§ For the purpose of supplementing and reinforcing the instruction and social and physical training provided by the public system of education, and without prejudice to any other powers, a local education authority for the purposes of Part III. of the Education Act, 1902, as respects children attending public elementary schools, and a local education authority for the purposes of Part II. of that Act as respects other children and young persons or persons over the age of eighteen attending educational institutions, may, with the approval of the Board of Education, make arrangements to supply or maintain or aid the supply or maintenance of—
- (a) holiday or school camps, especially for young persons attending continuation schools;
- (b) centres and equipment for physical training, playing fields (other than the ordinary playgrounds of public elementary schools
1438 not provided by the local education authority), school baths, school swimming baths;
- (c) other facilities for social and physical training in the day or evening.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The first two Amendments, standing in the names of the hon. Member for West Ham (Colonel W. Thorne) and the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Charles Duncan), are not in order. With regard to the next group of Amendments, standing in the names of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire and the hon. Member for Haggerston, I would point out that on Clause 3 we had a long discussion and two Divisions on the question of military or non-military physical training, and the hon. Member for Haggerston (Mr. Chancellor) moved an Amendment in one sense, and another in the opposite sense was moved by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto). Both Amendments resulted in a Division, and both proposals were negatived. That seems to rather dispose of the question so far as this stage of the Bill is concerned.
The previous discussion referred only to children at continuation schools, and these Amendments refer to children in elementary schools, and I think the point is distinct.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
On the same point of Order. The discussion in the earlier stage related to the possibility that the education authorities might wish to have these powers in respect of elementary schools. We are now considering the specific plans that the education authority may be authorised to carry out, and it is not repeating the former Debate to enter upon the question raised by the Amendments to limit the power of the education authority.
§ The CHAIRMAN
There is a slight difference on which there might be some discussion, but I do not think we should go back over the whole ground again.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
I beg to move, in paragraph (a), after the word "camps," to insert the words "of a non-military character."
I should like to say at the outset that we have no desire to raise a long discussion on the general question of military training. So far as I am concerned, I am content with the discussion that took place at an earlier stage of the Bill, and I do not think it would be right to go over the ground again. There is an essential difference between the previous Clause and the 1439 Clause now under consideration, as this Clause mentions specific plans and methods of work that the local education authorities are to be encouraged, under this Act of Parliament, to carry out, and they are to apply to the Board of Education for approval. I do not think that there is very much disagreement on this question in any part of the House. I believe that Members of the House who are keenest for the military training of our youths would not be glad to see that question considered as a separate question, and not as an educational question which does not raise the general subject of the defence of the Empire. I believe I am right in saying that the Board of Education, in drafting the Bill on these lines, have in their mind, when they use the phrase "school camps," camps of an educational character, camps which will develop the physique of the boy and better fit him to acquire a position in life—camps for only the physical development of the youths, to teach them how to care for their physical, moral, and mental well-being. I think that the physical training camps contemplated are those which will be of an educational character.
There are two kinds of camps in operation in this country. The right hon. Gentleman and many Members of this House are associated with camps of an educational character, where the best possible work is being done for the boys under conditions that could not prevail in the school. There is another kind of camp which is simply a military training camp, where boys are drilled and taught the use of the rifle. We want to be clear that it is the educational camp which the education authorities are to be encouraged to set up, and it is on that ground we should like to have these limiting words inserted in the paragraph, in order to make it clear that the Board of Education is not suggesting to the local education authority that they should set up camps where military drill could take place and the use of the rifle be taught. I wish to remove what I thought was a misapprehension on the occasion of the last Debate, when it was suggested by some hon. Members, in the course of the discussion, that, if you take the question of physical training, you could not distinguish between military physical training and non-military training. There is no point in that objection at all. These educational camps are organised for 1440 physical training in all its educational aspects, and I think it is that kind of physical and educational training which the President of the Board of Education has in mind. These camps have been organised in different parts of the country simply and solely that the boys may have suitable physical training, apart from any military aspect of physical training, and it is from that point of view that I move the insertion of the limiting words of the Amendment, though I do not want in any way to limit the initiative of the local educational authorities to found these educational physical training camps.
The Government is unable to accept the limiting words suggested by the hon. Member, very much for the same reason which led me to decline a similar Amendment on an earlier Clause. At the same time, in order that there may be no uncertainty as to the position of the Board of Education in this matter, I may state that so far as the Board is concerned there will not be military training in the strict sense of the term. Military training is a matter for the military authorities, and I have every reason to believe that the War Office have no desire either that the Board of Education or local education authorities should promote or subsidise military training in the ordinary sense of the term. Our desire is that the youths of the country should have the advantage of as good a physical training as possible, so that they will be developed by the time they might be required for military service. Even from the war point of view, there is no desire that strict military training should be begun by the education authorities, and it has been the policy of the Board of Education, in the past, while encouraging the growth of such organisations as Cadet Corps or Scouts, to avoid anything in a sense which might be regarded as strictly falling within the limits of military training.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. LEES-SMITH
I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said that he does not actually dissent from the Amendment of my hon. Friend, which approves of a purely physical training for youths, that is of an educational character, and that such training should not be extended or diverted to training of a purely military kind. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is in agreement with the purpose of my right hon. Friend, and I understand that the War Office agree with that purpose and simply want boys 1441 at the age of eighteen to be properly trained from the physical point of view. If they can be sure of that the Army can then add the military training in a very rapid time. But let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that unless some safeguard is introduced into this Bill there is a very serious danger indeed that the purpose which he himself has in view will not be carried out. He speaks of the policy of the Board of Education, but he will not himself be at the Board of Education for ever, and he himself must know that there is a strong and organised movement to introduce military training into the schools. He must know that the movement is supported by Members of this House and of the other House, that it is backed by Mansion House meetings, and that there are regular, powerful societies which are existing for that very purpose. I therefore wish to suggest to him from the point of view of his own desires it would be wise to introduce some precautionary words into this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman said the reasons for objecting to the Amendment were the same as those he gave in the last Debate on this subject. I have been looking at that Debate, and I find that there was only one reason that he gave, namely, that he said it was impracticable in the actual words of any Bill to draw a line between the place where military training ends and physical training begins. I quite agree with that. I know that in physical training you have to perform the more elementary movements of squad drill and so on, but I would point out that although it might not be easy in the early stages to draw the distinction, there does arrive a stage where there is a very sharp distinction, which can be put into the terms of an Act of Parliament or that is, the stage when rifle and bayonet exercise and musketry drill are given. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that there can be no possible use from the physical point of view of teaching rifle and bayonet drill. [An HON. MEMBER: "They could not get the rifles!"] They could get dummy rifles. Rifle drill with dummy rifles is being taught now even in elementary schools. I say there can be no possible use from the physical point of view of rifle drill, and I am sure that every physical instructor would say that that kind of drill undoes the effect of physical exercises. It cramps the body and develops the muscles on one 1442 side of the body out of proportion to those on the other side, and it is positively harmful from the physical point of view. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me his opinion on that point. I have myself, lower down on the page, an Amendment which excludes drilling with rifles or dummy rifles, and I suggest that that Amendment meets the only objection that he urged. I hope, therefore, that he will, at any rate, see his way to accept my very moderate form of words.
§ Sir WATSON CHEYNE
I hope the President of the Board of Education will not hamper himself by accepting the Amendment. It is almost morbid, the argument that because a boy is taught to march or to shoot he will, therefore, be wanting to go and kill somebody. I believe that after the experience of this War it will be ages before there is a war again. There is no longer any chivalry or pleasure in fighting; it is pure savage butchery, and I do not believe that whatever sort of training you give to children you will inculcate any idea of fighting into them, except to defend their own country. I think it is a perfectly fantastic idea, while, on the other hand, there is an immense deal to be got out of a semi-military training. Look at the Boy Scouts. They are militarily trained, and they would be cut out by putting in these words. They have been most valuable in the military work of the country. When I first began going to Chatham to do my work there these Boy Scouts were an awful nuisance, stopping me and inquiring where I was going. They did their work splendidly, and I should be extremely sorry that it should be interfered with. From the point of view of health, surely the outdoor exercise involved in military training is of the greatest value. You have only got to look at the recruits at the present time. I have seen them coming up—shop boys, thin weeds, of no earthly use at all, apparently, and in three or four months' time you would not recognise them. They have become such splendid specimens of manhood. Physical training is all very well, but there is nothing more dreary than merely moving your limbs about. You want a purpose in it, and you do not want to do it simply as a matter of schooling. The boys themselves object to that. The sort of exercise that I advocate has another advantage in that it inculcates discipline, and it has a still greater advantage in that it teaches the boys to work together. They cannot 1443 form fours unless they know that they must give way to other boys and that they must not put themselves entirely in the forefront. The sort of instruction that they get in being taught to march and in such military movements is the very best thing the boys can get for their health. Then, again, it lasts a good while. You want to keep these children out of the slums and employ them when they are out of school. At present they play football. I think football is a diabolical game, but it only lasts a short time, whereas they can go for a whole day on a route march and take their lunch with them and have quite a nice time, while it keeps them away from all bad associations, idleness and waste of time. As regards teaching a boy how to shoot, I have two or three boys, and I began teaching them how to shoot when they were very young, with rifles and fowling pieces, and I do not think they have any more desire to shoot their friends or other people, except Germans, than anybody else.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
Those who support this Amendment should indeed be grateful for the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down. When this question was raised in the earlier stages of the Bill we had an assurance from the President of the Board of Education that his Department had no intention of giving to physical training in the schools anything of a military character. But it is quite clear from the speech of the hon. and gallant Member that he desires, and no doubt his influence would be exerted to secure, that the physical training even in the schools should have what he described as an object. He quoted the instance of the Boy Scouts, but the Boy Scouts are not part of the educational organisation of the country. They are quite outside, and they will not be touched at all by anything that the Board of Education or the local education authorities do under the powers conferred upon them by this Bill. If outside the school parents desire to take advantage for their children of some military or semi-military training, it is their concern, but it should be entirely a voluntary matter. The hon. and gallant Member said that the people are now, if I may use somewhat of a vulgarism, so "fed up" with war and with militarism that there is no possibility of another war for generations to come. Why, then, should the hon. and 1444 gallant Gentleman desire that boys should be taught to shoot? He seems to think that teaching children to shoot has no effect upon their moral character. The use of a gun is in order to kill, either human beings or animals, and therefore you are inculcating into the minds of the children in their very early years the idea of slaughter. Then, again, if I may quote Shakespeare,How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds Make ill deeds done,and if you are going to train up children with the idea that they must be taught to kill, you may depend upon it that sooner or later they will find an opportunity for exercising the attainments which they have reached. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said it was important that children should be taught to work in co-operation, but surely training children in militarism is not the only way in which co-operation can be attained. All healthy games require co-operation. I do not know if the hon. and gallant Gentleman's objection to football extends to cricket, but just as much co-operation is needed in cricket as in any kind of military activity, and therefore arguments of that nature are altogether fallacious. Since this matter was last vented in the earlier stages of this Bill it has been discussed by the Labour party, and I am in a position this afternoon to express the view of the organised industrial opinion of the nation on the question of the physical training of children. The great Conference which met last week in London, and which was attended by 1,000 delegates, representing trade unions and political Labour parties from every part of England, Scotland, and Wales, passed, without a single dissentient, a resolution demanding that in physical training in the schools there should be no military bias whatever, and I know that those deputies, in giving expression to that view, were expressing practically the unanimous view of the working classes of this country. I hope the President will not be influenced at all by the quite irrelevant speech of the hon. and gallant Member.
I, too, want to thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir W. Cheyne) for the remarks he has made. I understand he puts himself in direct opposition to every authority on this matter, and expresses the view that military training for children of tender years 1445 is an advantage to their physical development. Do I understand that to be his position?
§ Sir W. CHEYNE
I certainly think that marching, especially route marches, which take up more time than a game, the country air, the rest, and lunch out of town, give an aim which adds very much to the pleasure of the day.
§ Sir W. CHEYNE
And shoot. Why should they not shoot? It trains the eye, especially if shooting at a movable mark. I do not mean to shoot at a man.
Everything the hon, and gallant Gentleman desires to bring about could, except the use of lethal weapons, be included if this Amendment were passed. Boys can be taught to march, to act in unison, under a word of command—
What we object to is that children of ten to fourteen years of age should be accustomed to think of themselves as little soldiers. The hon. and gallant Gentleman behind me (Colonel Yate) desires that they should. He wishes to infect the mind of immature children with the idea that their duty in later life will be to kill somebody on behalf of their country. Already that is being organised in elementary schools, and pressure is being brought to bear upon the children in elementary schools—I give as an example the action of the Alloa School Board in Scotland—to join these Cadet Corps. Undoubtedly the training will be of a military character—the use of weapons, the accustoming of the mind to forming part of the Army later in life. If that is to be done, surely fourteen is early enough to begin it. You have the evidence of every expert who has investigated this matter, except the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir W. Cheyne)—it has been given in conference after conference—that military training in the use of weapons is really derogatory to the proper physical development of the children; and, if it is not excluded, it will be brought in. That is certain. The hon. and gallant Gentleman behind me has advocated it being compulsorily brought in in elementary schools. Lord Cheyles- 1446 more at the Mansion House, advocated it being compulsorily brought in in public elementary schools, and we object to the compulsion of parents to make their children undergo training to which they might otherwise object, and which will become part compulsorily of the educational system under the local authorities. If these camps are conducted by the local authorities, boys who get the advantage of the camp will have to undergo this training, whether their parents like it or not. If the parents desire that they should join the Boy Scouts or the Cadet Corps there can be no objection to it, but what we object to is a compulsion which will be possible unless excluded. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as an educationist, as one who desires that this Bill shall be effective from an educational point of view, it would not be better to remove this cause of offence by definitely removing military training from the training of these children? What you do with the young people who attend secondary schools has nothing to do with this particular Amendment, but that young children should have forced on them, against the wishes of their parents, and in order to get the advantage of these recreation camps, the undergoing of military training is, to my mind, an outrage on the rights of the parents and an outrage from the moral point of view. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will be walling in this case, at any rate, definitely to exclude that kind of teaching from these camps, and will accept the two Amendments I have down later in connection with this matter.
§ Colonel GREIG
I think the President will be well advised to stand by the attitude he has announced to the House. While, on the one hand, the Member for Edinburgh (Sir W. Cheyne) may have gone too far with regard to purely military exercises in camps, on the other hand, we have had that considerably counterbalanced by the views of a small number of Members on the other side of the House. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) was the last exponent of the views of those who regard any military training as inculcating ideas of the slaughter of other human beings. I am not going further into that, and I will only say that that view naturally comes from Members who take the view of the hon. Member that slaughter of the kind he indicates is really a monstrous thing, and is not slaughter which may be perfectly 1447 justified in the defence of one's country. It is rather extraordinary to hear from those hon. Members, particularly from a democrat like the hon. Member for Blackburn, arguments in favour of inserting in this Bill words which would materially hamper the control of the local authorities who are to sanction these school camps. That was the basis of the whole of the arguments on the last occasion—leave it to the local authority to say what shall be the kind of training. If we have Members like the hon. Member for Edinburgh and others and large bodies outside bringing pressure to bear on the local authorities to take one view we may be quite certain there are large bodies who will look after the matter from the other side. By far the best way is to leave it to the local authority to decide what shall be the character of the training in the camps. There was one hon. Member who was so against this military training that even from his own point of view he could not have gone far enough, because if you are to exclude everything that may tend to this soldiering spirit why not exclude the Navy too? Why not non-military and non-naval training? You might actually exclude swimming and signalling, both of which things are extremely useful from the naval point of view.
§ Colonel GREIG
This Amendment will do this; it will weigh the balance down unfairly on the side of the views of the hon. Members who have advocated it.
§ Sir G. GREENWOOD
On the last occasion I spoke in opposition to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Haggerston (Mr. Chancellor) and in agreement with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down (Colonel Greig), who followed me, and I voted in that sense in order to keep the Clause as it had been left by the President. I am bound to say that I feel some little difficulty in the present matter because it is a different one, dealing with much younger children.
§ Sir G. GREENWOOD
They may be, some of them, surely! The Clause says:As respects children attending public elementary schools.
§ Sir G. GREENWOOD (reading)
And a local education authority for the purposes of Part II. of that Act as respects other children and young persons—
§ Sir G. GREENWOOD
But the children in public elementary schools are included. My difficulty is that I do not quite know, if this Amendment is accepted, what interpretation will be put on the words "of a non-military character." I should certainly be as opposed as my hon. Friends to putting rifles in the hands of these children to teach them to shoot or to do bayonet exercises. On the other hand, yon might have a boy as a bugler or marching about and forming fours, and that might be said to be of a military character. If words could be devised to exclude a really military character of the camp, I certainly would not go as far as the hon. and gallant Member for Edinburgh (Sir W. Cheyne) and say it would be a good thing for the children of that age—whatever it may be after—to learn bayonet exercises, to shoot, and so on. If something of that kind could be devised, I should be very glad. I am rather in a difficulty as to whether to support this Amendment or not.
§ Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS
I am in agreement, as I think, with the President in considering that military training is undesirable for these young children on the ground that it is not the right kind of physical training for them to be exposed to, and I understand also that the President gives his assurance that he has no intention of giving a military colour to this physical training. It does seem to me, however, that the Amendment which my hon. Friends have proposed is not very well calculated to achieve the objects they have in view. They propose to qualify physical training given in holiday camps and in these centres in this way, that it shall not be of a military character. If you look at the Clause, that physical training is intended to supplement and reinforce the instruction and social and physical training provided by other means, I am not at all sure whether what they propose would not be quite different from what they really want. If, for instance, you say it is only in these centres for specific training that the training should not be of a military character, I am rather inclined to think that the implication would be that the ordinary physical training might be of a military character.
§ Mr. ROBERTS
The complementary Amendment ought to be in the words we have passed—"For the purpose of supplementing and reinforcing the instruction and social and physical training," etc. I put it to my hon. Friends that if they succeeded in getting the President to accept this they might, perhaps, give persons a ground for interpreting the effect of their action as meaning that in the ordinary course you might have training of a military kind, and that it was only in camps and these special centres that this military training to which they object is to be ruled out. I suggest that they should not press the Amendment.
§ Mr. LEES-SMITH
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to accept the proposal that rifle drilling with real or dummy rifles should be excluded?
No; and for this reason: This Clause mainly deals with voluntary organisations. They may not be organisations within the school at all. It enables the local education authority to assist the voluntary organisations. It might enable the local education authority to assist the Boy Scouts, and I think some embarrassment might be caused if the local education authority were to exclude from the system the admirable educational work of a voluntary organisation on the ground that the voluntary organisation had a side which might be described as military. Let us suppose a Cadet Corps with some educational side, doing really good work, and the local education authority and the Board approve of the educational work of that corps, I submit that it might be desirable that the local education authority, with the sanction of the Board, should assist the educational work of that organisation. I have already said that it would not be competent for a local education authority to provide arms or uniform, or any of the implements of a strictly military description. That is a matter which, if it is to be done at all, would have to be left to the War Office, and, under our existing system, the uniforms and rifles of such organisations as Officers' Training Corps are not a matter for the Board of Education, but for the War Office. But I do think it might hamper the local education authority in their work of assisting organisations, which might be doing extremely good 1450 work among the population of our industrial towns, if they were precluded from assisting good educational work by reason of the fact that that work was, to some extent, intermingled with work which might be described as work of a military character.
I think I understand now that the right hon. Gentleman would approve of education money being used to subsidise military organisations, but not: for the purpose of rifles and instruments of military training. But, even under his auspices, the London County Council did vote some time ago £900 to pay the fees of scholars who entered secondary schools on condition that they joined Cadet Corps, and that this subsidising, therefore, of Cadet Corps out of education money has his approval.
What difference is there in spending money in that way and in buying rifles? The funds, if provided in that way, tend to maintain the corps, and the money that they otherwise would have to provide has been provided, and they are able to buy rifles and things of that kind for military training. You really cannot divide these things. Unless this Amendment, or something like it, is accepted, what we are going to do is practically to endorse what I call the irregular and improper action which some education authorities have already adopted by deliberately making our education of a military character; in other words, to build up militarism at a time when we are trying to destroy it in other parts of the world, and to perpetuate the very kind of thing that has led to this War, and which if not killed at the end of this War, will lead to other wars. We are undoing in our Education Bill what we are professing to do by the War. I think it is lementable, and I shall certainly support the Amendment on a Division.
§ Mr. RAWLINSON
Are we really to be asked to support an Amendment of this kind? You are going to give power to local education authorities to subsidise things which are necessary, and you seek to put upon them a clog by the words of the Amendment, which nobody seems to be able to translate correctly. What is strictly the meaning of a "non-military camp"? It would put a clog on splendid work done by voluntary organisations in school camps. If you support them at all, 1451 support them as they exist now. The hon. Member for Haggerston (Mr. Chancellor) thinks that if you are to have military camps you will be teaching the people militarism, which is the cause of the War. Is there the slightest risk of our people becoming Prussianised in that way? Nobody who has had to do with the working classes believes that. Those of us who have talked with the members of workmen's clubs know how sorry they are that this sort of drill was neglected in the past. Would they have been any the worse if they had known a little bit more of drill and discipline before this War came on? I think if my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir G. Greenwood) voted for an Amendment of this kind it would be very much misunderstood outside, and I do hope the Committee, if it goes to a Division, will vote against it. I do press my hon. Friends not to take to a Division this point, which is really almost a reductio ad absurdum, when you say you are to have a camp of a non-military nature. It would lead to endless disputes. Should we not be making ourselves ridiculous if we put such an Amendment in? The question of boys learning to shoot has been raised. I do not think I could be called a bloodthirsty or military person, but I think I should have lost a great deal of pleasure as a boy if there had been a law against that. We should make ourselves ridiculous amongst most people brought up in the country.
§ Mr. P. A. HARRIS
I must confess I was surprised at the undemocratic attitude of the hon. Member for Haggerston towards this particular Clause. He seems to be afraid to trust local education authorities to manage their own affairs. He wants to tie them up by Clauses in an Act of Parliament so that they shall not have this question as to how best to serve the children entrusted to their care. No one has less sympathy with militarism than I have—militarism in its broader sense, not in its narrower sense. After all, as I take it, what this Clause proposes to do is to give the children in the schools some of the opportunities that children whose parents are able to pay for education are able to afford at present. Unless parents are well off, such education practically ends with school hours. Now one knows in great public schools it is not merely the training got in the schoolroom 1452 that develops the character of the boy, but the training in spare hours, on Saturday afternoons and in the evenings—that is to say, the training on the cricket and football fields, in the racquet court, and the swimming bath. But one knows that in those schools it has been found that there are a great number of boys who do not take to cricket and sports of that kind, but like to go into the Boy Scouts, Cadet Corps—I am not afraid to use the words "Cadet Corps"—or, as in great towns, organisations like the Church Lads' Brigade. Does my hon. Friend suggest that because a boy is poor, because his parents cannot afford to pay for that training—the training of his character—the education authorities shall not be allowed to assist and pay something towards his fees?
My hon. Friend referred to the attitude of the London County Council. The London County Council says that they are prepared to pay the fee of any boy who wants to join a cricket club in connection with a secondary school. Then it was pointed out that some boys prefer to belong to a Cadet Corps, and the London County Council, very rightly and properly, said, so long as the boy's parents desire him to have this kind of training, and so long as the boy wishes to take advantage of it, they were prepared to pay his fee just as much for a Cadet Corps or Church Lads' Brigade as for a cricket club. That, I think, is the proper way to look at it. If you are going to lay down, as my hon. Friend suggests, that a boy can go into any form of training so long as it does not come by any sort of interpretation under the word "militarism," you are going to exclude any form of organised drill. The principles of drill are based on the experience gained in drilling soldiers. If you are going to suggest that because that physical training is in some way analagous to that for the training of a soldier, you are going to exclude the very best form of physical training that experience has taught. As a matter of fact, I quite agree that for younger boys by far the best form of training is that of Boy Scouts, but, even in the case of Boy Scouts, there has to be a certain amount of military discipline and a certain amount of military organisation. I hope my hon. Friend will not take a line which, after all, does play rather into the hands of the militarists, because by taking this absurd line you are helping those who want to get 1453 the Cadet Corps entirely in the hands of the War Office and the military authorities. If you have them under the control of the education authorities, the education authorities will be able to see that the training given is of an educational character, that it is good for the physique of the boys, and that there is nothing of an objectionable nature. After all, it is not compulsory on these boys to go to these Corps. It is no part of the Bill. All it suggests is that if parents desire their boys to go into a camp or into a Cadet Corps, or into anything for social betterment from the educational point of view, the authorities shall be permitted to pay the fees if the boys are too poor to pay, or if the cost is too great for them to bear.
§ General CROFT
I would like just one word before we go to a Division on this subject, and that is in connection with the experience in Australia. I believe when the Australian cadet system first came about that those gentlemen who hold similar views to my hon. Friend the Member for Haggerston were most emphatic in their opposition. I desire to say that from what I have heard on all sides there is hardly anyone in Australia who would now desire to go back on the training given to young boys in Australia, because of the extraordinary results which have in general accrued. I would also ask the hon. Member to remember that Australia is perhaps the most democratic country in the world. So far from being militarist, it is perhaps the only Dominion in the Empire which has not adopted uni-
§ versal service, although there have been supplied from there the largest quota in this, and many other things, by voluntary effort. I would ask my hon. Friend to consider the fact, which has been pretty well proved. This Dominion training has done much for the development of the character of the youth, for the prevention of crime, and for the general all-round development of the youth of the nation.
§ Sir R. ADKINS
Has not this matter been largely decided by the Continuation Schools Clause, when the House decided against a similar Amendment to this, and also against an Amendment prescribing military training? That decision surely ought to govern the decision in this case!
§ Sir R. ADKINS
If it is merely children, then it is important that you should have specific military and specific non-military training left out even more than in connection with those of older age, who come much more within the ambit of this controversy. I suggest that the House, having once decided to leave this open, should scrupulously refrain from putting in words which restrict in either direction. Under the circumstances, if the matter is pressed to a Division, I shall vote with the Government.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 21; Noes, 135.1455
|Division No. 57.]||AYES.||[5.49 p.m.|
|Alden, Percy||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Mason, David M. (Coventry)|
|Anderson, W. C.||Gilbert, J. D.||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Arnold, Sydney||Glanville, Harold James||Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Hudson, Walter||Snowden, Philip|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Jowett, F. W.||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Kiley, James Daniel|
|Chancellor, Henry George||Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Collins, Sir W. (Derby)||Martin, Joseph||Mr. Whitehouse and Mr. T. Richardson.|
|Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.||Blake, Sir Francis Douglas||Currie, George W.|
|Archdale, Lieut. E. M.||Bridgeman, William Clive||Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Brookes, Warwick||Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Brunner, J. F. L.||Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)|
|Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.||Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.||Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)||Denniss, E. R. B.|
|Barnett, Captain, R. W.||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir James B.|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Cautley, Henry Strother||Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Mid)|
|Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Fell, Sir Arthur|
|Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glos., E.)||Cheyne, Sir W. W.||Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)|
|Beach, William F. H.||Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Geddes, Sir A. C. (Hants, North)|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Coats, Sir Stewart A. (Wimbledon)||Gibbs, Col. George Abraham|
|Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole||Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.||Cowan, Sir W. H.||Greig, Colonel J. W.|
|Bigland, Alfred||Croft, Brigadier-General Henry page||Gretton, John|
|Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)||Lindsay, William Arthur||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Hanson, Charles Augustin||Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Lonsdale, James R.||Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arton)|
|Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Roberts, Rt. Hon. George H. (Norwich)|
|Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Henry, Sir Charles||M'Kean, John||Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon||Macleod, John Mackintosh||Robinson, Sidney|
|Hibbert, Sir Henry F.||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur|
|Hills, John Walter||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert|
|Hinds, John||Magnus, Sir Philip||Stewart, Gershom|
|Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. M.||Marks, Sir George Croydon||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Marriott, John A. R.||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred||Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Ches., Knutsfd.)|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)||Thomas, Sir A. G. (Monmouth, S.)|
|Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas||Tickler, T. G.|
|Ingleby, Holcombe||Mount, William Arthur||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)|
|Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)||Neville, Reginald J. M.||Whiteley, Sir H. J.|
|Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)||Newman, Major J. R. P. (Enfield)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Jones, J. Tewyn (Carmarthen, East)||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)|
|Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)||Nield, Sir Herbert||Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)|
|Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.||Wilson-Fox, Henry|
|Joynson-Hicks, William||Parker, James (Halifax)||Winfrey, Sir Richard|
|Kenyon, Barnet||Partington, Hon. Oswald||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert|
|Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford||Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leeks)||Yate, Colonel C. E.|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)||Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)||Young, William (Perthshire, East)|
|Larmer, Sir J.||Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)||Younger, Sir George|
|Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Pennefather, De Fonblanque|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord|
|Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert||Pratt, J. W.||Edmund Talbot and Capt. F. Guest.|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir D. Maclean)
I think the last Amendment covers the following two on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Haggerston, who desires to insert the words "other than military" after the word "training"; together with other Amendments standing the the names of the hon. Members for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse), for the West Houghton Division (Mr. Tyson Wilson), and for Northampton (Mr. Lees-Smith). In respect to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Yate)—"at the end of the Clause to add the words, 'and at least one-fourth of the hours allotted for attendance at continuation schools shall be devoted to such physical training'"—I think it is covered by Clause 3, and does not arise on Clause 17.
§ Colonel YATE
Would it be possible to put forward a somewhat similar Amendment for the Report stage?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
We have not arrived at that stage yet, but between now and then I shall be quite willing to talk the matter over with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I should like to ask two questions: Is there any idea, or has any estimate been made of what the expense is likely to be? And, secondly, is there any limit either in this Bill or 1456 anywhere else as to the amount the local education authority can spend? What I really am most desirous about is the point as to whether there is any limit at all as to the amount which the local education authority can raise and spend upon swimming baths and similar provision.
The limit upon local extravagance is imposed by the desire of the ratepayers coupled with the approval of the Board of Education.
§ Mr. RAWLINSON
We all know you cannot spend more than 1d. rate and so forth in some matters, but there appears to be no such limits as regards the things under discussion; therefore, it seems to me, that the local education authority can spend any amount they like.