or less the whole of his life, and is married

    1851
    to a Scottish woman, a highly respectable citizen. He is well over the age of sixty, and I would like to know whether, under these new rules, it will be necessary to deport a man like this who is absolutely harmless? I think a case of that sort would be extremely hard, and I hope that, if this man shows to the tribunal that is to be set up that, so far from being hostile to this country he is entirely in sympathy with it, and that his heart and soul go out to our final victory, he may be permitted to remain in the country.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I raised this question a few days ago, and I should like to take this opportunity of saying with how much satisfaction I heard the statement of the Prime Minister this afternoon. I hope it will not be regarded in any way as a recrimination, because we do not want to go back on the past, if I say that it has surprised a great many of us that this step was not taken at the very beginning of the War, because this War is not merely unique in the blackguardliness—that is not too strong a word—with which it has been carried on by our enemy, but it is also unique in that, I think, there never has been in European history before, during the waging of a great war, a very large number of citizens of one belligerent remaining resident in the country of the other belligerent. I can myself think of no instance in history. In the present War it has been confined to ourselves. As soon as war broke out Frenchmen left Germany, Germans left France, and Russia and Germany emptied themselves of their enemy population, and we actually see at the present moment that the mere fear of war between the Germanic Empires and Italy has immediately caused a complete exodus of Germans from Italy. Therefore, it is extremely surprising that we should have gone on month after month giving unlimited hospitality to thousands and thousands of our enemies, and that we have only now been driven to take the more drastic and, I think, the more reasonable course outlined by the Prime Minister under stress of the awful behaviour of our enemies in the conduct of the War.
    There is one thing I wish to say about the tribunal which the right hon. gentleman has foreshadowed. I agree with my Noble Friend behind me that the best form of tribunal would be one presided over by a judge of the High Court; but I do hope
    1852
    very much that in that tribunal the judge will not be too much under the dominion of what is, at ordinary times and under ordinary circumstances, a most cherished and magnificent tradition of our country—namely, that every person is presumed to be innocent until proved to be guilty. If we go upon that supposition in this case, the tribunal will be absolutely useless, and we may as well recognise that from the first. These are cases where the War Office or the Home Office, who have had to decide cases of internment upon suspicion up to the present, must have discovered long ago that it is perfectly idle to expect that you will obtain the sort of evidence which would rightly be required in an English Court of Justice before conviction could be obtained. After all, under the circumstances of grave national danger, we must go mainly upon the supposition that if a man is entirely innocent of hostile intent against this country, in spite of his hostile origin or nationality, he is the person to prove it, and this country ought not to be called upon to prove the contrary. A Member of the Government—I think it was the Under-Secretary of State for War—on a former occasion admitted, and, I think, quite rightly admitted, that the mere existence of enemy nationality was itself a ground of suspicion; and I do not think, after what the Prime Minister has said, there can be any disagreement with the proposition that, not only enemy nationality in the technical sense, but that a man should be a German by blood and origin, is in itself a ground of suspicion—of very natural suspicion—that, under the circumstances of to-day, his sympathies will not be with us, but with the enemy, and that his action, so far as possible, will be in support of his sympathies.
    We have had in the administration of the powers the Government already possess a good many examples of what I cannot help describing as absolutely farcical administration. We have had quite recently an addition to the powers put into the hands of various authorities in the country in the form of an Order in Council requiring hotel-keepers to keep a register of the nationality of persons who come to their hotels. It is common knowledge that it is farcical administration. I have had letters from gentlemen who tell me they have gone to hotels and had pieces of paper put into their hands, which they have been requested to fill up, and have never been asked even so much

    1853
    as to give their name and address in order that their accent might be detected. They had simply to fill in a form calling themselves English citizens, and no questions were asked. That is farcical. If we are going to carry out such a provision, then in the name of common sense let it be carried out in an efficient and effective way, which will really give the police and authorities some guide to the movements of the hostile people in the country.
    Another point, which I hope will be made clear, is that for the future when, under the action of this judicial tribunal, aliens have been interned, whether suspicious naturalised aliens or the unnaturalised aliens who are to be interned as a matter of course, they will not be for trifling reasons released from their internment. Nothing has been more striking than the way in which time after time we have had reports of men who have been interned, presumably for good reasons, and, after a short period, have been released for no reason whatsoever. I brought to the notice of the House the other day the case of a German officer who had been interned at Dorchester and who was released under circumstances certainly not creditable to this country. He was allowed to leave the country altogether, The Under-Secretary for War was not even able to inform the House whether he had been searched. He went back to Germany, published a pamphlet in that country extremely insulting, to say nothing more, to this country, and containing photographs he had taken of the place of his internment. The Government did not know, and do not know now, whether he had other photographs which might have much more military significance. Why was that man released at all? The representative of the War Office told the House that this gentleman was released because he was unwell, and because he had a disease of the ear which required him to undergo an operation. As individuals we may give him our sympathy, but, if it were necessary for him to undergo an operation, that could have been provided for him by the best surgery in the world in London. There was no reason why he should be allowed to go back to his own country perfectly free, carrying photographs, and free to publish photographs of proceedings in this country. I do hope that sort of trifling with this great question will have taken its departure with the new steps the Prime Minister has announced to-day.
    1854
    Another thing is the great importance, to my mind, of being most drastic in what are known as prohibited areas. I understand from the Prime Minister's statement, and it is not, I think, unreasonable, that some time must elapse before accommodation is provided for all who will have to be interned, and, of course, a considerable number will have to remain under supervision, but still with liberty for some little to come. I do hope the prohibited areas will be those parts upon which a start will be made. We have been told by the Home Secretary quite recently that there are a large number of enemy aliens still in the prohibited areas round the coasts of this country. Nothing has shocked the opinion of the country or been more amazing to the country than that in those prohibited areas, within a short distance of our Eastern and Southern Coasts, any man of German origin should be tolerated. I do hope these new measures to be undertaken will be adopted in the prohibited areas first. The Prime Minister has told us, and I think we will all agree, that men who have become British citizens by naturalisation should not be treated in exactly the same way as those who remain Germans technically as well as naturally. I think we are all agreed with that, and I know from my own knowledge, as every Member of this House probably knows from his, of gentlemen of German blood and descent whom we believe to be absolutely loyal to this, their adopted country, and whom we should be extremely sorry to see put to any unnecessary pain and trouble at the present time. There are such persons we are all agreed, but I feel very strongly that that is not only, though it is mainly, a question of safety. I do think at the present time, considering what the country is going through, that there is an element of decency to be considered in our treatment of people of German blood and name in this country. While, therefore, I would not like to see the House or the Government insist upon the internment or the expulsion of every German, whether naturalised or not, I do think that they ought to be at the present time excluded from high places. I think that, as a matter of good taste, they themselves should refuse to appear in high places. I do not think there is anything improper in referring to the most patriotic and excellent example which was shown by Prince Louis of Battenberg. Every one in this House, and I think the vast majority of people outside, knew he was as loyal and as staunch an Englishman as we could

    1855
    find anywhere, and yet he felt, and rightly felt, that owing to his name and his family connections it would be better for him at the present time not to appear in very prominent places. That is an example, I think, that might be very well followed.
    Mr. CROOKS: What about the Press attack upon him?
    Mr. McNEILL: I am not responsible for that; I know nothing about the Press attack.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Adjournment was moved in order that we might discuss the proposals of the Prime Minister, and not wander over the whole field. Surely would it not be better, considering the urgency of the matter, to confine our attention to that?
    Mr. McNEILL: I am very sorry if I went outside the proper limits of discussion. I had no intention to do so, and the only reason I mentioned that case was because I thought it might be followed in other cases, and it is relevant to the proposition of the Prime Minister, because I do think that on this occasion we might take the opportunity of pressing upon the Government the propriety of naturalised Germans not being retained in the Privy Council and other places of that sort, which at the present time ought to be reserved for men of English birth and English descent. I will not say anything more about that point, and I apologise if the House thinks that I have made anything in the nature of an attack upon anybody. During this War, I think, it is only right that we should keep ourselves to ourselves in accordance with the very proper opinion which is now manifesting itself throughout the country in such a deplorable fashion in regard to Germans who at other times have been given all the rights which we enjoy ourselves. I think all aliens whom we decide should not be taken out of the country should have the decency, at any rate, to keep themselves in the background during the War.
    Mr. LOUGH: I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister with regard to English women who are married to Germans. There are a great number in the humbler walks of life of these cases, and my attention has been drawn to one case in my own Constituency. In this particular instance the German arrived in this country about 1882 or 1883; he has lost all touch with Germany and he is well known
    1856
    to be a perfectly responsible citizen of this country, and he has been married to an English woman for twenty or thirty years. He cannot speak a word of German, and has no ties whatever with Germany. The first idea of hon. Members would no doubt be that he should have been naturalised; but there are people in the humbler walks of life who have been deterred from taking this course owing to the expense and want of knowledge. I say nothing whatever about the men, and they must take their chance; but I want to say a word or two about those British women who have married Germans. No doubt in many other constituencies there are cases of the same kind I have mentioned. In case very old people might be deported, this poor English woman would be sent to a country where she would not be known. I ask if this hard case of British women who have been married for many years to Germans, and who technically would be liable to all the restrictions placed upon Germans, has been considered by the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I said that in regard to these women repatriation would only take place in suitable cases, and the very function of the Advisory Committee would be to decide that.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that naturalised Germans will remain as they are now, unless proceedings are taken against them in the Courts to be set up.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Not Court, a tribunal.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I mean the Commission which is to be set up. I would like to know who is going to undertake these proceedings, because this will be a very invidious thing for any individual to undertake. Is there to be a public official who will investigate, and if he thinks it necessary, take proceedings against any person, or is this to be left to private individuals?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure the hon. Baronet there will be no difficulty about that.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I think we are all agreed in thanking the Government for the action they have taken in a grave situation. I thank the Government particularly for adopting the method of an Advisory Committee which is judicial in character, because I think every hon. Member of this House must know of certain cases which require individual investigation, if hardship is to be avoided.

    1857
    Naturalised aliens are surely of two kinds (1) those who are no longer the subjects of an alien enemy, and (2) those who according to the law of the country are still the subjects of an alien enemy. While I welcome the power of the judicial Committee to alleviate the harshness of internment or deportation, I also welcome the announcement that it will be extended to people now interned in camps. At the same time, may I express the hope that where a naturalised alien is still the subject of an alien enemy, that may in itself be sufficient to bring the case to the notice of the Advisory Committee. No doubt there are many such cases. It is not only the case where the individual is a subject of our own King, but if that individual is the subject of an alien enemy, the earlier loyalty and citizenship may surely make it a proper instance for being inquired into by the Committee.
    Mr. NIELD: During the first week of the War, not being able myself to help in military matters. I wrote to the Home Secretary, making this very suggestion as to the internment of every German of military age. I suggested that these very tribunals should be set up in order to give an opportunity for hearing applications for exemption. The Home Secretary then told me that he was not prepared to set up such tribunals. A little later I wrote again, repeating my suggestion, and offering to help the Government in dealing with this question, having regard to the necessity for the assistance of someone with a legal training in these matters, but my offer was not accepted. I even applied a third time. Therefore I have every reason to congratulate the Government upon the fact that they have now adopted a proposal which I foreshadowed as being necessary so long ago, and in regard to which I offered my services. I suggest that two judges should be withdrawn from the High Courts in order to draw up rules to govern our procedure in this matter, and to sit as a final court of appeal, so that there will be no possible excuse for saying that any person engaged on these tribunals in the first instance might have been influenced by rancour or any preconceived opinions. It seems to me that neutral countries, and even enemies, will have the satisfaction of knowing that their subjects will be able to appeal to two high judicial officers who will be judges of our High Court, to reverse in the last resort any decision which they may feel unjust. I submit that this
    1858
    is the wisest step that the Government has taken in relation to this particular subject. I went yesterday to attend one of those conferences which are now being held in different parts of the country dealing with the distributing trade. I was told in regard to one of the forms to be filled up that if you are a British subject you only need to write "British" and no more need be said. I consider that is a most perfunctory business, and if you think you are going to get a record of aliens by means of a form like that, the Government will very soon be undeceived.
    Mr. HOLT: I most sincerely deplore the outrages which have taken place against Germans in this country, but I am quite certain that anyone who lives in the same town where the majority of the crew of the "Lusitania" lived, as I do, and has heard of the case of a wife with six small children who were exterminated in that ship, will not in the least wonder at the outrages which have taken place. Seeing that these outrages have taken place, and seeing what public feeling is at the present moment, I think the course the Government have taken is the best under the circumstances. There are, however, some grave disadvantages which I should like to point out. If we are going to intern a large number of aliens, we shall be put to a considerable expense in keeping those people. If there are 30,000 interned it will entail an expenditure of from £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 a year to keep them. You will probably have to erect camps, and in this way you will divert labour and material from other works which are urgently required in order to provide proper and decent accommodation for these interned persons. I hope we shall not repeat what I think was the colossal folly of employing a lot of ships for this purpose, which are valuable as transports. May I point out that every man you intern is going to be a positive cash loss to this country? On the other hand, you have a further disadvantage. At this moment you are very short of labour in every kind of useful work, and a large number of these aliens are men who have been working honestly and well for many years past in this country. We want their work. It is all very well to talk about them enjoying our hospitality for so long, but may I point out that they have repaid us by giving us good work in return. Every German who is now doing an honest day's work here is helping the country, and that should be borne in mind.

    1859
    I say quite plainly that every person you intern unnecessarily is injuring this country and helping Germany, because he is an economic loss to the people of this country, and in that way you are weakening us. I realise that for the present state of the public mind some people are to blame, and although the state of feeling in the country is very natural, it is unreasonable, because you are letting ourselves be injured in our determination to get the better of the Germans. I hope the Government will make up their minds not to intern one single person who can safely be left at large. I say that, not because I am in sympathy with Germany, but because I want to get the better of them, and to achieve that purpose you ought to enlist the services of every honest and capable workman on whom you can lay your hands.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: It is very difficult to understand the purpose of the speech to which we have just listened, and I would rather lose the economic value of a thousand Germans than allow one German who is a danger to this country to continue at large. I rise to emphasise the plea put forward to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the expediency of distinguishing at once between those naturalised aliens who have divested themselves of loyalty to the foreign and enemy sovereign and those who have not so divested themselves. I feel that of the 8,000 alien enemies to whom the Prime Minister has referred, who have taken out papers of naturalisation, there are a very large number who have at the same time renounced their allegiance to the Government under which they were born, and it does seem to me, when you divide aliens in this country into two great classes, those upon whom the onus will rest of proving their innocence—that is those who are not naturalised—and those where the onus of proving that they ought to be interned will rest upon the Government, that you might quite properly and wisely divide the classes of naturalised aliens definitely and intern, in the first instance, those who have not divested themselves of allegiance to an enemy Government. There surely must be in the very nature of the case an enormous difference between the attitude of mind of two alien persons, one of whom remains equally responsible as a subject, say, of the German Emperor, and the other of whom does not, but both of whom have
    1860
    taken out naturalisation papers in this country. The point that has been put by the hon. Member opposite is, therefore, in my humble judgment, one which deserves the very earnest attention of the Government in settling the course which they will take in detail. I desire, speaking for myself, to express my very high appreciation of the step which the Government have taken, a step which, I am sure, will be welcomed by the country at large, and which will make very much for the safety of our people in this time of enormous danger.
    Colonel YATE: May I join in the appeal put forward by the hon. Member for Middleton (Sir W. Ryland Adkins) to the Prime Minister to reconsider his decision, with regard to the treatment of naturalised aliens? May I ask him to distinguish between those who are still subjects of Germany by German law and those who are not? May I ask that the onus of proving whether they ought to be interned or not should not be left to the common informer, or to the Government official, whoever he may be, but that the onus of proving that he should not be interned should rest with the naturalised alien himself, who is still a subject of the German Emperor? I do ask that this question should be taken into consideration, and that a difference should be made between those naturalised aliens who are purely subjects of Great Britain, and those who are still subjects of Germany.
    Sir W. BYLES: My hon. Friend put the case of the English wife of a German. I want to ask what would be the position of a German wife of an Englishman?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): She becomes an Englishwoman.
    Sir W. BYLES: She has become an Englishwoman, and will be untouched? That is all I want.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sorry that I am unable to join in the paean of praise of the Prime Minister. The Government has yielded to clamour and outrage what they refused to yield to argument from this and the other side of the House during the last few months. We warned them that what has taken place during the last two or three days would take place. We warned them that the feeling of the country was that every alien enemy in our midst should be interned. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues took the

    1861
    responsibility of declining to listen to our warnings and of declining to intern any of these alien enemies. The result is now apparent. The populace have taken into their own hands the question of dealing with some of these alien enemies—a course which I reprobate as strongly as anybody. I entirely disagree with the action that has taken place recently, but the responsibility for that action has got to be placed upon the right shoulders. The responsibility is on the shoulders of those who refused to take warnings uttered not once or twice but over and over again, both inside and outside this House, as to the determination of the people that the Government should go further than they were willing to go at that time with regard to the internment of aliens. I am not one of those who desire to say smooth things time after time with regard to the Government. No man could have supported them more fully than I have, but I reserve my right, inside or outside this House, to criticise the Government when I do not agree with their actions.
    I have one further criticism to make with regard to the announcement of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman informed us that alien enemies were to be interned as soon as possible, and those above military age were to be repatriated as soon as possible. Then he told us, not merely that the dual or the triple control of the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Home Office which we have had during the past nine months of the War was to continue, but that a fourth control was going to be introduced in the tribunal or body which was going to be set up. I want to ask one or two questions with regard to the working of that fourfold control. We are told that there are 40,000 alien enemies in our midst. What has become of the other 30,000? It is not so very long since that we were told, in answer to a question in this House, that there were 70,000 registered aliens in this country. It is quite clear that they have not been interned. There are only 19,000 interned to-day, and I think I am right in saying that there were something between 15,000 and 20,000 interned at the time the answer was given that there were 70,000 registered aliens. We must either have been given a wrong figure then, or we are given a wrong figure now, or 30,000 must have been allowed to have been repatriated. I do think that we are entitled to have that information, and, if it appertains to his
    1862
    Department, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. McKenna) will give us it.
    I will take the Government's figure of 40,000 as the number of those who are left. How soon are they going to be interned? I understand that the War Office is to look after part of them, and the Admiralty to look after part of them, but would it not be possible, when the Government is inaugurating a new policy of this kind, to put it in the hands of one Minister, I do not care whether it is the Home Office or the War Office. When we find that week after week goes by and these aliens are still uninterned, who will be the responsible Minister of whom we can ask questions? Are we to ask the Home Office and to be told that it rests with the War Office? Are we to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War and to be told that it rests with the Admiralty? Are we to ask each one in turn and be told that a tribunal is sitting and considering each case? I want it to be clear that in the first everyone will be interned without having to go to the tribunal, and that it will only be the exceptional case which is let out. We all know the case of the man who to all appearances is honest, and who we should say is a perfectly respectable German. Those are the kind of men with whom Belgium and the North of France were filled nine months ago. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, the more respectable they are the more dangerous they may be.
    I want it made perfectly clear that mere respectability, mere open-handedness with regard to their English friends, is not to be a reason for allowing them to remain uninterned. In Germany not merely all Englishmen, but all naturalised Englishmen, are interned as a matter of course. I do not ask that all naturalised Germans should be interned. I think that the proposal made by the Prime Minister with regard to naturalised Germans is fair. I recognise that we have given a scrap of paper to those men who have done us the honour to ask for our nationality. I am speaking now of the 40,000 who have not thought it worth while to go through that formality, and who have retained their German nationality, their German birthright, and their German feelings. I mean the type of man who, as we saw in the paper yesterday, said: "To hell with England." I put it perfectly frankly to the House. They have come here for their own purposes, and not as the hon. Member for the Hexham Division (Mr. Holt)

    1863
    would have us believe—for our purposes. They are here to carry on their own trade as a benefit to themselves and their own country, and I want it made perfectly clear that this country is really in arms, spiritually as well as morally, on the subject of this War. This country will not be desirous of being harsh to any individual German, but it is not going to take any more risks and allow the Government to dally with this matter as they have done in the last nine months. I should be glad if the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General is going to answer—I notice that the Prime Minister left the House as soon as the paean of praise stopped—if he would say what arrangements the Government have made for the internment of these people, where they are going to be interned, how they are going to be interned, and how long it is before they will be intended?
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: The administration of the law affecting aliens in Scotland has been in the hands of the Scottish Office, and I am glad to say that it has been very efficiently administered. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is intended that we in Scotland should have a separate tribunal to deal with the cases which may arise there, and whether we can rest assured that the matter, which is already in the hands of the Scottish Office, will remain in their hands and be dealt with upon the same lines as hitherto. I am sure that the statement which the Prime Minister has made will meet with universal satisfaction. I rather regret the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), I should have thought that at a time like this that he, at least, might have been prepared to view this question from the point of view of what is the best policy for the nation, and to have accepted with the greatest satisfaction any proposal that the Government made for securing greater efficiency for meeting the special circumstances which have now arisen. I feel sure that the proposal will work satisfactorily, and I trust that we in Scotland may have our own separate tribunal.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. BIGLAND: I only rise to emphasise one point dealt with by two other speakers. There will be a great deal of misunderstanding in the Resolution submitted as to whether a naturalised German shall be subject to some kind of trial. I would suggest to the Home Secretary and the
    1864
    Attorney-General whether it would not be in their power to add some form of words to this Resolution which, if submitted to the naturalised alien would, as it were, remove his case from the books—some strongly emphasised sentence which he can be asked to sign with regard to his own position towards the British Empire. I know of my own knowledge men born in Germany whose sympathies are entirely British to-day, and if we could get in writing from them some such declaration we should be absolved from the possibility of such people being brought before this body on the ground that they are objects of suspicion, although naturalised. I honestly believe if the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary would draft a carefully-worded declaration which could be submitted to such alien enemies, it would help to secure that there shall be differential treatment between these people and those who have simply taken up their citizenship in Great Britain for business purposes, without having any real emotion or affection for the country of their adoption.
    Mr. NEVILLE: The question of naturalising fresh aliens—a process which is going on at the present time—is an extremely important one, and I would suggest to the House that, if we are going to have a tribunal to deal with those who have been naturalised, applications for naturalisation in the future ought to come before that tribunal before they are granted. Up to the present time this has been more or less a matter of form, but it seems to me that in a period of great danger all applications for naturalisation should come before this tribunal which is to be specially appointed to deal with this important question. I understand the Prime Minister has told us that for the new tribunal which is to be set up there will be a vast number of rules. This, however, is a matter of urgency, and if we are going to wait the usual number of days or weeks for the formulation of rules, we shall find that the tribunal will be more or less inefficacious for dealing with a matter which is urgent and should be dealt with at once.
    Then there is the question of expense. At the present time the machinery for dealing with such questions as these is that of the common informer. We all know what the position of the common informer is, and we also know what an enormous amount of expense the common informer may have to incur in many cases. I would

    1865
    suggest that if rules are going to be made they should be laid before this House so that we may have an opportunity of seeing that this new procedure shall be brought into operation quickly and easily, and without much expense. If it is going to be left to the common informer that end will not be attained. The House will have it in its recollection the case of Mr. Bradlaugh, who was sued in respect of a vote he gave in this House. It took four years to decide that case. The machinery then invoked was that of the common informer. I suggest that the Government should tell us when they propose to bring in these rules, and whether we shall have an opportunity of discussing them and of dealing with them in the sense which has been put forward by many speakers this afternoon.
    I understand from the Government there are 40,000 of these aliens who are not naturalised. That is an enormous number. There are 8,000 who are naturalised, and if one-half of the total, 24,000, are to come before this tribunal, which probably could not deal with more than 25 per diem, it would take a very long time to deal with them. Two judges certainly are not at all adequate for the purpose. May I make one suggestion? I do not know whether I am voicing the view of the country, but it does seem to me that we want a quick tribunal and we ought to set up some form of preliminary inquiry, the same as is in operation in ordinary criminal cases—some preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether or not there is a prima facie case There are an enormous number of gentlemen in this country perfectly able to conduct such a preliminary investigation. Inquiries of this nature could be held simultaneously all over the country. They could at once report what cases ought to be referred to the tribunal which could get to work at once, instead of our having to wait weeks or months for a decision of this matter. Whenever a case is reported, a Commissioner should be sent down, and upon his report it should be decided whether or not it should go to the superior Court.
    Another important point arises from the fact that a great many people have been naturalised since the War began. The mere fact that they have, for their own benefit, got from our authorities a bit of paper to say that they are naturalised Englishmen is of very small value indeed at a crisis such as this. A distinction ought to be drawn between those men
    1866
    who have become naturalised since the War began and those who secured naturalisation many years previously, when there was no question of war at all. When you are considering questions of safety, there is no reasonable distinction that can be drawn between a man who is not naturalised and one who has only become naturalised since the beginning of the War. They should both be treated on precisely the same terms. I quite agree with the view that the adoption of these measures will give great relief to the country, but unless they are going to be operative, effective and speedy we shall be passing legislation which, while it may be grateful to the ear, is not going to do any good in dealing with an enormously urgent problem.
    Mr. KING: I wish to say a few words on the question of the age limit for military service. I understand that the Prime Minister fixes fifty-five as the limit, and I want to appeal for a reconsideration of that. Both Russia and Germany have fixed forty-five. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, that was admitted yesterday in an answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for War, which was to the following effect:—
    "I understand that the legal limit for compulsory service in Germany is still forty-five and that this age has been accepted by Russia as the basis of reciprocal exchange between the two countries. The Army Council are not, however, prepared to accept forty-five as the maximum limit of military usefulness."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1915, col. 1592.]
    It is perfectly obvious, therefore, the War Office admits that in Germany and Russia forty-five is the age limit for military service. It has to my knowledge been the subject of adverse comment against this country that we in this matter have taken fifty-five as the limit, when, as a matter of fact, we do not allow men of that age to enlist in our own Army, and it has been urged that we have adopted that course out of sheer cruelty. The matter, although a small one, might very well be considered by the Government in order to remove a ground of complaint and in order that such criticisms should not be urged, as they certainly would be, against us in neutral and other countries. This is a really serious point. When Russia and Germany mutually agree on an age limit of forty-five, and are at this very moment exchanging citizens one against the other above that age, it surely is worth the while of the Government to reconsider a figure which they have quite arbitrarily

    1867
    fixed upon. There is another point I may advance in support of the view I am putting forward. I am given to understand that the number of aliens between the ages of forty-five and fifty-five in this country who are in good health is very small. I have asked the Home Secretary to give me the figures, but he has found himself unable to do so. If they are only a small number, I think the age limit might very well be reduced.
    Another point which requires some consideration is what is going to be done with the property or the people who are repatriated? Are we going to send them home penniless? Are we going to send people who have had all the comforts of affluence here home to Germany in an absolutely penniless condition? [An HON. MEMBER: "What are they doing to our people?"] What Germany is doing is not the point I am discussing now. I say it is a matter on which we are entitled to receive some explanation from the Government. I want to know what is going to be done with the women and children, in themselves offenceless, who are to be turned out of this country. Are they to be put back into beggary in their native land? I also want some information as to the method, route, and circumstances connected with the process of repatriation. Have foreign Governments already been approached? Will there be any difficulty in sending these thousands of alien enemies through neutral countries to their own land? I can conceive there may be very considerable difficulties and delay, and very great expense as well. If we send them away penniless, we must, I think, expect not only to pay their fares, but also provide them with their keep and lodging until they reach their own country. There may arise very great delays. Can we say even that we shall be able to get them into their own country? Many of these people do not speak the German language. Many for years, and possibly some have never, within their own recollection, been in Germany, and if what we have heard during the last few months is true, that there is an increasing food shortage in Germany, is it likely the German Government will allow thirty thousand or forty thousand penniless people to come among them, many of whom do not speak their own language? Will they allow them to enter their country? How is the repatriation going to be carried out? I hope we shall have some explanation
    1868
    on this point from the right hon. Gentleman. Then I want to know about the cost of this scheme. Has any estimate been drawn out? One hon. Member has put it down at two or three million pounds per annum. To my mind that is a very small figure. I should not be surprised if the Government estimate amounted to five or six million pounds, and, at any rate, I do not think a big scheme involving the expenditure of many millions of money should be thrown at the head of hon. Members with not a single word as to the cost of the undertaking. I can only hope that these matters will receive attention, and that I shall get some reply from Ministers on the subject.
    Sir R. COOPER: I had not the privilege enjoyed by the light hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) of being supplied in advance with a copy of the Prime Minister's statement, although I had a question down to the Home Secretary on this very subject and was requested by the right hon. Gentleman to wait until the Prime Minister had made his statement. I do not know on what ground copies of the statement were issued to favoured Members.
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman is labouring under a mistake which I am sure he would wish to have corrected. Nobody except Members of the Government and, I think, also the Leader of the Opposition, saw the Prime Minister's statement until it was made in this House, and after it was made my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy, while the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, asked if there was any objection to his seeing the document.
    Sir R. COOPER: I am extremely sorry I made the suggestion, and I withdraw it entirely. I was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy had been supplied with a copy. I was under a misapprehension, and at once express my regret that I made the statement. In connection with the proposals of the Prime Minister, I should like to ask questions on one or two points. Like every other Member of the House, I feel grateful that the Government should have shown this afternoon their determination to take some steps to meet what we know is public opinion on the matter, and to meet those conditions which ought to be dealt with in the opinion of the majority of the hon. Members of this

    1869
    House. As to whether those proposals will go sufficiently far in actual practice, I have considerable doubt. When the Government do show a bit of backbone in the matter I do not want to throw cold water upon them, but we are all talking about a tribunal. If there is a tribunal, are alien enemies in the Shetland Islands, or Cork, Liverpool, Newcastle, and Glasgow to meet this tribunal? If so, how long will it take the Government or the tribunal to deal with the registered alien enemies throughout the length and breadth of the land? I agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Neville) that it is imperative, if the Government want to do the right thing, that their proposals should be carried through as quickly as possible. There is another point on which I would ask for information, if anyone is going to reply for the Government. We all realise that the real danger which surrounds the population of this country is that in the case of a Zeppelin raid this City may be set on fire, and there may be poisoning on a wholesale scale. We have reason to believe that there is organised spying carried out with that extraordinary system which Germany has shown in everything she has done in this War. If that is so, it is of no use our tinkering with the problem. We all recognise that one of the first steps to be taken by an agent of the German Government in this City, or in any other part of the country, who is here for the express purpose at a given signal of taking action, would be to become a naturalised subject of this country. We cannot be adequately protecting ourselves in this matter if alien enemies who have become naturalised British subjects are to be left untouched, and unless, by some process not yet explained, this tribunal can be brought to consider their particular case.
    I agree with other hon. Members in supporting what the Prime Minister said. We all want, if we can, to protect those naturalised British subjects who are British in heart and who are playing the game with us in this life and death struggle. In doing that we must not run the risk of leaving out several thousands of people, probably the most dangerous section of all alien enemies in this country, without first satisfying ourselves that they can be left at large with safety. I do not understand, and I am sure other Members of the House do not understand, under what circumstances and by what process these naturalised subjects can be dealt with by this tribunal in order to make
    1870
    sure it is safe to leave them at large. Feeling is so strong in this country to-day and so strong in the heart of this great City, that the moment these proposals are carried into effect we shall see action by common informers on a scale never known before in this country. There are men in the City willing to risk their lives in order to do everything they can to force upon the Government, if possible, the necessity of providing what they regard as adequate protection for the people of this country. When these proposals are put into effect. I believe people will come forward and bring to the notice of this tribunal the names of naturalised subjects who are in very high positions in this country—people who are rich and who have great power, I am sorry to say, over well-known Englishmen. When those names are brought before this tribunal what is going to happen? Are we to understand that if anyone does bring forward such a name that the tribunal will be bound to consider, impartially and honestly, the merits or demerits of that particular naturalised subject and to decide, on the sheer merits of the case, whether such person should or should not be interned or can be safely entrusted to be at large as a subject of this country. If anyone is going to reply for the Government, I hope that point will be made clear to the House and the country, because everyone in the country is burning with anxiety on the subject. They want to know at once whether they are to be in a position under these arrangements to assist the Government and to make sure that no alien enemies and no naturalised subjects of this country are left at large if there is strong reason for believing that they are a source of danger and ought to be dealt with by this tribunal.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I should not have joined in the Debate had it not been for the speech of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King). When the hon. Member asked the Government to reconsider their policy and to allow men of military age to return to Germany—men between the ages of forty-five and fifty-five—he seemed to forget that some of those men would be used for shooting down the men who are now fighting for this country. The argument seems to be so outrageous that it is only on a par with the suggestion made by the hon. Member last week that because Germany chooses to use the weapon of an assassin, namely, gas, that we should not do likewise.
    Mr. KING: I must protest. I have never spoken in the House on the subject of gas. I cannot imagine to what the hon. Baronet refers. Neither did I suggest in my speech that these men between the ages of forty-five and fifty-five were going to shoot us down. I said they were not men of military age.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That only shows that the hon. Member does not understand that these men who are to be sent back to Germany, when they reached there would, naturally, if they were fit for military service, be used by the German Government for the purpose of engaging in this War.
    Mr. KING: Will you say why Russia has agreed to the exchange of men between forty-five and fifty-five, and why we cannot do what our Allies are doing?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That is not a legitimate interruption.
    Mr. KING: It is one you cannot answer.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: We in this country settle what we think is in the best interests of our own country. It is my own opinion, and I am sure it is the opinion of many other Members of this House, that to send back to Germany men who could be used to engage in military service against this country is a step which it is unthinkable that a Government with any sense would take. I therefore hope the Government will adhere to their proposals. With regard to what the hon. Member said about gas, he seems to have forgotten that he suggested in a question that the Government should not retaliate against Germany in this matter.
    Mr. KING: I asked no question at all.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member cannot always interrupt.
    Mr. KING: Am I to sit here—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would at once tell the hon. Member that the courteous way to interrupt is for him to ask the hon. Baronet to allow him to intervene, and then, if the hon. Baronet gives way, he is entitled to make a personal explanation.
    Mr. KING: I beg your pardon, Sir; and I beg the hon. Baronet's pardon. I should have asked the hon. Baronet courteously and kindly to allow me to make an interruption.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: As to the hon. Member's opinion as to the weapons that may be used against an assassin, my view is that you are justified in using, when you are fighting an assassin, every weapon under such circumstances. The Government in this matter are in a very difficult position. I have been a pacifist. I always wanted to see a good feeling established between this country and Germany, but the pacifist in my case has, perhaps, developed into the opposite extreme view. The feeling I have in this matter is that Germany has shown—as the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) said very well—herself absolutely regardless of taking any step in this War consistent with what we consider either common humanity or common decency. We must not close our eyes to the fact that Germany has spent large sums of money in this country for spying purposes. Is it not reasonable to believe that for this purpose the German Government have had German spies naturalised in this country? If that is so, and I believe it is so, we are going to intern large numbers of men, but we are going to leave still at large probably the ablest spies in the service of the German Government. No doubt it is a very great hardship to intern all naturalised German subjects, but I have been reluctantly forced to the opinion that in this great national danger with which we are faced at the present time the Government ought to go the whole step and intern every single German subject, whether naturalised or not. I want to ask the Prime Minister what he proposes to do in reference to those German subjects who have been naturalised since the outbreak of the War? It is no use putting the German working man in a different position from the rich alien. You may take the working man—he may be a wretched waiter—and collar him by the scruff of the neck and put him in an internment camp. You leave the German in a high place to go about his ordinary course of business while you persecute the poor man. You naturalised Baron Schroëder when the War broke out. Is he not now to be interned? I take it that he is not, because he is a rich man in a high place.
    The PRIME MINISTER: You must not say that.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I do say it emphatically.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member is not entitled to say that as a matter

    1873
    of fact. It is not a fact that there has been discrimination on the ground of wealth.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The Government have definitely refused naturalisation in many cases of German subjects who have lived in this country for many years and who have English wives. I have given the Home Secretary one case.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): If my hon. Friend goes through their names, he will find out that of the Germans who have been naturalised—the number is small—by far the larger proportion consist of poor people—quite poor people.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That may be, but there are a number of Germans who have lived in this country, who have English wives and English children, and many of them of the highest respectability, vouched for in the one case by a Privy Councillor sitting on the Treasury Bench, by a Lord-Lieutenant sitting in another place, and by myself to the Home Secretary. He was a man with English children who was interned. You interned this man, but you immediately naturalised a German subject who is a millionaire.
    Mr. McKENNAindicated dissent.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: It is no good the Home Secretary shaking his head. That is what actually happened. I have raised it in this House on several occasions, and on every opportunity I have had, because, whatever the Government may say, that is discrimination. Within the first week of the outbreak of war a number of Germans occupying high positions in London were naturalised, and I do not think my right hon. Friend will find that the persons who were naturalised in the first week of the outbreak of war were poor people, but Germans in high places, holding a considerable position in the City of London.
    Mr. McKENNA: I shall be very happy to show my hon. Friend a complete list, with the history in every case, and the reasons why the persons have been naturalised since the War began, and I will prove to him that grounds of wealth and high position have had nothing to do with naturalisation in any single case.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave me the reason why this gentleman was naturalised. He said it was done for financial reasons.
    Mr. McKENNA: Quite true; but not for Baron Schroëder's financial reasons. It is quite true that it was done for financial reasons—not for the benefit of Baron Schroëder, but for the benefit of the credit of the City of London, which is quite a different matter.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not know that the credit of the City of London has to rest on the naturalisation of a German.
    Mr. McKENNA: I would say for the benefit of credit in the City of London, not the credit of the City of London.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That is perhaps better. I am not questioning what the Home Secretary says. I accept his correction. If he says that in giving these naturalisation papers he had no regard whatever to the position of the person, treated the rich German in the same way as the working man with an English wife and English children—if he acted in that manner throughout, I must express my regret for having again referred to the case of Baron Schroeder. But if there is to be this discrimination, and if you are to have a system under which there is complete equality for all, the first step the Prime Minister ought to take is to see that all Members of this House of German parentage should no longer be allowed to sit in this House. The Prime Minister may shake his head, but I am sure that is the general feeling in the country, what-ever it may be in this House. It applies equally to both sides of the House. Nor do I think in the great hour of the nation's danger we ought to be allowed to have Privy Councillors of German extraction. They ought to be interned, and the regulations which allow these gentlemen to remain in the country will not give satisfaction to the country at large. I am sorry to have had to make these observations relating to Germans in high places, but I have felt, as a good many people in the country have felt, that there has been discrimination in favour of well-to-do Germans as against Germans who have settled in this country whose sons are fighting in the Army. The Government have taken this step because public opinion has forced them to do so. It is probably against their own judgment, but I can tell the Prime Minister this, and I am sure he will find that what I am saying is correct, that when he has taken this step he will not satisfy public opinion outside.

    1875
    The feeling is so strong in the industrial districts that I have Germans working for me who have been naturalised for twenty years and have sons fighting in the British Army, and yet British working men refuse to work alongside them. I think it is very unfortunate. In one case a deputation came to me about a German who had been naturalised for twenty years, with three sons fighting in the Army. I said, "If you choose to strike on account of this man you may strike, but I shall not dismiss him. In my opinion he has now shown by giving his sons to the service of the State that he is a true British subject in the real sense of the word." These are the cases, in my opinion, which show that the country will be perfectly safe in allowing men of that kind, who have given their own flesh and blood to their country, to remain here. Many of these men, the Prime Minister cannot deny, have been sent here by the German Government for the purpose of spying, because he knows perfectly well that immense sums of money have been spent in this way; and does the Government really think the German Government employs waiters and that class of men when they can, by sending men in high positions and getting them naturalised, obtain the very information which we are anxious they should not obtain? That is the only possible view to be taken, and if that be so, they must face the position that this measure they have introduced will not carry out what the country thinks is their duty at present.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not at all sure that I can conjecture the object of the speech which my hon. Friend has just made. One moment he was suggesting that we ought to deal in a much more severe way with naturalised Germans who are British subjects, who have the guarantee of an Act of Parliament that they shall have all the rights of British subjects—an Act of Parliament that is to be regarded as a scrap of paper—and at the next that we ought to treat these men as though they were prima facie, spies and enemies of our country. I refuse to do anything of the kind. If a man is a British subject, with the legal rights of a British subject, the prima facie presumption is that he is going to perform his duty. In the exceptional circumstances in which we are now placed I also think there ought to be an opportunity, as there will be under the proposals of the Government, that where there is reasonable ground of suspicion
    1876
    against a man of hostile origin, although through naturalisation he has acquired the status of a British subject, then through the judicial procedure of this advisory body we shall have exactly the same power of detaining and interning him as if he had never been naturalised at all. I was very much shocked at the case cited by my hon. Friend—the case of British working men—I hope there was some exaggeration or misunderstanding about it—who refused to work side by side with a naturalised German, now a British subject, with two or three sons fighting at the front. I believe the working classes of this country would repudiate any such attitude, and would regard it as a stain upon their class, and upon the good faith and honour of this country.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I think the Prime Minister does not quite follow that in this particular case where I received a deputation I told the workmen that they might go on strike, and that I thought it was a most unjust proceeding.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend sympathises with them at all, but I regret that such an incident should be possible in this country at this moment. That shows the extreme importance when you have an excited state of public opinion—naturally and legitimately excited—of using discretion and tact, and not acting in the spirit either of panic or vindictiveness. I am all in favour of the proposals which the Government have made, which have received the general approval of the House, showing that we are taking every step which is really necessary to secure ourselves from the danger which arises from the presence of a body of persons of alien birth within these shores. But you must remember that the great body of these people, who are not very numerous, are decent, honest, and respectable men, have given hostages to fortune in this country, and are carrying on legitimate trades and businesses, some of them professional men, some of them men employed in our most technical industries where their services can very ill be spared; and to initiate or to countenance anything in the nature of a vendetta against a class of that kind as a class would not only be disgraceful from the moral point of view, but most impolitic from the point of view of the best interests of this country. While you must take, with reluctance, but with a conviction of their necessity, measures of this

    1877
    kind—segregation, internment, repatriation—you must at the same time be careful to provide—and we think we have provided—in the machinery of this judicial tribunal, elasticity, and the power of relaxation and discrimination, and that you do not do serious injury and irreparable hardship to individuals. From that point of view the Government have framed these proposals, and I think they have met with the general acceptance of the House. It is not necessary to say, but I will say it, that anything more ill-advised and more discreditable than the outrages in the way of booty and plunder in some parts of the country during the last few days it is impossible for any patriotic man to conceive. That is not the spirit and those are not the methods by which a sane, sober, and self-respecting population can deal with a great emergency.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Some of the papers have incited them to do it.
    The PRIME MINISTER: All the more disgrace to the papers. I hold no brief for them. That is not the way in which the situation should be met, and I am perfectly certain it is not the way it is going to be met. The people of this country, under great provocation—no people have ever been exposed to greater provocation—in the gradual and progressive development and culmination of these barbarous methods, have shown self-respect and patience and have, perhaps, carried those qualities beyond what was necessary, certainly beyond what we expected. If it be an error, it is an error on the right side. I deplore any resort to these discreditable outbursts of vindictiveness, which do very little harm to those against whom they are directed, and which often single out not the guilty but the innocent, and which reflect the greatest possible dishonour upon those responsible for them. That is not the spirit in which we should deal with it. We have submitted to the House, with general approval, a method dictated by an emergency which no one could have foreseen, which is very real and very urgent, by which on the one hand we can protect ourselves against the possibility of danger from the activity of alien enemies within our own gates, and at the same time, what is equally important, prevent the possibility of injustice and hardship to innocent individuals. I hope the House will be content with the discussion we have had, and allow us to proceed with the next business.
    Mr. NEVILLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring his legislation before the House so that we can consider it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It can be done administratively.
    Mr. NEVILLE: Will the rules to be made be brought before the House, so that we can consider them? Will they be brought next week?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We shall see whether we need rules. I am not at ill sure that we do.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SUPPLY.— [TENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1915–16.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS. —Class II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  3. "That a sum not exceeding £70,545, 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, 1916, for the Salaries and other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, including Expenses in respect of Advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896." [NOTE.—£45,000 has been voted on account.]
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I rise to call attention to a matter which I hope I can deal with very briefly and which is of consequence, not so much for the magnitude of the particular affair as for the principle which is involved, and for the light which it throws upon the organisation or want of organisation, or rather, I should say, the co-ordination or want of co-ordination in the policy of different Departments of the Government. I have, of course, no desire to divide the House. Indeed, I should think it an improper thing to do if it can possibly be avoided. I think that I am not under any obligation to move a reduction of the Prime Minister's salary in order that I may speak on this Vote. I wish to have a discussion on this Vote because I wish to be

  1879
  assured, and I think that no man except the Prime Minister can give the Committee the assurance, that the policy of the Government is one and indivisible as far as it relates to a prosecution of this War, and that the one Department of the Government will not be allowed to develop a policy of its own which is not in harmony with the general policy laid down by the Government on the Vote. The particular case which has caused me to take this course is the action of the Government towards a proposal coming from the Finance Committee of the County Council of London that they should be allowed to postpone certain capital expenditure for a year in order that they may lighten the financial burden and lessen expenditure during the period of the War. I wish to say that I was not asked by the county council to raise this question, and having regard to what passed the other day between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), I would add that I had no communication with my hon. Friend the Member for the City until after I had brought the matter before the notice of the House.
  It came to my knowledge, I think, in the autumn, or, if not in the autumn, very early this year, that the Board of Education were pressing the county council to continue a very large capital expenditure which was required in order to reduce the size of classes in many of their schools. I do not question for a moment that that educational policy is desirable, and that in normal times it would have been pro-per for the Education Department to take the action which they have. My case is that these are not normal times, and that expenditure which ought to be incurred in normal times ought not to be incurred now. That is the first principle at stake. My attention was drawn to the matter because a friend of mine, whom I meet not infrequently at lunch, knowing that I sat on certain Treasury Committees and believing, as I am sorry to think many people do, that I have much larger influence and a much greater sphere of activity than I possess, said to me that he could not understand the action of my Committee. It was in that way that my attention was called to the matter. Early this year the Treasury issued a notice deprecating capital issues, and saying that no new issues must take place without their sanction. At the same time they sent a letter
  1880
  to the London County Council in reference to certain Metropolitan loans for which sanction had been asked, and in this letter they said:—
  "It is desirable that capital expenditure by local authorities in the United Kingdom should be restricted within the narrowest possible limits at the present time."
  That is absolutely true. It is a sound statement of policy, and one cannot lay too much stress upon the importance of this policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spent a great portion of his Budget Statement in enforcing that view. Only last night he referred to it again with greater insistence, and said that the financial problem which was now before us, and which we had to meet, could only be met by the greatest economy amongst all classes—an economy which, he said, must not be confined to public authorities, but extend to individual citizens. No one will dispute that under ordinary circumstances we are not an economical nation, either in our Government or in our individual capacity. Compared with the Germans or the Frenchmen, we are an extravagant people. What the Chancellor, therefore, is asking is that we should change our habits, and he impressed upon us that that is necessary for the successful financial conduct of the War. There is no chance of getting individuals to change their habits, and there is no chance of getting local authorities to change their spending habits unless the Government will exercise a most rigorous economy in all their Departments where they can do so, unless they will abstain from pressing expenditure upon local authorities who do not want to carry it out, and unless they will exercise the severest control over any proposal by local authorities for carrying out large expenditure which does not arise out of their suggestion. The Treasury laid down an admirable rule, on the 25th February, I think it was. On the 4th of March the finance committee of the London County Council sent a reply to that letter, in the course of which they said:
  "It appeared to the committee in particular that economy might be effected in regard to a large scheme of capital expenditure which the council, by agreement with the Board of Education, has in hand, in connection with the reduction in the size of classes in elementary schools, and in December the chairman of the finance committee and the chairman of the education committee had an interview with the President of the Board of Education with a view to securing his assent to some modifications of the scheme in the direction of postponement of expenditure. In the result, however, the council was unable to obtain any modification of the arrangements and capital expenditure thereon is therefore, proceeding at a rate of about £1,000,000 for the next triennium."

  1881
  The total expenditure, which is, I think, £5,000,000, will be spread over fifteen years, which are divided into these different periods, of which one terminated last year and a new one has now begun. Here we have the Board of Education refusing to permit the finance committee of the London County Council to do that which the Treasury is urging every local authority to do. That cannot be right. There ought not to be two policies in this matter. There ought not to be one financial policy at the Board of Education and another financial policy at the Treasury. If there is any conflict between the two Departments, then I say that, under the present national conditions, it is the Treasury policy which ought to prevail. We look to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to support his officials at the Treasury against all other Departments, and we look to the Prime Minister to strengthen the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the question is taken on appeal to the Cabinet as a whole. I must deal with one or two other quotations. I should say that in this particular letter the council explain that—
  "The moneys of the Consolidated Loans Fund of the Council will be sufficient to meet the whole of the council's capital expenditure as at present estimated, thus obviating the necessity for any public borrowing."
  and they inquired of the Treasury whether this made any difference. I specially call attention to this because when I questioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject the other day he appeared to say that the fact that there was no public borrowing took it outside the limit of the Treasury definition of policy. On the 8th of March the Treasury addressed another letter to the county council—not in answer to the one from which I have been quoting—in the course of which they again said—
  "All new capital expenditure should be postponed, and unless special circumstances exist works in progress should be slowed down."
  A very sound doctrine. Applying these principles they, however, feel bound to sanction certain proposals which had been laid before them by the county council. In a later letter they say—
  "In sanctioning these loans their Lordships have been mainly influenced by the consideration that the expenditure has already been incurred practically as a whole, while, in the case of Battersea, the expenditure is justified as being for the furtherance of the War. But it should be intimated to the borough councils that the Treasury will not be able to approve any loans by the London County Council for new expenditure which is not necessary for the furtherance of the War, whether or not all the sanctions, Departmental or Parliamentary, normally required have already been obtained."
  1882
  That is to say that even if everything has been sanctioned, the Treasury was going to refuse to sanction any such loans, so urgent was it that economy should be effected. Now I come to the letter of 24th April, in which the Treasury replies to the first letter from the county council, which I have read. That letter announces that the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury are of opinion that—
  "The Brady Street (Bethnal Green) clearance scheme should not be continued during the War, except so far as it may be financed otherwise than by loan."
  Then in regard to the expenditure on schools, the letter says—and mark that it is not my Lords of the Treasury, but His Majesty's Government—
  "In regard to the expenditure on schools, His Majesty's Government have decided that in all the circumstances they cannot now ask the London County Council to postpone the work."
  6.0 P.M.
  That is an unusual form for a Treasury letter on a question of this kind. I think the inference is clear that the Treasury wished to stop this work and that they were overruled by His Majesty's Government.
  The PRIME MINISTER: A decision of the Cabinet.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancellor and the Treasury were overruled by the Government on the financial question in favour of the Board of Education. It is against that that I protest, and that I desire to protest as strongly as I can. The Treasury goes on to define, and to narrow as much as possible, the expenditure which will be permitted. I have some more quotations, but I shall not trouble the House with them. I shall only say that the Treasury define as strictly as possible, and in a way which is utterly out of harmony with the decision just recorded by the Government in respect of the Education Department, the terms and conditions on which they will sanction the expenditure, and they say—
  "The object in view being to conserve and to direct into channels useful to the nation, for the furtherance of the War, both the capital and the labour of the nation, it apppears to their Lordships that the important point is to stop or reduce capital expenditure by local authorities, rather than merely to restrict fresh borrowings.—"
  I call the attention of the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway (Mr. Goldstone) to this point, as he seems to attach importance to it—
  "and in these circumstances the fact that the London County Council has sufficient money standing to the credit of the Consolidated Loan fund to enable it to

  1883
  avoid new borrowings on the market, though material, does not appear to make any essential difference to the position."
  That letter is dater the 24th of April. I have stated my case. I have only to add one word: What is the exact working of the London County Council Consolidated Loan Fund? Into that fund come all the sinking funds, as I understand, under existing loans, and, thanks to that fact, they have sufficient money available to finance for the present all the new capital issue, which they had submitted to the Treasury, without fresh borrowings from the public, but the Treasury have rightly said, "That is not the point. The point is to economise resources in capital and in labour for the purposes of the War," and if that is not done they stop this new capital expenditure wherever they can.
  Mr. D. MASON: What is the amount of the fund?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot give the total amount of the fund, but the total amount involved in the year over these educational proposals is something like £300,000. That would be taken out of the Consolidated Loan Fund of the county council. Suppose it had not been taken. Suppose the policy of the Treasury prevailed instead of the policy of the Board of Education, then the county council would have purchased its own stock, thereby relieving the market of that stock and setting funds free for invest-men in existing war loans, or they would themselves have directly invested the £300,000 of their own in existing war loans, or in any new issue made. Therefore the policy of pressing on work which is not so immediately urgent for help or any other purpose as to make it necessary to proceed with it now, which does not help in any way in the prosecution of the War, deprives us of £300,000 which might have gone to the lightening of the financial burden, which was the text of the Chancellor of the Exchequer both yesterday and his Budget Speech last week. I hope that I have spoken in no controversial spirit. I want to carry the Government and the Committee with me. I am afraid that it is impossible that this decision should be revoked at the stage to which things have now been brought, but I do press it in regard to this particular point, that the process of slowing down which is recommended by the Treasury shall be enforced upon the Education Department in this matter and in others. I
  1884
  press, in the second place, that all Government Departments shall be made to conform to the financial policy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his own responsibility as a Minister of Finance declares to be necessary for the successful prosecution of the War; and, in the third place, I press upon the Prime Minister that the whole weight of his influence as head and chief of the Government shall be given to support the Chancellor in his arduous task, and that he shall not allow the obvious desire of the Treasury to pursue a particular policy to be overridden by pressure coming through what I may say without any offence to the Gentleman who holds the position, is a minor and less important office.
  I really do not know why the Treasury were not allowed to have their way in this matter. I see a statement in a paper, which I am told is edited by a member of the minority of the London County Council, which tells the secret history of what occurred. It tells that the Treasury were holding out, and that the leader of the minority in the county council approached the Chancellor of the Exchequer and persuaded him, with the result that the Treasury decision was overruled. I think it undesirable that public Departments should follow the minorities of our local bodies, rather than the majorities, and all of us in all parts of the House will be agreed on that, whatever we think of the opinions of the majority of any particular council at any given time. It is a wholly intolerable situation that the Treasury should be preaching to all the Departments the great necessity for economy and that then, in deference to private representations made by a representative or a member—for I do not know even that he was a representative—of the minority of the particular council, the decision of the Treasury and the wishes of the majority of the council should be overruled and a policy should be enforced upon the council, which is wholly out of sympathy with the policy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer preaches in the country. I confine my case to the single illustration. I think the right hon. Gentleman must know that there is not a little uneasiness in the country as to the working of the different Departments of the Government. We do not find that they are all animated with the same spirit. We do not find they all pursue a common policy. I have been able in this case to bring forward an instance where they certainly have not done so, and

  1885
  to bring it forward in a case in which no possible harm can be done by the public discussion of the matter. I hope that the Prime Minister will give us an assurance that will cover not only this case, but will give us a general assurance that the Government will have one policy, and that different Departments will not pursue different policies in antagonism one to another.
  Sir TUDOR WALTERS: May I ask whether the policy of telling local authorities to go on with school building, to supply the necessity arising from the introduction of small classes, is to continue during the War? The scheme for new school buildings accrued before the War. These buildings were rendered necessary almost entirely by the Board of Education's requirements as to small classes. I should like to know whether the Board of Education are bringing the same pressure to bear on local authorities in the provinces as apparently they are bringing to bear on the London County Council?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I believe that my salary is included in the Vote which you have put from the Chair, and I will say at once what I can in reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know that I quarrel with any of the propositions which he laid down with regard to the general position, which go far beyond the particular facts of this particular question. When he says that co-ordination and common action between the different Departments of the Government are an urgent matter in the supreme national interest, he is forcing an open door. One of the main preoccupations of my life, day by day and week by week, is to secure that co-operation, though it is not always very easy to secure. There are various things which make it more difficult than might at first sight appear—the idiosyncrasies of individuals, the competing claims, not always easy to adjust, between the relative urgency of the demands put forward by one Department as against another, and the difficulty, which the Committee will readily appreciate, of not always having, perhaps, sufficient time for full consideration. Still, when all those things are taken into account, I agree that they ought not to prevent, nor do I think they have substantially prevented, the attempt at harmonious action between the different Departments of the Government in a time of emergency such as hitherto has never confronted any Administration. In regard to this particular
  1886
  matter, I do not claim more than a superficial acquaintance with the merits of the case, but I must point out that it is a case which rests to some extent, as I understand, on its own footing. The expenditure which the Government has sanctioned, and which the right hon. Gentleman thinks ought not to have been sanctioned, was expenditure which had been incurred, or which ought to have been incurred, in pursuance of an agreement, which goes back, I think, to the year 1910 or 1911, between the county council of that day and the Board of Education.
  Under that agreement—I am not going into details—the county council undertook to provide 24,000 new school places for every three years for fifteen years. That, together with other requirements dependent upon other parts of the agreement, would have involved an expenditure during each of these triennial periods of something like £350,000 a year. Those requirements were agreed between the two parties, and in the first period of three years before the War broke out the agreement of course was fully complied with, and a part of the sum has been drawn from the Consolidated Fund of the county council in order that the requirements should be met. I do not think that anyone will dispute that under normal conditions, apart from the agreement, the education authority of a great community like London has always to secure adequate school accommodation for the additional number of children that have got to be dealt with—one of the primary necessities of our social life. I believe that as regards this particular case there were running contracts at the time when the matter came under consideration—quite apart from any prospective contracts; I am not speaking of prospective contracts—between the county council and contractors for the provision of the necessary accommodation.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Those are the contracts which the Treasury are asking them to slow down.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am coming to that. That is the sanction of new contracts.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the right hon. Gentleman is misinformed. There were running contracts—I do not dispute that for a moment—but the Board of Education was pressing and is pressing for making new contracts.
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is rather another matter. Let me first of all deal with the running contracts. I agree that my first argument would, not apply to the others. As regards the running contracts, I do not think that anyone contends that the duty of the local authorities or the Government, controlling the authorities, would say that those contracts ought to be put an end to; it would expose the county council to actions for damages and so forth on the part of the contractors, and would delay the work which is absolutely in progress and which is socially necessary for educational purposes in London. As regards the slowing down of expenditure, that is a totally different matter, and perhaps I may quote in that connection the circular dealing with borrowing powers which was issued by the Local Government Board, and of which I entirely approve, on the 31st March. I will quote the last paragraph, which expressed the policy of the Government:—
  "The Treasury are anxious that the attention of the local authorities should be particularly drawn to the fact that in consequence of the restriction of borrowing, not only as regards new works but also as regards works in progress by arrangement with contractors or otherwise to postpone works, or to enlarge the period of their completion."
  That is perfectly sound doctrine, and I am quite sure my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education is quite prepared, in this as in other cases, to suggest, if suggestion be necessary, or approve, if approval be necessary, the slowing down of the work and to postpone contracts where it can be done without serious damage or prejudice to the objects the authorities have in view, and to postpone the actual date of completion.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is all we ask.
  The PRIME MINISTER: If that is all that is asked, then I say, so far as the Government is concerned that we are quite prepared to approve the suggestion upon the principle we are all agreed and I would suggest that the matter might, be settled in this way. The running contracts could be allowed to continue subject to whatever can be done in the way of slowing down, and the new contracts should not be continued or proceeded with. I do not think that any serious principle would be infringed by that, and I hope that all sensible men on the county council will be agreed to take that course. I attach the very greatest importance to the doctrine laid down by the Chancellor of
  1888
  the Exchequer, and embodied in the Treasury letter, and re-enunciated in the circular of the Local Government Board, that, in the financial and social conditions prevailing during the War, all local authorities must be prepared, whether their administration applies to public health, to education, or to any other necessary work essential under normal conditions, all public authorities must be prepared to draw in their horns and to restrict their applications for loans and even to curtail their normal activities in order that the resources of the country may be concentrated, as they ought to be concentrated, upon the prosecution of our supreme object—the successful completion of the War. I believe the House of Commons will approve of that course, which will commend itself to the judgment and conscience of the country, and I should be very sorry if there was any infringement of that principle on the part of the Government or any local authority, and I feel sure that, as far as the Government are concerned, they will not do so.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: After the speech which the Prime Minister has made, I think very little remains to be said. But there is one point that wants clearing up. I do not think the Prime Minister, who has many other things to occupy him as he says, quite understood the situation. This money under the agreement was not to provide 50,000 new places for new children or an increased number of children, but it was to promote a new policy altogether, by which the classes might be reduced from something like fifty to sixty, to classes of from forty to forty-eight. All parties in the county council agreed, and I was one of those who attended the Board of Education and made a first preliminary agreement with that Department by which we might carry out this policy of providing these new places at, an expenditure of £5,000,000 spread over fifteen years. The Government came to the very wise conclusion, when the War broke out, that they should address themselves to all the local authorities with a view, as far as possible, of slowing down all capital expenditure that was not actually essential. Directly they did that, the London County Council fell in at once with that proposal and said that they were prepared to do everything they could to assist the Government. The London County Council impressed upon every one of their committees the necessities of cutting down expenditure almost to the bone, and it was a very

  1889
  great surprise to us when the Board of Education urged upon us, and almost forced us, not only not to slow down this expenditure, but, if anything, to press on this expenditure, though it would involve a very largo capital outlay. The policy was to reduce the size of the classes, but, after all, the children have for a generation or two been taught in those classes, and this policy of reducing the size of the class is of a luxurious character, and one which can very well be slowed down. Even the Board of Education that was pressing us on this very subject, in a letter to a school board, said:—
  "In view of the present circumstances it may prove necessary for the Board, in certain cases, to acquiesce for a time in the continuance of unsatisfactory conditions which in normal times world have called for speedy removal."
  We all admit that the conditions are unsatisfactory and call for speedy removal, but these are times when we must save money, and therefore it was a great disappointment when the Board of Education said to the county council, "Whatever may be your decision about not promoting capital expenditure "on tramways and other matters, we must keep you to your bargain and compel you to carry out this new form of capital expenditure." The county council does not make an issue of capital expenditure every year, and sooner or later this money will have to be met by a further issue of capital. Therefore, if this expenditure were forced upon the county council it is perfectly obvious that the capital expenditure of the county council is increased just at the time the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government are most anxious to check every local authority in making demands on the money market. We are very pleased with the words which have fallen from the Prime Minister, and we are now encouraged to hope that the President of She Board of Education will look on this question from the point of view of the Government, and not from the point of view of his Department, and will see that his Department falls into line with the other Departments of the Government, and with the general decisions of the Cabinet. The right hon. Gentleman may now issue another letter to the county council saying that under present conditions they may slow down, except so far as they have to pay money on running contracts. That affects a very small proportion indeed of the whole amount required, and I trust that the President of the Board will desire to act in the
  1890
  spirit of the very wise recommendation of the Government, and assist the county council in every possible way. Let me tell the President of the Board of Education of the great difficulty in which his Department puts the county council at the present moment. All the committees have had admonitions addressed to them with regard to expenditure. The Tramway Committee is not to borrow money and the Housing Committee is not to borrow money, and those committees may turn round and say, if money is not to be borrowed by the committees for all kinds of useful work, why on earth is the Education Committee to be allowed to pursue its somewhat luxurious policy, and to carry out this scheme, more especially when schemes for housing and in connection with the tramways cannot proceed. The county council has been very much embarrassed by this attitude on the part of the Board of Education. I trust that the Board of Education will fall into line with the other Departments, and co-operate with the London County Council and all municipal bodies in checking expenditure for the benefit of the nation at large.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fisher) has scarcely been fair in his speech to the Board of Education. He read an extract from a letter which indicated the policy of the Board, in which it was stated it would overlook shortcomings of the authorities in making educational provisions. Really the publication of that letter is a disappointment to me. My information on this matter is hardly in accord with the right hon. Gentleman. The Board of Education indicated to the London County Council its readiness to acquiesce in the findings of the Local Government Board, but the initiative, as I understand, came from the London County Council Education Committee, and certain members of it pressed the Board of Education to depart from the policy indicated in the letter quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. If my information is accurate, it is not only the leader of the Progressive section of the county council who has pressed this policy of continuance upon the Board of Education, but those views are shared, in part at least, by the Chairman of the Education Committee of the London County Council. My point is that the initiative for the continuity of the policy was on the part of the London County Council and not on the Board of Education. The education

  1891
  committee of the London County Council pressed the Board of Education to depart from the policy indicated in the letter which the right hon. Member for Fulham quoted. Let me come to the facts of the case. This agreement, which seems to me an excellent one, was to give continuity of policy to the London County Council education committee spread over fifteen years, so that there might be no controversy between the Board of Education and the London County Council in the matter of the provision of new places for at least fifteen years. The amount involved is so insignificant that I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman the member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) should bring the case to the notice of the House this afternoon. What is the amount involved when we remember the authority which has to administer the sum? It is a question of a million spent in three years, or an expenditure of £350,000 in one year, provided that the London County Council determine to proceed at the normal rate and do not slow down as suggested in the speech of the Prime Minister.
  I would remind hon. Gentlemen that there was an agreement reached with the education committee of the county council. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham will know to what I am referring. There was a rigid cutting down of estimates for administration which saved the London County Council a penny rate, or amounting to a saving of £173,000. In order that this agreement might be arrived at it was arranged that the education committee should have continuity for the expenditure of the money. What, then, is the amount in question? It is simply half £350,000, or about that sum, or a matter of £170,000 for the London County Council to keep an agreement to which it is committed, and to carry out works to which in part it is also committed and for which land has been purchased so that the thing may go on. It would appear to me if the continuance of this scheme is abandoned, the amount the London County Council may have to pay for breaches of contract and giving up of land may very well run to a considerable sum towards that comparatively small amount of £170,000. That is not the only point. From information which has reached me, if this means the complete or even temporary abandonment of the scheme, see what will result. One of the first things which will happen will
  1892
  be that a number of carpenters and joiners and builders who are now falling out of work in their trade will be prevented from taking up that employment which the continuance of the scheme would give. It will be within the recollection of the House that the hutting scheme for the New Armies is now about completed, and that the men are going under canvas. I have it on excellent authority that something like 6,000 men unemployed who are normally engaged in building and works of construction have recently registered—4,000 in London—and that there are 6,000 in the London and South-Eastern district. There is as well a number of men who do not give in cards at the Labour Exchanges or at the trade union offices. My information is that probably a number nearly twice that will be out of work in the building and constructive trades alone. About 500 unemployed members now are known to the officials of the Carpenters' and Joiners' Union. I would recall to the House that in some of the circulars which have come from Government Departments it is suggested that there should not be diminution of work if it means possible unemployment. If those men are thrown out of work they will have to be provided for out of the Poor Law, and it will surely be uneconomical to allow that to occur when by the expenditure of a comparatively small amount they might be employed at remunerative work, and at work which would help on educational conditions.
  I trust that what the Prime Minister said does not mean the abandonment even temporarily of this scheme. Slowing down there may be, but I hope we are going on with it to absorb those unemployed who will soon be on the London market, and as well to make such provision so that the health of the children of London will not be sacrificed for so trifling an amount. One hundred and seventy thousand pounds and a war expenditure of eleven hundred millions—it is absurd almost to place the two amounts in contrast. If this scheme fails to go through I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham will contemplate for a moment the arrears of building which the London County Council Education Committee will have to overtake when the War is over and at a time when, as he knows, it will be very difficult to increase the rates. Even from that point of view it is false economy to abandon this scheme, and from an educational point of view to depart from it will weaken the standard which we all expect

  1893
  London to uphold. I trust that what the Prime Minister has said does not mean the throwing over of the Board of Education. The Board of Education, it is true, is not responsible for forcing this upon the London County Council. It is a Cabinet decision. That point is rather a vital one, and it is whether the Treasury is to over-ride the Cabinet or the Cabinet to over-ride the Treasury. And if this matter was submitted to the Cabinet, and if the Cabinet approved, surely the Cabinet should be regarded as the supreme authority, and not the Treasury, where the decision was probably given by a permanent official. Again, this is a case of Whitehall possibly over-riding Westminster, and, so far as I am concerned, it should be Westminster, and not Whitehall. A Cabinet decision should be paramount, and from that point of view, and from the educational point of view, and for the prevention of the accumulation of building in the time to come, I hope that the present decision will be adhered to.
  Mr. PERCY HARRIS: The hon. Member who has just spoken is certainly misinformed as to the attitude of the London County Council in this matter. I have taken the trouble to make inquiries. It is suggested that it was the London County Council who desired to get their building scheme exempted from the general policy of the finance committee. That is not the case, as I can prove from a report presented to the meeting last week in which it is expressly stated:
  "The chairman of the finance committee and the chairman of the education committee had an interview with the President of the Board of Education with a view to securing his assent to some modifications of the scheme in the direction of the postponement of expenditure. In the result, however, the council was unable to obtain any modification of the arrangement, and capital expenditure thereon is therefore proceeding at the rate of about one million pounds in the next triennial."
  The hon. Member also seemed to suggest that some bargain was made by which the maintenance estimates were cut down with an understanding that the building scheme should proceed. I know on high authority, the authority of the chairman of the majority of the London County Council, that there never was a bargain. The maintenance estimates were cut down because the county council felt that it was right to be economical at the present time. For the same reason they are willing, if the Government do not object to restrict capital expenditure in the same way. There is no question whatever of the total abandonment of this scheme. This is a
  1894
  scheme which is to be carried out in fifteen years. Under the scheme the London County Council is doing a great deal more than is required by the Board of Education. It is not only a scheme for building new schools, but a scheme by which the council is going to make it possible to reduce the size of the classes in the case of the elder scholars to forty, and in the case of infants to forty-eight, the present maximum being sixty. Therefore it is a scheme very much in advance of what is being done by other education authorities. Surely it is not unreasonable, having regard to the present financial position, to say, "Let us carry out the scheme in sixteen or possibly seventeen years, instead of in fifteen." For my part, I am quite satisfied with what the Prime Minister said to-day; but I think it is only fair to point out that it does not appear to be quite consistent either with the report of the interview of the chairmen of the education and finance committees with the President of the Board, or with the letter written by the Board of Education on the 3rd May last. In that letter it is written:
  "The Government, having decided not to ask the council to postpone the work, the Board will be glad to be informed that the school building scheme of the council will be proceeded with in accordance with the existing arrangement between the council and the Board."
  That certainly has been understood by the council to mean that there is to be no slowing down of existing works, and that new contracts are to be entered into for the coming year in order to carry out the existing arrangement as it stands. I am glad to gather from the Prime Minister's statement to-day that that is not intended, and that some reasonable slowing down will be allowed. As far as new contracts are concerned, I hope that that will be a matter of discussion between the President of the Board and the council, and that some reasonable arrangement may be arrived at. I am sure it is only a matter which requires a little adjustment in order to arrive at a reasonable arrangement. A reason why there should be some restriction on capital expenditure in connection with that scheme is that it is possible to do something effectual. Where you have a large scheme like that of the County Hall, it is very difficult, or, at any rate, very expensive, to "slow down" expenditure unless it suits the contractor to do so. But when you have building schemes going on in different parts of London, the probability is that some builders, at any

  1895
  rate, would be glad to slow down their works to some extent, and therefore it would be possible to do something effectual. I think that this discussion has been very useful, because if the policy as it was understood in connection with this matter had been pursued it would have been a bad precedent, and would have made a bad impression on municipal authorities, who it is most desirable should at the present time keep their expenditure within the lowest possible limits.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot offer to withdraw my Motion, because I made none; therefore there is nothing to withdraw. I rise merely to say that for my part I am entirely satisfied with the statement of policy enunciated by the Prime Minister, both as regards the general principle involved and as regards the particular case. The Prime Minister associates himself in the fullest way with all that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said as to the urgency of economy, not merely for avoiding fresh borrowing, but for avoiding fresh expenditure, and, above all, for avoiding fresh capital expenditure for the present wherever it can be done, and he promises that the Government will co-operate with that object. In regard to the particular case, he undertakes that, whilst existing contracts cannot or must not be broken—it would be improvident to do so—they may be slowed down if it is found convenient and possible, and that the county council shall not be urged or forced to enter into any new contracts if they do not wish to do so. That is a very satisfactory result of the Debate, as far as I am concerned. I do not want to carry the matter any further.
  Mr. KING: I have for many years followed educational progress in London. I feel very strongly upon the subject, and could say a good deal about it, but I shall not endeavour to do so to-night. I should like, however, to recall to the Committee one fact which has been very carefully withheld from them to-day in all the speeches which have been made. A few years ago the London education authority were so remiss in their policy and so neglected the provision of school places, thereby robbing the children of London of their heritage of free education as British citizens, that the Board of Education threatened to dock their Grant to the extent of £50,000. Eventually the amount by which the Grant was reduced was less
  1896
  than that. But it ought to be remembered that this building scheme, which is to be spread over fifteen years, is the conclusion of that episode. There was great remissness and shocking neglect on the part of the London education authority. I am glad to think that the spirit has now very much improved, and I do not want to say anything recriminatory on the present occasion. At the same time, it must be remembered that there is still a great deficiency of school places in London, and that anything in the nature of a slowing down of this policy—which, of course, has been inevitable during the last nine months—or any postponement of it to a large extent means nothing less then depriving the children of the greatest City of the greatest Empire in the world of the opportunities for education which every German village possesses. I shall not pursue the matter further now, but as one who believes in education I strongly appeal to the Prime Minister and to the Government generally that the whole scheme, which was a compromise and a settlement of a long-standing evil, shall not be lightly thrown aside, even in time of war.
  Sir JOHN SPEAR: On behalf of local authorities outside London I want to say one word of thanks to the Prime Minister for his declaration. Several speakers have thanked the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of London: I can assure him that local bodies concerned in the administration of education and of the Poor Law throughout the country will greatly appreciate his statement that extra capital expenditure should be suspended during the War. There is a strong feeling among the ratepayers with regard to greatly increased expenditure. They have no desire to shirk their responsibility with regard to education. The figures supplied me to-day show that in the last five years the expenditure on elementary education has increased by nearly £3,000,000. This feeling against increased expenditure does not arise from a desire to shirk the responsibility of providing good education. But local bodies feel that at this crisis, with the heavy current expenditure, it would be unwise and unjust to go in for extra expenditure. If the work is postponed, after the War there will be unemployment and the work will be able to be done more economically than now, when the prices of building materials are so high. From every point of view local

  1897
  bodies will much appreciate the determination of the Prime Minister to see that all the Departments respect the principle which he has laid down.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.—Class IV.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £9,906,378 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, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."—[Note.—£5,575,000 has been voted on account.]
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I propose this evening to make some change in my usual practice, and to refer not so much to questions concerned with the routine work of the Board of Education, as to the way in which the War has influenced our work during the past nine months. I think that that will probably be more interesting to the Committee. I do not want the Committee to understand by that that I depreciate in any respect whatever the routine work of education, for in my opinion there newer was a time in our history when it was more important that close attention should be given to the routine work on which depends the education of the children who will form the nation of to-morrow.
  I ought to explain to the Committee that my staff has been very much depleted owing to the War. I have lost 320 members, who have joined the Colours, and a very large number of them, I am glad to say, have received commissions. Deaths have already occurred, and we mourn the loss of some of our colleagues. The reduction in my staff prevents my being able to supply the Committee with many of the statistics which have been given in former years.
  7.0 P.M.
  I should like to refer to the three great museums under my charge. The Victoria and Albert Museum was thrown open to the public free on every day in the week from the month of June last. The result of the abolition of entrance fees was an immediate rise in the number of visitors. Although the outbreak of War makes comparison impossible, that experiment, as far as I can judge, has
  1898
  been thoroughly justified. One of the economies we have been able to effect at that museum is to suspend the expenditure amounting to £11,000 a year which we usually incur in improving the collections. When War broke out I was proposing to bring up to date the Bethnal Green museum, and to demonstrate to parents in the East End of London, by illustrations, specimens, and various exhibits, the importance of ventilation, sanitation, cleanliness, and the provision of suitable food and clothing for children. That expenditure has had to be deferred. We have had to postpone the erection of the new Geological Museum, which is to be a connecting link between the Natural History Museum and the new Science Museum in Exhibition Road. Unfortunately for science, a very large number of the exhibits still remain stored away in the cellars of Jermyn Street, and students are not able to use many of the 115,000 specimens which we possess in that institution. We have, however, not only done very valuable work in completing the six-inch survey in some important counties, but we have also been able to give very valuable information in connection with the camps which have been established in the country, enabling the Army authorities to provide troops with adequate supplies of water of good quality. We have also given information to the Belgian Government in regard to the water supplies available in the parts of the country which the Belgians still occupy in Flanders. In the matter of finance, anyone who looks at the Estimates will see that the increases have been very largely of an automatic character. Teachers' pensions is an item which I think accounts for the largest portion of the increase, but there is an increase also in Grants to the elementary schools, because we assumed the normal increase, in the average attendance. We think that during the period of the War, although there has been a great deal of dislocation in certain schools in the country, the local authorities ought not to be penalised, but should feel sure of the Grant on their schools. There is one increase to which I want to allude—an increase due to the additional feeding of children owing to the outbreak of the War. A great tribute of praise is due to the education authorities of this country who at the outbreak of the War were suddenly called upon to feed a very large number of school

  1899
  children, aid were able to multiply the number of meals provided fivefold. We are now feeding something like 70,000 children, which is double what we were feeding in our schools a year ago. Immediately after the outbreak of the War we were feeding in the elementary schools 200,000 children.
  I am not going to make any excuse for alluding to another subject—the work which is being done by the schools for mothers. Nothing is more important in regard to the prevention of infantile mortality and the preservation of the health of the small children than that the mothers should be trained how to rear and bring up their children. Since I last spoke on these Estimates the Local Government Board has been enabled to help forward this work by Grants for maternity and child welfare. The Board of Education has been helping something like 151 schools for mothers. There was obviously some danger of these two Departments overlapping in their work. My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board and I, therefore, have met, and we have decided that, briefly, all matters connected with institutions provided by a sanitary authority should be supported out of Grants by the Local Government Board, and all matters connected with schools, as defined in our regulations should be in the province of the Board of Education. In that way we believe a satisfactory working arrangement will be arrived at which will secure not only a proper bringing-up of the children, but due attention to health.
  It is a platitude, I know, when I say that it is a waste of effort to try to educate children who are not physically fit. Our great object is to get children to the schools in a healthy condition. If we get them thus and maintain them in a healthy condition, depend upon it they will learn a great deal more, and there will be much less waste of public money than there has been in the past. The demand for women workers in many directions has produced also a demand for women who have babies or very small children in their homes. One of the great social dangers in the country has been that these children should not be properly provided for when their mothers were at work. By a system of crèches which have been supported by the Board of Education, and by Grants, we are doing a very good work. We have now seventy-seven institutions in the country. During
  1900
  the past year we have contributed something like £5,000 in Grants in helping to look after these tiny dots while their mothers were at work. I do not think the value of that kind of work can be easily overrated.
  There have been automatic increases, but there has been another decrease in expenditure, and the main decrease in our expenditure for the year is the suspension of building Grants to training colleges.
  The more I have studied the question the more I am impressed with this fact, that the more a man is educated the greater is his tendency to realise the importance of making sacrifices for his country in its present hour of need. The figures of those who have left to join the Colours are really more striking when you look at the number of individuals who have been training for the teaching profession, who have gone from the universities, and who have been in the teaching profession. Tribute has already been paid by the Prime Minister to Oxford and Cambridge on the very large percentage of undergraduates who have left those universities, placing them, no doubt, in a very difficult position, financially, during the period of the War. The financial condition is still worse with the provincial universities.
  Although the percentage is not quite so large in these as in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, yet more than 50 per cent. of the students who normally would be at the universities have joined the Colours. London University has a fine record. Its Officers' Training Corps have found, in cadets and ex-cadets, 1,100 individuals, and 200 other students joined, making 1,300 from London University who have received commissions. Manchester has over 100 who have received commissions, and Newcastle 100. I think this loss of men will leave no disfiguring mark upon our universities. Death has already taken many of them, and will, unfortunately, continue to take others, and it is for us, and for the country, to do its best to repair that heavy loss. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing by an emergency Grant to help the universities in their hour of need. Losing the fees from a large proportion of their students has placed them in a very difficult position, and consideration is being given by a Departmental Committee which will report to the Treasury, so as to enable the provincial universities to tide over the financial position into which the War has thrown them.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: Does that include London University?
  Mr. PEASE: It includes London and all provincial universities other than Oxford and Cambridge. I have not much to say in regard to the Principality of Wales, but in connection with university work there it is noteworthy that all parties concerned are united in a real endeavour to organise their university education, and are now considering the whole matter. In the past months a Departmental Committee has been sitting to consider the best means of providing a National Medical School at Cardiff, which has been made possible by the munificence of Sir William James Thomas.
  In regard to the training colleges, at the commencement of the War in one of the training colleges—I think I should name it, it is St. John's, London—there were seventy-six students who had completed their first year's training. Of these sixty-nine joined the Colours without continuing their second year's course. In another college fifty-one out of seventy joined the Colours. Our attitude as a Board has been to leave the student quite free to stay or go. Pressure to leave was not needed, I am glad to say, even if we had been minded to apply it. On the other hand, we placed no obstacle in the way of the students leaving the training colleges. We have arranged that, in the case of all students who have completed their first year's training course—although in ordinary times it would have been necessary for them to complete the two years—we shall provisionally recognise them as certificated teachers when they come back from the War—as we hope many of them will do—and, subject to a satisfactory report upon their work, after a reasonable interval that certificate will be confirmed.
  Since I last addressed the Committee on my Estimates, the Board has seen its way to increase the Grant given to the training schools for domestic subjects. We think it is all-important that housewifery, cookery, and laundry work should all form part of the curriculum in these schools, and we have increased the Grants with a view to securing a uniform system of instruction in these most necessary subjects. Coming to our secondary schools, the work, I may say, goes on steadily increasing. Ten years ago we only contributed £163,000 in Grants to these schools; now we are proposing to contribute £730,000.
  1902
  It will be a satisfaction to those who are interested in education to be told that in the classes in our secondary schools receiving Government Grants there are on an average throughout all these schools one teacher for every fifteen students. A question on which the Labour party places great store is the number of free places in these schools. I may inform them that at the present time 35 per cent. of the students in these secondary schools receiving Government Grants are receiving free education.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask, is there any condition attached?
  Mr. PEASE: In connection with a certain number of individuals going forward into the teaching profession they are under an obligation to carry through their course. If they obtain bursaries for a particular work, such as going on to the teaching profession, they will be under that obligation, but most of those going to our secondary schools have no obligation beyond in some cases an obligation to remain there a reasonable period of time.
  Colonel YATE: Would it not be an advantage to have an obligation?
  Mr. PEASE: Yes, one of the things I should like to lay stress on is the importance of further extension in that respect.
  Sir HENRY HIBBERT: May I point out that in my own county that obligation does exist?
  Mr. PEASE: I am glad to hear it. In a great many schools it certainly does not exist. The progress of improvement depends, I think, on five things—an earlier entry in the secondary school; the imposition of some test, so that those only of reasonable ability should go forward into these schools; an undertaking by the parents that the children shall attend the full course in the schools; a better system of scholarship, so that the ladder may be improved to enable more able children to go forward to the university; and more vocational courses to be attached to those schools. We have at the present moment eight of these secondary schools with engineering courses, which lead up to the technical institutions, and I think money can very well be spent by local authorities, assisted by the Government in vocational courses in many of our secondary schools. French teachers, to a very large extent, have been recalled for

  1903
  military purposes, and, perhaps, I ought to allude to the loss in one of our secondary schools of a very able teacher through a ruthless and wanton attack made by our enemies on Hartlepool. Over thirty-two of our secondary schools are being occupied by troops, or as hospitals. Of course, I make no complaint of the War Office calling upon the schools of the country when they require them for military purposes. I am very glad to say, however, we have been looking ahead, and my hon. Friend (Dr. Addison) has been recently round the country with a Committee, aided by War Office and Local Government Board representatives, with a view of seeing what places are most suited for the purpose of hospitals and of making provisional arrangements for suitable centres, and, in the event of more places being required, provision can be made in advance for the children dispossessed of their schools. I am very glad to say that local authorities have helped very much the work of that Committee. With regard to camp classes for the troops, at the beginning of the War I thought there would be considerable demand for the teaching of a certain number of subjects, especially French, ambulance, mapping, and other subjects of that kind in the camps of the country, and it may interest the House to know that West Sussex heads the list, and receives grants in connection with 1,250 hours occupied by troops in those classes. The West Riding, Kent, London, and Birmingham also had classes in connection with these subjects.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Has the local education authorities' attention been called to them?
  Mr. PEASE: Yes. I sent a circular at the beginning of the War to all local education authorities, pointing out to them that Grants would be paid in connection with subjects taught in the camps, but many of the men in camps require entertainment, rather than occupation of a more serious character, and, although, perhaps, it is not very relevant to my duties as President of the Board of Education, yet, in another capacity, I have catered a good deal for the entertainment of men in the camps as chairman of the Professional Classes Sub-Committee, assisted by money from the Prince of Wales' Fund, and I have been able to secure employment for a very large
  1904
  number of professional people, who otherwise would be starving, by enabling them to entertain the troops at the various camps from time to time.
  There is one other subject which I wish to develop for a moment or two, and it is a subject that I know will interest many Members in the House, as well as many people in the country. The War has brought home to us that we have been far too dependent for very many processes and many materials upon the foreigner, and we have realised that it is essential, if we are going to maintain our position in the world, that we must make better use of our scientifically trained workers, that we must increase the number of those workers, we must endeavour to see that industry is closely associated with our scientific workers, and we must promote a proper system of encouragement of research workers, especially in our universities. The fault in the past, no doubt, has been partly due to the remissness on the part of the Government in failing to create careers for scientific men. It has also, I think, been due partly to the universities, who have not realised how important it is that pure science ought to be combined with applied science and both brought into close contact with manufacturing interests. I think it was also partly due to the fact that the manufacturers themselves have undervalued the importance of science in connection with their particular industries. It was partly due, too, to the fact that the ratepayers have been too niggardly in making provision in connection with their technical institutions and colleges.
  I ought, perhaps, to give a few illustrations to the House in order to show that by expenditure in the first instance of a comparatively small sum of money, which ought to develop into very substantial sums of money in the future, much can be done by research workers, and by scientifically trained individuals in regard to many of those processes for which hitherto we have been dependent upon other countries. We relied upon Germany for hard porcelain tubes used in pyrometers which are required for measuring high temperature. On a supply of these pyrometers depends the manufacture of needles required for the sewing of boots and providing the footgear of our troops. I am glad to say that, owing to the research work that has taken place recently, we are now able to produce as good porcelain as that previously produced for this purpose in

  1905
  Germany, and we are able, therefore, to produce the necessary needles for this purpose. It may astonish the House when I tell them that, whereas four firms in Germany employ 1,000 chemists in connection with their dye works, in the whole of our industries there are only 1,500 chemists employed. There are in Germany over 3,000 students, even at the present time, so far as I can learn, studying research work in connection with their university life, whilst in this country I do not think we have more than 350 students engaged in such research work. Let me give another illustration of the success which may be secured by research work. Our successes over our enemy in aviation are very largely due to the investigations made into automatic stability by a young man who went through an elementary school, fought his way up to the Imperial College, and went through a course at the National Physical Laboratory, and invented and introduced the B.E. Biplane—at any rate, from his investigations the B.E. Biplane was developed. We have hitherto done very little to encourage these brilliant young men taking up a scientific career.
  Sir W. BYLES: Do you know the name of that brilliant young man?
  Mr. PEASE: Bairstow. The average salary given to a junior teacher of science is, I am told, only about £150 a year. It is not to be expected that individuals are going to endeavour to enter a career which is so badly rewarded. Let me give the Committee just one other illustration of what research may do. The price of lyddite went up at the beginning of the War from 6d. to 5s., and owing to laboratory experiments conducted by Professor Green at Leeds he was able to reduce the cost to 1s. That was entirely attributable to the research work of one man. If those things can successfully be done in times of war, I know how many things can be done in times of peace. I have been associated myself with the production of a large number of by-products from coal, and it was even necessary to go to Germany for the bricks and plant in order to erect Bauer and Otto Hilgenstock retort ovens in this country. I satisfied myself that it is possible that these materials can be produced, and ought to be produced, at home, if only we had a sufficient number of research workers and trained men of science turning to practical value their scientific training.
  1906
  I could go on and develop this subject. I see opposite a representative from Ireland who asked me a question in regard to technical optics, and there is a great deal of research to be done in this country with reference to that subject. A professor told me the other day that it had only just been found out why they were making so many failures. A greenish hue came into the glass they were producing, and in consequence they were unable to produce the necessary lenses. By research work it was found that this was due to barium oxide being contaminated with iron, and they had to go to another source in order to obtain the oxide free from this impurity. And so I might go on and give case after case where by research and a little expenditure on the scientific training of able men we would be able as a country to succeed just in the same way as the Germans have succeeded in recent years. My fear is that after the War we shall have to contend with a fiercer competition than we have had to contend with even in recent years, and it will be conducted by our enemy with less scrupulous methods. The Government agree with me that something ought to be done at once, and we must make more use of the workers in our country and prepare for an increased supply of them, and bring our universities and technical institutions into closer association with industry, and also bring our leaders of industry into closer association with skilled workers. Steps must be taken at once. Adequate supplies require prolonged endeavour. The task immediately before us may be advanced at once by the appointment of an Advisory Council on Industrial Research. I want a Committee of experts who will themselves be able to consult other expert committees working in different directions. They, in turn, must be associated with leaders of industry. We shall want advisers representing various industries in the country who not only possess certain knowledge in connection with pure science, but will be able to turn to the best account the knowledge they have acquired in the application of that knowledge to industry. We shall work in close co-operation with the Board of Trade who are seconding the efforts of my own board. Such a body as an Advisory Council of very distinguished men upon whom we shall rely for advice, ought to be at work, and I hope it will be at work within the next few weeks. I

  1907
  am now considering the names, although I am not in a position to announce them at the moment.
  As soon as we get a Committee of that kind nominated they will at once begin their work. The solution of several problems will be placed before them in connection with the glass industry, the making of hard porcelain, technical optics; and it will be one of their duties to secure selected workers who have passed through graduated courses suitable for doing research work in laboratories in the solution of a certain number of definite problems. They will have to advise me as to how money should be immediately spent, and how it should be subsequently spent when we are able to obtain rather larger Grants from the Treasury than we shall have at our disposal during the current year. They will have to advise as to the way money should be spent in training and research work generally, and how money should be spent and distributed amongst specialised departments, such as the Imperial College of Science at South Kensington. What I am anxious to secure is the use of the best scientific brains in connection with this enomous problem which is of such vital importance to the country. I hope to place on the Estimates for the current year a sum between £25,000 and £30,000, but the demand for money for this work will enormously increase as time goes on, and I want to inform the House that whilst we are beginning with this comparatively small sum we think it will develop, and if the scheme is to succeed I believe it must depend upon State help in the years to come, and State help must steadily progress.
  As I have been longer in my present post than any of my predecessors, I may be allowed to say that in my judgment two things are essential in the interests of this country if we are to maintain our position and succeed in the future and remain in the proud position, industrially and commercially, in which we are now situated. Firstly, that after the War, and even during the War, an effort should be made to retain longer at school those who are able to benefit by further education. Too many now leave school at the ages of twelve, thirteen, and fourteen, and there is an enormous wastage of ability in the country owing to the non-education of the children after that age. Secondly, the nation should create careers for capable
  1908
  men of science. If we can secure these ends I believe we should maintain our position, and without them nothing but disappointment awaits us. Therefore, so far as I am able, I wish to appeal to all those men throughout the country who are devoting their lives to the cause of education to do what they can to encourage, not only the longer education of abler children in the secondary schools, but also to make the scheme which I have outlined here this evening very briefly a success in connection with training scientific workers who will be a real advantage to the industries of this country in years to come.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I think it is generally agreed that the Education Estimates should be discussed on their merits altogether apart from political considerations. The subject of education is too directly connected with the well-being of the people and the safety of our country to be made a matter of controversial discussion. There are special reasons why we should dismiss all party considerations from these Estimates that have been laid before us. One is that a political truce has been proclaimed, and the other is that in the interesting statement of the President of the Board of Education nothing bordering upon controversial matter has been introduced. I have no intention of running through the various matters which have been discussed in what I am quite certain everybody will regard as one of the most interesting speeches which a President of the Board of Education has ever presented to this House. To do that would occupy far more time than we have now at our disposal, and I am doubtful whether I can add very much to what the President has so ably placed before this Committee. I find it difficult to offer even friendly criticism on most of the subjects to which our attention has been directed. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the condition of education in relation to the present emergency. I am certain that many of his remarks will be read to-morrow in the newspapers with very great satisfaction. I was very pleased to hear from him that the Science and Art Museum at South Kensington has been making great progress. I regret that the funds at his disposal prevented him establishing a branch at Bethnal Green, where the best of opportunities would be afforded of making such a museum useful to the people in our East End schools.

  1909
  The right hon. Gentleman has referred to our training colleges and to the decrease in the building grants to be made to-day. I was gratified to learn that it is the intention of the Board of Education to increase the grants of training colleges for domestic subjects, because, as the President has informed us, the teaching of those subjects is of the greatest consequence to the rising generation. I hope he will be able to make an increase of grant to the training colleges for instruction in handicrafts. As he is aware a Committee is now sitting at the Board of Education which is charged with the drawing up of a new and improved scheme for the training of teachers in handicraft subjects, and I hope this matter will receive the careful consideration of the President. The right hon. Gentleman made reference to the essential conditions for the success of our secondary schools. I agree with nearly every one of his remarks, but I hope that our secondary schools will continue to present that variety which has been one of the distinguishing features of secondary education in this country, and that as regards our secondary schools we shall not be too eager to imitate what is being done and what has been done in Germany, but always remember that in no department of education is it more important than in secondary education that the instruction shall be strictly conditioned according to the requirements of the people themselves. In nearly all the conditions that he has referred to I must own that I agree with him, but I do not wish to see vocational instruction introduced too generally into our secondary schools. Although it is desirable that vocational instruction should be introduced into some of our schools, do not let it be imagined that it should be introduced at the expense of classical, mathematical, and other varieties of a liberal education.
  I must, of course, refer to the scheme for co-ordinating more successfully science with industry. I have no doubt whatever that the scheme will be welcomed by all scientific men in this country. I should not like it to be thought for one moment that our universities and our technical institutions have failed to turn out a sufficient number of scientifically trained men to be able to carry on research work in connection with our industries almost to the same extent as in other countries. Where we have to some extent, and to a large extent, failed in this country is in the appreciation by manufacturers and employers of the value
  1910
  and importance of such scientific training, and if the conclusions at which the President has arrived, and if the facts connected with this War will bring home to our manufacturers and employers the great advantage which they can obtain by liberally supporting scientific men in connection with their work, then the right hon. Gentleman will not have spoken this evening in vain.
  In the scheme which has been briefly outlined by the President, and which, I need scarcely say, will require careful consideration before one can express any decided opinion as to its practicability or as to the method by which it can be best carried out, I would like to point out that what is most needed is co-ordination and organisation. There is nothing in which we have been more deficient in this country than in scientific organisation, and, if I may say so, in the, organisation of science, and I hope that the council he has proposed will diligently apply itself to the better organisation of scientific research. We have a great number of institutions doing excellent work, but the work of one often overlaps that of another. We want very carefully to see that each institution does that work which it is best fitted to do, and that manufacturers shall have no difficulty whatever in obtaining through any technical or scientific institution the particular class of scientific man which will be helpful in the industry in which they are employed. Take London, for instance. We have already the Imperial College of Science and Technology, on the organisation committee of which I was a member. We have also the Imperial Institute, in which a certain amount of research work is being done of a very high quality in connection with our colonies. We have also, not very far removed, the National Physical Laboratory, where research work is being done, but where more research work might be done if larger funds were available for the purpose. In Berlin there is what is called the Reichsanstalt. That is a research institute which combines part of the work of our Imperial Institute and the National Physical Laboratory, and that institute is placed in close juxtaposition with its Imperial Science and Technology, which is known as the Charlottenburg Technical University.
  The President of the Board of Education has referred to the fact that it is very difficult to obtain men who will be

  1911
  attracted to the profession of technologists at a salary of £150 a year. I was sorry that he did not remember that the Government itself has advertised for very highly skilled technical chemists at Woolwich at that same salary. [An HON. MEMBER: "They start at £100 a year!"] I complained of that years ago, but I was told that there was quite a sufficient number of highly skilled chemists only too glad to accept the position at that small sum. I hope that the Government will be the first to take to heart the lesson which the right hon. Gentleman has given. There is only one other word I want to say at the present time. I heard with great satisfaction that it is proposed in the scheme to which the President referred that the Board of Trade shall be associated with the Board of Education. I attach great importance to that, because we do not want in this work merely theoretical scientific men. We want men who are imbued with the commercial spirit, and it is desirable that in any body having to direct technical instruction you should combine those who have an intimate knowledge of the trade requirements with those who at the same time are developing the scientific side of the instruction. Personally, in the thirty-five years during which I have been associated in, it may be, a feeble endeavour to bring science to bear upon industry, I have always been most careful to see that the commercial requirements of those engaged in the trade are carefully considered by those who have the task of organising the schemes of instruction. I am glad to see that the same policy is likely to be carried out by the President of the Board of Education acting in conjunction with the President of the Board of Trade. I have found very little to criticise in the President's address. I welcome very heartily the scheme which he has outlined, and I wish him and his endeavours the fullest possible success.
  Sir JAMES YOXALL: My right hon. Friend has referred to the unparalleled length of his tenure of office. We congratulate him upon that fact and also the House itself. He will remember very many years before he occupied that distinguished post sitting in this House on occasions like the present and listening to the very many and sore complaints brought by quite well-meaning Members against the condition of education in this country, and particularly against the condition of
  1912
  the public elementary schools. We may conclude from his speech to-night, I think, that in his view the condition of the public elementary schools does not need or deserve much criticism or even much encouragement at the present moment. When in the past I have listened to these well-meaning attacks, but very often unfair attacks, I have sometimes felt hurt and often even irritated at the way in which Members of this House, speaking in the same frame of mind as correspondents of newspapers and writers in newspapers outside the House, have placed before the country the view that the money spent on public elementary education in this country was being wasted, and that until radical changes and wholesale restriction had taken place no good thing was to be hoped as the result of what was going on. I think that the Friends and champions of the public elementary schools all these years past have some cause to point to the great movements in the nation during the past few months and to the great efforts, the great self-control, the great manifestation of patriotism, and much volunteering on the part of those hundreds of thousands and millions who were formerly in the public elementary schools, and who are now wearing the King's uniform. If the truth is to be known by its fruit, then I think that the fruit of the public elementary school in England is a far more desirable fruit than that which is grown upon the tree of the primary school in Germany. I am glad to think that in the future we shall cease to hear so much as we have done in the past about the extraordinary and almost supernatural fruits of the German system of education.
  8.0 P.M.
  I think that the right hon. Gentleman even to-night attached more importance to the highly technical education which has been procurable in Germany under the German system of education than was just. I am not an authority upon this matter like the hon. Member who last addressed the Committee, but the impression I have been able to form after years of study has been that it is probable that during the last twenty or twenty-five years as many capable men of science, highly-skilled chemists and physicists, have been produced by the educational system of this country as has been produced in Germany. They have not all been dull professors, because dull professors, thank Heaven, are not so numerous in this country as across the other side of the North Sea. My

  1913
  impression is that probably in number and certainly in quality, even our somewhat unorganised and unco-ordinated British system has produced quite sufficient men to provide the industries of this country with sufficient guides, leaders, and captains. The fault has been not with them, or with the schools, colleges, and universities, but, no doubt, with the manufacturers and employers of this country, who have been blind to the opportunities which this material has presented to their hands. Even now, when my right hon. Friend has created his excellent Advisory Committee, and has used his new Grant and has developed further this admirable attempt on the part of the Government to provide for what may happen with regard to industry after the War, little will be the result so long as it is rooted in the minds of employers and capitalists that rule of thumb is better than rule of brain. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that he might consider, as a development of what he has submitted to-night, the running of this great concern which he has in view on a commercial basis, so that if manufacturers and capitalists will not take up this work, the State itself should take it up, and provide and sell to the manufacturers the results of researches which otherwise they would not obtain.
  I want to refer to only two details with regard to public elementary schools. I believe they are in a very good way. Of course, in a time like this it is necessary to subordinate claims for the spending of more money on the schools to other demands upon the nation. I am far from wishing to criticise or complain, but I would beg the right hon. Gentleman to give more attention than he has hitherto done to two points. He has spoken of the commandeering of schools for use as hospitals. I would ask if the authorities have taken into consideration the possibility of commandeering for that purpose other large suitable and airy buildings. I do not go so far as to suggest that churches should be taken for this purpose, but I would suggest that Sunday schools, church institutes, and places of that kind, would be quite as suitable for hospital purposes and even more so than public elementary schools. I might go so far as to include chapels, for it does often happen that there are a number of chapels in immediate contiguity, each of which is only half filled, and some of these might be closed on the Sunday and the congregations transferred
  1914
  to other chapels. I would not dare to suggest that with regard to churches, but I do lay stress on the point that in connection with both churches and chapels there are Sunday schools, church institutes, lecture, and parish halls, and places of that sort, which surely are better fitted for these hospital purposes in a time of stress than are the day schools of the country.
  With regard to the second point on which I wished to touch, I am aware that the right hon Gentleman has, with wisdom and discretion, so far as he possibly could under the circumstances, dealt with the persistent and almost unanswerable demand at this time for the employment of child labour in agriculture. I know the difficulty which faces the Board of Education whenever an attempt is made to limit or even diminish the number of children allowed to leave school when they ought to be there, in order to work on the farm. We want to be reasonable. We do not want to exaggerate in dealing with matters of this kind, but I feel that even yet something more might be done to shift this burden of agriculture from the shoulders of children to those of women. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will also give sympathetic consideration to that point. I congratulate him on his long tenure of office, and on the nature of the scheme he has submitted to the Committee.
  Sir H. HIBBERT: It is always a pleasure to listen to the President of the Board of Education, and I think that pleasure has been greatly enhanced this evening by the fact that we have had an intensely practical speech from a practical man. The last speaker seemed to be a little perturbed because the subject of elementary education had occupied so small a portion of the address of the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think he need be uneasy on that account, because the mere fact the right hon. Gentleman did not consider it necessary to refer at any length to that question shows that its condition is satisfactory. So far as that class of education is concerned, I think it bears favourable—intensely favourable—comparison with anything made in Germany. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the duration of school life in secondary schools. That is a matter which has engaged the attention of my own committee to a very large extent, and we put an obligation on parents of our children that if they come in at twelve years of age

  1915
  they shall stay at the school until they are fifteen, while if they come in under twelve they are bound to stay until they are fourteen. I want the Committee to realise that if a child is only going to be retained in a secondary school for a couple of years, it would be infinitely better for the child, for the country, and for the taxpayers, for it to remain in the elementary school. I am also of opinion that in order to get the full advantage of secondary education it is necessary to start early, and that on no account should children go from an elementary day school to a secondary school after twelve years of age. I was glad to hear the President speak of the advantage of technical education. I have been preaching from that text for the last thirty five years throughout England and Wales, and during that period I am bound to admit I have seen very great changes. It is perfectly true that one of the great reasons why our technical education has not been more highly developed has been that such a large section of the population has been opposed to it. I am glad to say that that spirit is disappearing, and that there are now more day students in our technical colleges. Still there is a very great amount of leeway to be made up before we can say that, as a nation, we are sufficiently technically educated.
  I wish to express to the Board the thanks of the Education Committee of the County Councils Association for the desire they have shown in recent years to obtain the views of the local education authorities before promulgating new regulations. The most important during the past year was Circular 849, which dealt with examinations in secondary schools, and this was received with very great approval throughout the country. My own committee received it with general approval, with the provisos (1) that the Board should take steps to arrange that the new examinations should give exemption from those already in existence, and (2) that the entire cost of conducting the examinations should be met by the Government. With regard to the first point, the object was to prevent a multiplicity of examinations. Those who have to do with the conduct of secondary schools know that the many examinations, and the many preparations for examinations which are going on at one and the same time, are a curse not only to the
  1916
  scholar, but to the teacher, and therefore the object of the circular was to do away with the multiplicity of examinations. I only hope that the Board of Education will institute one or at the most two examinations which shall, in the first place, dispense with matriculation, and, in the second place, shall be an entrance examination to the professions.
  I wish to touch on one other question which has already been dealt with to some extent by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), and also by the Prime Minister, and that is with regard to borrowing powers. My own committee in 1911–12 made an arrangement with the Board of Education to spend a sum of £50,000 per annum for a period of seven years. When bad times came—that is to say when the War broke out—we felt there was a very great necessity for frugality and economy, and we therefore approached the Board of Education and asked them to suspend our building programme. I am pleased to say that they met our wishes, but there are one or two outstanding cases of schools, on both the elementary and secondary side of our education, in regard to which we would ask the intercession of the Board of Education with the Treasury. These are cases where tenders have already been made, and where the schools are in various stages of erection. If the Treasury refuses to allow us to borrow money in order to complete these schools, we shall undoubtedly have to compensate the contractors. In one case which I have in my mind at the moment, all the materials necessary for the building of the school, which will cost £12,000, have already been purchased by the contractor, although the money for the building of the school has not yet been borrowed. Sanction has, however, been obtained from the Board of Education. Another matter of great importance is that the buildings will have to be left in an unfinished condition, and one can imagine the condition of a building of which only the foundations have been put in, or which has reached the first storey, if the continued erection is to be delayed until the expiration of the War or six months after. Perhaps infinitely more important is a commercial point. I am strongly of opinion, whatever the cost of the building materials may be to-day, they will be infinitely higher when the War is over, and therefore we should be penny wise and pound foolish in refusing to allow the erection of schools to go on where

  1917
  tenders have already been accepted and the buildings commenced. I am sure all local education authorities will try to be as economical as possible, and I for one shall be an intensely disappointed man if on the 31st March, 1916, I do not show a very large surplus on my estimate.
  There is one other matter which I wish to mention, and that is the question of medical inspection. I notice that in the Vote now before this Committee there is an increase of £145,000 on that item. It is one of the few cases in which the estimate shows an increase. I do not think the money of this country was ever better spent than on medical inspection. It is probably one of the most valuable reforms which has ever been introduced. I should like to give the House some of the results which have been obtained in my county by medical inspection. For instance, with regard to clothing, I am told by my medical director that on the whole the children are now satisfactorily clothed. The chief complaint was usually of the unsuitability rather than insufficiency, many of the children being, in fact, over-clothed. The individual examination of the children by the nurses, who point out to the parents the various faults, is rapidly effecting an improvement. Then, again, practical instruction is being given in some of our schools in infant care and management. The classes given under the higher education committee by the lady members of the school medical staff to the teachers has greatly improved the teaching of this subject, and the effect which teaching of this kind will have in the future upbringing of children is obvious. We find with regard to verminous children that although the percentage in the first year of inspection was thirty-five of "entrants" and "leavers," now it is only twelve, although the standard of inspection has to become very stringent. The care of delicate children is perhaps even more important. The advice of medical inspectors and nurses to mothers in respect to feeding and hours of sleep have much improved the condition of these children. In some instances where delicate children have been removed from old schools and placed in new schools, the improvement has been very marked. As to under-nourished children, the number of children who actually suffer from lack of food in the county area is very small, in fact, it is exceedingly small. It has been observed by the medical staff, district clerks, teachers, and others, that when children have been fed—
  1918
  that is, during the coal strike and during the War—they have greatly improved in appearance and ability to do school work. This points to the fact that many children, although not suffering from lack of food, are unsuitably fed. The report goes on to prescribe the remedy, and says that cooking lessons and the lessons on domestic economy given in the schools ought to do much to remedy this condition of affairs. Speaking of backward children, it says that many children who were considered by their teachers to be mentally defective or backward, were so backward because they suffered from physical defects such as adenoids, bad vision, and defective hearing, and that appropriate medical treatment has done much in these instances.
  It has been a very expensive matter, but I do not think that the money of either the country or the county has been better spent in any branch of education than in the medical inspection of school children. I should, however, like to say that we, in common with all other education authorities, are suffering from the War. I am very much afraid that medical inspection will have to stop, or be greatly curtailed. In my county we have a permanent staff of thirteen doctors, of whom ten have gone to the War. Three of them are serving under the Serbian Government. Two of the remainder are going, which will leave us with one. We have twenty-six nurses; eighteen have gone, and we expect two to go almost any day; while out of the seven clerks in this particular department, five of whom are eligible to go, no less than four have gone. I do not see what we can do in the matter, because it is absolutely impossible to engage fresh doctors. I have spoken of the very great expense of this department, and I hope that when the Board come to allocate their Grants for medical inspection they will live up, as far as they possibly can, to the words contained in the Circular No. 1899, which says:—
  "The Board on their part will gladly render authorities any assistance in their power; and in determining the rate of Grant they will give full consideration to the difficulties in which authorities have been placed, and will continue to pay Grant at the present rate in relation to expenditure in all cases where the arrangements made are in their opinion reasonably satisfactory, regard being had to all the circumstances."
  I have only to thank the President and the staff of the Board of Education for their unfailing courtesy and tact towards education authorities during the past year.
  Mr. ANDERSON: We have had a very clear statement of policy from the President of the Board of Education. From

  1919
  that statement it can be gathered that the right hon. Gentleman has a very high conception of his duties and obligations. I can quite understand that at the present moment he is working under very difficult conditions; therefore the criticisms which might be forthcoming in more normal times are not likely to be forthcoming to-night. We know that in many directions there will be retrenchment, or what the Prime Minister described this afternoon as a "slowing-down" policy. All I wish to say on that point is that the "slowing-down" policy ought not to be carried to the extent of starving education or hurting the future of the children of this country. I believe that would be bad economy, just as it would be unwise economy on the part of a farmer to restrict the quantity or the quality of the seeds he is going to use on his land. Strong children will be required for the rebuilding of the State. Therefore, I was glad to hear from the President of the Board of Education what is being done in the matter of child feeding and medical inspection and treatment, all of which are exceedingly important. We all agree that it is no good to speak of training a child's mind unless at the same time we attend to its bodily ailments and build up its bodily strength. The President stated that 35 per cent. of those now attending secondary schools are able to obtain free education. That is a policy for which these benches stand, and we want to see it developed to the fullest possible extent. We believe, in the first place, that the basis of all education is the elementary school, which ought to be well equipped in every respect. Side by side with that we stand for the principle of equality of educational opportunity among the children of the land, so that as far as possible a child should be able to develop its best gifts. So long as that policy is pursued, it will certainly have the support of Members in all parts of the House.
  Perhaps the most important matter raised by the President to-night was that of establishing an Advisory Council to deal with matters relating to science and industry, and to bring science into closer touch with industry. That is a very important statement. Personally, I believe that it is along these progressive lines, and not by adopting reactionary policies that the nation is going to hold its own in regard to industry and trade. We have not in the past spent anything like
  1920
  the amount of money we should have spent in regard to scientific research and technical training. We ought to equip ourselves to the fullest extent along these lines, and it is by doing so rather than by adopting backward policies that we are going to make headway in the future. You ought to try to bring science and industry into closer touch with each other and to make science the great servant of industry, to make it a more practical matter rather than merely be taken up with abstract questions, and you ought to avail yourselves to the fullest extent of the practical knowledge and experience of the working people who are now employed in the factories, in the mills, in the workshops, and so on, and I believe in regard to that, that your Advisory Committee ought to have representatives of labour so as to show that you are going to bring the practical knowledge and experience of the workpeople into account in this matter, and I believe it will be important from the standpoint of the success and welfare of your scheme.
  The President of the Board of Education said it was an unwise policy to have the children leaving school too early, and, therefore, we want to watch very narrowly all questions which allow exemption of children of school age. Since we cannot re-open the whole question, we ought to have from time to time returns giving the children of school age exempted, say, in order to go into agricultural labour, and we ought to have the actual number of children exempted by way of examination or by the number of attendances, and so on; because it is very desirable that there should be no permanent lowering of our educational standard. We should do everything in our power to guard against that, and if we have to give way on a point here or a point there in face of grave national crisis that ought not to be taken as involving any permanent lowering of the educational life of this country. From the whole standpoint of the future and from the standpoint of the nation holding its own in the future, it would be very bad policy if we adopted that point of view. Therefore, I want to ask this question in regard to the children who have been released from school to go into the fields. What is going to happen to them? Is their lost school time going to be made good when the opportunity comes to make it good, or is the lost school time to be a permanent thing? Are they going back

  1921
  to the schools later on, or is the time they have lost to be permanently lost so far as education is concerned? I feel, without wishing to enter into controversial matters, that it sometimes happens with regard to some of the rural educational authorities that they are too much controlled by the very people whose economic interests may be also involved in this question of child labour, and that there may sometimes be a clash with regard to the educational advantages of the child and the economic interests of the farming people. I believe, in so far as there is a problem, it is not a problem that the War has created, though the War may have aggravated it. The problem has been brought about by long years of neglect. I will not place the responsibility for that neglect. It may have to be shared by farmers, or landowners, or local authorities, or by the nation. But we know that long before the War came there was a very terrible driving away of the labourers from the country districts, and that the country districts have been depopulated year after year, and this was in large measure due to the alarming shortage of rural cottages, so that if a labourer wanted to marry he had to go away, and also that wages have been so low and very often the future of the labourer and his outlook and hope of independence have been so restricted that he has been driven away from the land in order to take his chance elsewhere, and that has all contributed to the present problem. After the War, that problem may still present itself in a new way, because, at any rate, some of the wives of those who have enlisted have enjoyed a far higher standard of living since their husbands went away than they did under normal circumstances, and they have had 25s. and more in place of the 14s. or 15s. that they got previously, with a husband to maintain as well, and it is very doubtful indeed if, under these circumstances, the labourers are going to return to the old conditions of life. I think there is a problem in this respect and I believe that if we are going to get rid of child labour in the country, the farmer must at the same time take in hand the improvement of the standard of life of the agricultural labourer.
  I want to put two other points. Does the Board of Education accept any responsibility towards the children who are exempted during school life? Do they accept any responsibility towards the suitability of occupation that these
  1922
  children are going into? Do they accept any test as to the conditions under which the child is going to work? From the standpoint of the child itself that is a very important matter, and I think the Board of Education has a responsibility in that connection. I want to make quite sure that this demand for the labour of children of school years is not spreading beyond the country into some of the industrial undertakings as well. At a meeting of retail and wholesale traders at Stockport the other day, a resolution was passed that the boys and girls ought to be exempted from school in order to go into ordinary industry and commerce. I think that is a very dangerous development and one that all those who are concerned in the welfare of the child ought to watch very narrowly indeed and enter a protest against. It is highly important that as far as possible the educational standard of the country should be maintained, and I believe that is not only good in the present but is good from the standpoint of the future of our country.
  Mr. LYNCH: I beg to call attention in the first place to the audience, fit though few, which we have to-night to listen to what I regard as perhaps the most vital of all questions of public life, namely, that of education. The subject is so vast that it would be impossible to deal with all its aspects in a volume; yet it seems to me that whenever one touches on education, one is at the same time dealing with those problems which lie at the very source of a nation's life. A discourse on education is really also indirectly a discourse on the decline and fall of Empires. I had an Amendment down to reduce the salary of the President of the Board, but my grievance with him is perhaps not so much that his salary is too large as that it is not large enough. That is to say, irrespective of the immediate holder of that position of whom we all entertain a high opinion, I think the status of the President of the Board of Education should be so high that he is co-equal with any other Member of the Cabinet and his office should be regarded as one of the most important. Even this very War in which we are engaged has its deep roots in questions of education, for I am convinced that, whatever we think of the material aspects of Germany, we really have in her history one of the most extraordinary examples in the whole history of the world, of a nation gradually rising to great material power on a foundation of high scientific education. The rise

  1923
  of Germany does not date as some have said, merely from the great victories of 1870, but from a much earlier epoch when a German with a less salary than the then President of the Board of Education held that office for only two years, and yet within those two years left such a stamp on the education of Germany that it has remained ever since, and has been the real source of the education of the nation—Wilhelm von Humboldt.
  Let us consider now one of the questions referred to by the President of the Board of Education to-night, technical education. When we speak of technical education in this country we are too apt to think of trifling details, such as wood carving and filigree works, or such as crewel-work or crocheting impossible parrots on the background of some fancy cloth. In Germany technical education has a very different and a much higher meaning, and having had the advantage of studying in the University of Berlin myself, I can say that one of the most abiding impressions of my whole life was the extraordinary revelation I had there, not merely of the devotion to science itself, but of the manner in which that widened out the whole horizon and prospect of the nation's view, and the way in which science was seen to be the vital influence in great enterprises and wonderful industries. I would not labour this question to-night, but those who have leisure might refer to an article by Sir William Ramsay, first published in "Nature" in November, 1914, but to which my attention was called in the French paper "La Revue Scientifique." The French recognise the value of that article, and in France I think it got wider publicity than in this country. Sir William Ramsay analyses the causes of the greatness of Germany in the industrial world, and he finds several very interesting points which he tabulates. The first is that in a great German industry the board of directors are not a set of ornamental magnates with a peer thrown in to give respectability or publicity, but are a board of specialists on that subject which is the basis of the industry, keen and hard-working men. Secondly, that there is another agency definitely appointed with the definite active functions to watch out for new inventions in other countries. I could enter into this question very deeply, and I could show
  1924
  that right throughout the range of industry there are cases where the real central idea of that industry has not originated in Germany, but in France, England, or America. I believe if I were to ask which is the nation most fertile in ideas and most inventive, from my own brief experience I would be inclined to place the French in inventive genius, above even the Americans. The Germans are always looking out and asking the question, "In what way can we utilise new inventions for the benefit of our own industry?" That forms No. 2 of the points of Sir William Ramsay.
  The third is that there is another agency always asking the question as to the cheaper production of the material, not in a passive way, but in an active way; in making inquiries and making voyages to other countries, examining what is done there and exploiting the brains of other men, often covering up the source. That is what the Germans call war. Then comes in the question of protection by the Government. There is a point where the Government could actively intervene to foster industry. Another point not less important is the protection of patents. In many cases Germans have gone so far as to steal the patent from other countries and protect themselves by patents from the other country recovering its ideas. Then there is the propaganda of the excellence of their own products, sending men throughout the world, speaking many languages, active missionaries of the active progress and greatness of Germany. I will cite several industries. The German spirit of organisation is so great that in the most unexpected fields it is exhibited. I remember one of the most prominent mathematicians, Monsieur Picard, of the Institute, who said that though perhaps there had been great names in the history of French mathematics equal to those of the Germans, such as M. Poincaré, who I am proud to have called my friend, who recently died; yet the Germans had pushed their organisation so far that even in that field, so abstruse, they had perfected an organisation for that study.
  Take the question of aniline dyes, of which we have heard so much, and which has been the subject of consideration in this House. It is always said in this House, and in the public prints and textbooks, that the story of aniline dyes is that a certain British chemist. Dr. Perkin, discovered and invented a new dye and

  1925
  that was stolen by the Germans. The matter does not rest in such a passive way at all. Perkin was not, I believe, the first man to produce coloured material from the by-products of coal tar. That was done by Runge some years before. In 1856 Perkin produced his first aniline dye, mauve, and that was considered a great achievement in this country. Already the Germans were beginning that extraordinary organisation of which they are the masters. They seized hold of this, saw its possibilities, and set to work in all the laboratories of that great kingdom, particularly Prussia, and soon produced a whole succession of aniline dyes. They opened up new possibilities, and in this way founded their industry in a perfectly legitimate manner. So that the lack in this country was first a want of appreciation of the value of that discovery, and then the want of active organisation to make use of the discovery when found.
  Or take, again, the case of glass, also raised by the President of the Board of Education. The manufacture of glass, of course, has gone on from time immemorial. As a matter of fact, one of the oldest glass manufacturies in the world was in what at that time was a Roman colony, Cologne. The most interesting development of the glass industry, however, was, perhaps, the manufacture of optical glass. It arose in this way: A German physicist of great ability, Abbe, noticed that a great deal of the finest microscopical work was robbed of its value by the difficulty of obtaining good optical glass, and so he turned directly away from his own study, sacrificed himself in a certain measure—that is to say sacrificed his scientific ambitions—upon the altar of the industry of the Fatherland, and devoted his great talents to the study of glass in itself. Being a man of scientific endowment, he speedily discovered what those who had been engaged in the industry before without scientific knowledge might not have discovered in a hundred years in reference to the manufacture of glass. Then came another point which has been raised earlier in the Debate. After having reached a certain point, he found that it would be difficult for him to proceed without being sustained financially. He then appealed to the State. The Gorman State was intelligent enough to foster his researches in every possible way, to pay him not merely for his chemical research, but for his endeavour to build up a great industry. So there you have a striking example of the alliance of
  1926
  science with industry, and of State aid supporting both, one which we might very well take to heart. The result was the building up of an industry which imposed itself upon the whole world, and is one of the legitimate glories of Germany to-day. Every medical student who wishes to do his work well is forced to buy a German microscope.
  Compare that with the condition of things in this country. I have come down to this House myself in those days when I was more hopeful and I had a real respect for the Government, and I have pleaded for £10,000 for great research work, research work which would have enabled one of the very few men in this country who stand out in the eyes of the whole world as a great figure in modern science to do most useful work, and I was received with a certain polite indifference and shunted off. I say that, so far from asking £10,000 for research work, I should have been entitled to ask for £10,000,000—that is to say, if I could ask with sufficient authority—to stimulate in every possible direction the great industries of this country. I go so far as to say that eventually the whole civilisation of this world, and not merely of England itself, must turn on the axis of science, and as we advance we must give proportionately greater and greater importance to this great development of scientific life. When I was a student some years ago of some of these questions, of which I have only given one or two examples out of hundreds which I could expound to the House, I made this extraordinary discovery, that in tracing out the development of science I was really in my own mind proceeding with the development of Humboldt's cosmos. That is to say that science is the roof of civilisation, and our civilisation is superior to that of the Greeks only in one particular, and that one particular is the advance in positive science. As a result of the advance of positive science our modern civilisation has reached that great expansion which we now recognise.
  Then the President spoke about the number of chemists in this country, and said that the number of research students in chemistry is only 350, and yet this country is competing in the commercial world with Germany! I have looked into the organisation in Germany, and I find this astonishing fact: That, in the great chemical works in Germany, for every fifteen men employed in any category whatever there is one highly trained specialist and

  1927
  chemist, and that this industry is so important that there is one highly trained specialist in chemistry for every forty-five employés in any category, right throughout the whole range of industry. When we reach facts like these, are we astonished at the pacific invasion of Germany in every country in the world which, had they been sage enough, would in fifty years have given them a mastery of the world without the cruel and brutal and abominable war which has caused such suffering? But knowing the enormous disparity between one trained chemist for every forty five employés in all industries, and a total of 350 research students in this country, how are these defects to be remedied? Partly by giving encouragement to students of science. That is important, but it is not all. I asked a question in this House about the pay of students of chemistry. I find that the War Office itself, which is advertising for students of chemistry, some of them men with degrees from Oxford, all of them required to do analytical work of a really very difficult kind, such as, after a man obtains his degree in chemistry, would require some special training for at least six months to do the work with the requisite degree of fineness, offered to these men a salary of—£1,000! There would be nothing preposterous in that. Some of these men are quite qualified to become professors in the great capitals in the Dominions. Was it £500? It was £100. With what conditions attached? Those men technically were placed on the same footing as ordinary workmen, and they could have been required, had the regulation been enforced, to join in a queue every Saturday to take their £2 at the pay office.
  To-day an advance has been notified by the Under-Secretary for War. They are paid £150. Even that is hardly enough to stimulate men to follow in the path of scientific research. I do not believe that any man who has the true scientific spirit—I appeal to my hon. Friend to back me up there—is ever attracted by the mere sake of gain. There is something of the scientific spirit which is almost incompatible with making money. I suppose that my hon. Friend (Dr. Addison) is a poor man, because I know that he has the scientific spirit. But, nevertheless, in dealing with the nation at large, and not with individuals, there you find the advantage
  1928
  of directing the energies of men into certain definite channels. I believe that what is at the root of the difficulty of obtaining great experts in sufficient number is that science is not sufficiently considered even in a social way. I believe that it is the great ambition of the man who becomes an eminent scientist not to figure before his fellow scientists as having done great original work but by continually labouring at this mechanician's work after a while to attract the attention of the authorities and have a knighthood dubbed upon him, and get into the great social world of London upon a social equality with the manager of a music-hall When I read the lives of the great workers of the past I feel indignation even now. Take, for instance, the record of Faraday The great man, who stands out among the few whose names will be remembered for a thousand years, even after the records of our own Parliament have passed away, as one of the great pioneers of human civilisation; toiled all his life at the stipend of the valet of a peer, and that, remember, in a country where a man's social status and his work, as he calls it, is judged very largely from the amount of salary that he earns.
  Before I sit down I would like to speak on the subject of the Universities. The two great Universities may pride themselves upon the record which the President has given of their activity in military service at the present time. Yet, apart from that, and apart from a few great names, such as Sir J. J. Thompson, Sir William Ramsay, and others, the record of the great Universities of Oxford and Cambridge in the fields of science and literature is disgraceful, so disgraceful, indeed, that one is forced to ask the question, what is wrong in the whole spirit and manner of the education of these great educational centres—centres which have an influence extending far beyond mere technical education, a great social and great spiritual influence, if I may use that word, which has become rather fashionable. I have asked men who have gone through the curriculum of Oxford, who have carefully acquired the Oxford manner, even to the extent of contempt of ordinary mortals like some of ourselves, about university life, and they have told me that, after all, a senior wrangler at Cambridge, or a first classic of Oxford, was not thought very much of at those universities, but that the gods of the place were the cricketers and the rowing men.

  1929
  I should be sorry to say a word in depreciation of sport, to which I have devoted a great deal of time and zeal, but these are toys, and after all, outside adornments. In many senses this education, university education, is false. Under it men may obtain high degrees and reach high places in the State, but the test of all this comes in the shock with other nations, who may have a saner and broader view of education. When this War is terminated it will require heart searchings by the leaders of education to find out what is false in the education of our great universities, with their toys, with their great mills of literature, turning out, what?
  9.0 P.M.
  Can any man name any great writer, any great scientist, any great idealist, who is a direct product of our universities? Possibly there are eminent scientists and eminent literary teachers in our universities at the present time, but that is a very different matter, and looking at the record of men who have made a great mark in the history of civilisation, such as Faraday, Darwin, Herbert Spencer, John Stuart Mill, Sir William Hamilton, the author of Quaternions, and others, I find that these men were often rebellious to the teaching of the university, were little considered in the universities themselves, that some of them left without having obtained a degree; and when they make reference to the works of others, by whose thoughts they have been helped to develop their own, they have nearly always gone to France and Germany. In France and Germany great thinkers almost all come direct from the universities, and one can trace a line of descendants, one might say spiritual descendants, from some great teacher or some great man who is a direct product of the universities. But here men who stand out for originality of work are hardly ever men who owe their qualities and reputation and scientific development to the universities. Therefore, I say you have to consider what is there in this teaching which is false in our universities. To disparage German intellect is a great mistake, but the universities are living in the cloud and mist of Kant's reasoning and transcendental philosophy, obscuring their intellects to such an extent that it is easier to acquire by superficial dissertations on Kant or Fichte, or by a translation of
  1930
  Schopenhauer rather than by great, valid, original work. I have turned deliberately, as some of the greatest German thinkers have done, from those belated and moribund works, to strike out into some new path of work founded on the rational lines of psychology and philosophy.
  There will be a revolution when the War is over; a peaceful revolution, if you will, which will be felt right throughout the world, enlarging our education particularly in regard to our technical schools. We do not want the history of the world in text-books given to children at their most susceptible age, which divide history into reigns of kings and queens, most of them utterly worthless as if the whole philosophy of the world turned on the sanguinary and wretched and often unintelligible accounts of wars and battles. I hope the time will come when we shall have a clearer and saner view of the whole scope and importance of education. It will be more important for the child to know the date at which Oersted discovered the reaction between electricity and magnetism than even to know the date of the battle of Waterloo. There is in science a real spiritual influence—that is to say, the most alluring and fascinating of all the problems which can attract the mind in the gradual unfolding of the meaning of this world itself in which we live. I would like the President of the Board of Education to take his courage in his hands as did Wilhelm von Humboldt in other days; and if he feels himself not strong enough to do this work solus, let him call in the aid of those enthusiastic in the development of science, and the help of those committees of which he has spoken, to carry out their recommendations, not in the half-hearted way in which matters have sometimes been presented in this House, but with something like the missionary zeal of a new evangel. I am certain that when this War is over that if the education of this country remains in the condition in which it now is, you may bolster up your military power, you may build "Dreadnought" after "Dreadnought," but this country will sink. But if this country is to save itself, to regenerate itself, and to proceed on a new path of high development, then the most vital of all problems is that of education.
  Mr. KING: I am sure the Committee must feel greatly indebted to the hon. Member for his very interesting and enthusiastic speech. Personally, I am very glad that I have foregone dinner in order to enjoy a feast of rhetoric and scientific knowledge. I must at the outset call attention to the very pleasant contrast which has been afforded by this Debate to the Debate which preceded it. On the preceding Vote we had various Members I am sorry to say on both sides, uniting to stop education, or certainly to thwart and hinder the progress of education in the elementary schools. On this Vote we have had a chorus of approval in favour of greatly increased expenditure on scientific education. I wish to join in that chorus. You cannot have a nation able to benefit by the scientific research and technical instruction and the various facilities for scientific advance which have been foreshadowed to-night unless you have a good foundation in elementary education. If you begin on the same night to cut and curtail elementary education, you are doing an evil turn to advanced research in scientific education. I wish very heartily to congratulate the representatives of the Board of Education upon having shown what is to my mind the first evidence we have had that statesmanlike foresight exists on the Treasury Bench at the present time. We have had plenty of energetic pushing on of the War, but in grasping the issues of what are to come after, and to prepare for the inevitable changes and difficulties and problems which will immediately arise at the end of the War, this is the first inkling we have had that those considerations are present to the mind of the Government. I congratulate the President of the Board of Education and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education on the scheme they have put forward. I from time to time called attention, by means of questions and in other ways, to our great deficiency in scientific and technical education, especially with regard to research. Anybody who knows anything about Germany knows the enormous amount of money and the great numbers of men of the highest ability and training and standing engaged in purely scientific research and inquiry.
  Everybody who thinks of it and who studies the question must know that Germany's position in the world to-day is due not to the real genius of the people, so much as to organisation combined with
  1932
  education and especially scientific education. I am very pleased that at this time there is an opportunity for an educational advance. I congratulate the Members on the Treasury Bench upon their courage and persistence, for I believe it must have needed something of that kind to get this scheme through the Cabinet. I congratulate them on the prospect of having an early Supplementary Estimate. It is true it is only £25,000. I think it ought to be ten times as much, but I have no doubt it is an estimate that will grow. I should like to recall to the Members of the Committee the historical references, to my mind of great significance, which we had from the hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. Lynch). It was in the year 1809, only two years after the Peace of Tilsit, that Prussia started the University of Berlin. Prussia had been robbed of half its territory by the Peace of Tilsit, which also imposed upon it an enormous indemnity. It had also to support a huge French army of occupation until the indemnity was paid. Yet in that very time Stein and Wilhelm von Humboldt founded the University of Berlin, which has become for its equipment and influence in scientific matters by far the greatest university in the world. They also established at the same time, when the taxes were simply overwhelmingly crushing, the elementary school system of Prussia, which remains to the present day. I say that a nation that could so appreciate in its hour of ruin the value of education is a lesson to us which we ought to take to heart. I feel not only pleased with but proud of the President of the Board of Education and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board that at this time they realise that an educational advance of this character is a thing that absolutely must be put through.
  Sir J. SPEAR: I am sure, we all deeply sympathise with the President of the Board of Education's touching allusion to the teachers and to the eldest scholars in the universities who have laid down their lives in the War. We all feel that it is only an exhibition of patriotism we expected to find from this class of public servant, and which is repeated in every Department of the State. I regret that the President of the Board charged the ratepayers with niggardliness with providing funds for education. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] I notice that an hon. Member opposite endorses that statement.

  1933
  I should like to point out that instead of that being the case it is the State that has been niggardly and not the ratepayers. Thus I find that in the year 1909–10 the cost of elementary education was £23,507,592, and of that sum over £11,000,000 came from the rates, and just an equal sum from the Imperial Exchequer, while five years afterwards the expenditure had risen to £26,314,000, and of the increase of £2,762,000 a sum of £2,411,831 came from the rates, and only £351,011 came from the Imperial Exchequer. I cannot refrain from pointing out that the ratepayers have shown greater devotion to the cause of education than has the State. We all claim that education is a national responsibility, and therefore the State ought to have contributed a much larger share towards its cost than is shown by those figures. With reference to the county in which I live, elementary education in the last six years has increased from £73,655 to £89,016. Of that increase, £16,191 came from rates and only £2,696 from Government Grants. Therefore the charge of the right hon. Gentleman is not justified. The ratepayers have borne the lion's share of the increase of the cost of education, while the Imperial Exchequer has failed to come to the aid of the ratepayers by bearing at least half of the increased expenditure.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that one result of the War would be to show us that we must depend more on home production; he went on very eloquently to impress upon the Committee the importance of every opportunity being taken to give our young people every advantage in technical education; he predicted that after the War the competition with other countries would be still more acute than before; and he declared it was most important that we should qualify to take our position in that keener competition. I am with him entirely in thinking that it is of great importance that the rising generation should nave every opportunity to qualify to till with credit to themselves and to their country the station in life which they will occupy. But I was a little disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman made no allusion whatever to the importance of educating boys, at any rate in the rural districts, in the interests of rural life. I cannot but think that the right hon. Gentleman realises the importance of this aspect of the question, because one thing that we have learnt from the War is that it is a very serious matter to be so dependent
  1934
  on foreign countries for the food supply of the nation. I regret that, while emphasising the importance of technical education in order to qualify for trade, the right hon. Gentleman made no allusion whatever to the necessity of qualifying for the industry of agriculture. After all, agriculture is the largest industry in the country, and while it is important that we should hold our position as a manufacturing people, we cannot be successful as a manufacturing people unless we have food upon which the people may live.
  I would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot do something in the rural districts to interest the boys and girls in rural life. If he would seek to inspire in their minds a realisation of the importance of plant and animal life, and to interest them in acquiring a knowledge of the composition of the soil and so on, they might be attracted to seek their future in the rural districts rather than to hurry into the towns. I believe that there is a prospect for those who settle in the rural districts which will make it well worth their while to follow that course. We know how important it is for the physique of the nation. After all, it is from the country districts your teachers come, your railway porters, your policemen, and the best of your soldiers. It is as important and as dignified to be a tiller of the soil as it is to be a maker of guns or a member of any other industry. I would not for a moment ask that a boy born in a country district should be prevented from going into a town if he thinks it will advance his interest to do so; but I complain that our present system of education is calculated to create a distaste for rural life, and to induce boys to go into the towns to their disadvantage and loss. While agreeing entirely as to the importance of waking up to meet altered conditions after the War, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it is not as important to create in the minds of the children in rural districts a sense of the important position which they will fill in helping to provide from our own land more of the food supply than has hitherto been the case. A great deal has been said against the action of the Board of Education in allowing some boys of school age to assist in farm work. I do not believe that it will do the boys any harm whatever. It is of the highest importance to the country that the land should be tilled.

  1935
  I know that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite blame the farmer because there has been a diminution in the number of agricultural labourers; but it has been the tendency, not only in this country but in America and other countries, for the rural population to drift into the towns. It is a serious menace to the stability of the State that that should be so. Our system of education, instead of being of a character calculated to accentuate that evil, ought rather to endeavour to remedy it. I believe that there is a better future for lads in rural districts than in towns. They live healthy lives, and have high moral privileges which they do not always have in the towns. Therefore, in the interests of the lads themselves, as well as of the State, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that, while not relinquishing his efforts fully to qualify and equip the trader for future competition, he should not forget that it is of equal importance to the State that agriculture should be maintained, and that end cannot be secured unless more of the rising generation than has recently been the case settle in the country districts. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is altogether wilfully against us in this matter, but it was an omission in his speech that he will forgive me for pointing out. I hope he will mend his ways, will at any rate hold an even balance between trade and agriculture, and give as much inducement to a lad to follow agriculture, as he does to follow trade. I will be bound that the lad when he grows up will be grateful for the opportunity he has had of realising the dignity and the importance of the cultivation of the soil.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: I did not intend to speak in this Debate, and I would have remained silent if it had not been for the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. He is very keen that the President of the Board of Education should promote education in the rural districts which will keep the lad on the land. As a matter of fact, the remedy is with the class that the hon. Gentleman so admirably represents in this House. The hon. Member can keep the labour on the land provided he is prepared to enter into competition with the industrial centres in the matter of wages. The problem reduces itself to that. It is a question of wages and housing accommodation. For the hon. Member to suggest
  1936
  that the President can cure the ill is beside the mark entirely.
  Sir J. SPEAR: I am sorry to interrupt, but I do not think the President can cure the ill. At present he is aggravating it, and that is what I object to.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: That is where the hon. Gentleman makes a mistake. I would recommend him to look around in his own county, and would ask him, for example, to ask his own local education authorities how many school gardens there are in Devonshire to promote the very thing that he wishes, and ask whether his own local authority gives the opportunity to the teachers to stimulate the interest of the children in the land? I should like to know whether there are any schemes in Devonshire to give extended education in scientific farming to any considerable number of the community?
  Sir J. SPEAR: The county council has done a lot in that direction. If the hon. Member will visit me I will take him to a school at Okehampton, where for many years we have let the boys have their plot of land, and allowed them to have the value of the proceeds. I have repeatedly urged that in other rural schools there should be a plot of ground for practical work. The President of the Board of Education knows that I take that view.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: I am very glad to hear it. That is one school in Devonshire and Devonshire is a large county. But I would suggest to the hon. Member that before he complains about the President of the Board that he should look at home and see whether there is in his own county that stimulation of interest that can be given by a local authority. As a matter of fact, to-day teachers have the liberty to model their schemes of work on local requirement. The President of the Board of Education suggests that course to them. But if the locality does not provide the necessary staff and equipment, how does the hon. Gentleman expect that there will be this stimulation of the children in agricultural affairs? But I really rose mainly to point out—
  Sir J. SPEAR: I am sorry again to interrupt, but it is not the ratepayers' fault that things have not been done; it is the fault of the Board of Education. I gave figures just now showing that on

  1937
  the increase of the last six years £16,000 had been provided by the ratepayers and only £2,000 by the Board of Education. The ratepayers are doing their duty. It is the Board that is not doing its duty.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: Yes, Sir, I agree with the hon. Member in that. We ought to get from the Board of Education—which, after all, means the Treasury—a larger Grant in this matter, but I recall the attitude of the hon. Member and of the hon. Member's Friends earlier in the Debate, when I suggested that the Treasury ought not to cut down the amount proposed to be spent in London. I associate myself with the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. Lynch) when he said that we ought to emulate old Prussia in her great difficulty, prepared to spend her last copper, it seems to me from what the hon. Member said, in attempting to reconstruct her educational system. As a matter of fact, our reconstruction must commence in the elementary schools. If the ratepayers, and the Treasury, are not prepared to find the money, then the doom of this country is indeed sealed.
  I am satisfied that if the Treasury would back up the President that things would be better, and I am not quite sure that the hon. Member in his captious complaints of the Board helps matters very much. If he would encourage the President to get a larger Grant from the Treasury, if he would stimulate his own local authority, and counties like Devonshire, where we have the most backward authorities, which restrain the development of education by maintaining a low leaving-age and complain that the Board will not allow children to get on to the farms at twelve and thirteen years of age, then something might be done. How can you inspire children of twelve and thirteen years of age when they cannot be kept within the reach of the influence of well-qualified and excellent teachers? The remedy can be applied if hon. Gentlemen are prepared to find the money. When I hear hon. Members like the hon. Gentleman who last spoke, I am always interested to note what their attitude is when the Estimates are under discussion. They profess a belief in education. I should be glad to have a little support from the hon. Gentleman and his Friends when Estimates are before us, and support also in our appeals to the Treasury to make the work of the Board of Education even greater in the future than it has been in the past.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I was glad, Mr. Whitley, to hear the right hon. Gentleman pay the tribute he did at the beginning of his speech to the patriotism of those who have worked under him in the Education Office, and amongst the ranks of the teachers. Of all the classes who have done their duty in trying to stimulate their countrymen to a sense of their duty to enlist, and take their share in the furtherance of the interests of the country, there is no class that has done more than the teachers. I mean not only since the War began, but by the teaching that most of them gave and have been giving systematically for many years. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman paid the tribute he did; that tribute, I am sure, will be endorsed from every quarter of the House. I was also very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman intended to take up more warmly than before the question of the linking-up of educational research with the great industrial concerns of the country. He is beginning in a small way, very properly, considering the finance of the country, but there will come a time, I expect, when we shall be able to launch out a little more freely in the matter of finances. Many of us are prepared to see him spend money in that way, more than in spending it in some of the ways it has been spent in the past.
  I fear my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock, and those who are interested in rural education, cannot congratulate themselves on having had any very great comfort from the speech of the right hon. Gentlemen. Why, he said, we are only considering the great industrial concerns. Why is education only to be fostered and encouraged in their case? The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson) very properly drew attention to the want of attraction in country life. He gave a good many reasons, with some of which I cordially agree, for the many lifficulties of getting agricultural labour. I am afraid I should not be in order in following him into a discussion on rural cottages on this Vote. But there is one thing which, I venture to think, is more essential than anything else, and that is to encourage village industries, to show the people how to make simple things in their spare time, and be able to earn a little extra money by so doing. I went this morning to the British Industries Exhibition, and I wished I had more time to spend there; but in the time I did spend there I was immensely struck by the number of industries I saw

  1939
  that could be taken up in rural districts and taught to rural children or rural adults. I hope the President will remember there are some other people to be considered besides the great industrial concerns, and that the Board of Education will extend its fostering care and assistance to establish schools for rural industries in the villages of this country. I am quite sure that that would go a long way towards making country life more attractive, and it is certainly one of the things in which the Board of Education could assist.
  I am not one of those who regard the employment of boys over twelve years of age in agricultural pursuits, if they are selected from those who are physically fit, as being so pernicious as some hon. Members seem to think. It is an extremely healthy life, and it is perfect nonsense to talk, as some people do, about the detriment to their health. It is quite possible that they may lose a little education—book learning, at any rate—although they may gain in technical education, which hon. Members opposite are always supporting when applied to any industry except agriculture. I have always been one of those who think that you would do much more good in rural districts if you allowed strong, forward children to take their share in agricultural work, and make them continue their education in the winter evenings to a further age than what they are obliged to do now. And I believe it would be very easy to devise schemes by which they could, on one or two evenings a week in the winter, continue their education up to an age when they would cease to forget things they had learnt. As it is, when they leave school entirely at fourteen, many of them by sixteen or seventeen have forgotten everything they have learnt. If their education were carried on for one or two days a week up to the age of sixteen or seventeen, they would have acquired the power of making use of what they had learnt, and of realising that it was worth while to keep up the education they had had. Of course, we heard a little, as usual, about the duty of the farmer in this matter, and that it was the farmer's fault. Hon. Members who talk like that never seem to consider whether the rural districts are rich or poor. It is of no use lecturing people about finding money when they have not got any to find. I do not say the time may not come when more may have to be found,
  1940
  but, if so, I think you will find that they are quite as ready to spend their money on education as other people, and I think they do quite well in proportion to the wealth they possess.
  There is one other thing I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman. At this time I think he will agree with me that to talk about spending a great deal more money on education is absurd, but I should like him to go further and do all he can to discourage unnecessary expenditure, and especially expenditure which is caused by forcing local authorities to fall in with fads which happen to be popular and fashionable at the Board of Education for the moment. There is an immense amount of money wasted in that way—on architectural fads, and many other fads which do not make the children any better, or better educated, but very often make them much worse. There is, for instance, ventilation, which is lectured upon by people who have never seen the school about which they are lecturing. I know a school where children get colds perpetually, and there have to be two stoves instead of one, simply because of some stupid rules about ventilation, people in London fancying that they know better than the people down there what is necessary. An immense amount of money is wasted in that way. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity of riding these hobbies a little loss hard than before.
  I want to give one example where, I am sorry to say, he has already failed to economise or encourage economy where he should have done so. I have tried by question and answer to elicit some information from him about a certain school at Dolgelly. Everyone is agreed that the existing council school needs alteration. When the Board of Education issued their notice that they were going to build a new school, they invited objections, as they are bound to do under the Education Act, from the ratepayers and managers of other schools in the district. The ratepayers, to the number of at least 100, signed appeals against this school. They sent their appeals to the Board of Education, and the Board took no notice. The school was advertised to be built; the notice was given on 27th June, and the appeals were sent within the proper limit of time—three months. After these appeals had been sent up, the ratepayers who objected were rather surprised at not hearing from the Board of Education, and they wrote

  1941
  on 15th September asking whether they might not have an opportunity of stating their case. The Board wrote back to say that, before holding an inquiry, they would like to have from the local authority a few more reasons why they thought the new schools should not be built. The ratepayers then wrote on 12th October that the chief ground of appeal was that the present school was better suited to meet the wants of the district than the proposed new school. They go on to say it is not intended to convey that this school is not required, and there is a considerable feeling in the neighbourhood against it being erected. There are numerous reasons which cannot be stated in a letter, and they feel that the Board should hold an inquiry. That letter was written on the 1st October, and they received a formal acknowledgment of it.
  The right hon. Gentleman told me that these were not considered sufficient reasons, but they are the reasons actually set out in the Clause of the Act of 1907, which provides that people may appeal on the ground that the proposed school is not required, or that the school provided or not provided is better suited to meet the wants of the district. Those are the grounds they are obliged to appeal on, and I cannot imagine what right the right hon. Gentleman or his Board has to say that those are not sufficient grounds to appeal on. I am not accusing the right hon. Gentleman personally, because I feel that if the matter had been under his own personal supervision, instead of being left to the Welsh Secretary of the Department to arrange with the chairman of the local education authority, probably better justice would have been done. What I complain of is that after the receipt of that letter by the Board these ratepayers were treated in the most insulting manner. The letter was merely acknowledged, and the next they heard of the matter was on the 19th December, when the local educaton authority advertised for tenders for a new school. The ratepayers were very much surprised to find this was being done entirely behind their backs. I complain of the discourtesy of the Board, for they might have told them that their reasons were insufficient, or, at any rate, they might have given some decent answer to the letter of the 12th of October. The right hon. Gentleman tried to make out that this was not a new school, but simply one to replace another school. Surely he
  1942
  could not have been aware of the fact that the school which it is now proposed to be built is more than half a mile away from the old school, and outside the urban district, and how can that be the same school? If it is not a new school, why is is set forth in the notice that—
  "Notice is hereby given that the Country Council of Merionethshire, being the local authority, propose to provide a new public elementary school."
  How can you say that it is not entirely a new school when it is half a mile away and in a different district. I think it is a case in which the ratepayers should have been heard. This expense was being incurred five months after the War began. The school cost £5,000. I am informed that the alterations to the old school could have been done for a very much smaller sum, and would have left the school in what they think would have been a more suitable part of the district, and certainly that would have been the best way of dealing with this question. To wantonly spend £5,000 when you could have done the whole thing for half that amount or less in the teeth of objections from a very large and influential body of ratepayers, I consider is a great breach of the duties of the Board of Education under the Act of 1902. I do not know whether this thing has gone too far to be saved now, but I hope that the Board will be more careful in future, and will listen to all arguments of this kind during a time when the country has to find all the money it can for the prosecution of the War. If the Board of Education is going to take steps in the future when money is more plentiful to make education more practical and less theoretical, then they will have the support of hon. Members on this side of the House, and we shall, I hope, have the patronage of the Board of Education not only for the industries of our great towns, but for the village industries of our rural districts.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I wish to say a word or two in reference to the speech which has just been made by the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch). Although the speech was interesting from a literary and scientific point of view, I cannot allow it to pass unchallenged. I know it was very largely imaginary, but the hon. Member let himself go, and he made some wild statements about the University of Cambridge, which requires from me some sort of an answer. One of his statements was that there was no scientific name of

  1943
  any eminence at the University of Cambridge, and he said that the rank and file of those at the University of Cambridge were "toys in the crucible of nations." I do not know upon what basis the hon. Gentleman judges scientific distinction, but in this connection Sir Isaac Newton was possibly entitled to some consideration. Darwin can be quoted as a distinguished undergraduate of Cambridge, and he left three very distinguished scientific sons, also connected with that university, and probably these will pass through the narrow meshes of the hon. Member's measure. I may also quote Lord Kelvin, Lord Rayleigh, and Sir J. J. Thompson, and possibly that is sufficient. If the hon. Member really wants to go into facts, let him do so, and he will find that there are a large number of men who are doing steady and useful scientific work in every branch of Cambridge University, and, whether it is for good or for evil, it is being done. There are connected with Cambridge a large number of persons who are well qualified to serve both Church and State. If I may dwell upon the branch of science which my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Spear) referred to, I would point out that agriculture is to a certain extent dependent upon science, and, if he wants to see it at its best, he had better inquire, and he will find that he owes a considerable debt of gratitude to Cambridge for experiments in wheat growing. If the hon. Member will go to the university farm which deals with the experimental breeding of animals, he will see there the intimate connection between science and agriculture. I am not going to say another word about the rank and file of Cambridge, who have been described as "toys in the crucible of nations." If we look at the House of Commons, we have every cause to be proud of our representatives. There is one here, although he is not known as a leading scientific man, but I am sure we are all proud of the President of the Board of Education. Does he look like a "toy in the crucible of nations"?
  10.0 P.M.
  I was very glad to hear the President's announcement of the creation of an Advisory Council to deal with this matter, and I need hardly say that though I have not been able to consult them upon the point, the University of Cambridge, I am sure, will give most unstinted support to the scheme, such as it is. Whether it will fee a success or not will depend upon
  1944
  matters which we cannot discuss to-night. It will depend largely upon the men and upon the methods by which the work is carried out. No one doubts that there is a need for it at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman has enumerated some of the things in connection with which we have discovered the need, and he could have made a much longer list—things which are vitally important for the carrying on of the War. This country has had brought home to it the recklessness of any island country being dependent for its supplies to a large extent upon places outside its bounds. That is one of the lessons we shall learn from the War. It must be remembered that scientific men have been connected with agriculture and industry in this country before. They were connected with it in the best possible way; they were present while the work was being done. But in one case after the other the Germans bought up those firms and practically carried the industries away to Germany. We must not have that occur again. It is not merely a question of scientific research; it is much more a question of policy. As far as the scientific side is concerned, I think that even the President of the Board of Education was hardly sufficiently optimistic when speaking of the enormous supply of men in the universities who are perfectly qualified and ready to take part in the industrial side of science. A large number are already doing so, and a very much larger number are perfectly ready and willing to take part and assist in the science of industries of any kind. I was very much surprised to find the large number of Cambridge men who had been engaged in industries like that of aniline dyes. I do not think that it would be fair upon the House, however, to keep them longer upon this very big question, which no doubt we shall have an opportunity of discussing upon some future occasion.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the excellent work which the schoolmasters of the country had done. Possibly he may remember that the Government—I am not sure whether it was the Board of Education, but I think it was—sent round a circular to the different schools at the beginning of the War, saying that the very class of men they wanted were the men who had been schoolmasters in the secondary schools. They wanted men of education who could fit themselves to be officers and who had the best brains for

  1945
  that particular work. The response to that appeal was taken advantage of, and a large number of masters of secondary schools of all classes became officers. In a few instances they joined the ranks, but in the majority of cases they became officers. There is an application which I am going to make shortly to the Treasury, and I hope that I shall have the support of the President of the Board of Education in the matter. Many of the men who have gone are, of course, making less than they made as schoolmasters. A man who was possibly in receipt as a schoolmaster of £150 a year does not how receive more than £100 a year. The margin between £100 and £150 is in the case of the richer schools made up to him. Of course, if he had joined the ranks, he would get separation allowance and various other things, but in the case of officers great distress occurs.
  Schools that can afford it have made up the difference between the two salaries, but there are a considerable number of schools which have not got the funds to do so, and I do submit to the President of the Board of Education that these men have a very strong claim upon his support. He has talked of helping, and rightly helping, certain universities who are suffering owing to the stress of the War, but surely the claim of these men who are going out now and risking their lives for the service of the country at the direct and special invitation by circular of the Government is even stronger, and where there is no other fund from which to make up the difference for the support of their wife and family at home, I do submit most earnestly to the President that he should support an application of this kind that is to be made on behalf of those assistant masters in secondary schools. I hope that we may have his whole-hearted support when the application is made. Possibly he might even make the application himself, rather than leave it to private Members.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Dr. Addison): I am sure my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the fact that, although there has been a very small House, the great scheme which he has indicated has received so warm a welcome. I will refer to one or two points in connection with it later, but with respect to the pay of secondary school teachers mentioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) of course, in
  1946
  a large number of cases, the authorities of the secondary schools do make up to them the difference between their military and their civil pay. There are, for all that, many cases of inequality existing, and I am sure he knows that the representation, which he has made will be sympathetically considered by my right hon. Friend. I will take first the only point of criticism, in the old-fashioned Parliamentary sense, to which we have listened to-day, namely, that raised by the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division (Mr. Bridgeman). I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend very much regretted the misunderstanding which seems to have arisen in this matter. There has been a good deal of misapprehension about this case, and, but for that, many of the subsequent misunderstandings would never have arisen As a matter of fact it really was not necessary, in the first place, to issue notices with respect to this school at all, and it was owing to the issue of the notices, which was not legally necessary.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: May I ask why it is not necessary to issue them?
  Dr. ADDISON: It was not a new school within the proper meaning of the Act.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is it not a new school when it is an entirely different building?
  Dr. ADDISON: Not necessarily. I am advised that in this case it was not really necessary that the notices should have been issued, and the subsequent misunderstanding largely arose from the fact that they were issued. In April, 1913, it having been reported to the Board that the condition of the school was unsatisfactory, the local authority, the inspector of the Board, and the architect of the Board, all agreed in condemning the premises, and saying it was desirable that they should be replaced by others. As a matter of fact it was quite in order for the local authority to have proceeded to do all they wished to do without any reference to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman does not remember the facts quite correctly. The local authority and, indeed, everybody agreed that the school was not in a fit state, and it was recommended first that certain alterations should be made provided the board of guardians would give land for a playground. The board of guardians, however, refused to do that. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman

  1947
  is not quite correct when he says that the first recommendation was to build a new school. The first recommendation was to repair the old school, provided a playground could be obtained from the board of guardians.
  Dr. ADDISON: I think the facts are as I have stated. The local authority would have been quite within their powers in proceeding to carry out the alteration without reference to my right hon. Friend. He gave very serious consideration to the representations of the ratepayers, but there were no grounds upon which an inquiry could be ordered in this case. The Board has provided the solicitor to the representatives of the ratepayers with a full statement of the reasons that lead the Board to the conclusion at which it arrived. I regret there have been certain misunderstandings in respect of this case. I am sorry the ratepayers should feel that they have not been fairly dealt with, but the result of the whole case is that there is now to be provided what the local authority and the Board's inspector agreed was necessary a very long time ago. Two or three points have been raised with regard to educational finance, but at this late hour of the night I do not propose to detain the Committee long in regard to them. I should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had been here during the speech of the hon. Member for the Chorley Division (Sir H. Hibbert), because that hon. Gentleman pointed out the serious undesirability of the abandonment of schools now in process of erection, with respect to various schemes in his own county. His speech showed in many details the kind of considerations which the Board had to take account of in arriving at the decision it did in connection with the case discussed earlier this evening.
  I think the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Spear) had not really got his case up with his usual attention to detail, if I may say so, with all respect. My right hon. Friend's scheme—and here, perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oswestry may be interested in what I am saying—does not exclude the application of science to agriculture and suchlike industries. As the hon. Member for the Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) very rightly said, a great deal is being done at the present time in fostering the application of science to agriculture, but it
  1948
  must depend, whatever my right hon. Friend may try to do, to a great extent upon the co-operation of the local authorities and upon a certain amount of missionary zeal on their, part. We do give very considerable Grants for gardening classes and suchlike. The hon. Member for the Tavistock Division, in inquiring if my right hon. Friend really could not do something with regard to gardening and suchlike has, I am afraid, overlooked the very specific and detailed recommendations we have issued as suggestions to teachers. In dealing with these subjects, the Board, as a matter of fact, has taken great pains for some years to foster the holding of classes of instruction in practical subjects like these. Last year we paid Grants on 55,000 children attending classes in gardening and kindred subjects, and I am sorry to say that of these 55,000 children Grants were only paid in respect of 500 in the county of Devonshire. I should have thought there would have been more interest shown in these subjects in that county, and I am sure the hon. Member for the Tavistock Division will agree with me that it is very desirable he should use his influence with his own local authorities. I hope he will take note of the state of affairs in his own county.
  He was also a little unduly severe on my right hon. Friend with respect to contributions to local expenditure. Of course the contribution from the Board in respect of education varies in different counties. But the hon. Gentleman's complaint, against us does not seem to be very well founded in the case of Devonshire, notwithstanding the figures which he gave. I find, as a matter of fact, from the last available returns of the total expenditure on elementary education in the county of Devon, 58 per cent. came from the Board of Education and central funds, while only 41 per cent. was contributed by the local rates.
  Sir J. SPEAR: I was alluding to the increased cost of elementary education in the county of Devon The total expenditure last year was £89,046 against £72,635 five years ago, and of that increase £16,191 came from the rates, whereas the contributions from the State showed a decrease of £2,696.
  Dr. ADDISON: I have had the relative contributions carefully analysed, and the fact is that so far from contributing in a niggardly way, we have contributed no less than 58 per cent. of the total expenditure

  1949
  of Devon in that respect, and if the ratepayers in the county of London were consulted the hon. Member would find they would say that the county of Devon was not so badly treated.
  Sir J. SPEAR: Does the hon. Gentleman refute my figures when I say that of the increase in respect of elementary education in this county during the last five years, namely, £2,806,503, £2,411,831 came from the rates and only £351,011 came from the Imperial Exchequer? Does the hon. Gentleman think that is a fair contribution on the part of the Imperial Exchequer towards the cost of elementary education?
  Dr. ADDISON: That was not the point with which I was dealing. I am going to deal with it, and I will not shirk it.
  Sir J. SPEAR: I was afraid you were going to miss it.
  Dr. ADDISON: In the case of Devonshire, I was pointing out that the Board had contributed a far larger proportion than the local authorities. With regard to the State contribution towards the expense of education generally, if the hon. Member will consult the Budget which Was abandoned last year before the War, he will see that my right hon. Friend had very large figures included for additional State contributions towards education, and that it is only the necessities of our time that restrain my right hon. Friend from contributing much more generously, as he would like to do, and as was proposed in Parliament before the outbreak of the War. The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Bridgeman) exhorted my right hon. Friend to restrain the officers of the Board from any propagation of their views with respect to expensive fads. One of them which he indicated was ventilation. My own time at the Board has been very short and the only expensive fad which has been brought to my notice was connected with this very subject, but the complaint was not that the Board of Education proposal was expensive, but that the regulations of the Board prevented the local authorities from putting in their schools a certain very expensive form of window, which we said was needlessly extravagant. The complaint was that the Board limited the expenditure of the local authorities in this particular thing. I am free to confess from my impression of the whole case that that particular window was an expensive fad, and
  1950
  that the Board were right in excluding it from the school.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: They recommended it two or three years ago.
  Dr. ADDISON: With respect to the employment of child labour on farms and in other places, hon. Members are familiar with the recent Debate on the subject. Following that Debate the Board issued a circular embodying the conditions which were agreed upon in the Debate, and we do our best, within the limits of our power, to see that throughout the country those conditions are complied with. In respect to the suggestion that something more might be done for the continued education of children who are released from school for employment on farms, the subject is surrounded with a good many difficulties, but as far as the Board is concerned, it is glad enough to give Grants for technical instruction in evening work and does so very extensively all over the country. It will welcome the institution of evening instruction in technical subjects, but it is generally found not an easy matter to get children, after having once left school, to go back again. We welcome experiments such as that which is being tried in Cambridgeshire, where the local authority is endeavouring to secure an arrangement whereby children liberated for work on farms will attend evening instruction during the winter months for three years afterwards. I hope sincerely that that experiment will be attended with success.
  After all, we depend in this country very greatly on the value of our elementary education, and encouragement is given in many quarters to the longer stay of children in school, and the scheme which my right hon. Friend indicated, in order to encourage talent wherever it may come from, includes arrangements by which able children, carefully selected, will be able to stay longer at good schools, and we hope will be able to continue their course of whole time training at technical schools or universities. Some time ago it was arranged that the regulations with respect to technical instruction, which have to some extent hampered the development of technical instruction in some directions, especially with regard to specialisation and so on and the cost of instruction in the more expensive classes, are now to be thoroughly revised, and our new regulations will shortly be issued, and we hope to be delivered almost completely from having to pay our Grants

  1951
  mainly on the basis of the number of students' hours in classes. A large number of young people might attend a class which was quite inexpensive, and the results of which were not particularly fruitful—that is to say some classes of quite an elementary kind that happened to be popular because it was in vogue just then, whereas some other classes of good technical instruction might necessitate the provision of expensive apparatus. If you pay your Grant simply on the basis of the number of hours attended by the students in the class, it will mean that the relatively inexpensive and useless class will get a much larger share of the Grant than that which is really very valuable and is provided at considerable cost for a few students. We hope to get rid of that in our new regulations.
  The hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Hibbert) spoke of the increased value which he found recognised in his county by the cost which the State has incurred in the contribution to medical inspection and treatment. Of course the increase in the Vote is mainly due to the fact that we now contribute a share to medical inspection and treatment, whereas before the cost of the inspection solely fell upon the local authority. The feeding of school children, which was costly for the month or two months after the War, has necessarily declined a good deal lately, because there has been a very great fall in the number of children receiving meals in consequence of the better employment throughout the country.
  Colonel YATE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how or why it is that there are as many as 70,000 now being fed?
  Dr. ADDISON: In that matter, of course, the selection of the children is entirely in the hands of the local authority. It must be that in certain districts where the War employment has not affected so much the local depression you still have a considerable number of children who need feeding.
  Colonel YATE: Can the hon. Gentleman account for that?
  Dr. ADDISON: Yes, certainly. In some districts war expenditure affects employment more than in others; it depends entirely upon employment in the district itself. In a district where there are armament firms everyone is well employed, but
  1952
  in some of the cotton districts, in some months of the War, employment was very bad, and therefore in those districts there will be a heavier charge in respect of them. The hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Hibbert) said we had lost a very large number of our medical officers and nurses for the War. In his case, I think, all but one of the medical men has gone, and many authorities are working with greatly reduced staffs. Some of the criticisms that have been made against us as to the use of schools as hospitals I am afraid did not take into account all the considerations to which we have had to have regard in drawing up the scheme. The Primitive Methodist or chapel school or Sunday-school, notwithstanding the number of them that may exist in a town, is not always, I can assure him, a suitable place for a hospital. In Liverpool, and other places, we visited with the local authorities all available buildings which were anything at all likely to be suitable, and our anxiety was to spare the school children from dislocation and disturbance if we could. A chapel is very seldom a suitable place. You want a place where a man lying on a bed can see out of the window and get a glint of sunshine, and it often happens with chapels and halls, and suchlike, that they have only windows high up, and a man lying on a bed in the middle of the floor would see the light come in from above and it would be like a prison. Although it would be a sacred edifice, it would not be a suitable hospital. We had to take all these considerations into account, and it was not with any avidity, I can assure him, that the Board of Education consented to the use of schools as hospitals.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I did not complain.
  Dr. ADDISON: I know the hon. Gentleman did not; it was another hon. Member. We did it with great regret. It was found advisable by the Army Council to have the Committee which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Pease) appointed to go throughout the country and make a comprehensive scheme in case so many beds were unfortunately needed. I am glad to say that in every case the local authorities, as we should have expected, and the Poor Law authorities as well as the local education and other authorities, co-operated with the Committee in every way, and we found it was quite possible, by friendly negotiations in all these great cities we visited, to arrive at a scheme,

  1953
  and, notwithstanding the criticisms from outside, we made arrangements which, I think, will be found to meet the full requirements of the case, and cause as little friction and disturbance as possible. You cannot fix up arrangements for 1,500 beds in places without disturbing someone, and we did our best to make arrangements with as little friction as possible. I do not think it necessary to say anything connected with the comments which hon. Members have made on the proposal of my right hon. Friend with respect to the scheme for getting hold of the best brains of the country for the purpose of bringing science in close relation to industry, and encouraging on proper lines the development of scientific research. I agree with all that was said by hon. Members, and have nothing to which to reply on behalf of my right hon. Friend, except to say that I think that every one of the criticisms brought before us have been present to our minds during the last five months, during which this scheme has been under most careful consideration, and it was not possible, even in the emergency of the War, to waste the present year before calling into being an organisation which affords a more extensive development, so as to bring the manufacturers and masters of industry, including the agriculture of this country, to the position to which science can bring them.
  There are many things which we must attend to without any delay, and it is for this reason that the Committee for Research will be set up quite soon. A great deal has been done by private effort in respect of research, and notwithstanding all that my hon. Friend the Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch) has pointed out, quite properly, in this connection, I think that the research which has been associated with British scientists has often been the most original of any in the whole world. We have not organised and developed it as we ought to have, but the British researcher is often freer in his outlook and greater in his conceptions, I think, than almost any other. At all events he certainly stands far above the average German researcher, who tends more to apply the ideas which have been suggested by others, but from all that my hon. Friend pointed out, we have got to recognise that we cannot afford nowadays to leave all this to private effort. A great deal can be done by careful organisation and by seeing that the men turned out from our universities and technological institutions
  1954
  are equipped with that training which will make them acceptable in industry, and make them more likely to find a good market and a good career for themselves. Going around our institutions you will find certain departments where the professors will tell you that they cannot supply the men quickly enough to the manufacturers, while in other departments it is quite the reverse. The Royal Society has lately, very patriotically, been assisting chemical research in respect of drugs. This was one of the matters in which we felt ourselves behindhand at the beginning of the War. However, I think that my right hon. Friend may be satisfied with the full assent of the House in all quarters in getting ahead with this great scheme, which, while we hear so much of the mobilisation of our industries with respect to the production of munitions of war, will quickly, for the first time in this country, show that we are going to some extent, at all events, to create a machine which will enable us to mobilise brains and science in the service of industry and national progress.
  Colonel YATE: There are two small points upon which I should like to ask the President of the Board of Education a question. First, however, I should like to congratulate him on what he said earlier in the day regarding boys who are sent to secondary schools, and the necessity of their engaging to continue throughout the whole school course. There are great complaints by teachers in secondary schools that the time and trouble taken with many of the boys are often absolutely wasted and thrown away. The boys come from the elementary schools, and perhaps remain a year and then go off. The time and trouble of the teacher are wasted, and the ratepayers' money is wasted. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to arrange that the guarantee of each boy should be secured that he is to take full advantage of the whole school course, and to see that the ratepayers' money is not wasted on useless scholarships.
  The second point on which I wish to put a question has relation to physical education. I would like to know what steps are being taken to afford a better physical education in our elementary schools. We know that the physical education of children in elementary schools is just as necessary as the mental education in those schools. A glance at the number of rejections during the last few months amongst

  1955
  those who wished to join the Army, and who were pronounced medically unfit for the Service, has brought home to the people the fact that many of our children are quite unfit for active duty or outdoor life. Forty per cent. of the men who offered themselves for service in the Army have been rejected. That shows the great need of better physical education in our elementary schools. Boys are only given one hour a week physical education, very often they are taught by women, and there is no continuous physical training. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take this subject into his consideration, and appoint proper inspectors to see that the boys are really given a good physical education.
  Mr. PEASE: Perhaps I may just reply to the last point the hon. and gallant Member has made. We have recently had appointed two or three extra inspectors in connection with physical training—men who have studied the subject, and who have passed tests in Sweden or elsewhere—to go round the country and see that the best system of physical training is adopted in all our schools. They are to examine the curriculum of the school and endeavour to see that as much attention as possible, having regard to the other interests of the school, is given to physical training and exercise. I believe more could be done than is being done, especially in connection with the first few minutes of school day. In many of the schools the first ten minutes is given to breathing exercises and to certain simple exercises, in addition to the regular period set apart of twenty or forty minutes, the time varying from school to school, for physical training. A real advantage would thus be secured by the children. We are making physical exercise a compulsory subject in all our training colleges, so that both women and men teachers in future will be turned out from those institutions, and be able to impart to the children of our elementary schools the way in which they should exercise their limbs, as well as enable them to be subject to proper teaching during school hours. I believe in this way we shall very much improve the condition of the schools of the country. As I believe nobody else in the House desires to speak now on this subject, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next (17th May); Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ANTI-GERMAN DISTURBANCES.
Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. NEVILLE: I wish to put a question to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department of which I have only given him private notice. The matter is one in which the public at the present time are taking a considerable amount of interest. I desire to ask what steps are being taken for the protection of the lives and property of persons who are living in areas where anti-German agitation or riots have taken place, or are likely to take place, both in London and elsewhere? I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more upon the point. The newspapers are perfectly full of reports of what is going on. In some cases the military have been called on and the police and special constables. I am sure it would be a great relief to people living in those areas if the Under-Secretary would tell us what steps are being taken for the preservation and protection of the lives and property of people who may find themselves in difficulties owing to the agitation carried on all over the country—the lamentable agitation that is going on.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I was not aware that the hon. and learned Member was going to raise the question as to the country as a whole. I thought he was going to address himself merely to the situation in London, and it is only in regard to London that I am furnished with full information. I can assure him that the police authorities are well aware of the gravity of the situation in London, and that it is engaging their most earnest attention. Every possible precaution is being taken. In the disturbed areas, or areas that are likely to be disturbed, the police force has been greatly strengthened, and a very large number of

1957
special constables have been called up. I do not think I need add anything further, except to assure the hon. and learned Member that no precaution will be neglected by the police in the London area.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes before Eleven o'clock till Monday next, 17th May.

PETITION PRESENTED.
The following Petition was presented and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
WEDNESDAY.
Alien Enemies—Petition of Women of Great Britain and Ireland, for internment and removal from the sea coast.