Commons Sitting of 5 June 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Land Drainage (Woodwalton) Provisional Order Bill, Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill, Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill, Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill, Local Government Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill, Local Government Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.

CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1918–19).
Estimate presented of the further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1919 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 70.]
MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.
Copy presented of Draft Order, dated 9th May, 1918, made by the Railway and Canal Commissioners under the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copies presented of Bread Order, 1918, Use of Milk(Licensing) Order, 1918, Cocoa Butter (Requisition) Order, 1918, Fish (Prices) Order, No. 2, 1918, as amended by Order No. 529, British Cheese Order, 1917, Notice, and Food Hoarding Order, 1917, Food Control Committees (Local Distribution) Order, 1917, Food Control Committees (Local Distribution) Amendment Order, 1918, and London and Home Counties (Rationing Scheme) Order, 1918, Authorisation, made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LIGHT RAILWAYS ACTS, 1896 and 1912.
Copy presented of Report of the Proceedings of the Board of Trade up to the 31st December, 1917, and of the Proceedings' of the Light Railway Commissioners up to the same date [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 71.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR
    INDIA.

      RECRUITING MOVEMENT.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make any statement regarding measures taken to broaden the basis of recruitment, open the ranks of the Indian Army, grant more commissions to Indian gentlemen, and provide so far as may be for using the Indian section of the Defence Force?
      The SECRETARY Of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The main features of the present recruiting movement in India are the establishment of a Central Recruiting or Man-Power Board with corresponding boards in the several provinces, the close co-operation of the civil with the military authorities and of the landholding classes and other influential persons with both, the assistance given by ruling princes and chiefs of native States, and the tapping of new areas and of tribes and castes which have hitherto been without military traditions. Honorary commissions have been conferred in certain cases on Indian gentlemen who have taken a specially active part in recruiting. As regards the grant of Kings commissions, I can make no statement at present, but the matter is under careful and sympathetic consideration. The total number of Indians enrolled in the Defence Force up to April, 1918, was 3,528. Enrolment was originally limited to a period of six months, but by an Amendment of the Act recruiting may now be reopened from time to time in specified areas. Units have been organised at Calcutta, Madras, and Poona, and university companies at Bombay, Calcutta, and Allahabad.

      1549
      Colonel BURN: Is any bribe of land going to be offered to the natives of India to come forward?
      Mr. MONTAGU: Arrangements are being made for the settlement of returned Indian soldiers in certain parts of the country.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether commissions are not now given in the R.A.F. to Indians?
      Mr. MONTAGU: Certain King's commissions have been granted, but I do not know to what branches of His Majesty's Forces.

      RULING CHIEFS.
      2. Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether subjects of ruling chiefs in India have at present exactly the same rights as are possessed by British-Indian subjects in respect of competition for the Indian Civil Service; and whether any declaration of eligibility by the Governor-General of India in Council will in future be necessary in respect of such subjects of ruling chiefs?
      Mr. MONTAGU: The eligibility of subjects of ruling chiefs in India is governed by Section 3 of the Government of India (Amendment) Act of 1916, which lays down that a notification of the Governor-General in Council is required to make any such person eligible.
      If the hon. Member has in mind a proposed Amendment of the Regulations for the examination of candidates for the Indian Civil Service, which was published in draft in the "London Gazette" of the 24th ult., I may explain that the Amendment does not refer to candidates who are subjects of native States, but provides for the special case of a candidate who being himself a British subject was born, or whose father or mother was born, outside His Majesty's Dominions.

      ARMY PAY AND ALLOWANCES.
      Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for India (1) whether it has now been decided to extend the allowances for children of officers of junior rank to the case of officers in receipt of Indian rates of pay; (2) whether a decision has yet been Arrived at with regard to the extension of the grant of children's allowances to officers of junior rank in receipt of Indian Army pay; and whether this will be retrospective to the date of the recent Royal Warrant?
      Mr. MONTAGU:I would refer the hon. Member to the notice which appeared in the Press on 29th May. Subject to the conditions stated, junior ranks of the British Army on Indian rates of pay are eligible for children's allowance, and the grant is retrospective to 1st October, 1917, the date applicable to officers of the British Army under the Royal Warrant. The allowance is not at present admissible to junior ranks of the Indian Army, but the question of their inclusion in the concession is under consideration.
      Mr. PETO: May I ask whether, as the pay of lieutenants and sub-lieutenants is practically identical, whether m the Indian Army or the British Army the lieutenants and sub-lieutenants will receive the same children's allowances on their pay in the Indian Army?
      Mr. MONTAGU: It is that sort of reason which makes it essential to consider the Indian Army now that a concession has been given to the British Army on Indian rates of pay, but the two matters have to be dealt with separately. I have not yet any information on the second point from the Government of India as to the result of their consideration, but I will let the hon. Gentleman know as soon as I receive it.

    NAVAL PRIZE BONUSES (PERSIAN GULF).
    Mr. STEWARTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any steps are being taken to pay over to officers and men of the Royal Navy the prize bonuses earned by them in operations against gun-running in the Persian Gulf and off the Mekran coast prier r to the present War; and, if not, will he take steps to expedite the settlement of this long-outstanding matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): My hon. Friend is apparently under a misapprehension. The awards made for captures of dhows, arms, and ammunition during the operations for the suppression of gun-running in the Persian Gulf were put into distribution on the 24th January, 1910, 20th October, 1913, and the 4th October, 1915 The total amount awarded to the captors was £7,675, and all shares have been paid as far as it has been possible to trace the men, only £355 remaining to be claimed. So far as I am aware, there are no further awards payable in

    1551
    connection with these operations, but if my hon. Friend has particulars of any claims to participate in these gratuities and will furnish me with the details, the cases will be investigated.

    NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty national shipyards are to be operated entirely by naval or military labour; whether civilian labour is to be dispensed with; and whether it is the view of the Admiralty that the work can be done successfully under these conditions?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As my hon. Friend knows, the actual construction of the yards themselves is being carried out by Royal Engineers and German prisoners. I am glad to say that all these operations are in a very forward state. Before we come, as we shall do very soon, to the question of actual ship construction, the problem of the manning of the yards will have to be finally determined. And I. can assure my hon. Friend that it has for some time past been the subject of very careful consideration amongst us.

    CLYDE SHIPPING (CONTROL).
    Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether officers and sailors are allowed to pass freely up and down the Clyde and to have access to the harbour and dock works in the neighbourhood of Glasgow; and if, in view of the important naval works in progress there and of the desirability of withholding information as to sailings to and from that port, which might reach the enemy through neutral sources, he will consider the possibility of arranging that neutral vessels shall be placed under British control in the lower reaches of the river, and a strict limitation kept upon the freedom and movement of such crews while in the Clyde district?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the officers and crews of neutral ships making use of these waters in the ordinary course of business. It has not been practicable in the time to ascertain the precise orders which are being locally applied, but if my
    1552
    hon. and gallant Friend will put a question down this day week, I hope to be in a position to report the result of the inquiries which are being made.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      SHIPYARD LABOUR.
      Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that apprehension exists that in the southern dockyards a number of men of military age and grade are employed who are not justifying by the amount of work done their employment in these dockyards; and whether a shipbuilder of experience could go through these yards to ascertain if the results are commensurate with the labour employed?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: We have received from time to time a number of complaints along the lines set forth in the first part of my right hon. Friend's question. They have, been invariably investigated and, so far as I can recall, have broken down on examination.
      Recently, representatives of the Minister of National Service were associated with Admiralty officials in an investigation into the employment of labour at a northern dockyard, in connection with which a similar complaint had been received.
      In view of the latter part of my right hon. Friend's question, it is worth mentioning that of those who took part on the inquiry, one is a practical shipbuilder, three are practical engineers, and one a large works contractor.
      The Report shows that the statements which have been made in the Press and elsewhere regarding the state of affairs at this yard have been grossly exaggerated, and that the waste and misuse of labour which have been freely stated to prevail did not, in fact, exist. Certain suggestions put forward are being considered.
      I ought to add that the Director of Dockyards is a naval officer with long experience of commercial work on the Tyne, Barrow-in-Furness, and Birken head, and the dockyards come under the general supervision of Sir Thomas Bell, in civil life managing director of one of the principal shipbuilding yards in the country.
      Having said so much, I have only this to add, that if my right hon. Friend can give me any concrete instance of the

      1553
      extravagant use of labour or of the hoarding of men against the national interest, I shall be most happy to have the closest inquiry made.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Plymouth portion of the Devon Appeal Tribunal made these allegations, and that they alleged that this dockyard umbrella shielding shirkers is making their work very difficult!
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes; we did receive a communication from one of the members for Plymouth, and that is now being examined.

      RUSSIAN SUBJECTS.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if a communication has been addressed by M. Chitcherin, the Russian Minister for foreign affairs, to the British Agent in Russia protesting against the continued recruiting of Russian subjects in Great Britain for the British Army; and what answer is to be given to this protest?
      The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord R. Cecil): I have nothing to add to the answer on this subject returned to the hon. Member for North Somerset on 3rd June.

      WIDOW'S LAST SON (APPLICATION FOR RELEASE).
      Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has received an application for release from the Army of her last son, having lost three in the War, from Mrs. Cliff, of Newcastle-under-Lyme; and whether, in view of the fact that this boy is at the base, Salonika, in the Mechanical Transport and not a fighting man, her request can be granted?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I am making inquiries, and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as possible.

      DISCHARGES (SURPLUS TO MILITARY REQUIREMENTS).
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the difference between men discharged as surplus to military requirements and men discharged as no longer physically fit for war service?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The distinction between men discharged as "no longer physically fit for war service" and those discharged as "surplus to military requirements" is that the former are unfit for any category required in the Army, whereas the latter are soldiers of a low category who are surplus for the time being to the requirements of the Army for men in that category.
      Mr. HOGGE: Are not these men who are discharged because they are surplus to military requirements, and suffering from disability arising since they joined, eligible for pension?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend must give me notice of that question.

      METROPOLITAN POLICE (LEAVE).
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Undersecretary of State for War if he is aware that on the 20th May 600 members of the Metropolitan Police Force left that service to join the Army, and that these men were told that they would all get seven days' leave immediately on joining their units to enable them to settle their domestic affairs, that all the commanding officers had been instructed accordingly, and that the men who were allocated to the 14th London Regiment were told on arrival at camp that nothing was known of such a promise; and will he inquire into the matter?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiries have been made, and I find that, owing to an oversight, the officer commanding the unit mentioned was not informed of the promise made to the men. The officer commanding has now been informed by telegram that the men in question are entitled to seven days' leave.

      TIME-EXPIRED MEN (BOUNTY).
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether time-expired men called up for further service with the Colours after an intervening period of civil life are entitled to the bounty they would have received if their services had been continuous? The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): It is hoped to promulgate shortly an Army Order stating the conditions under which bounties will be given under the new Act.
      Mr. HOGGE: Are these men who were discharged time-expired before the introduction and passing of the Military Service (No. 2) Bill, and therefore deprived of the opportunity of continuing their service, entitled to the bounty?
      Mr. FORSTER: Generally speaking, they will get the bounty.

      CIVIL SERVANTS (PAY).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that men are discharged from the Army before they are fit for civil work, and that in consequence the Treasury Sick-leave Regulations, which were drawn up for other conditions, reduce the pay of such men by one-half at the end of six months and operate harshly in some cases; whether the pensions granted by the Pensions Ministry is being used to reduce wages; and whether he will consider the possibility of granting an extension of the period of full civil pay in all cases of Civil servants who are discharged soldiers and of issuing an instruction that the military pension shall not be used to reduce the civil pay and allowances of such men?
      Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): The adaptation of the Civil Service Sick-leave Regulations to the case of the discharged disabled soldier who reverts to Civil Service employment was very carefully considered, and I see no sufficient reason to modify them. It is expressly laid down that in fixing the civil pay of a discharged soldier no regard is to be paid to the fact that he is already in receipt of a pension.

      CIVIL EMPLOYMENT.
      Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Minister of National Service whether his announcement, as reported in a circular of the Board of Education of 9th May, 1918, as regards cases where the withdrawal of men from their civil work would involve the crippling of the work in particular schools is applicable to the head masters and assistant masters of efficient private schools; and, if so, whether the Board of Education are enabled, as required, to make recommendations on behalf of masters of private schools as well as of State-aided schools?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): Due consideration is given to recommendations made by the
      1556
      Board of Education in exceptional cases of schoolmasters not covered by the general provisions of the current instruction regarding the recruitment of teachers. Such recommendations are not confined to State-aided schools, but include certain private schools which are recognised by the Board as efficient or have otherwise satisfied the Board as to their efficiency and educational importance. Such recommendations are, of course, confined to cases in which the Board of Education are satisfied as to the indispensability of the individual concerned.
      Sir P. MAGNUS: Has the case of the head master of Ongar Grammar School been brought to the notice of the hon. Gentleman, and can he state from whom recommendations could be made in the event of the Board of Education correctly stating that they have no authority to make recommendations with regard to private schools?
      Mr. BECK: I think there is some misapprehension. The Board of Education have authority to make recommendations, and we work under an agreement with the Board of Education by which teachers are not exempted under forty-three, and Grade 2 teachers are not exemped under thirty-two.
      Sir P. MAGNUS: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question, whether in the case of the head master of Ongar Grammar School
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
      Mr. RAWLINSON: Is the proper course for a schoolmaster to apply to the Board of Education for a recommendation?
      Mr. BECK: My hon. and learned Friend will find that instructions have been issued of quite an elaborate character, and I think the whole thing is well known now.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that men formerly classed in Grade 3 are now being classed in Grade I, under forty-three years of age?
      Mr. BECK: I entirely deny that.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of National Service whether a man who holds an absolute certificate of exemption on conscientious grounds, or who holds an exemption on the same grounds conditional upon being engaged upon work of

      1557
      national importance which he is fulfilling, can be called upon to undergo medical examination; and, if not, will he take steps to stop the practice of the local representatives of the Ministry calling up such men for medical examination?
      Mr. BECK: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and, therefore, the last part does not arise; but, as I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Bradford on the 15th of May, in ordinary circumstances the holder of a certificate of exemption on conscientious grounds who is complying with the conditions, if any, attached to the certificate is not called up for medical examination.
      56. Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the Minister of National Service whether he is aware that on 22nd May W. W. House applied for exemption to the Swindon Local Tribunal on conscientious.grounds; that the tribunal adjourned the case till 29th May for evidence to be procured, but was debarred from hearing W. W. House's application on that date, as the National Service representative had appealed to the Appeal Tribunal under Regulation R 185, Part I., Section 39, and that the National Service representative explained that in so doing he was acting on instructions which left him no other course; whether such instructions were issued in this case after the 22nd May; whether the paragraph relied on was only framed to meet cases of prolonged, repeated, or unreasonable adjournments; and, inasmuch as this case has caused remark and misunderstanding locally, will he order the application of W. W. House to be sent back to the Swindon Local Tribunal for decision!
      Mr. BECK: Inquiries are being made into this case, and I will inform the hon. Member of the result.
      Mr. KING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was at the request of the Minister of National Service that this postponement was made, and, when it had been made, he himself replied that there would be an appeal, which set the adjournment aside?
      Mr, BECK: As I am making inquiries, I cannot be aware of what is suggested.

    CAPTAIN H. S. SPENCER
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Captain Harold Sherwin Spencer was in 1913
    1558
    entrusted with a mission in Albania; whether, on his return from the Balkans, he made special confidential Reports to the Foreign Office; whether later during this War he was sent on a special Serbian mission; whether he executed these and any other duties for the Foreign Office in such a way as to retain the complete confidence of the Foreign Office; and whether he is now being so employed?
    Lord R. CECIL: The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. In November, 1915, Captain Spencer was attached to the British Adriatic Mission, and carried out his duties to the satisfaction of his immediate superior. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. KING: Is the Noble Lord aware that this officer has declared that he went to Albania in 1913?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has asked his question, and had it answered.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the Noble Lord prepared to answer that on oath?

    PALM PRODUCE (BRITISH WEST AFRICA).
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the natives of British West Africa are receiving less than pre-war prices for palm produce, although European articles bartered for their produce have risen to two or three times the pre-war price; and, if so, whether he will take steps to secure for the native producer rates not less than pre-war rates?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): It is the case that in most parts of British West Africa prices for palm kernels and palm oil are below the prices ruling before the War. How to secure for the natives a more adequate return for their produce is a question which has frequently engaged the attention of the Secretary of State, but the problem is a difficult one. My Noble Friend may be assured that it is not being overlooked.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not a fact that the prices are controlled prices, and it is merely a question of fixing the price?
    Mr. HEWINS: That does not exhaust the question at all.

    WOMEN DOCTORS (ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS, MALTA).
    Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the fact that the women doctors attached to the Royal Army Medical Corps in Malta have protested against the recent deprivation of their privilege as officers of censoring their own letters and the censoring of their letters by an officer of the rank of second-lieutenant; whether these ladies have the pay and standing of officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps, and have given up practices at home to do this Army work; and whether 'he will arrange with the officer commanding to restore the privilege that they formerly held?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am having inquiry made, and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as possible.

    FEEDING TROOPS (BARROW-IN-FURNESS).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that dissatisfaction prevails with the feeding of troops stationed at Barrow-in-Furness; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the matter?
    Mr. MACPHERSON:No complaints have reached the War Office regarding the feeding of troops stationed at Barrow-in-Furness, but I am having inquiries made into the matter, and will communicate with my Noble and gallant Friend as soon j as possible.

    INTERNED OFFICERS AND MEN (HOLLAND).
    Mr. STEWARTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any steps are being taken to obtain the release from internment in Holland of officers and men of His Majesty's Forces who have been so interned for three years and upwards; whether he is aware that considerable hardships are being suffered by interned naval officers owing to the exchange value of the £ sterling having fallen from 12.10 to 9.21, while the purchasing power of the gulden, owing to high prices, is now only about half what it formerly was; and
    1560
    whether he can see his way to continue payments at 12.10, as the Army does, to interned officers in view of the fact that those naval officers without private means find it difficult to live?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards the first part of my hon. Friend's question, the British Mission to the Hague has a very wide discretion as regards the subjects which may be discussed, and I have no doubt they will not lose sight of the position of the officers and men interned in Holland. As regards the rate of exchange, the pay of naval officers, whether prisoners of war in enemy countries or interned in neutral countries, is adjusted on the current rate as computed each, month, following the War Office practice as regards Army officers. The hardship devolving on the officers interned in Holland in consequence of the decline in the purchasing power of the gulden has been met by a recent increase amounting to 50 per cent. in the rate of the daily allowance which is authorised for these officers so as, I hope, to recoup them for their expenses in respect of food.
    Mr. BILLING: Are Royal Naval Air Service pilots interned in the early part of the War still on the strength of the Admiralty?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

    HOUSING ACCOMMODATION, INVERGORDON.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Admiralty have brought a number of women workers to Invergordon and that the lack of housing accommodation is serious; whether the Admiralty, despite the representations made to them, have refused to move in this matter; and if he will state what it is proposed to do?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A number of women workers have sought and obtained employment at Invergordon. It is the fact that there is a serious lack of housing accommodation at Invergordon. The Admiralty are fully informed of the situation, both by representations of their own officers and others, and by personal investigation by members of the Board on the spot, and, so far from refusing to move in the matter, it is in contemplation to pro-

    1561
    vide accommodation, in addition to that which has been constructed and which is in use by the workmen and by a large number of the women employed in connection with the Invergordon establishment.

    ADMIRALTY YARD AND WORKSHOP COMMITTEES.
    12. Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the proposals of the Admiralty with respect to yard and workshop committees are encountering opposition from the organised workers on the ground that they do not grant recognition of the trade unions and that the scheme, as it stands, is regarded by the workers not as a concession but as a danger and in direct violation of the principles advocated by the Whitley Committee; whether, if the Government recommends the Whitley Report to private employers, it is proposed to adopt the same principles in dealing with its own employés; and whether he proposes to take steps to remove the trade union objections to the scheme?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As I explained in an answer last Thursday to my hon. Friend the Member for the Westhoughton Division, the scheme for the appointment of shop and yard committees in the Royal dockyards and naval establishments is a draft scheme, issued for the particular purpose of canvassing the views of officers, workmen, and workwomen, upon it. We have received a number of representations. These and others which may come to hand will of course receive careful consideration. As a matter of fact, I received two deputations on Friday last which put certain views before me upon the matter. I have a number of other deputations to receive, and am arranging, in consonance with the suggestion contained in certain Resolutions which have reached me, to call a conference of representatives of all the trades unions of which our employés may be members, to discuss the matter at an early date.

    ARMY DISCHARGE CERTIFICATES.

      WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE.
      24. Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Army Form B 2079 requires to be endorsed by a
      1562
      medical board of the National Service before it is a valid final discharge from the Army?
      Mr. BECK: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. Army Form B 2079 is the form of discharge certificate which is given to soldiers whatever the ground of their discharge, and, strictly speaking, it is not of itself a final discharge in the sense that it relieves the man from further liability to be recalled. In order, however, to remove misapprehension, I should like to make it clear that certain discharged men who have been given Army Form B 2079 are in certain circumstances freed from liability to be recalled, and in those circumstances their discharge certificate becomes in effect a valid final discharge. Those circumstances may be tabulated as follows:

      (i.) The man who has served in the forces for not less than a week, and is discharged for disablement or ill-health, is free from liability subject to his engaging in approved work of national importance under the First Schedule to the Military Service (No. 2) Act, 1918.

      (ii.) Should such a man, who has served for not less than a week, and is discharged for disablement or ill-health, fail to comply with the condition of engaging in work of national importance, he would be liable to medical examination by a National Service Medical Board, and if he is then found to be totally and permanently unfit for any form of military service, his discharge certificate, Army Form B2079, is endorsed by the recruiting authorities with a statement that he has been medically examined, and his previous discharge is confirmed on the ground of his being totally and permanently unfit for service, and in such cases the endorsed certificate shows that the man is finally excepted from liability under the Schedule to the Act mentioned.

      (iii.) Men discharged as time-expired who have been wounded within the terms of the First Schedule to the Act are not liable to recall unless they fail to engage in work of national importance. If on such failure they are medically examined and are found by a National Service Medical Board to be totally and permanently unfit for any form of military service, their discharge certificate, Army Form B 2,079,

      1563
      is endorsed as above and with a confirmation of their previous discharge, and in such cases they are free from further liability to service or medical examination.

      (iv.) Men who have served overseas as provided in the Schedule to the Act and who have been discharged on the ground of disablement or ill-health, are, under the Act, entirely free from liability to service or medical examination.

      It will thus be seen that, in the cases mentioned, it is only the discharged men liable to perform work of national importance, but failing to comply with that condition, who are liable to be recalled for medical examination, and therefore the question of the endorsement of their discharge certificates can arise only in comparatively few cases.
      Mr. HOGGE: Will my hon. Friend say Yes or No to this question: Do we understand that men who have Army Form 2,079 from the, War Office, which is a discharge from the War Office, cannot regard that as final unless and until it is endorsed by a medical board of the National Service Department?
      Mr. BECK: I have set out the exact facts, but there is no doubt, roughly speaking, the answer is Yes.

    DEPENDANT ALLOWANCE (APPRENTICES).
    Mr. ADAMSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that in assessing the degree of dependency of a relative of a soldier who, before enlistment, was an apprentice, no regard is had to the prospective earnings of the soldier had he remained in civil life; and whether instructions will be issued that, in fixing the amount of dependant allowance, regard shall be had to this factor?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir; the assesment of dependency necessarily rests on the basis of fact. But the Regulations of the Ministry of Pensions already admit a grant in such cases over and above the amount of assessed dependency.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. R. MACDONALDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the local pensions committee are expected to give grants in aid of separation allowances when these allowances are inadequate to meet general household expenses owing to the increased cost of living, especially of children's necesssaries, or whether they may give grants only to meet contractual obligations of a specific kind?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): I have been asked to reply to this question. The local committees have wide powers to give grants to meet emergencies such as sickness, or to make up a disproportion between pre-enlistment income and present income, when such grant is necessary for the upkeep of the home. They cannot, however, grant any allowance to meet the increased cost of living except in the case of a childless wife, or a dependant other than a wife or child, who is unable to work. The case of the wife with children is generally provided for by the revision of separation allowances in January, 1917, which was effected with special reference to the increased cost of living.
    Mr. STEWART: Does that apply to officers as well as men?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No; it applies to the men. The conditions as regards officers are quite different.
    Mr. WING: Would that apply also to the payment of industrial assurance?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That is another point, and I shall want notice.
    Mr. R. MACDONALDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has called, or will call, for reports from typical industrial towns, showing what expenditure is now necessary to keep working-class families in ordinary comfort; and whether he has done, or will do, so before finally deciding that the present separation allowances are adequate and ought not to be increased?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for the Harborough Division.
    Mr. MACDONALD: Was the effect of that answer that no inquiry is to be made?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think the effect of the answer was that the Government had decided not to take the course suggested.
    Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be ready to receive information of direct cases of hardship in certain industrial centres?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am always open to receive information.

    MILITARY PATIENTS (HOSPITAL MAINTENANCE).
    Sir F. HALLasked the amount per head allowed to hospitals for upkeep of military patients; and what was the amount allowed for a similar purpose in January, 1915?
    Mr. FORSTER:The rates are not in all cases the same, but the standard maximum rate for the great majority of auxiliary hospitals is now 3s. 3d. per occupied bed and 6d. per unoccupied bed a day. In January, 1915, the corresponding rate was 3s. per occupied bed and there was no grant for unoccupied beds.
    Sir F. HALL: Are we to understand that the increase since the beginning of January, 1915, has been 25 per cent? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that information was given in this House by the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Food Controller that the price of food bad gone up by 106 per cent.? Will the increase in question cover the cost to the hospitals?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving information.
    Sir W. COLLINS: Are the rates mentioned to be regarded as covering the whole cost to which the hospital is put in Such cases, or merely as grants in aid?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think they are grants in aid.
    Sir F. HALL: Then it is not intended that the 3s. 9d. shall be the extra cost of the upkeep of these officers and men?
    Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Member will surely see that the grant for unoccupied beds, makes a very material difference in the amount available for the provision of food for occupants.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the amount now allowed sufficient for the upkeep of the food of the officers and men?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have no reason to suppose that it is insufficient.

    FOOD SUPPLIES..

      GRASS LANDS (PLOUGHING).
      Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it is proposed to appoint inspectors independent of the local war agricultural committees to see that full and proper use is made of the grass lands which have been or may be ordered to be ploughed up?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): The responsibility of seeing that any land is properly cultivated rests on the county agricultural executive committees, and it is not proposed therefore to appoint inspectors for the purpose who would act independently of those committees.
      Major WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman give any estimate of the grass land which has been ploughed, on which no crops have been sown?
      Sir R. WINFREY: I must have notice of that.

      NAVY AND ARMY CANTEENS (PRICES).
      Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the disparity between the price of certain articles of food as sold at Navy and Army canteens and the price of similar articles as sold in retail shops; whether the articles are sold by the canteens at a profit; and, if so, whether similar articles can be supplied at similar prices to civilian consumers?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Navy and Army Canteen Board do make a profit, and when available it will be used, at the discretion of the Army Council, for the benefit of soldiers and their dependants. I am afraid it is not possible to carry out the suggestion made by my hon. Friend in the last part of his question.

      CROP PROTECTION (SALE OF CARTRIDGES).
      Brigadier-General M'CALMONTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the scheme for the controlled sale of cartridges for the protection of the crops and the production of food is largely dependent on small country businesses; and whether he will approach the Ministry of National Service with a view to the exemption of one-man-business men in this trade, who are engaged in work of national importance which cannot be adequately carried on under the scheme entirely by the large City firms?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I believe that the hon. and gallant Member does not exaggerate the importance of small country businesses in connection with the sale of cartridges, but I understand that the arrangements made for securing the exemption of men who are essential to the maintenance of the food supply are sufficient to safeguard the class of traders to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. If and specific instance is brought to my notice, I will see that appropriate action is taken.

      LAND AT CIPPENHAM, SLOUGH.
      Colonel DU PREasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the fact that about 600 acres, comprising some of the best corn-producing land in the county, is about to be taken for military purposes at Cippenham, near Slough; whether this action will diminish the food supply of the country at a critical juncture and discourage the efforts being made to increase that supply; and whether he will make representations with the object of preserving this land for the continued production of food?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The land in question has only been taken up after full and exhaustive consideration by the War Cabinet. Due care will be exercised to harvest as much of the produce as possible, and. to ensure this, the Directorate of Lands is working in close touch with the tenants of the area affected.

      BUTTER.
      Sir WALTER RUNCIMANasked what were the reasons for the 5,000 cases of Danish butter on Newcastle quayside,
      1568
      which was distributed under an instruction of the Ministry under date of 27th May, being withheld from co-operative stores and retail distributors from 17th May to 27th May; and whether the steps taken to preserve this butter from deterioration included storage in the cold stores at Tyneside?
      Mr. CLYNES: Since an allotment of butter sufficient to meet the ration requirements of registered customers during the ensuing fortnight had been made to retail traders and co-operative stores on the 13th May, it was considered advisable to place the Danish butter which arrived on the 19th in the cool storage available until it was required, rather than to distribute it immediately to retailers, who, as a rule, have no facilities for storage. As I have already stated, since all the available cold storage space in Newcastle was already occupied, the butter in question was placed in cool storage, and I am glad to say that no complaints have been received as regards any deterioration resulting from this course.

      LARD (RATION SCALE).
      Mr. GILBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the difficulty in obtaining lard in London and district, and can his Department do anything in order t o increase the supplies of this article; can he state if it is proposed to ration this article; and, if so, can he state, from what date and what quantity will be allowed?
      Mr. CLYNES: The supply of lard has been less than normal, but there is no reason to think that the difficulty of obtaining it has been greater in London than elsewhere. Last week 2,000 tons of imported lard were issued to the trade, and this rate, which is slightly higher than the normal rate of consumption of imported lard, will, it is hoped, be maintained. Lard will be rationed from the 13th July, 1918, and it is anticipated that it will be possible to provide 2 ozs. a head a week.

      TEA.
      Mr. GILBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can state if the registering by shopkeepers of purchasers of tea is done with the sanction of his Department; can he state if it is proposed to ration tea; and, if so, can he state from what date and what quantity will be allowed per head?
      Mr. CLYNES: The Ministry of Food has announced that under the new scheme for the distribution of tea supplies every person in Great Britain not already registered should register with a tea retailer not later than the 10th June. It has not yet been decided whether the new system of distribution will be accompanied by national rationing, but the supply of tea to retailers will be made on the basis of 2 ozs. weekly for each registered customer. Retailers are being authorised to accept late applications up to the 15th instant.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Will special forms be, sent to everybody for tea or will the forms which people have already filled up be sufficient?
      Mr. CLYNES: Should it be decided that there is to be individual rationing, the coupon books will be used for the purpose.

    PATENTS IN ENEMY COUNTRIES.
    Mr. HIGHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the Order issued by President Wilson last month prohibiting any American citizen from sending any money for the maintenance of their patents in enemy countries or for making new application for patents or trademarks', or from sending any communication of any kind respecting patents or trade-marks to enemy countries, also prohibiting any American citizen from receiving any moneys or documents from enemy countries in respect to American patents or trade-marks owned by the subjects of enemy countries; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to similarly prohibit such communications or payments by or to British subjects, by cancelling the proclamation allowing such payments and communications to be made that was issued in September, 1914?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley): I have seen the Order referred to. The question of issuing the existing licences in connection with this matter was carefully considered by the Board of Trade at the beginning of the War. I will, however, consider whether the action of the U.S.A. Government makes any modification in the policy pursued by His Majesty's Government in this matter necessary or expedient.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the strong action
    1570
    taken by President Wilson in his decree does not show that he thought it might be possible to use these communications to convey information, and would the right hon. Gentleman consider this point?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I am not aware of that. I have read the Order very carefully.
    Mr. BILLING: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how long it will be before he will be able to make a statement as to the decision of the Government?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I cannot answer that.

    GAS CHARGES.
    Colonel BURNasked the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to sanction the attempt that is being made by the gas companies to abrogate the sliding scale which has been in practice since 1875 and by means of which, during a period of high prices, the increase of cost has been divided between the company and the consumer, seeing that this change will enable the companies to pay an increased pre-war dividend entirely at the expense of the consumer?
    Sir A. STANLEY: This subject is now under consideration by a Select Committee of the House, and until the Committee have reported I am not in a position to make any statement in the matter.
    Colonel BURN: How long will it be delayed?
    Mr. SPEAKER: He cannot say. The right hon. Gentleman is not responsible.

    RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS.
    Sir JOHN BETHELLasked the President of the Board of Trade what machinery has been set up for arranging without delay for the renewal of season tickets and the issue of fresh ones on the various railway lines?
    Sir A. STANLEY: The issue and renewal of season tickets will remain with the railway companies as in the past. Mr. E. Honoratus Lloyd, K.C., has been good enough to undertake the work of reviewing cases in which a railway company has, owing to the recent restrictions imposed in regard to season tickets, felt unable to issue or renew a ticket.
    Mr. BILLING: Can the right hon. Gentleman state that no preferential treatment shall be given to alien Jews?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I am not in a position to add anything to the long statement I made on this matter.

    TRAMWAYS AND MOTOR-BUSES, ILFORD.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Ilford Corporation Tramways Committee have been requested by the Tramways Committee appointed by his Department to restrict their tram services, and they have been curtailed on Sundays; whether he is aware that the motor omnibus company which runs in the same district propose to increase their services; and whether, in view of the unfairness of treating a public-owned service and a private company on different lines, he will see that, if services are to be reduced, private companies shall not be allowed to increase their services at the same time?
    Sir A. STANLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, the Board of Trade are in communication with the omnibus company, and I will inform my hon. Friend of the result.
    Mr. KARRIS: Has not the Board of Trade the same power over the buses?
    Sir A. STANLEY: We have not the same power, but it would be possible through the issue of petrol licences to place some restriction upon omnibus services.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a strong feeling abroad that the privileges given to the buses is giving assistance to private companies as opposed to municipal undertakings?
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is it not a fact that the chairman of the Committee, who issues the Instructions, is largely interested in the combination, and is not that largely indecent?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I am not aware of the Petrol Controller having any interest whatever in the undertaking.

    CIVIL SERVICE (PENSIONS).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary to the Treasury if, in view of the fact that the real value of a Civil Service pension has been reduced by one-half owing to the increase in the cost of living, the Treasury is prepared to take into consideration an increase in the amount of such pensions so that their real value may be brought up to their value at the time they were granted?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I have nothing to add to my previous answers to similar questions on the same subject.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Which answers does the hon. Gentleman refer to?
    Mr. BALDWIN: There have been a great many answers, but I may refer to the 6th of June last year in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch.

    FARM LAND (SPECULATIVE PURCHASE).
    Mr. FRANCEasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the recent instances of gambling in farm land; if he is aware that the Redesdale estate in Northumberland was recently advertised for sale by public auction; that the tenant farmers who were intending to bid for their farms were deprived of this opportunity by the estate being sold privately to a speculator who in turn has sold it to another speculator, who is now re-advertising the estate for sale by public auction after two substantial profits have been taken and much hardship inflicted upon one tenant in view of this rapid change of ownership; and if he proposes to deal with such speculators and such profits adequately?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I understand that the Redesdale property was sold privately early this year, and that the purchaser has since resold it to another person. It is not the case, however, that the present owner has advertised the property for sale, or that any hardship has been inflicted on the tenants. One of the tenants is giving up his farm of his own accord, but he was afforded the opportunity by the present owner to remain in occupation if he desired to do so. The Board, in any case, possess no powers to intervene, but they are considering

    1573
    whether the cases of disturbance of tenants by reason of speculation in land values are so numerous as to interfere with food production, and to justify the Board in asking for remedial legislation.
    Sir TUDOR WALTERS: Will the Board of Agriculture consider making it compulsory giving the tenants an opportunity to purchase before it is sold elsewhere?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The hon. Member must give notice.

    POSTAL RATES (ROYAL NAVY).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that sailors serving on His Majesty's ships both in home waters and abroad are charged 1d. per oz. on letters sent by them; and whether, considering that soldiers serving abroad are rightly allowed to send their letters post free, he will take steps to grant free postage on letters sent by sailors afloat in order that both branches of the Service may receive similar treatment?
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that officers and men of the Navy have always had to pay the ordinary postage on letters-sent by them; if the advantage given to officers and men of the Army of not paying postage on their letters will be extended to the Navy; whether he is aware that, in the case of the Army, letters sent by relatives and friends to officers and men on service go at the old postage rate while those sent to the Navy have to bear the increased charge recently imposed; and whether he will consider the matter with a view to placing members of the senior Service on the same footing as soldiers in respect of their correspondence?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. lllingworth): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer these questions. Letters addressed to His Majesty's ships in home waters are prepayable at the rate of 1d. for letters not exceeding 1 oz.,1…d. for letters not exceeding 4 ozs., and thereafter at the inland rate. Letters addressed to His Majesty's ships in foreign waters and to soldiers abroad are prepayable at the rate of 1d. per oz. The additional charge imposed as from the 3rd instant upon ordinary inland letters does not, therefore, apply to letters to His Majesty's ships. It is not the case that
    1574
    soldiers generally are exempted from postage upon letters sent by them. The exemption only applies to soldiers serving with the expeditionary forces abroad. I regret that I am unable to extend the concession of free postage to sailors in view of the numerous claims for similar treatment which such a concession would involve. I may add that one of the reasons for granting free postage to troops belonging to the expeditionary forces was the difficulty of obtaining postage stamps in the theatres of war. This difficulty rarely applies to sailors on His Majesty's ships, and if by way of exception it does apply arrangements are made to deliver without charge.
    Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair to the sailor who is on active service, and exposed to all privations when he is afloat, to be handicapped in such a way as regards postage while the soldier, quite rightly, has got his postage free?
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the justice of extending to sailors the same privilege as is given to soldiers while they are on service, seeing that communications between relatives are much more frequent during the War?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: That point is being considered.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the General Post Office knows whether a sailor is in home waters or in foreign waters, as no communication can go to him except it is addressed through the General Post Office?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I do know, but I am afraid that I cannot answer the question.
    Sir F. HALL: I will repeat the question on this day week.

    ORDER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE (HARRISON BARROW).
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Prime Minister whether Mr. Harrison Barrow, who was recently sentenced to six months' imprisonment for a breach of Regulation 27c, made under the Defence of the Realm Act by the present Government, received in the same week an offer of the Order of the British Empire from him for services rendered to the country during the War?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Mr. Barrow was recommended by the Minister of Pensions for appointment to the Fourth Class of the Order of the British Empire on account of his services as a member of the Birmingham War Pensions Committee. He was informed on 18th May that it was proposed to submit his name to the King, but on the 24th May the Home Secretary heard that he had that day been convicted as mentioned in the question, and a few days later Mr. Barrow himself wrote mentioning his conviction, and asking that his name should not be submitted. His name has been omitted from those submitted to His Majesty.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman by his reply mean that it is realised that a sentence under the Defence of the Realm Act is the highest honour that can be conferred on a man?

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM LOSSES COMMISSION.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked whether it is intended that the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant shall remain a member of the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission; and, if not, whom is it intended to appoint in his place?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer to the first part is in the negative. An announcement as to the appointment of a successor will be made shortly.

    GENERAL MAURICE.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked whether General Sir Frederick Maurice is a member of the Commission appointed to collect and prepare materials for an official history of the War?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. McNEILL: When did he cease to be a member of this Commission?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say.

    BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (TURKEY).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the privations British prisoners of war are suffering in Turkey; whether, seeing that the purchasing value of money has been reduced to one-sixth of its previous value, he will say what additional allowances the Government is consequently making; what fresh steps are being taken to secure the dispatch of clothing and food; and what course the Government is adopting in order that these people may be repatriated with the least possible delay?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I would refer my lion, and gallant Friend to the replies made on Thursday last by myself, the Postmaster-General, and the Financial Secretary to the War Office to questions on this subject by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. I may say in addition (l) that the Netherlands Minister at Constantinople is authorised to increase considerably the money allowances in case of necessity, and (2) as regards food, two months' supply for all prisoners, together with full supply of clothing for non-commissioned officers and men, are to be sent from Alexandria by the repatriation ships. Parcels containing clothing can be sent to officers in the same ships.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: Are the Government proposing to enter into fresh negotiations for the complete exchange of prisoners in Turkish hands?
    Mr. HOPE: I cannot say that they are doing so at present.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is there any reason why they should not do so?
    Mr. HOPE: May I remind my Noble Friend that it may take a considerable time before the arrangement already entered into with Turkey can be carried out, and there will be ample time.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question with regard to repatriation?
    Mr. HOPE: As I have said, steps were taken to carry out the arrangement when it was made.

    TREATIES (MOST-FAVOURED-NATION CLAUSE).
    Mr. HOLTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a list of the treaties containing the Most-Favoured Nation Clause which the Government have denounced or have decided to denounce?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This subject will be dealt with in the general statement which, in reply to questions, I promised would be made on behalf of the Government as soon as possible.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Will my right hon. Friend, before the statement to the House is made, issue a white Paper giving a list of these treaties, as it will add greatly to our convenience?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I will consider that before the statement is made, but my right hon. Friend knows that it is a very complicated subject with regard to which the Foreign Office has been in correspondence with other countries, and the Colonial Office with the Dominions.
    Mr. HOLT: Will the statement be made to the House before any denunciation takes place?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot give a promise of that kind. It is impossible to deal with this matter by question and answer. It is very complicated. My answer was that the Government had decided to give themselves a free hand as regards the maintenance of these treaties.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in the suggested White Paper the cases in which the proposed action will have the immediate effect of raising tariffs against British trade?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a very controversial question. I have not promised to issue a White Paper, but I have promised to consider it.

    NATIONAL SERVICE.

      BERMONDSEY TRIBUNAL.
      Mr. ALBION RICHARDSONasked the Minister of National Service whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. Davies, who is the National Service representative at the Bermondsey Local Tribunal, has been adopted as a candidate for the Parliamentary Division
      1578
      of Bermondsey; whether he still remains the National Service representative in this division; and, if so, whether he will take steps to terminate his appointment in view of the impropriety, under these circumstances, of his continuing to hold this position?
      Mr. BECK: I was not aware of the cir-stances referred to by my hon. Friend. I entirely agree that it would be undesirable for any official to act as a National Service representative in an area for which he is prospective candidate for Parliament.
      Mr. RICHARDSON: will my hon. Friend see that Mr. Davies is removed from his position?
      Mr. BECK: I am sure that Mr. Davies, who was only adopted as a candidate a couple of days ago, will realise that he could not act in the same district.
      Mr. RICHARDSON: Will my hon. Friend take steps to intimate that to him?

    HOUSING SCHEMES (LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to a conference of representatives of Lancashire and Yorkshire municipal authorities recently held in Manchester, at which a resolution was passed to the effect that the terms offered by the Local Government Board were not sufficiently attractive to induce local authorities to build houses in such numbers as were necessary to meet the great shortage, and that, unless better terms were offered, the housing needs of the country were not likely to be adequately provided for; and what steps he proposes to take?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): Newspaper reports have been received, but no official communication has reàched me. I cannot believe that the resolution alluded to really represents the considered policy of the people of Lancashire and Yorkshire, who are most concerned in securing an adequate supply of a good type of working-class dwellings after the War. I have stated, on more than one occasion, that I regard the terms offered by the Government as not merely

    1579
    attractive, but generous, and, whilst it is too early to make any general statement on the subject, I am glad to learn from various sources that many local authorities are taking the same view.
    Major WOOD: Are we to understand that the terms originally suggested are to be considered final?
    Mr. FISHER: I have no reason to think that the Government are likely to offer any more generous terms, and they are more generous than have ever been offered at any time.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: Have the terms embodied in the Circular ever been submitted to Parliament and obtained the sanction of Parliament?
    Mr. FISHER: There was an opportunity to discuss the subject on the Vote for the Local Government Board, and the opportunity was not taken. There have been many opportunities of discussion.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Have a number of resolutions been received from borough councils, and particularly from Lancashire, indicating that the housing policy would be easier if they had an opportunity of dealing with land values?
    Mr. FISHER: I have not received one such resolution.

    INTERNED OFFICERS AND MEN (HOLLAND).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) if he is aware that some of the non-commissioned officers prisoners of war in Holland have had no changes of underclothing supplied to them for over two months; that many of them are without socks to their feet and without money to buy any; and if, having regard to the distinction made in regard to the provision for officers who are prisoners of war in Holland, as compared with non-commissioned officers who are prisoners of war there, and the consequent indignation among the non-commissioned officers and their relatives at home, he will take immediate action to remedy this grievance?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: There has been some delay in dispatching clothing to Holland, but steps will be taken which will ensure its early delivery. It is realised that these goods are required.
    1580
    The only distinction between officers and other ranks is that the former supply their own clothing, whereas that of the latter is supplied from Government stores.
    An HON. MEMBER: Cannot my right hon. Friend arrange for some of the military representatives in Holland to purchase clothing for the prisoners of war, so that they may be provided with the necessities of life, without waiting to send to this country?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will certainly consider that point.

    DISABLED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (BADGES).
    Mr. HINDSasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that difficulty is experienced by disabled soldiers and sailors fitted with artificial limbs in entering crowded omnibuses and trams without grave risk to life and limb; and whether he has considered the desirability of securing the institution of some badge by which such men can be readily recognised by the general public, and their need for sympathetic consideration when travel ling made clear to all?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am aware of this difficulty, and I have made arrangements to meet it by the free issue of a badge to all disabled officers or men who are fitted with artificial limbs. The badge—the design of which has been submitted to and approved by the King— will consist of a white armlet with the Crown embroidered on it in red. These armlets are now in course of manufacture. Immediately upon delivery they will be-passed to the fitting hospitals for issue to all who are qualified and desire to wear them. At the same time notice will be issued to the public explaining the meaning of the badge, and asking them to give to the wearers of it the consideration due to them, in view of their service and disablement in the War.

    RE-EXPORTS.
    Captain BARNETTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether, exclusive of re-exports for war purposes, thousands of tons of goods, imported into Great Britain are subsequently exported; and, if so, whether he

    1581
    will consider the desirability of giving priority over such goods to licences granted by the Director of Import Restrictions for the importation of goods necessary to the maintenance of essential stocks in this country?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that re-exports are watched with a jealous eye, and that priority is always given to essential commodities required in the United Kingdom or for the maintenance of the forces in the field. Special attention has been given to the subject ever since the establishment of the Ministry of Shipping. For statistical information regarding re-exports I must refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Board of Trade.
    Captain BARNETT: Will my hon. Friend look at the re-exports of glass and hardware during the last half-year?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Yes, I will do that with pleasure, and if my hon. and gallant Friend has any other details I will examine them. It is a very important subject.

    AEROPLANES (DROPPING LEAFLETS).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether he is aware that, at a meeting of workmen, held on the 15th May near the works of the Austin Company, Northfields, Birmingham, to consider a dispute between this firm and the employés, thirteen aeroplanes were used to interfere with and break up the meeting and scatter leaflets; and whether he will make inquiries as to who was responsible for such action and give instructions that the use of aeroplanes and petrol in such a way is not to be countenanced?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE to the AIR MINISTRY (Major Baird): Aeroplanes flew over Birmingham on 15th May to drop leaflets advertising War Bonds. I have no reason to believe that their use for this purpose had any connection with the meeting referred to in the question. As I recently stated in answer to a question by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, the use of aeroplanes for dropping leaflets has now been prohibited
    Mr. BILLING: Will an inquiry be made into the case referred to?
    Major BAIRD: Inquiry is always made into questions asked by hon. Members.

    GLASGOW EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Labour if arrangements have been, made for the transfer of the Glasgow Employment Exchange from College Street to Sauchiehall Street; and, if so, will he state the reasons for this alteration and the expenditure incurred in connection with the College Street buildings and the cost involved in transferring the work else where?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): Arrangements have been made for the transfer of the principal Employment Exchange in Glasgow from College Street to Sauchiehall Street. The building in College Street was not erected for Employment Exchange purposes only. The cost of that portion used as an Exchange was approximately £11,000. In consequence of the passing of the Unemployment Insurance Act (Part II.) and the subsequent extension of that Act to munition workers, the accommodation provided by the premises in College Street is inadequate to deal with the volume of work carried on by this Exchange. In addition, from the experience obtained during the last seven years, the situation of the premises in College Street has been found to be unsuitable for the public generally. The removal is approved by the local advisory committee. Upon the removal of the Exchange to the proposed new premises in Sauchiehall Street, the existing premises in College Street will be fully utilised for other Government Departments. The lease of the premises at the corner of Sauchiehall Street and Cambridge Street has been taken for a. term of five years from Whitsuntide, 1918, at a rent of £1,700 per annum, with the option of purchase at the expiration of that period, for a sum to be hereafter agreed upon. The cost of adapting these premises for the purpose of a central Employment Exchange for Glasgow is estimated at £3,000.
    Sir F. HALL: May I ask whether there has been a sub-committee appointed to inquire into this matter?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes. A sub-committee of the local advisory committee, and it has been approved by them.
    Sir F. HALL: Did the Minister of Labour say he was desirous that such subcommittee should have a real standing in the case?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The sub-committee have considered this point.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it the case that this matter only came before the local advisory committee after the decision of the Ministry of Labour had been taken, and that this approval is subsequent to the action of the Ministry?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not sure of the exact moment, but I think it very likely that the decision was taken before the advisory committee had considered it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that this lease was negotiated and the expenditure incurred and undertaken before it came before the advisory committee at all, and that therefore it would be very difficult for the advisory committee not to sanction it?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We had to take some steps whether the advisory committee was formed or not, and the steps were taken as soon as we were obliged to take them. Since then the advisory committee have met and have agreed to what we proposed.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that local protests were made against this useless expenditure at the time the Ministry of Labour took action without local advice?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware that protests were made, but I do not admit that the expenditure was useless.

    Ministry of Health.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can, state the present position with respect to the proposed establishment of a Ministry of Health; whether a Bill has been drafted and submitted to the Cabinet; and, if so, when it is proposed to introduce such legislation?
    Mr. FISHER: A Bill on the subject is under the consideration of the Government, but I am not able to make any abatement as to its introduction.

    Plague-Infected Rats (ss. "Somali").
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the President of the Local Government Board
    1584
    if he can state what precautions have been taken to prevent the cargo ex ss. "Somali" conveying into England germs of the plague; whether the cargo has been disinfected; and whether he can assure the House that the plague cannot be introduced into England through the cargo being discharged into lighters and afterwards distributed from a vessel which requires to be afterwards disinfected?
    Mr. FISHER: No disinfection of the cargo of ss. "Somali" has been carried out, or is considered necessary. Precautions were required to prevent the risk of plague-infected rats reaching the shore with the cargo. With this object the ship remained moored in the river and the cargo was discharged bale by bale from the deck into lighters alongside. This proceeding accords with the International Sanitary Convention (Paris, 1912), and offers the best security available against the risk referred to in the question. The disinfection of the vessel, after the cargo was unloaded, was undertaken with the main object of destroying rats in the ship. The quarters occupied by (She plague cases were disinfected as soon as the men had been removed to hospital.

    Pontefract Boundaries.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the President of the Local Government Board if the Corporation of Pontefract has made application for an extension of the borough boundaries; whether a request has been made to postpone their request for an indefinite time; and whether the Board are now prepared to reconsider their decision?
    Mr. FISHER: The town council of Pontefract applied in July, 1917, for a Provisional Order to extend the boundaries of the borough, and on 2nd August, 1917, my Department informed the council that they did not consider the time opportune for proposals of this character, and, in the absence of special circumstances, they would propose to defer consideration of the matter. I am not aware of any reason for altering this view.

    Sanatoria, Comity of London.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the President of the Local Government Board the present estimated population within the county council area of London; what money was spent by the county council upon treatment of tuberculous persons; and what is

    1585
    the number of beds in sanatoria or similar institutions under the direct management of the London County Council?
    Mr. FISHER: The estimated civilian population within the county council area in the middle of 1917 was slightly over four millions. Figures are not yet available as to the actual expenditure of the county council on the treatment of tuberculosis during the last financial year, to which period I presume the hon. Member refers. The estimate for that year was £35,090, and the actual expenditure for the year 1916–17 was £28,399. In addition, the Metropolitan Asylums Board incurred during that year a gross expenditure of £64,831, and a net expenditure of £33,557, on the treatment of tuberculosis. The London County Council do not themselves erect or manage sanatoria, but during the past year they have contracted with the Metropolitan Asylums Board and with other sanatorium authorities for the provision of about 580 beds. The total number of beds provided in the institutions of the Asylums Board for the treatment of tuberculosis is about 780, apart from beds reserved for children under the care of guardians.

    Teachers' Salaries.
    Mr. R. MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has had any representations from Leicester showing him that the distribution of the Grant he has given for teachers' salaries is made on a pro rata basis, and thus widens the actual discrepancy between the salaries paid to men and women; whether he has made any representation to local education authorities on this subject; and whether these representations are accompanied by suggestions for a more equitable distribution?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): My right hon. Friend has received no representations from Leicester, nor has he made any to local education authorities upon this subject.

    STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
    Mr. EUGENE WASONreported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Mount to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Emigration Bill).
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    TRAMWAYS (STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS).
    Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,—
    Amendments to—
    Brixham Gas Bill [Lords], without amendment.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to limit the right to a jury in certain civil cases; to raise the age for jury service; to amend the Law with respect to the preparation and publication of jury lists; and to enable coroners' inquests in certain cases to be held without a jury" [Juries Bill [Lords.]
    And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Company; and for other purposes" [Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords.]

    PRIVATE BUSINESS.
    Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, That the proceedings on the Education. Bill, if under discussion at Eleven of the clock this night, be not interrupted under Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

EMIGRATION [EXPENSES].
Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 4th June.]
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
Adjourned Debate resumed on Amendment to Question (3rd June),
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all Expenses of the Central Emigration Authority constituted under any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment and powers of a Central Emigration Authority, and for other purposes relative thereto"—[Mr. Hewins.]
Which Amendment was, at the end of the Question, to add the words "not exceeding two thousand pounds in any year" —[Mr. Holt]
Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
Mr. LEIF JONES: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "two," and to insert the word "ten."
I confess I hoped that after what happened last night the Undersecretary would have risen to-day to say that he was prepared to put in the £10,000 which he himself named yesterday as being the outside expenditure of the new body in the coming year. I am very glad that the Government have put this question down as the first Order of the Day, because it will enable the House to determine what is, after all, a very simple question of principle, which is whether, when the House is setting up new Departments to which it is entrusting large and somewhat vague powers, necessarily undefined in great measure because the Department has not yet got to work, it will place any limit whatever to the expenditure which may be incurred by that body without any direct sanction of Parliament. On the question of principle, the Government have really decided this question already.
1600
No longer ago than last Thursday the Leader of the House gave expression to the views of the Government on this question. He was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) whether he would put in a limiting figure to the expenditure which might be incurred in connection with the War Savings Certificates. The Leader of the House said, in reply:
"I think it would be impossible to put in any limit, though I quite recognise that where it can be done it should certainly be done."
That is the verdict of the Leader of the House on this question, that where it can be done it should be done, and that is why I did confidently expect my hon. Friend to tell us to-day that he would be prepared to do it. At any rate, I am going to ask the House to test this matter. My hon. Friend has stated that £10,000 is his limit, and I move, as an Amendment to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt), that we insert £10,000 instead of £2.000 as the limit of expenditure, so that the Department will have full power to spend during the year the £10,000 which the Under-Secretary for the Colonies states will be the outside limit of that expenditure. I want to call the attention of the Committee to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said last night:
"One hon. Member has mentioned £50,000 a year as the cost. There is not the slightest intention or expectation or desire to go anywhere near that, and if the expenditure in the first year runs into £10,000 it would be greatly in excess of what is considered likely."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1918, col. 1543.
That is the Government's own estimate of the probable, or possible, expenditure in the new Department in the coming year, and I therefore suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should accept the figure of £10,000, and if next year he finds that figure insufficient, it is very easy for him to come down to the House and ask for larger powers of spending for the new Department. There will be no unwillingness on the part of this House to grant money for purposes of which it approves in connection with this new Department, and I think the purposes will very likely be such as the House will approve; but I do claim that the House ought to be consulted before costly experiments are-entered into by new Departments, and by putting in this limit the House would secure that. The House has shown itself greatly concerned lately about the expenditure of new Departments, and the

1601
investigations of the Committee have shown that it is very necessary this matter should be gone into. My hon. Friend tells me that seven Departments have sat upon this particular Bill he is introducing, and I do not know whether we may take it, if left to themselves, the ordinary expenditure of the new Department will be seven times multiplied if seven Departments get to work upon it. I put it to the Committee that it is really useless for the Committee to complain after the event of the expenditure of a new Department if, when you are setting up a new Department with unknown powers, you give it unlimited powers of expenditure. I confidently ask the Committee to insert the limit of £10,000 which my hon. Friend himself has mentioned.
Mr. T. WILSON: Last night I spoke against this Money Resolution, and to-day I am prepared to vote for fixing the amount the Department is to spend. Anybody going through the accounts of new Departments must feel satisfied that there must be some limitation to the spending powers of Departments, and I cannot see why the hon. Member should not accept the Amendment to the Amendment, and so guard against the new Department following in the footsteps of other Departments and going in for spending recklessly and extravagantly. I said last night that a Department created only a few months ago was spending at the rate of £1,250,000 a year.
The CHAIRMAN: We are not now on the question of the Amendment, but only on the Amendment to the Amendment, whether the figure should be "two" or "ten." We had better dispose of that.
Mr. WILSON: I was going to say that the Amendment to the Amendment is an extremely generous offer to the Government. The hon. Gentleman said last night that £10,000 was quite sufficient for the first year, and, that being so, I do hope the Committee will back up those Members who are in favour of economy in these directions. Therefore, I have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting the Amendment to the Amendment.
Mr. HOLT: I moved the original Amendment, and I say at once that I do not object to the Amendment to the Amendment. I think I can show that the figures really come to very much the same thing. When I fixed on the figure £2,000 I was assuming that the Committee upstairs would strike out from the Bill all
1602
that power which relates to the transfer of powers from the Board of Trade to the new authority. Therefore, the figure was fixed upon the basis that the new authority would be confined to the additional work proposed by the Bill. If I understand the £10,000 is to include the work done at present by the Board of Trade and to be transferred to the new authority I have no objection to £10,000.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed, "That the words 'not exceeding ten thousand pounds in any year' be there added."
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): I think the Committee will agree that on two occasions, when I was pressed on this Money Resolution, I explained the factors we shall have to take into account, and which prevent an estimate of the exact figure of expenditure. The Bill itself distinctly provides machinery with which this business of emigration will be carried on. On the grounds on which the Bill is brought forward, it will lead to economy rather than to increase of expense in the management of machinery. But when you say, "Will you put a limit in the Bill; will you fix the exact sum?" I must again repeat the reasons which I gave last night why that is extremely undesirable, and, in fact, impossible. We are not dealing with normal facts. If you are going to have a precise estimate for the purpose of inserting a figure in the Bill, you must have something like normal conditions upon which you can base your calculation. We really do not know that at all. We are in a time of war. We do not know what is the amount of business this new Department will have to transact. We do not know what will be the precise staff.
The question was raised last night of what estimate was possible. There were suggestions differing widely about this, and I gave the figure of £10,000 as the amount of ordinary expenditure which might be normally expected on a Bill like this. When there is considered the character of the machinery that is to be set up, during the first year I should have thought this new central authority would have to be considering what schemes would have to be brought forward, the question of policy and plans, rather than engage in expenditure. That is why we want to settle on an authority now, so that we may be ready when the War ends,

1603
and I think the House might have reasonable confidence we should not expend a great amount of money. I am entirely of the view of hon. Members who have spoken about the necessity of insisting on economy. I, personally, am dead against any idea that emigration, or anything else, is to form the occasion for lax expenditure, and there is no one who has insisted more than I have on the desirability of the House of Commons being taken into full confidence with regard to schemes which involve national expenditure. That is the spirit in which we are approaching this Bill, and the object of the Bill is to secure that when we have to deal with these after-war problems we shall have carefully thought out the schemes, rather than leave it all to chaos and chance and do things hurriedly, which, as all my hon. Friends know, has led during the War to expenditure which we all deplore. With these explanations, I must object to putting in not only £10,000 but any limit at all.
4.0 p.m.
Mr. C. ROBERTS: I am bound to say that my hon. Friend has completed the case in favour of the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. If there has been any doubt left in my own mind that it was desirable to have this limit he himself has convinced me that it is absolutely necessary.
"There is not,">
he said last night,
"the slightest intention, expectation, or desire of going anywhere near the sum of £50,000. If the expenditure in the first year runs into £10,000 it would be greatly in excess of what is considered likely."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1918, col 1543.]
That is his intention. He is not going to spend £10,000, and he does not think it likely that such a sum will be spent. But there is something, some of us suggest, in this Bill extensive and expensive that in spite of his intention—
Mr. HEWINS: Not in the Bill, but in the War conditions.
Mr. ROBERTS: In the War conditions ! In the conditions of the time! How the conditions of the time are going to cause expenditure under this Bill I fail to see. In spite of his intentions, in spite of his expectations, in spite of the confident anticipations with which he attempts to beguile the House of Commons, there is something which is going really to expand, and we are going to
1604
have one of these new expenditures, and that is really the meaning of it. I suppose there is a new Minister or two concealed in this Bill. I really think that the Government have been so casual and so reckless in its development of Departments; they have been so lavish, so profuse, and so profligate in their provision of new Departments that it is time that the House of Commons asserted its power over these matters.
Mr. HEWINS: The hon. Member was not present on Friday when we considered the Second Reading of the Bill. I then explained that the Chairman of the new authority would be the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
Mr. ROBERTS: I was present during some part of the time. At all events I really think it is time that the House of Commons controlled these Departments. This is a very good opportunity for us to assert ourselves. Unless we do, I am quite certain that this reckless extravagance and waste of public money, which we all know and deplore, will never be checked. It is quite true that when the strings of economy are loosened money is poured out like water, and everybody goes recklessly, casually, and carelessly to work. It is on these grounds that I think this is a very good opportunity, and I trust the House of Commons will at least assert a little control in this matter.
Mr. HOGGE: I shall vote against any money for the purpose of making this Bill effective, and I shall certainly support the limitation of the amount to £10,000. The House ought to remember that this Bill got its Second Reading on Friday afternoon when it was almost impossible to have forty Members present. That Bill, for which my hon. Friend is now asking this financial Resolution, was submitted to a body of this House of more than twelve or fourteen of its entire strength. I think that in all conscience £10,000 is enough to give this Department for the purpose of attempting to emigrate to the Colonies discharged men. For this reason: We have in operation now in this country, through other Departments, the power to settle these men in this country. We have granted money to these Departments for settling them on the land in England and in Scotland. The colonies have been bought or rented. They are not really full. There are but few of the possible men on any one of these.
The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is getting away from the point.
Mr. HOGGE: I am addressing myself to the point as to whether we ought to give £10,000 for the purpose of carrying out work which is now being done here. I will try, Mr. Whitley, to keep within the rules of order, as, I submit very respectfully, I usually do, and I submit to your ruling if I am out of order. But my point is this: We are being asked for the purposes of this Bill to expend £10,000 to emigrate men for whom ample provision has already been made in this country. They are not placed because they are not there to place. The House must bear in mind that this is a Bill to deal with men who are in many cases still fighting in this War. This Bill, therefore, is not required until the War is over. Nobody on the Front Bench can say on what date this Bill will be operative. I will illustrate my difficulty: I have, for instance, tried to get a man's pension commuted in order to allow him to emigrate to the Colonies—
The CHAIRMAN: Really, this is only a Money Resolution saying what are the conditions and what the limit under which the Committee shall be empowered to entertain the proposals in the Bill. On these occasions we cannot enter into the merits or the needs of the Bill. The House has already read the Bill a second time.
Mr. HOGGE: I will complete what I have to say in a second by saying this: I shall vote, first of all, for the £10,000; afterwards I shall oppose it altogether, because this is a Bill to provide for the emigration of people who are not here to emigrate.
Major WOOD: The whole tone of the speech of my hon. Friend in charge of the Bill was so strangely out of harmony with the conclusions he put forward that I feel I must ask him one question. With us he feels that it is not an unreasonable function of the House of Commons to exercise as firm a control over finance as it can do. It would appear to me that it is just about the only useful function left to the House, and the strain on Members is somewhat high if they are to be told that even that function is to be withdrawn, from them. My question is, "What reason is there, other than the forms of the House—which, as we all know, can be perfectly well got round—
1606
why my hon. Friend should not accept this proposed Amendment to limit the expenditure to £10,000, for if he finds he wants more money he can perfectly well come to this House and ask for it?" Unless I, for one, have a much better explanation than we have yet heard why this Amendment cannot be accepted, I shall certainly support the £10,000.
Colonel Sir C. SEELY: I shall support this Amendment in regard to the £10,000 largely for the reasons that have been given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down. During this time of war the only thing on which money can be spent is on the salaries of officials to guide and govern these intending emigrants! Anyone who has read anything about the history of English Colonies, and as to why English Colonies have been successful and German and other colonies have been great failures, knows that one of the great reasons for the success of English and the failure of other colonies have been the fact that English Colonies—
HON. MEMBERS: British Colonies!
Sir C. SEELY: — well, British Colonies!—have had few officials, and foreign colonies have had many officials. It, therefore, seems to me that at the time the only use that can be made of this money is to appoint officials! It is a well-known fact that for the purposes of emigration and the founding of Colonies officials are constantly doing a great deal more harm than good. It will be very wise, indeed, of this House to put a limit upon the amount that can be spent now, more particularly because, as has been pointed out by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has just spoken that if a larger sum of money is required for the purpose—to be given to the men who have fought for us—there will be no difficulty in coming to the House and applying for it. This House would not for a moment stand in the way. The only object of having an unlimited amount in this Resolution is in order to enable an unlimited amount of money to be spent on officials; it is no good to the men to whom we want to give it. The officials will regulate, control, and interfere with, and as a matter of fact injure, emigration, which it is the intention, our intention, and that of everybody else, to promote. I would, therefore, press the House very strongly to insist upon this

1607
limitation of the amount that is required, for it can always be altered if it is necessary.
Mr. HEWINS: In answer to the question of my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Major Wood), I think, with a fair amount of experience of inquiries and investigations, I may say that if hon. Members will look at Clause 2 and see what the Bill is to do, they will agree that it is really quite impossible at the time to state precisely what the expenditure under the Bill for these necessary purposes of inquiry will be. I took the figure last night of £10,000, what we may call a normal figure, beyond which we are not likely to go. But we do not know at this present time, we have no idea at all, of the amount of investigation and organisation that has to be done to get any schemes of this kind in a condition to be brought forward for consideration. I do ask the House to give us some latitude in this Bill. I do not think the amount is at all likely to be exceeded, though there may be more expenses than I take it, because you may have to do the work in a very short time. We hope to secure our ends by co-operation with already existing bodies. Anybody who has had any experience at all of investigations, which, after all, in this case remember, cover the whole sphere of the British Empire, will, I am quite sure, realise that I am not asking for anything at all out of the way when I ask the House to give us a little latitude.
HON. MEMBERS: Name the sum!
Mr. HOLT: The hon. Member's speeches, although he tries to put forward a pleasant story, seem to make his extraordinary proposition more complicated. We all know perfectly well that war conditions prevail, but I do not accept these as an excuse for this expenditure. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that he did not know what were the schemes which he would be obliged to lay before Parliament. This was one of the reasons, he said, why he could not compute the expenses. Surely, if he is going to lay schemes before Parliament —the Bill does not instruct him to do so— those schemes will provide for themselves! Any scheme of the sort will have to have a Money Resolution for carrying it out. Coming to the duties to which the hon. Gentleman referred just now, let us see
1608
what the Bill says has to be done. "To collect information in relation to emigration." That does not cost a great deal.
HON. MEMBERS: The Board of Trade!
Mr. HOLT: Next, "to advise and assist intending emigrants." He tells us that to assist does not mean to pay their passages, but to advise and to assist intending emigrants, and to give advice and assistance to the Board of Trade; also to make an Annual Report to Parliament. I venture to say that for £10,000 it would be quite easy for the right hon. Gentleman or for any Member of the Treasury Bench to perform the whole of these functions to the best of their ability.
Mr. PRINGLE: I quite well understand why the hon. Gentleman refuses to accept this Amendment. He told us last night—I think with a qualification in his statement which has not been noticed—that if the expenditure in the first year ran into £10,000, it would be greatly in excess of what is considered likely. Consequently, when he spoke of £10,000, he was merely taking the probable expenditure of the first year, which is merely for investigation. It seems to me that if we are to contemplate extravagant expenditure at the rate of £10.000 simply for the purposes of investigation, what are we to expect when this new body is in the full exercise of all the powers conferred upon it by Clause 2 of the Bill? The Committee, therefore, would be well advised, it seems to me, to insist upon this limitation of £10,000. The hon. Gentleman has told us practically that we on the Back Benches who have never been associated with expensive political organisations have no idea what these researches cost. May I point out that we are at a stage at which we are considering problems of reconstruction, and if one thing is clear more than another it is that whatever has been the practice of the Government during the War in regard to reckless expenditure upon officials, in the period after the War the most rigid economy will have to be exercised? In these circumstances I think we should take this opportunity of, as it were, setting a standard. We all know the assertion of the Government is that there is to be a saving and a co-ordination of different Departments. The word "co-ordination" has become as blessed as many other catchwords to which we have

1609
been accustomed in the past; but if there is to be this saving, there should not be the slightest difficulty in fixing such a limit as my right hon. Friend proposes.
I do not desire to enter into the abstract merits of the proposal which is embodied in this Bill, but obviously this measure cannot come into operation for some time to come, and if the House allows this new body unlimited expenditure in the matter of its officials, we may take it that whatever provisions are made from the Treasury Bench that the new officials will grant salaries in proportion to their own idea of their merits and value to the State. We have had experience in matters of this kind which have been dealt with elsewhere. In the case of one of our new Departments I notice that salaries of £1,500 and £l,000 have been granted to all sorts of people who probably in their past careers never were fortunate enough to earn anything equal to those amounts. We shall have the same position of things in this new Department, and consequently if the House sets its face against extravagance of this kind, we may take it that the salaries will be placed upon a reasonable scale. We must also remember that at the present time, in appointing officials, the tendency will be to appoint them at salaries based upon the present period of inflation of prices, which is a very serious matter. We do not look forward to a continuance of inflated prices after the War. It is, therefore, important that we should see that the officials now being appointed to life posts should not to any great extent be paid upon this extravagant basis. The insertion of this limitation will, therefore, have an effect in reducing the scale of salaries as well as in limiting the number of officials appointed.
There is another reason why I think this limitation should be imposed. I believe it would result in a limitation of the number of officials. After all, in the immediate future, the work is to be one simply of inquiry. There is a Ministry in existence now whose sole duty it is to go into inquiries in respect of reconstruction. This question of emigration is essentially a reconstruction problem, and it is not necessary, it seems to me, to have a new Ministry to enter upon these inquiries regarding emigration, for they could obtain a large part of the necessary information from the officials connected with existing Departments, and conse-
1610
quently I believe it will be wasteful to have officials simply for the purpose of research. All that is needed for this purpose is a sort of skeleton organisation to send out to the people who know questionnaires asking for answers to particular questions regarding the position for emigration, its possibilities, and the number of people available for emigration.
The CHAIRMAN: These are questions which it would be more proper to discuss during the Committee stage of the Bill and not on this Resolution.
Mr. PRINGLE: I submit that the amount to be spent depends upon the amount of work to be performed, and if I am able to show that the actual work—
The CHAIRMAN: Quite so; but the proper place to do that is in Committee on the Bill. This Resolution will only set the limit within which further restrictions can be proposed in Committee.
Mr. PRINGLE: I do not desire to develop my point. I was only trying to show that the imposition of the limitation would prevent the initiation of extravagant schemes of research and inquiry, such as are apparently contemplated by the Government. I was simply dealing with the statement as to the costliness of these inquiries, and I was merely-desirous of pointing out that while it might be costly to have these researches made by new bodies set up independently for the first time, such inquiries need not be so costly when you have within the Government itself the means of ascertaining information, and therefore it only really requires co-operation between the different Departments. These seem to me to be absolutely conclusive reasons why the Committee should insist upon this limitation, and I hope hon. Members who have professed their ardour for economy will take this opportunity of showing the reality of their fervour by going into the Lobby in favour of this limitation.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I want to ask my hon. Friend a practical question. I knew nothing of this subject until I listened to the hon. Member's speech and the speeches opposing this proposal, and therefore I come to this particular discussion with something of an unprejudiced mind, although we know that unprejudiced minds in this House are very difficult to find. I understand from the remarks of my hon. Friend opposite

1611
on Friday last that the expenses which he asks for are merely for the first year of administration, and that these administrative expenses are to be confined to inquiries. The money he asks for is not for the actual emigration of men, and all that he is asking for is money to be spent upon inquiries.
Mr. HEWINS: And organisation.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Yes, and organisation. Surely these expenses must be something similar to those in the case of Royal Commissions. I have been at the trouble during the last ten or twelve minutes of looking at what was spent upon Royal Commissions last year, and I take it that they were very important inquiries, very much of the nature indicated by my hon. Friend opposite, and I find that with regard to the Sugar Supply Commission the cost last year was £680—
The CHAIRMAN: Really this is not relevant to the question of this Resolution. The sole question before us is whether or not there should be added to the proposed Resolution a limit of £10,000, and the question now being raised by the right hon. Gentleman is quite outside that proposal.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I was not going into the question of the duties of these various bodies. I was only going to name the sum which was spent by them as some indication of the sum which ought to be spent in regard to this proposal, and surely I am in order in doing that!
The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentlemen will recollect that this Resolution, whether it is in a limited or unlimited form, will have to appear in a Clause of the Bill, and it is when that Clause is in Committee that the specific cases now being raised by the right hon. Gentleman may be raised.
Mr. JONES: I moved a limit of £10,000 because I have had some experience in these matters. I have sat for some time as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and it has been our duty to investigate the expenditure of Royal Commissions and Committees of Inquiry, and in putting the sum at £10,000 I was guided by the fact that the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Resolution stated that sum, and also by knowing that £10,000 would enable extensive inquiries
1612
to be made and valuable results to be procured. That estimate was based upon the spending of other bodies, and if we are not allowed to refer to the spending of other bodies in this connection, I do not know how we can justify the selection of a sum of £10,000.
The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that his own speech had no interference from the Chair. Several occasions of this kind arise in the course of the Parliamentary year, and I have to guard myself on these points.
Major WOOD: Do I understand that this Resolution will appear in a Clause in the Bill?
The CHAIRMAN: If this Amendment is added, a similar Amendment will have to be inserted by the Government in a Clause in the Bill or else I shall not pass that Clause, and that is the occasion when further details of this character may be gone into.
Major WOOD: If this Resolution is not limited, do I understand that a Clause will still appear in the Bill on which it will be open to the Committee to deal with this point?
The CHAIRMAN: There is now a Money Clause in the Bill, and even if this Resolution is not limited now, an Amendment can be made in the Committee on the Bill inserting a limit of this or any other kind.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I accept that ruling, but I wish to point out to my hon. Friend opposite and to the House that a great number of inquiries are held every year covering every sort and kind of questions, such as the distribution of food, and matters of that sort, and in no case does the expenditure exceed the sum of £7,000. If that be the case, in regard to bodies such as Royal Commissions, surely the inquiries which my hon. Friend opposite wishes to institute in regard to emigration to the Colonies can be conducted for a sum not exceeding that which Royal Commissions spend making inquiries, not only in this country, but all over the Empire upon very similar objects? My hon. Friend mentioned the question of administration. If anything in the nature of special expenditure has to be met in excess of these inquiries, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell the Committee what those expenses are, and we could then judge whether they are

1613
extravagant or not. If they were at all extravagant, we can easily see from the speech of my hon. Friend that he himself would be the first to endeavour to get the Department to cut down unnecessary expenditure. I ask him if he cannot give that information to the Committee, and thus save us the trouble of going to a Division.
Mr. OUTHWAITE: I desire to support the Amendment, but, in view of your ruling, I find it very difficult to do so On the occasion of the Second Reading. we were not permitted by a ruling from the Chair to argue that this Bill was unnecessary, because opportunities would be given to the discharged soldiers in this country. When this Amendment was moved, I thought it would afford an opportunity of pointing out that if the objects of the Bill were as stated by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill the sum of £10,000 would be sufficient for the purpose. If one is not permitted to argue on those lines, he may appear in the position of one wishing to wreck the Bill. I wish to say that this £10,000 will be sufficient, but I do not want to appear in the public eye as one who merely wishes to wreck a Bill which is introduced for a useful purpose. If the Bill is limited to the purposes set forth by the hon. Gentleman, I hold that £10,000 will be more than sufficient, but if, on the other hand, it is proposed under the unlimited powers of the Bill to extend its operations vastly, then a sum far greater than £10,000 will be required. I think the House should set this limit of £10,000 so as to keep the hon. Gentleman within the purposes that he has set forth as being those of the Bill. We quite clearly see that he might spend £10,000 on set ting up the organisation. We might then have a cessation of hostilities and have millions of men discharged. If we do not have this limitation, he might operate this Bill by an Order in Council, or a Proclamation, and he might proceed to spend millions of money in sending discharged men out of this country. It is therefore essential in order to keep control upon the operations under the Bill to pass this limitation which we propose.
Sir D. GODDARD: There is evidently considerable fear in the minds of many members of the Committee that the Resolution in its present limitless form may be a source of great danger. Those fears have been largely augmented by the
1614
speech of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, because in the first instance he said that he could not accept this Amendment of £10,000, and then he went on to say that he could not accept any limit whatever. Those were the words that he used. That seems to open the door exceedingly wide, and, although it was followed by some very valuable suggestions on the score of economy which should be practised by this House, I think we should have taken more thought of those words on economy if there had been a little more practice available. When we remember that this is only for the expenditure of the first year and that as this movement developes and expands it will be the easiest thing in the world for a larger amount to be put forward in the Estimates to cover any future expenses, there does not seem to be the slightest reason why a certain limit, at all events, should not be put on the expenditure of the first year. I am not going to debate whether £10,000 is the right limit or not. I take it that it was put forward because it was the figure mentioned by the hon. Gentleman as likely to exceed anything that might be expended, and I do not think it is right to pass this Resolution without inserting some limit.
The CHAIRMAN: I really think that I must explain further to the Committee. This is not a Vote at all. Each year, including the first year, under this Resolution, the moneys to be voted must be brought before Parliament. I think it my duty to make that plain to the Committee. This is not voting any money whatsoever.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: On the point f Order. You tell us that this is not the vote of any money, but, if the Amendment to the Resolution is carried, then surely a sum of money limited in extent would be voted by this House, and that sum would not exceed £10,000!
The CHAIRMAN: That is exactly where I am sure the Committee does not apprehend the point. The right hon. Gentleman has been at the Treasury. The words "provided by Parliament" mean brought forward in the Estimates each year and authorised by Parliament. That must be clearly in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. L. JONES: On the point of Order. I do not think the Committee is under any misapprehension. Under the

1615
Amendment, as I understood it when I moved it—that it would not be open to the Department, supposing the Committee passes this Bill in any shape, to spend more than £10,000 in any year on the purposes of the Bill. That would be the effect of it. If we do not carry my Amendment, it will be open to them to spend to any extent. Subsequently that expenditure may or may not be submitted to the House. It may come out of the Vote of Credit, the terms of which are very wide, and the House may find itself confronted with very large expenditure which has never been submitted to it and only comes before it two years afterwards in the Appropriation Bill.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: You have been good enough to say that I was at the Treasury, and that I am mistaken in the form of this Resolution. I ventured to assert that if the Amendment were carried the sum of money which would be provided by the House would be limited to £10,000. The words of the Amendment are these:
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament a sum not exceeding £10,000 in any year."
That means that the House will be recommended to provide a sum not exceeding £10,000. Surely that will be the effect of carrying this Amendment! It will not sanction the expenditure, but it will recommend the House to provide a sum subsequently to be inserted in the Estimates and to be sanctioned by the Appropriation Bill.
The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is really wrong there. It is not the effect of any of these Money Resolutions. They are merely preliminary to any stage of a Bill involving money, and the discussion is going quite outside its proper limits, because of the very misapprehension which has evidently been in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, that this, as it were, is a Vote in Supply.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I am very sorry to press the Chair, but I do not wish to be misunderstood. What I ventured to say was that if this Amendment were carried it would be a recommendation by the Committee to the House to provide a sum. Surely the words "That it is expedient to authorise the payment" are a recommendation by the Committee to somebody, and that somebody is the House.
The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman himself has proposed so many of these Resolutions from the other side of the House that he must know that although those words "it is expedient to authorise" are used it is the ancient usage that nothing involving a charge may proceed in a Bill except it be originated in Committee of the whole House in this way, but beyond that the effect of this Resolution does not go.
Mr. HOLT: On the point of Order. The Financial Resolution which is in the Bill reads as follows:
"All expenses of the authority under this Act, including any such salaries and remuneration aforesaid, to such amount ns may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament."
If these limiting words are inserted in the Resolution, they will also have to be inserted in the Bill, and the effect will be that it will foe illegal for the Treasury in the first instance to sanction a sum in excess of £10,000.
The CHAIRMAN: That is absolutely right. There is no need to debate this point any further. The only thing would be that without another Bill, not a Vote in Supply, the amount of £10,000 could not be exceeded.
Captain BARNETT: I rise as a loyal supporter of His Majesty's Government to appeal to my hon. Friend the Undersecretary to accept this Amendment. I strongly sympathise with his desire for elasticity. He has got a new Department, and it is impossible to tell exactly what the demands of that Department will be, but I ask my hon. Friend to accept the assurance already given him that if more money is wanted he has only got to come down to the House and the House will generously honour any claim that he puts forward. I trust my hon. Friend will see his way to accept this Amendment. If he does not, I shall reluctantly vote in the Lobby with him, because I hope I have got sufficient sense of political perspective not to invite a disaster of the first magnitude on this question. In view of the opinion on both sides of the House that the House of Commons has lost control of finance, it is natural that an Amendment like this should be seized upon in order to assert a perfectly right and proper principle, and my hon. Friend must simply regard his Bill as the corpus vile upon which this experiment of the reinforcement of our financial

1617
power is being tried, and not think that it is in any hostility to him or to the Colonial Office which he so ably represents, that he is urged to accept the Amendment.
Captain STANLEY WILSONrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
The CHAIRMANwithheld his consent, and declined then to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.
Mr. WHYTE: The rulings which you have given will make it appear to anyone reading this Debate to-morrow that very narrow issues are at stake, and that in advancing arguments for or against this Amendment those who have spoken have had to take very narrow ground, but the issue itself is not narrow. There are very few occasions upon which it is possible for the House to reclaim any part of that financial control which it has so largely lost during the War, and upon this occasion what the Committee asks is that there should be on the part of the Government a statutory recognition of the need for some limit. The guarantee which has been offered by the Minister in charge of the Bill is that he personally lays his hand on his heart and says, "I am a great apostle of economy; indeed, I am a professor of economy." Political economy is one thing; economy is quite another thing. I am not at all surprised, after the experience of the last four years, that the Committee should take any opportunity, even an apparently small opportunity, of asserting its right to control expenditure. Therefore, though the issue seems to be narrow, the principle at stake is not narrow, and though the gate which the Under-Secretary has opened to an avenue of expenditure may be small, if one may judge from the speeches made on the Second Reading, the avenue he invites us to enter upon is by no means short. It is on this ground that there is a considerable degree of uneasiness. It may seem a petty thing to challenge the right of the Government to spend £10,000 or £50,000 at a moment when we are spending £7,000,000 a day, but the Committee is still within its rights, and is acting with a due sense of the political importance of the issue at stake, when it insists that the Government should recognise some limit of expenditure in regard to a question of this kind.
Mr. MOLTENO: I would urge the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Resolution to
1618
accept this limiting Amendment. I have been a supporter of economy in this House and have very frequently heard the Government use the tu quoque argument that the House is always urging them to make expenditure—that in the aggregate hon. Members press them to economise, but individually press them to pile up expenditure. Here is a clear case of the Government forcing expenditure on the House of Commons. They are asking for expenditure without limit. The arguments used by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Resolution are such as compel us to go to a vote on this question. He has told us that the cost might be so great that he could not even say that £1,000,000 would be enough. He would put no limit on the expenditure. That is exactly what the House of Commons wants to do. It wants to impose a reasonable limit, and it has taken the limit which the hon. Gentleman has given us as being reasonable. Therefore the Committee is quite reasonable in urging him to accept his own limit. There seems to have been some confusion as to the Resolution and the effect of the Amendment. If we insert a limit, the Government will be unable to spend more than the sum named. That is the right thing to do when such vast Votes of Credit are passed and we do not know what may be spent out of them. The Amendment reduces the matter to a comparatively small compass and will not allow the door to be opened to indefinite and unlimited expenditure. I want to give the Government some better inducement to accept the Amendment than was given by the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain Barnett), who, although be supported the Amendment, said he should support the Government in the Lobby. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that if ho does not accept the Amendment I shall go into the Lobby and vote against him.
Mr. D. MASON: From the answer given: by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Resolution it would appear that he is basing his view of the matter on the protests which have been made on previous Financial Resolutions relating to the Insurance Bill and other measures, when the House protested against an unlimited amount of expenditure being authorised. That may account for the puzzling attitude of the Under-Secretary. In the case of those Bills there was a limit to the expenditure in the measures them

1619
selves. For instance, in the Insurance Bill there were specified amounts to be expended on certain things, so that one could estimate more or less the amount involved. This Bill contains no limit. Actually the Committee is asked to, give an unlimited Vote of Credit. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that. He himself said that he does not anticipate the expenditure will go up to £50,000. If it can go up to £50,000, it can go up to £1,000,000. This is an unheard-of proposal. To ask us to give an unlimited vote for emigration is to ask the Committee to support an absurd proposal. I would urge the hon. Gentleman to reconsider it.
General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: I hope the Under-Secretary will take this matter again into consideration. I certainly wish to support the Government in every way, but it is not right for the hon. Gentleman to put this great strain upon our loyalty. Why should he? We want to
give him all the money he wants, but we refuse to give him a blank cheque. Let him get up and name any figure and I believe the Committe would accept it at once. We object to giving him a blank cheque because blank cheques are not always returned to the House of Commons like they are at the Ministry of Munitions. We do not like them. The Undersecretary is trying us rather hard. If he wants £50,000, put in the £50,000. Will £20,000 suit him, or will £30,000 suit him? If so; let the figure be put in. But the Committee will not give him a blank cheque. Although I am a strong supporter of the Government I object very much to my loyalty being tested in this way, and I shall certainly vote for the Amendment unless the Under-Secretary gives way.
Question put, "That the words 'not exceeding ten thousand pounds in any year' be there added."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 129.

Division No. 49.]

AYES.

[4.53 p.m.

Agnew, Sir George William

Hinds, John

Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham

Anderson, William C.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. H.

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Baker, Rt. Hon. Harold T. (Accrington)

Hogge, James Miles

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rowlands, James

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rowntree, Arnold

Barton, Sir William

Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Bentham, George Jackson

John, Edward Thomas

Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)

Birrell. Rt. Hon. Augustine

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Booth, Frederick Handel

Jowett, Frederick William

Snowden, Philip

Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

Kenyon, Barnet

Somervell, William Henry

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Taylor, John w. (Durham)

Cator, John

Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Chancellor, Henry George

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M (Falk.B'ghs)

Thomas, Rt. Hon. James Henry (Derby)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

Maden, Sir John Henry

Toulmin, Sir George

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Mallalieu, Frederick William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)

Manfield, Harry

Walters, Sir John Tudor

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Wedgwood, Lt.-Commander Josiah

Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Mason, Robert

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Molteno, Percy Alport

Whitehouse, John Howard

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Morrell, Philip

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas p.

Galbraith, Samuel

Outhwaite R. L.

Whyte. Alexander F.

Gilbert, J. D.

Parrott, Sir James Edward

Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

Partington, Hon. Oswald

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

Goldstone, Frank

Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

Philipps, Maj.-Gen.Sir Ivor(S'hampton)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Haslam, Lewis

Priestley. Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Yeo, Sir Alfred William

Hayward, Evan

Pringle, William M. Ft.

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Holt and Mr. Leif Jones.

Hill, Sir James (Bradford, C.)

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Barnett, Captain R. W.

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Barnston, Major Harry

Bigland, Alfred

Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Bird, Alfred

Astor, Hon. Waldorf

Beach, William F. H.

Boles, Lieut-Colonel Dennis Fortesous

Baird, John Lawrence

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Boyton, Sir James

Baldwin, Stanley

Bellairs Commander C. W.

Brace, Rt. Hon. William

Bull, Sir William James

Hickman Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

Pulley, C. T.

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hills, John Waller

Randies, Sir John S.

Butcher, Sir John George

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

Cecil Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.

Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Robinson, Sidney

Cowan, Sir W. H.

Joynson-Hicks, William

Rutherford, Col. Sir J.(Lancs.,Darwen)

Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, E.)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

Craik. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Larmor, Sir J.

Samuels, Arthur W.

Currie, George W.

Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

Davles, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lindsay, William Arthur

Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Spear, Sir John Ward

Denniss, E. R. B.

Lonsdale, James R.

Spicer, Rt. Hon. sir Albert

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

Stanley, Rt.Hon.Sir A.H.(Asht'n-u-Lyne)

Du Pre, Major W. Baring

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Stanton, Charles Butt

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

McCalmont, Brig. Gen. Robert C. A.

Stewart, Gershom

Faber, Col. W. V. (Hants, W.)

MacCaw, Win. J. MacGeagh

Stoker, R, B.

Fell, Sir Arthur

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St.Augustine's)!

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Forster, Rt. Hon. Henry William

Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-

Thomas, Sir A. G. (Monmouth, S.)

Foster, Philip Staveley

Mond, Rt. Hon, Sir Alfred

Tickler, T. G.

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

Walker, Colonel William Hall

Gilmour, Lieut-Col. John

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

Whiteley, Sir H. J.

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

Hamersley, Lt.-Col. Alfred St. George

Norton Griffiths, Sir J.

Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J. (K'ton)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

Harmood-Banner. Sir J. S

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Pike(Darl'gton) |

Wilson-Fox, Henry

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton. Beds)

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, s.)

Perkins, Walter Frank

Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Peto, Basil Edward

Younger, Sir George

Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

Philipps, Captain Sir Owen (Chester)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Lord E.

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Pratt, J. W.

Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question again proposed.
Mr. PRINGLE: In view of the Division which has just been taken, I think the Government would be well advised to adjourn any further discussion, with a view to reconsidering their position. Clearly a very large number of Members of the House honestly wish to place a limit on the expenditure under this Bill. The Division has been taken in regard to a limit of £10,000, but it is not—
The CHAIRMAN: This question cannot be reopened at this stage.
Mr. PR INGLE: Would it not be possible for the Government itself to propose a larger sum, say a limit of £20,000?
The CHAIRMAN: That should have been brought up as an Amendment to the Amendment. The point has been disposed of for this stage.
Colonel COLLINS: Would it be out of order for the Government to move a limit of, say, £50,000?
Mr. PRINGLE: Before a Division is taken on the main Question, surely the Government might take the opportunity of making some announcement as to their views with regard to this matter of limitation. Such an announcement would be a
1622
guidance to the Committee, for, after all, this Bill is to go upstairs, and be fought out there. I hope the Government will reconsider their position.
The CHAIRMAN: The question really cannot be reopened now, either by the Government or by any hon. Member.
Mr. L. JONES: Although it may not be in order for the Government to reopen the question, surely it is open to them to withdraw the Resolution, which clearly has little support in the Committee, and they could introduce another Resolution which would embody views which, on further consideration, may occur to their mind.
Mr. PRINGLE: I will move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"
Mr. D. MASON: I understand it is ruled that it is not possible to amend the finance Resolution now, but surely the Government might make an announcement which would meet the case.
The CHAIRMAN: The Government cannot amend the Finance Clause. The Committee can do so, but this is not the proper occasion.
Mr. JONES: On a point of Order. Would it not be in order for the Govern-

1623
ment to withdraw this Resolution and to introduce another Financial Resolution in different terms?
The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.
Mr. PRINGLE: I move, "That you do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," and I think the Division we have just had justifies the adoption of that course.
The CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept that Motion; I do not feel justified in doing so.
Mr. HOGGE: I stated, on a previous occasion, when I was not quite in order, my reasons for opposing this Resolution, and I propose to repeat them, without, however, occupying much time. I will again point out to the Committee that at the present moment there is in this country ample power possessed by the Government to secure sufficient land for the purposes aimed at by this Bill—for the settlement of discharged men. We have had Reports from the Government from time to time—
The CHAIRMAN: I have already said, at an earlier stage, that that argument is not permissible on the present occasion.
Mr. HOGGE: I understand you to rule that the arguments I am using now are not the correct arguments to be used on this occasion, although my proposal is not itself out of order. My point is that the Government should not be given any money for the purposes of this Bill, and that, I take it, is quite in order. But I understand you to say further that in speaking on that point I am not at liberty to refer to the question of the settlement of soldiers in this country?
The CHAIRMAN: This Resolution does not give any money to the Government or anyone else; it simply empowers the Committee on the Bill to consider the proposal.
Mr. HOGGE: I contend we ought not to give the Government power to take any money for the purposes of this Bill. It is one thing to let the Government have access to money in order to conduct an investigation such as my hon. Friend suggested in one of his earlier speeches in order to see what can be done under this Bill, but there is ample provision in other Ministries for this purpose, and again I say we ought not to allow the Government to have access to any money
1624
for the purpose of carrying out a Bill which in our opinion will be absolutely worthless and which also is absolutely unnecessary, seeing that ample provision is already made under other Acts applying to this country and to the Colonies.
Mr. C. ROBERTS: It apparently is in the power of the Government to withdraw this Resolution and to bring forward another. There has already been a great waste of public time, owing to my hon. Friend's persistence in this course. Surely it would be better for the Government to defer to what is obviously the sense of this Committee, and if they do so it will tend to smooth the path of this Bill and lighten future discussions; otherwise we shall certainly have to discuss this question again. I hope the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will recognise what is the obvious intention of the Committee.
Mr. HEWINS: I have already done my best to explain our position in connection with this Resolution. There really is nothing we can give way on at this moment, but between now and the Report stage I shall be very willing to consider the views which have been put forward, subject to the condition that we shall not be hampered in carrying out the objects of the Bill.
Mr. OUTHWAITE: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is not quite willing to accept the limitation. But that is not the only matter with which we are concerned. I desire to support my hon. Friend in the view that this House ought not to grant any money at all for the purposes of this Bill, and I wish to point out that so far as the policy set forth in this Bill is concerned it can be carried out without the expenditure of public money, as those Colonies which desire to attract emigrants can really do the whole of the work proposed to be done by this Bill. It' must be remembered it is not possible to send emigrants out unless the Colonies desire to receive them. It is on these grounds that I oppose the expenditure of any money.
Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to gather exactly what was said by the Undersecretary for the Colonies as to the intentions of the Government. I understood him to say that the Government will consider this matter before the Report stage of the Resolution and that they will endeavour to meet the views of the Committee in so far as that can be done with-

1625
out hampering the operations of the Bill. [Mr. HEWINS indicated assent.] I think it is due to the hon. Gentleman to say that our assiduity and persistence in this matter is largely attributable to the appeal made on a recent occasion by the Leader of the House for help from the House in matters of economy. It is really owing to the advice of the right hon. Gentleman that we pressed our views on the Undersecretary, but in view of the promise he has made—a promise for which I desire to thank him personally—I would suggest to my hon. Friends who are considering the advisability of dividing on the Resolution, that they might now well abstain from taking that course.
Resolved,
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all Expenses of the Central Emigration Authority constituted under any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment and powers of a Central Emigration Authority, and for other purposes relative thereto."
Main Question put, and agreed to; Resolution to be reported upon Friday.

EDUCATION BILL
Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 30th May,]
[Sir D. MACLEAN in the Chair.]
CLAUSE 10.—(Compulsory Attendance at Continuation Schools.)
(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, all young persons shall attend such continuation schools at such times, on such days, as the local education authority of the area in which they reside may require, for three hundred and twenty hours in each year, or, in the case of a period of less than a year, for such number of hours as the local education authority, having regard to all the circumstances, consider reasonable:
Provided that at any time after the expiration of five years from the appointed day the Board of Education may, after such inquiry as they think fit, and after consulting the local education authority, by Order increase in respect of any area or part of an area or any young persons or classes of young persons the number of hours of attendance at continuation schools required under this Act, and this Section shall, as respects the area to which, or the young persons to whom, the Order applies, have effect as if the number of hours specified in the Order were substituted for three hundred and twenty; but no such Order shall be made until a draft thereof has lain for no less than thirty days on the Table of each House of Parliament.
(2) Any young person—

(i) who is above the age of fourteen years on the appointed day, or

1626

(ii) who is above the age of sixteen years, and either—

(a) has passed the matriculation examination of a university of the United Kingdom or an examination recognised by the Board of Education for the purposes of this Section as equivalent thereto;

(b) is shown to the satisfaction of the local education authority to have been up to the age of sixteen under full-time instruction in a school recognised by the Board of Education as efficient or under suitable and efficient full-time instruction in some other manner,

shall be exempt from the obligation to attend continuation schools under this Act unless he has informed the authority in writing of his desire to attend such schools and the authority have prescribed what school he shall attend.

(3) The obligation to attend continuation schools under this Act shall not apply to any young person—

(i) who is shown to the satisfaction of the local education authority to be under full-time instruction in a school recognised by the Board of Education as efficient or to be under suitable and efficient full-time instruction in some other manner, or

(ii) who is shown to the satisfaction of the local education authority to be under suitable and efficient part-time instruction in some other manner for a number of hours in the year (being hours during which if not exempted he might be required to attend continuation schools) equal to the number of hours during which a young person is required under this Act to attend a continuation school.

(4) If a young person, who is or has been in any school or educational institution, or the parent of any such young person, represents to the Board that the young person is entitled to exemption under the provisions of this Section, or that the obligation imposed by this Section does not apply to him, by reason that he is or has been under suitable and efficient instruction, but that the local education authority have unreasonably refused to accept the instruction as satisfactory, the Board of Education shall consider the representation, and, if satisfied that the representation is well founded, shall make an Order declaring that the young person is exempt from the obligation to attend a continuation school under this Act for such period and subject to such conditions as may be named in the Order:
Provided that the Board of Education may refuse to consider any such representation unless the local education authority or the Board of Education are enabled to inspect the school or educational institution in which the instruction is or has been given.
(5) The local education authority may require in the case of any young person who is under an obligation to attend a continuation school that his employment shall be suspended on any day when his attendance is required, not only luring the period for which he is required to attend the school, but also for such other specified part of the day, not exceeding two hours, as the authority consider necessary in order to secure that he may be in a fit mental

1627
and bodily condition to receive full benefit from attendance at the school: Provided that, if any question arises between the local education authority and the employer of a young person whether a requirement made under this Sub-section is reasonable for the purposes aforesaid, that question shall be determined by the Board of Education, and if the Board of Education determine that the requirement is unreasonable they may substitute such other requirement as they think reasonable.
(6) The local education authority shall not require any young person to attend a continuation school on a Sunday, or on any day or part of a day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which he belongs, or during any holiday or half-holiday to which by any enactment regulating his employment or by agreement he is entitled, nor so far as practicable during any holiday or half-holiday which in his employment he is accustomed to enjoy, nor between the hours of seven in the evening and eight in the morning: Provided that the local education authority may, with the approval of the Board, vary those hours in the case of young persons employed at night or otherwise employed at abnormal times.
Amendment moved (30th May), in Subsection (1), after the word "require," to insert the word "either."—[Sir Henry Hibbert.]
Question again proposed, "That the word 'either' be there inserted."
Sir HENRY HIBBERT: As there are consequential Amendments standing in my name on the Paper, I conclude the discussion on all of them can be taken now. I wish to make it perfectly clear to the members of this Committee that I have no desire whatever to wreck this Bill. I make this statement because the newspapers have been full of criticisms of the action I have taken in bringing this Amendment forward. I further wish to point out that if my Amendment is carried those who believe in the Clause as it stands, who believe in education in day continuation schools for eight hours per week for forty weeks per annum and for a period of four years, can still have that provision in their authority. In other words, this is a question for local option. You can either have the principle as laid down in Clause 10 of the Bill or you can have my Amendment, which provides for a complete system of half-time education from fourteen to sixteen. If the Clause is amended as I suggest, it will read as follows:
" Subject as hereinafter provided all young persons shall attend such continuation schools at such times on such days as the local education authority of the area in which they reside may require, either for 320 hours in each year, until attaining the age of eighteen years, or for not less than 600 hours in each year until attain-
1628
ing the age of sixteen years, or, in the case of a period of less than one year for such number of hours as the local education authority, having regard to all the circumstances, consider reasonable."
That being the case, I can hardly understand why the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education is opposing this Amendment, because, of course, we are all aware that the conditions in different parts of England and Wales vary very considerably, and what may work well and with advantage in one part of those two countries may work very badly in another. My particular objection to Clause 10 as it stands is that, in my opinion, it will upset every trade in those two countries; secondly, that it will lower, and is bound to lower, the wages of the people, and, in addition to that—and perhaps of as great, or even greater, importance—that the education given in the eight hours per week for forty weeks in the year is a mere snapshot at education. Whereas, as provided in the Amendment which I am moving, although you do not get five days' complete education, or thirty hours per week, you get fifteen instead of the eight, and I contend as one who has taken very considerable interest in education, that, with a more concentrated effort, you are bound to get more educational benefit from fifteen hours a week than you will from eight.
This Amendment has been, called the Lancashire Amendment. I do not at all object to it, though I should contend that to a very large extent it applies to a very great many counties besides Lancashire, notably our twin.sister county, Yorkshire, for whom, of course, I have no mandate to speak. Seeing, however, that this has been called the Lancashire Amendment, I think I ought to say a few words on the financial and economic position that Lancashire occupies. In the first place, we are the greatest industrial centre, certainly in the United Kingdom, and probably in the world. We make most things, but our principal industries are cotton, coal, machinery, paper, glass, and we must not leave out agriculture, for we are a large agricultural county. As evidencing the importance we attach to agricultural education, we have spent more money on it during the last twenty-five years than any other county in England or Wales. I wondered for many years—I wondered when the Bill of 1902 was before this House — why it was not possible to give some species of local autonomy to Lancashire. You have

1629
a population there of 4,750,000. You have a population larger than the whole of Scotland, the whole of Wales, the whole of Ireland, and the geographical county of Lancashire itself has nearly a quarter of a million more than the administrative area of London. Yet, in spite of that, and although the conditions in Lancashire are as dissimilar as they possibly can be from those obtaining in Cornwall, we have to toe the line in a general Education Bill and to make the best use of it we possibly can. We have tried to do that, and I think hon. Members knowing, many of them, the education history of the county I represent will admit that we are no laggard county. I submit that the real interests of the State — and this is in reference to the speech the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education made on the Second Reading of the Bill — are, in the first place, to ensure the prosperity of the people, and, in the second place, to make them useful members of society. But whilst I support the Bill, with the exception of Clause 10, because I think it will bring greater happiness and comfort to the people, I should like to point out that before the principles of this Bill were conceived we were the greatest commercial nation in the world, that we turned out the best workmen in the world, and further than that, and of infinitely greater importance, we were one of the most honourable nations of the world. The right hon. Gentleman said there was nothing sacrosanct in industry. I say there is nothing sacrosanct in education, per se. We live by industry, and if you place fetters round industry you must, so long as you depend upon your export trade to bring further golden blood in your industrial veins, so synchronise education with commerce that you may develop the former without handicapping the latter. That is all I ask.
Since the Bill was first before the House a great deal has been said as to the support which the industrial classes in this country were giving to this Bill We have had frequent quotations from the Workers' Educational Association, which I know well. I have been on its London Committee for years until a few months ago, and my county committee were one of the first committes to make a grant to all the classes which the Workers' Educational Association established in Lancashire. So that I am undoubtedly a friend of the Workers' Educational Association, which is composed of all that is best among the working classes of this country. To say
1630
that the Workers' Educational Association represents the masses of workers of this country is inaccurate. To say again that working-class leaders on this question represent the mass of the people is also inaccurate. I can tell you, Sir Donald, that, as chairman of a large education authority, it is the most heart-breaking task I have ever had to perform, believing, as I do, in the education of the people, and doing everything I possibly can to help it forward, and I think those in a similar position to that I have occupied for many years will quite agree with me. If my statement is inaccurate, "why is it necessary to have compulsory attendance in your elementary day schools? To go a step further, why is it necessary to have school attendance officers to enforce this attendance? Why is it necessary in this very Clause we have before us to make compulsory the attendance of our children in continuation schools? There are two reasons. Undoubtedly the aristocracy of labour—and as I once before in this House pointed out, there is a great aristocracy of labour not only in my country but throughout the United Kingdom—are in favour of education, and are prepared to make great sacrifices in order that their children shall have a fair chance of mounting successfully the ladder of life. But it is not so with the mass of the people. Even with regard to them, however, we cannot lose sight of the fact that working men with. large families and great responsibilities cannot in a very large number of cases face the added financial responsibility consequent upon the sending of their children to school for any extended period.
What I really want to impress upon the Committee is this, because so much has been said about the rapacity of the employer that one would almost imagine that employers employed a sort of industrial press-gang to induce people to send their children to work. As a matter of fact, such is not the case. It is exactly the same in the secondary schools. We have an agreement with the parents of the children of my authority that if they enter the secondary school before twelve they sign an agreement that their children shall stay at that school for four years. If they enter after twelve they sign an agreement that their children shall remain in the school for three years. There was not a month in my life before the War commenced that I had not to sign

1631
exemptions, some of them of a most flimsy character, because they wanted to send children who had been educated in our schools into employment which they thought would be exceedingly remunerative. That, I think, is the difference between the Scots and the English. Scotsmen very early realised that there was a potential financial advantage in education. Englishmen have not yet realised that, and until they do, and until the fathers and mothers in this country take more interest in the education of their children, so long shall we remain a, comparatively speaking, uneducated nation. Another thing The Lancashire manufacturer does not depend upon the cheap labour of children, for the mills are not run by cheap labour. The period of half-time is short and, practically, not productive, and it is followed by payment for work done. Half-timers in the weaving trade are not paid by the employer, they are paid by the weaver; the master's duty in these half-time days being to see that the children went to school for the remaining portion of the day. You would encounter, I am afraid, particularly if this Clause is passed, very great difficulties with regard to the payment for labour displaced. The right hon. Gentleman has done a very great deal in trying to elicit public opinion, particularly on this Clause, and he has gone the length and breadth of the land in order to get a full reflex of that opinion, and he got it at a meeting which was held in London some few weeks ago, when he met the representatives of the masters and of the operatives, and they told him they would oppose the Bill unless the State or the employer compensated them for loss of wages. I have to thank him on behalf of the County Councils' Association for the alterations he made in the Bill to meet our wishes in regard to the administrative Clauses, but on this particular Clause he has been adamant. On the Second Reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman asked me to reply to two questions. He said:
"I will only say this with respect to the counter proposal of the hon. Member for Chorley; it does seem to me, speaking off-hand, to be exposed to two criticisms. In the first place I take it that half-time from fourteen to sixteen would mean half wages from fourteen to sixteen, and I should like to ask the hon. Member for Chorley how far working people in Lancashire would agree to accept such a proposal as that."
If it is quite true that half-time from fourteen to sixteen would mean half wages
1632
unless the State or the employer paid the difference, and I am afraid it would be accepted very badly, but the President was told at the Lancashire meeting what was the opinion of the representatives of the workers on that matter.
Now I come to another point. The President said:
"I think the application of the continuation proposals to the cotton industry, although it does not involve so great a displacement of labour or so large an immediate reduction in earnings as the abolition of half-time, does present peculiar difficulties. I realise that in asking employers in the cotton industry to submit to these proposals, I am in fact asking them to submit to considerable inconveniences, although I believe they would find it easier than they expect to meet these inconveniences, and to provide a substitute for the labour which will be temporarily displaced. I am, of course, prepared to give the most careful consideration to all the arguments and considerations they can produce."
The right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary said:
"I do not believe English industrial life is so poor or so unprosperous that it cannot be maintained if the labours of children under eighteen are diminished by a little more than one-seventh of their present normal working hours."
I did not say, and I never have said, that Clause 10 would ruin the cotton trade. It will not, but it will undoubtedly handicap the cotton trade, and I want to point out what that means. In the first place, 25 per cent. of the entire exports of the United Kingdom are cotton piece goods and yarn. The exports from the whole of the geographical county of Lancashire are probably one-third. Lancashire cotton piece goods and yarn absorb one-fourth of the entire export of the United Kingdom. A very large proportion of these piece goods and yarn go to Eastern parts. In the year before the War there was an enormous increase in the competition with Japan, China, and India for the trade in the Far East, and you can imagine what that competition means when you know that wages are almost at a peppercorn and the hours of labour are long. The result of Clause 10 will be to increase the cost of production, and my fear is that although you are not going to ruin the cotton trade you are certainly going to handicap it in its competition with China, Japan, and India.
I regret, and we all regret, that there has been no indication whatever in the speech of either right hon. Gentlemen as to the manner in which they were going to divide the eight hours per week, because, of course, a very great deal depends upon that division, and I urge this plea, that it

1633
would only have been fair, it would only have been an indication to the House, if they had told us what was their idea as to the division of these eight hours. On the Second Reading I pointed out that the division might have been made by giving the whole of the eight hours in one day, by giving it in two days, or by giving it in four; yet neither right hon. Gentlemen replied to that, so that the Committee has nothing before it at the moment which will enable it to form an accurate estimate as to how this division is to be given. I will give another, and this I think has been submitted to every Member of the House by post this morning from a good friend of my own in Lancashire, in which he proposes, in order to support Clause 10, to work his young persons in groups of four, a most ingenious plan, and this is how he would work it: Number the young persons, 1, 2, 3, and 4. On Monday, Nos. 1, 2, and 3 work, and 4 goes to school. On Tuesday, 1, 2, and 4 work, and 3 goes to school. On Wednesday, 1, 3, and 4 work, and 2 goes to school, and on Thursday, 2, 3, and 4 work, and I goes to school. That is repeated on the Friday, the result being, of course, that there is a loss of labour of 25 per cent. In other words, out of every four boys employed in this particular shift, one is at school. That raises a very serious question. I have listened with very great interest to the Debate which took place prior to the introduction of this Amendment, and I am extremely surprised that any hon. Member has come to the conclusion that there would be such an over plus of labour after the War that it is necessary to spend money in emigration. I do not believe it. I think, on the contrary, there will be such a shortage of labour after the War that you will hardly know where to turn to get it, and the carrying out of this most ingenious plan for working shifts of four hands depends entirely upon getting the extra hands. What, then, will be the position on the appointed day? You will have to find the extra hands under this scheme for forty weeks in a year for every four young persons employed in the cotton trade, if you are to get the same output as four days, in every trade in the United Kingdom, and this extra hand will somehow or other have to find work elsewhere or play during the remainder of the year when the secondary school holidays are on—that is, nine or ten weeks. Therefore, both from an industrial and from an
1634
educational point of view, I contend that my Amendment is better than Clause 10, but, seeing that it is optional, I can hardly understand why the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept it. Again Sub-section (5) of the Clause says:
"His employment shall be suspended on any day when his attendance is required, not only during the period for which he is required to attend the school, but also for such other specified parts of the day, not exceeding two hours, as the authority consider necessary in order to secure that he may be in a fit mental and bodily condition to receive full benefit from attendance at the school."
I quite agree with that, but how will it work? For all the permutations of these eight hours which you can possibly conceive, this Clause practically means half-time, because additional hours are to bi taken from labour before the young person attends school. The President said:
"There is a second difficulty with respect to the hon. Member's proposal. Under it, half the labour employed between fourteen and sixteen in the mills will be turned adrift at sixteen, and a consequence of the proposal will be the creation of a new blind-alley employment. I have thought it my duty to make these observations in order that a reply may be forthcoming."
Why should there be a blind alley employment from fourteen to sixteen which will not exist from fourteen to eighteen, or to go a step further, than would have existed under half-time? The fact of the matter is that by marriage, by death, and particularly by expansion, for the cotton trade has expanded enormously during the last twenty-five years, room has always been found for an increased number of operatives in the cotton trade, particularly the weaving.
I want to deal now with the reasons given by both right hon. Gentlemen for extending this age to eighteen. I want to deal with it principally from the financial point of view. The President said:
"I need not say that on purely educational grounds I should have preferred a larger amount of instruction, even if that amount had been confined to the age between fourteen and sixteen, but after careful consideration I came to the conclusion that the practical obstacles in the way were too great; that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for us to provide in a reasonable length of time the requisite supply of teachers of ability; that the scheme, if it is to be made desirable to the working people, would have to be supplemented by a very large expenditure in maintenance allowances and buildings, and that it would involve a great disturbance of the juvenile labour market."

1635
The Parliamentary Secretary followed in similar words. He said that
"the number of teachers required for the continuation schools would be very large. We shall require probably about 32,000 teachers, and these men must be superior type. In the case of boys under the fourteen to eighteen plan we Can see our way to provide the teachers, because when the appointed day has been fixed, and when the necessary preparations have been made, we propose to take the children from the elementary schools in four successive crops. First of all, we take the children of one year as they arrive at the age of fourteen, and then we shall have three successive crops afterwards. That would give us a considerable amount of time to provide the necessary teachers. If the proposals of the hon. Member were adopted we should have to provide the whole number of teachers within two years instead of the provision being spread over a period of four years."
That is quite true, except that no local educational authority that I know of considers that it is possible. In fact, I am sure it is absolutely impossible to find the number of teachers you want under this Clause during the next ten years. I have been to some considerable trouble to work out the number of teachers which would be required under Clause 10 in my own area, if my Amendment were accepted, from the evidence supplied by my own authority of the administrative county of Lancashire. This will show what an important bearing this has on the whole question. Under my Amendment 30,000 children will attend from fourteen to fifteen, and another 30,000 from fifteen to sixteen, immediately on the appointed day. The second year that 30,000 will have swollen to 60,000, but it will go no further Under the Bill as it stands you will have the same 30,000 children in the first year, 60,000 in the second year, 90,000 in the third year, and 120,000 in the fourth year, and you will have to provide accommodation for those 120,000 children in the administrative area of the county of Lancashire. What about the teachers? Allowing thirty children to each teacher, and also allowing £200 per annum as the cost of that teacher—although I do not think you will get a teacher suitable to give extended education to young persons in secondary schools at £200 a year—there will be 333 teachers under the Bill at £200 each, which will cost my authority £66,600. That is in addition to the extra £60,000 which it is necessary to spend owing to the abolition of half-time, which will mean that something like 13,000 more children will be in our elementary schools than there are
1636
to-day. If you allow forty children to each teacher there—it is quite sufficient—you want a little over 300 teachers, and the cost works out at something like £60,000 a year.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Full-time teachers?
Sir H. HIBBERT: I am speaking of the Clause, which has already been passed, abolishing half-time, which means that children who are going half-time will be going whole-time. In addition, you have to provide the school accommodation. What the schools will cost I do not know. Before the War our schools in Lancashire cost 17s. per head of the school population per annum. What the cost will be after the War I do not know, but it will probably be double.
Mr. DENNISS: You have not dealt with the county boroughs.
Sir H. HIBBERT: I have left out the county boroughs; I have only dealt with the administrative area of the county of Lancashire. In the second year of the scheme under the Bill 666 teachers will be required for the administrative area of the county of Lancashire, costing £133,200. In the third year we shall require 1,000 teachers at a cost of £200,000 per annum. In the fourth year we shall require 1,332 teachers at a cost of £266,400. That is a, very low estimate, because you cannot always get the exact number of scholars in your school, and you do not want to teach more than thirty per teacher. My Amendment would help to solve the difficulty. In the first year we shall require, teaching exactly the same number of scholars, but only having, as it were, two shifts, 625 teachers, which will cost the county area £125,000. The next year we shall want 1,250 teachers, which will cost the county area £250,000; so that the only real difference between us is this, that whereas my teachers in the first year will be exactly the same as the number of teachers in the second year of the right hon. Gentleman's Clause, the number of teachers in the fourth year of the right hon. Gentleman's Clause will be 1,332 as against 1,250 under my Amendment. My contention is that you will not be able to get one or the other.
My reason for proposing this Amendment is because I think it is better, both educationally and also commercially, for the young people of this country. The cost is simply enormous. Even allowing,

1637
as promised under this Bill, that the Board of Education pay 50 per cent. of the cost of education, this Bill will make, without the provision of the schools at all, a difference of 5d. in the £ on the rates of my county, which has a very high rate-able value. There is a further point. The right hon. Gentleman said,
"I agree that the amount of education given in the first two years, would under the hon. Member's plan, be greater, but the education would stop short at a very critical period. If we continue compulsory education up to the age of eighteen, we reach a point where the young persons in most cases can carry on the education for themselves, because they have begun to realise the importance of it. If we stopped at sixteen that would not hold good, because at that age they would not realise for themselves the enormous importance of education, besides which we should give up at the earlier age of sixteen the physical, social and moral control and disinterested supervision which otherwise would be brought to bear on the young persons at the most critical period of their adolescence."
If that be correct, why does the right hon. Gentleman give complete exemption from attendance at school up to the age of sixteen? I contend, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman's case breaks down and that he ought to accept my Amendment. I should like to point out that it is by the unbroken prosperity of our national industry that the financial burden of this War will ultimately be borne. This scheme cannot come into operation for many years, and if it had not been so this is a very inopportune time to have introduced this Bill. Seeing that the Bill cannot in any circumstances come into operation for years, in consequence of the absolute impossibility of obtaining teachers either to work the right hon. Gentleman's plan or mine, and also the difficulty of obtaining buildings sufficient to accommodate them, I regret exceedingly that this Clause has been proposed.
In conclusion, I would like to say this: I made the point on the Second Reading of the Bill that both as an educationist and as a commercial man I recommend the selection of the fittest. I do not mean the selection of the fittest as it has been carried out up to now. I outlined a plan, and that was to examine the boys at twelve, which is the proper age to enter a secondary school, to examine them at sixteen and pick out your best, and examine them again at eighteen, and on the result of that examination sends them either to a university or to a technical college. I would give liberal maintenance allowances, and I think you would by that
1638
process more considerably help the future prosperity both of the people and the trade of this country than you will by this Bill. Realising that children develop sometimes at a later stage than others, I would further examine at the age of fourteen the children in the elementary day schools who have been unsuccessful at twelve, give them a further examination at sixteen and pick out the best, and again at eighteen, and on the result send them to a university or a secondary school. I feel perfectly confident that that is the only true foundation upon which a scheme of education can be built up.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): Everyone who knows the North of England is aware of the distinguished work which the hon. Member for Chorley (Sir H. Hibbert) has done in connection with the cause of popular education in Lancashire, and it is impossible that he should be associated with any proposal conceived in a spirit inimical to the interests of education.
6.0 P.M.
I think, therefore, that the friends of education in this House and in the country will realise with satisfaction that the Amendment proposed is not conceived in any spirit of hostility to the Bill nor is it repugnant to the governing principles of the Clause which we are now discussing. The hon. Member for Chorley, who is I gather supported by all Lancashire Members in this House, is prepared to accept —I will not analyse his feelings further— a system of continuous schooling for young persons from the age of fourteen. He is prepared to see those classes given by day, and he is prepared to see them made compulsory. The hon. Member, however, proposes that the Bill should permit of an option, and that it should be possible for the young persons either to be educated to 600 hours in the year between the ages of fourteen and sixteen or to be educated under the scheme of the Bill, and the hon. Member maintains that in offering this proposal to the Committee he is offering in fact what is a very fair educational equipment. He is disposed to think that his own offer is better from the educational point of view than the proposals contained in the Bill.
If I were to consult my own convenience, I should accept the Amendment of the hon. Member. If I were to do this, I should be giving the hon. Member and

1639
his Lancashire friends what they have asked for, and I should be securing their support to the Bill—and I do not undervalue the importance of that support. I should also be obtaining, on paper at least, some value in exchange for my consent, since no educationist would deny that a half-time system between the ages of fourteen and sixteen does offer some advantages over the scheme proposed in the Bill. I quite admit that. I am unable, however, to advise the Committee to accept this Amendment, and this for reasons which I believe every member of the Committee will recognise to be valid as soon as they are stated. If it were possible to make the hon. Member's suggestion for half-time education from fourteen to sixteen mandatory over the whole country, there would be a great deal to be said for the acceptance of the proposal. Indeed, as the hon. Member has reminded the Committee, in the early stages of my consideration of this Bill I did go carefully into the possibilities of a half-time education between fourteen and sixteen. It was a course which was pressed upon me from many quarters. It was urged upon me by the Workers' Educational Association, it received a very large amount of backing from the trade unionists of this country, and I was bound to examine it carefully and sympathetically. I cannot see how a half-time system could be generally established between these ages without occasioning an amount of industrial disturbance and dislocation in the labour market, and also a loss of industrial wages, which it would be unfair to ask the country to pay. If half-time were suddenly and generally introduced, I fear still, in spite of what the hon. Member has said, it would almost certainly involve the halving of wages in very many cases, and although the wage level would probably ultimately redress itself, the process would take time and the interval would be painful.
Then, again, from the administrative point of view, the establishment of the half-time system at the very beginning of the new experiment, in the first two years, would almost double the demand for teachers and almost double the demand for school accommodation, and the strain—and I think that my hon. Friend, with all his great administrative experience would be the first to admit it— would be especially felt in those halftime
1640
regions of his own county which have a considerable amount of educational leeway to make up. But these are not the only considerations which, in my view, militate against the adoption of his plan. If the adoption of a half-time system is, for the reasons which I have given, impracticable over the whole country, its application to individuals—and I gather that the option proposed in the Amendment is the individual option—or its application to areas—I am not quite certain which the hon. Member would prefer.
Sir H. HIBBERT: Areas.
Mr. FISHER: I think that in that case he would have to change his method. But the application to areas would be encompassed by difficulties even more formidable. When you are enforcing an educational law it is necessary to impose and define your liability, but the existence of a concurrent system would really be a matter of almost hopeless complexity. I may give one or two instances. If a young person living in a country village under a local education authority which has adopted the plan of the Bill, of 320 hours a year, goes at the age of sixteen to a neighbouring area to work in a colliery, and finds himself under an authority which has adopted the scheme of the hon. Member for Chorley of 600 hours, what is to be his position? Clearly that young person is liable to part education between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, but such part education is not attainable in the area to which he has transferred. That is one difficulty. I will take another. What is to happen to a young person who is employed in the 600 hours' area, but goes to live in an area where the 600 hours' system is not recognised? Or, again, take a third case. You have a cotton mill recruiting its labour from a number of different areas in the neighbourhood. Some of these areas would have the 600 hours' system and other areas would have the 300 hours' system. It is clear that the owners of the mill would have a great interest in recruiting their labour from those areas which practise the system which was more convenient to the mill owner, and the result would be to penalise those operatives who come from places which practise the other system. I could multiply these administrative difficulties.
Sir H. HIBBERT: May I interrupt to say that I do not think that there is a

1641
single education area in Lancashire which would adopt the Clause if they had a chance of having the other proposal.
Mr. FISHER: That might facilitate matters as regards Lancashire, but it would not meet the difficulties if the option was to. be extended, as it would have to be extended, beyond the frontiers of that illustrious county. But, apart from these administrative difficulties, there are social and economic difficulties. The hon. Member has already indicated the difficulty that under his plan you would require a very much larger number of juveniles between the ages of fourteen and sixteen than you could employ at a later age. Already the cotton industry has a reputation of providing more blind alley employment than is altogether desirable from the social point of view.
Mr. SNOWDEN: No.
Mr. FISHER: My hon. Friend says "No."
Mr. SNOWDEN: Everybody else will say No.
Mr. FISHER: Mr. McDonnell, I believe, is associated with the cotton trade. He states that of 1,000 persons who enter the cotton spinning trade between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, only 430 remain at the age of thirty, and only 290 remain at the age of fifty.
Mr. RAFFAN: They become married women.
Mr. FISHER: That accounts for some of them. But in any case it is certain that there is a great deal of leakage.
Mr. GOLDSTONE: If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the Departmental Committee's report dealing with this matter he will find that the statement which he is making is substantially correct.
Mr. FISHER: May I put it to the hon. Member that half-time means, in the textile trade increasing the number of juveniles to whom the trade is a blind alley, by 50 per cent., and I do maintain that that does involve social consequences.
Mr. SNOWDEN: I would like the right hon. Gentleman to explain how that is going to come about?
Mr. FISHER: I gather that the hon. Member for Chorley proposes that there should be half-time between fourteen and sixteen. Surely that means that between fourteen and sixteen you employ twice the number of juveniles that otherwise you would employ.
Mr. RAFFAN: Not as compared with the scheme of this Bill.
Mr. FISHER: That is quite true, but it would obviously involve the discharge of a greater number of juveniles at the age of sixteen. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] It is a matter for argument. It is maintained by the Member for Chorley (Sir H. Hibbert) that the scheme of the Bill practically does amount to half-time. It is assumed that no young person will go into the mill before breakfast on any day on which he is required to work at school. It is assumed, again, that every young person will take the maximum of two hours permitted in the Bill for going and coming. It is assumed that the system will be worked by double shift. I would submit, however, that none of these conditions are really essential, and it is quite possible to work the system in such a way as to reduce the loss of industrial time to a figure very nearly approximating to the number of hours prescribed for education in the Bill. The hon. Member for Chorley complained that we do not lay down the precise number of hours in regard to the textile trades. We do not lay down any hard and fast line either for the cotton industry or any other industry, because the hours must be adjusted to the varying conditions of various trades and industries. What would suit one part of the country might not suit another and we desire that the matter should be locally arranged, for it would be unwise to enforce a single system on a great and complex industry.
I am told that the scheme is not practicable. My answer to that is that many of the textile firms in Lancashire are prepared to work it. Some very important firms are prepared to work under this scheme. One large firm, Messrs. Tootal and Broadhurst, of Bolton, are preparing to open a school this month for the training of young persons to become good citizens. The subjects of instruction for boys are literature, English, industrial history, geography, mathematics, science, and physical training. For girls the subjects are cookery, housekeeping, and physical exercises. The arrangement of hours

1643
provides for every student spending one morning and one afternoon each week in the school, with the result that the number of working hours lost will be about ten each week, or about 400 hours a year, while the amount of instruction would be 322 hours a year.
Sir H. HIBBERT: Is that a works' school?
Mr. FISHER: At the present moment it is a private venture school. All I want is to meet the argument that has been used that this is an impracticable scheme. My answer is that the scheme is already being carried out. I have another case, Mr. J. W. Baron, of the firm of Morgan and Baron, of Darwen, in Lancashire, is prepared to work under the plan of the Bill. The firm runs 3,000 looms and employs 1,300 people, and Mr. Baron states that the scheme is for five days at school and six and a half days at the mill, and that the machinery would be fully attended to during the whole period. He states that the firm puts the interests of the young people first, and that the convenience of the organisation of the mill comes second. He adds that there need be no hesitation in adopting the scheme of the Bill. The ultimate effect upon the health of the young people, and the improvement in their intelligence and efficiency of the workers, would amply compensate for any change in the working conditions. Briefly comparing the effect of the hon. Member's Amendment upon family earnings with the scheme of the Bill, the general comparison is in favour of the Bill.
Sir H. HIBBERT: What about the third and fourth years? I quoted the case in my own speech.
Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the town of Great Darwen, where this firm's works are situated, gave by far the largest majority against these proposals?
Mr. FISHER: I think that is quite irrelevant, but I will not labour the point. I have answered the hon. Member's case on the Amendment. I come to the real substance of the case for the Amendment. It is in reality, if you look at it closely, that this is a dislocation of the Lancashire industry—of the loss caused to wages by withdrawal of juvenile labour from the mills between sixteen and eighteen. It is in the application of this part of the scheme of the Bill that hon. Members
1644
apprehend the most difficulty. The labour of young people between fourteen and sixteen is no doubt important to the mills, but, after all, their earnings are comparatively slight. The hon. Member for Chorley has told us that for young children between sixteen and eighteen and upwards, the average wages are a fair criterion of their increased utility to the mills. But while I am unable, for the reasons I have stated, to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chorley, I am prepared to admit a certain modification in the scheme of this Clause which will, I believe, be more to the advantage of the industrial interests I which the hon. Member represents that' the Amendment which he himself proposes. This is not part of a bargain, and before I announce this concession let me explain to the Committee that I am not thinking of Lancashire alone. When I came to the conclusion that a concession should be made I had in view not only the representations urged upon me by the textile industry, but representations from other quarters— from my hon. Friend the Member for Wilton, on behalf of agriculture, and from my hon. Friend the Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool in regard to coal. In the first place, I am prepared to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Devizes to leave out the proviso contained in the second paragraph of the Clause. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the effect of it?"]It is a proviso which enables the Board of Education, after consulting with the local education authorities, to increase the number of hours of attendance at continuation schools required under this Act. I discovered at meetings in Lancashire that proviso caused a considerable amount of anxiety, and, in view of the fact that the proviso is very unlikely to be carried into general effect for a considerable period of time, I think, on the whole, it is desirable to omit it.
In the second place, I am prepared to make a concession with respect to time. If hon. Members will refer to Clause 45 of the Bill they will see that it is provided that this Act
"shall come into operation on the appointed day, and the appointed day shall be such day as the Board of Education may appoint, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and for different provisions of this Act for different areas, or parts of areas, and for different persons or classes of persons."

1645
In other words, a considerable amount of discussion and latitude will be necessary in determining the appointed day for different parts of this educational scheme, and I am prepared to move an Amendment to Clause 10 to the effect that the obligation to attend continuation schools should not within a period of seven years from the appointed day on which the provisions of this Section come into force apply to young persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, nor after such period to any young person who has attained the age of sixteen before the expiration of that period.
Sir H. HIBBERT: That means, does it not, that my Clause so far as education from fourteen to sixteen is concerned is adopted?
Mr. FISHER: No; I will explain what it means. The more the hon. Members for Lancashire study this proposal the more will they find it to be better than their own. They are principally concerned with the effect upon the textile industry of the proposed educational claims on the time of young persons between sixteen and eighteen. I give them a guarantee that for seven years after the appointed day no such claims shall be made. Meanwhile the educational obligation resting upon young persons between fourteen and sixteen will be limited to 320 hours in place of the 600 hours of the Amendment.
An HON. MEMBER: That is worse.
Sir H. HIBBERT: Is that intended to be universal all through the country?
Mr. FISHER: Yes. Now I admit to my educational friends that this is a very considerable concession indeed—[HON. MEMBERS: "It ruins the Bill!" "It is more than was asked for!"]—and I fear it will cause no little disappointment in many quarters of this House and elsewhere; but so long as I can obtain from Parliament the expressed affirmation of the principle that the system of continuation education classes, with all their unquestioned moral, intellectual, and physical benefits, is to be sooner or later extended over the whole country right through the period of adolescence, then I think that no great harm will result from this concession, but, on the contrary, that the interval of five years between the completion of the first stage and its further extension will have the advantage of
1646
enabling more careful preparation to be given, both in respect of the provision of buildings and in respect of the provision of trained teachers required for the scheme. After all, we want to give good education. We do not want to give a shoddy article, and there is something to be said for exploring thoroughly all the new problems which will come up in connection with continuation education between the ages of fourteen and sixteen before we take the further step of sixteen and eighteen. In any case, it had been our desire to administer the Act with the greatest possible consideration for local difficulties and local varieties, and Clause 45 is expressly drafted to that end, but I do realise that when you are dealing with industrial interests there is something to be said for an expressed guarantee of time, and I believe that in giving that guarantee I shall be meeting fairly and squarely the apprehensions which have been felt, not only by the representatives of industry in many parts of this country, but also by many educational authorities and many friends of education who are somewhat apprehensive that if we force the pace too much we shall not be able to supply a really valuable article when the time comes.
I am going to shock and alienate, I am afraid, a great deal of support by offering yet another concession. I am extremely desirous of maintaining the general framework of the Clause, because I believe that when that framework is filled in, as it will undoubtedly be filled in, by degrees it will give to the people of this country the best system of education in the world. But in the initial stages of its working I do foresee that it may be difficult in all cases to meet the full requirements of the Clause, and, therefore, I am proposing to move that during the initial period of seven years if the local education authorities so resolve the number of hours for which a young person may be required to attend continuation schools in any year shall be 280 instead of 320. That is a latitude to the local education authorities between the figure of 320 in the Bill and the minimum figure of 280. I do not propose to go further in the matter of concessions. I hope it will be felt that I have met, and more than met my critics. When my hon. Friend opposite said that I was giving more than was asked for, I beg to differ. I am not giving more than I was asked for. The danger that I see in the acceptance of the hon. Member's Amend-

1647
ment is this: I see a positive danger that if the Amendment is accepted it will be regarded in Lancashire as a final settlement of the question; it will be regarded in Lancashire that under no circumstances and at no time will the system of continued education up to the age of eighteen—a system to which I attach so much value on moral and physical grounds even more than on intellectual grounds—that in no circumstances will that system be applied to Lancashire if we adopt the compromise suggested by my hon. Friend.
I do wish this House to affirm definitely, and once for all, that it regards no system of continued education in this country to be adequate or satisfactory to our needs which fails to provide for the ultimate completion of a scheme of adolescent training right through the period of adolescence. We are living in very stern times, and stern times bring stern lessons, and the lesson which has been borne in upon me by the experience of this War is that unless we take very earnest steps to improve our educational system we shall find ourselves left behind in the race. I am not fond of quoting alien examples, but, after all, we must recognise that our present enemies, whatever may be their defects, are at any rate a very efficient nation. Now, is it reasonable to suppose that a country which educates the great mass of the population up to the age of fourteen has an advantage in competition with a country, with an Empire, which has adopted on a great part of its surface a scheme of continued education up to the age of eighteen? I say that the chances are in favour of the completer system of education. I will not put it higher than that, and I hope the Committee will support me in the stand which I have taken on the Clause.
Mr. ASQUITH: There were when my right hon. Friend rose two alternative plans for the consideration of the Committee, but now, after listening to his speech, we find that there is a third. I will deal with the third in a moment, but I wish very distinctly to say for myself— and I fancy I express the opinion of a great many others in all quarters of the House, and certainly without any dictinction of party, when I say emphatically that as between the plan proposed in the Clause as submitted by the Government and the alternative suggested from Lanca-
1648
shire by my hon. Friend behind me, I am altogether in favour of the Government plan. I recognise to the full—and it was stated with the utmost cogency, and also with great temperance and moderation by my right hon. Friend— the difficulties, both educational and industrial, which must attend the adoption of such a large—I might almost call it a revolutionary—step in advance as the compulsory continuation school up to the age of eighteen. My right hon. Friend has very frankly said, in the interests of the working of the Bill and the carrying out of that plan, that every allowance which is compatible with maintaining the principle should be made for special local conditions. But do not let us conceal from ourselves what would be the effect of the adoption of the Amendment of my hon. Friend. It would amount to a statutory declaration that Parliament does not require compulsory continuance of education beyond the age of sixteen, whereas in the Bill as it stands, and as it will stand if the Amendment just now shadowed forth by my right hon. Friend be accepted, you will have a statutory declaration that it is to be eventually— not at once—the law of this country that young persons shall continue to be educated until they reach the age of eighteen.
An HON. MEMBER: Not under this Bill.
Mr. ASQUITH: That is the issue raised really by my hon. Friend's Amendment. It is quite true he gives a very substantially larger number of hours during the two years up to sixteen than the Bill gives during those two years, but where any educational authority—I do not know whether that is intended by the Amendment—exercises that option, to that extent there will be no obligation after the age of sixteen to continue at school. As I say, between those two extremes my own opinion is decidedly and emphatically in favour of the Government. What my right hon. Friend said in the impressive words he used at the conclusion of his speech must, for some years past, have been present to the minds of all who are really interested in the higher welfare of our future population. Considerations which were important and momentous before the War have become, through the experience derived from the War, not only momentous but vital, and I do not think I am using language of exaggeration at

1649
all when I say I do not think there is anything the legislature could do at this moment, in what we call the process of reconstruction, in its largest and widest sense that must follow this terrible experience through which we are passing, that could be of more permanent value, and have more fruitful results than the continuation of the education of our young. So much for the choice as between the plan proposed by the Bill and the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
I come now to the interesting suggestions which have been made by the President of the Board of Education. I confess, subject to considerations to which I will refer in a moment, that I should listen with reluctance—and considerable reluctance—to any departure from the plan laid down by the Bill, and that not only from an educational, but from a national point of view. I do not think what is proposed to be enacted here is one whit too much. I am not sure, indeed, it is as far as we ought in reason to go. But the question, as it presents itself to us now, is entirely a question of practical administrative possibilities—nothing else. What I understand the proposal to amount to is this—I say nothing about the optional reduction in the number of hours from 320 to 280. I hope that may not be found necessary to pass, but, if it is to be in the Bill, I hope very few education authorities will ever take advantage of it. and then only under special local circumstances. But the main suggestion made by my right hon. Friend is this: To keep your statutory declaration that eighteen is the age up to which these young persons are required to attend a continuation school, but for the next seven years, as regards those between sixteen and eighteen, that obligation shall not be enforced. And why? It is impracticable. I understand that you cannot get the teachers, and that you cannot get the schools. If you could, I am sure my right hon. Friend would be the first to press on his original proposal. But he tells us—he knows—that he is satisfied, on investigation—and my right hon. Friend behind me is entirely of the same opinion; it was to a large extent the foundation of his argument that you cannot get the number of new teachers required. There is an enormous shortage Already in elementary schools. I am told it is something like 20,000. Is that the figure?
Mr. FISHER: Yes.
Mr. ASQUITH: Large additional requirements, apart from this, are being placed upon the education authorities in the matter of teaching, and, in addition to that, you will have to provide for these continuation schools. You have not got a reservoir from which you can draw which would be adequate, or even available, for that purpose, and, therefore, you are not really weakening or watering down the Bill, as I understand from his argument, by simply recognising that actual administrative fact, that for some years to come you cannot hope to provide, as regards children between sixteen and eighteen, the necessary continuation instruction. If that be so, I, or one, am prepared to accept, although I regret the change, and, as far as my opinion is of any value, to recommend the Committee to accept, the concession which my right hon. Friend has made. The main fact to which I attach vital importance is that you should have here placed upon record, and with the authority of Parliament—whatever temporary provision may be made in consequence of the dearth of teachers or of schools—you have here a statutory declaration by Parliament that, from this time forth, it is to be part of the law of this country that the compulsory education of young persons is to continue not only to sixteen, but to eighteen years of age. That is the real point, I think, the Committee has to decide, and, I hope, in no uncertain voice it will give its opinion in favour of the Bill.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I think the Committee, in view of the statement made by the Minister of Education, has reached a stage when it is prepared to move to report Progress. The concession that has been made is not merely a small concession. It strikes at the very root of the Bill so far as continuation schools are concerned. I am bound to confess that, even before the speech of my right hon. Friend, I had some doubts as to whether the Bill as it stood or the Amendment was the better proposal to make. I am not at all impressed by these Parliamentary declarations that the late Prime Minister has been laying so much emphasis upon. We have had Parliamentary declarations about education for generations, and I am impatient to get education and not another Parliamentary declaration. What we had to consider before the two proposals were before us was this: The Bill as it stands makes com-

1651
pulsory continuation school education of 320 hours per annum. Now, I think, the point that is being lost sight of is, that in order to educate a child you have to give a certain amount of time. The difficulty I have had in considering the value of the Bill as it stands is this: Does this scheme, which my right hon. Friend originally proposed, provide a sufficient amount of education to be of educational value? And I had almost come to the conclusion that it did not. Anyone who works it out, and assumes that a local educational authority can say that 320 hours are to be taken altogether, and that then the child may go to employment for the rest of the year, must sec at once that it is absolutely useless to carry out any such proposal as that.
The intention of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is that, whilst the children are being educated, he does provide a sufficient amount of time for education that will be substantial. The effect of the Bill as it stands is that it continues education until the age of eighteen. The objection to the Amendment is that it stops education at sixteen. That is the dilemma in which an educationist is put. I hope I shall not be misunderstood if I say I am not interested in Lancashire. I am interested in the country and in the education of the country. Lancashire must solve its problem, but the educational dilemma is this: Whether the scheme up to eighteen gives a sufficient amount of educational time, and whether the Amendment up to sixteen is not losing so much by lopping off completely the ages from sixteen to eighteen that it ought not to be accepted. And I am bound to confess I came to this House to-day with an absolutely open mind upon the subject. Then I was going to vote for sixteen and take my chance of extending the age to eighteen. But now I am in a greater dilemma, because the concession that has been given really destroys the whole scheme. The great value of the Bill as it stands is that you start experimenting with 320 hours a year, and if enlightened education authorities find that that is insufficient, or find that the experiment in operation is so promising that they would like to increase it, they have power to increase it. That is the Bill as it stands. That is gone. That is the first concession. Therefore this 320 hours' scheme as an experiment becomes fixed as a maximum for, at any rate, seven years.
Mr. FISHER: Only as compulsory. Of course, it would be quite possible for local education authorities to make provision for further voluntary continuation education.
7.0 P. M
Mr. MACDONALD: Yes; they can do that, but I do not think there is very much, substance in that. I am thinking of the educational value and efficiency of this new system of the compulsory continuation schools. It is quite true you can do it voluntarily, but my argument was directed to the compulsory character of the Clause. Now that is gone. Therefore my favour for the Clause as it stands is correspondingly weakened. There is the next point. We are not even going to get. half-time education between the ages of fourteen and sixteen, which Lancashire is willing to give us from its industrial point of view. Lancashire says that it is possible from the point of view of the community, of the education committee, and from the point of view of finance, and are prepared to give-it. As my hon. Friend behind me said, we are so keen about education and of the sacrifices entailed in the extension of the age of half-time up to sixteen, that we are not prepared to give that! Surely this Committee ought to accept that offer, because in any event seven years must elapse before we are able to do anything at all! If the people of this country during the next seven years do not show more interest in education than at present—if this compromise is to be accepted —then they deserve to be beaten in all those energies and all those causes to which education contributes so much. If, after we have half-time education between the ages of fourteen and sixteen—if, I say. we have the experiment of that for seven years, and then at the end of seven years we are not going to have a new Bill which carries education very much further than. it will be carried by this compromise— unless it also is changed by Resolution—if we cannot get a better Bill after seven years, this poor country is in a parlous condition, and this education will be a farce and a sham, as it has been up till now.
Therefore the alternative we have to consider is, Shall we accept this so-called Lancashire Amendment, at the same time regretting profoundly what we are going to lose, and being determined that we shall use it as an experiment, and within the next seven years produce a new Bill which will deal with young persons from

1653
sixteen to eighteen? Are we to do that, or accept this Amendment, which definitely says you cannot go as far as half-time between fourteen and sixteen, except voluntarily? You cannot go beyond that. You may even reduce your educational annual hours from 320 to 280, and then, at the end of the seven years, you are going to be put in a position which is not so good as you are in this Bill as drafted! There are certain educationists in this House who at this time want to accept this Lancashire Amendment, and trust to a more enlightened public opinion showing itself and making itself more effective within the next seven years. To talk to us about the competition that this country after the War is going to meet from well-disciplined and well-educated Germany, and then confuse that with the statement that for seven years we are going to commit ourselves ! It is all very well to get your record in this House that the young person between sixteen and eighteen years of age is ultimately going to be touched, but whilst you are writing that in the House of Commons you are also writing that he is not to be touched in the seven years. To make that statement is really, to put it mildly, not at all an educational pronouncement. I say Germany would not look at it. She would not for two minutes have such a scheme for preparing, disciplining, and improving the brains of her children in the tremendous intellectual struggle that Europe is going to enter upon the moment the War is over. Germany would never for a moment have accepted this compromise as one calculated to enable her to face the problems she will meet as soon as she settles down to the ordinary peaceful life. Therefore, at the present time, that is why I think the best thing for this Committee to do is to report Progress, so that we may consider the extraordinary situation in which we have been put. I should like some light let into my mind at the present time. My mind is still open. These thoughts came to me as I listened to the right hon. Gentleman making his speech. I am bound to say that unless I see some reason to change my opinion I would infinitely prefer the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley to the compromise which has been foreshadowed from the Education Minister.
Mr. FISHER: The hon. Member for Leicester has suggested that we should report Progress. I earnestly hope that the
1654
Committee will not take that step, partly because, as I have pointed out, we are preserving the whole framework and substance of the Clause, and the Amendment to which the hon. Member takes exception, the Amendment which delays the coming into operation of the particular part, a segment, he calls it, can equally well be proposed on Clause 45. The hon. Member has failed to see, I think, that what is before the Committee is substantially the old Clause, and that hon. Members are invited to accept the old Clause subject to modification of detail and time. I submit that that is an operation which does not raise any new question of principle. As the late Prime Minister has pointed out, there are abundant administrative reasons for the adoption of that course. When the hop. Gentleman speaks of the example of Germany I would ask him to remember that, even with this extension of time, we are proposing to carry out a greater change in a shorter time. It. seems to me, therefore, that that argument falls to the ground.
Captain Sir C. BATHURST: I never found myself in a greater quandary than I do after listening to what has been said this afternoon. In fact, for my part, I rather wish we could adjourn consideration of this matter. So as to digest what is really an entirely different proposal to that contained in the Bill. Many of us have, in conjunction with our colleagues on local education committees, very carefully discussed the proposals in this Bill, and have drawn our own conclusions as to the effect likely to be produced in our respective areas. In my judgment these new proposals are entirely distinct and entirely recast from the original scheme as presented to the House in the Bill. As. regards the observations of the hon. Member for Leicester I am bound to say I cannot follow his line of reasoning. He urges the House to take this earliest opportunity of insisting upon the education of the children of this country being carried to a certain age, compulsorily, and in face of public opinion. I feel a very great difficulty in following that line of argument. We have often been reminded, not infrequently by my hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Devizes, that this House has ceased to be representative of the country at large, and that we are in error in proceeding at all with a Bill of this magnitude and of so revolutionary a character. If I understood the hon. Member for Leicester aright, he suggests that

1655
it is our business to force upon a reluctant country which is not zealous for education, and which deprecates any further progress along the lines of this Bill as adumbrated—that we should disregard public opinion altogether in this matter, and while we have the opportunity, in a decaying Parliament, take this Bill as originally provided, make the compulsion as great as possible, and the extension of the age as much as possible. I am inclined to think if do that we are up against the very basis and essence of the representative system in this country.
I, for my part, find myself in a very great difficulty. Although I do not hesitate to say—and I do not think anybody can contradict me—I am an enthusiastic educationist, and should like to see part-time education carried, at any rate, up to the age of eighteen, I am bound to have to confess that the community which I do my best in,a small measure to represent in this House is not of the same, shall I say, progressive views as regards education to which I myself endeavour to give expression. Every week that has passed since this Bill was introduced there has been a growing and a hardening of opinion on the part of the agricultural classes against the forcing of this portion of the Bill to the extreme which the Bill in its original form suggests. I have to confess that, because in speaking of educational matters as affecting the agricultural industry I cannot profess—I am sorry to say it—that I efficiently represent the opinion—right or wrong—of either the majority of employers or employed as regards continuation education. I may say in this respect the attitude of the Central Associated Chamber of Agriculture, after having very carefully considered this question of continuation schools during the last eight years, has been entirely reversed, entirely altered in the last few weeks. I have here—I will not bore the House by reading it—the report issued by the Education Committee of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, almost unanimously adopted by the chamber at the end of 1916, in favour of carrying compulsorily continuation schools up to the age of eighteen. During the last month, I regret to say, the chamber has unanimously decided to turn down that report, and has expressed the opinion that under existing conditions and prospective circumstances it finds itself unable to agree with these provisions of Clause 10.
1656
Upon what basis are we to judge this alternative proposal? The right hon. Gentleman on both Front Benches have suggested that there is no machinery or equipment available to-day, or likely to be available, to provide what this Clause contemplates. If that is so, let us have it definitely stated, definitely put forward as a reason why these proposals are to be dropped. For my part, I believe it to be absolutely true. It is certainly true so far as we can forecast in the West and South-West of England. We have always in the Gloucester Education Committee wondered how the right hon. Gentleman, when the time came, was by any means going to find either the buildings or the teachers required for these continuation schools. The Amendment which I ventured to put down on the Paper was in order to arrange matters or reduce the hours, perhaps from 320 to 300, so that it would be just possible to economise the teachers and buildings— which, by the way, in rural districts must be central in character, affecting as they do a very large area—should be so concentrated as to enable those classes to be carried on continuously throughout the whole year, taking the various age groups successively one after the other in the same school. I am bound to say that I entered this House this afternoon prepared to oppose the proposed Amendment put forward on behalf of Lancashire. Really I find it very difficult to choose between that alternative and the one now suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. After all, the alternative is this: It is half-time compulsory continuation of education between the ages of fourteen and sixteen, and then no further education at all. What is the alternative? It is not half-time, but quarter-time education from fourteen to sixteen, and although it is writ large in the Bill that after the period of seven years there will be a continuation of that education up to the age of eighteen, there is no immediate prospect of anything of the sort being carried into effect, and nothing to show that another education Bill may be brought in and carried which will cut out altogether the prospect of further education up to eighteen after the lapse of seven years, and leave that quarter-time education only from fourteen to sixteen in place of what the hon. Member for Lancashire suggested, namely; half-time during the same period. I find it difficult to come to a definite view without further consideration. I do say that

1657
so far as the agricultural population is concerned I am quite certain the right hon. Gentleman with the original proposals would not have carried the employers or the parents of the children or the representatives of agricultural interests with him on the various education authorities, and for that reason I hope that some concession will be made in order not to force upon an important section of the community these proposals.
After this War there is going to be an enormous lack of young men in this country available for any kind of industrial work between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five, and if you are going to insist upon carrying forward the education of the available young people up to the age of eighteen with a serious scarcity as the result of the War of labour from the age of eighteen up to thirty or thirty-five, you are going to impose a severe burden upon industry, which I am inclined to think industry will severely resent. I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the House, while preserving our enthusiasm for education which is bound in face of the lessons of the War to increase rather than diminish, to endeavour to carry an enlightened public opinion outside this House with us, and not attempt to force upon the country a reform for which in the circumstances we are not ripe, and against which there are prejudices which we cannot successfully overcome.
Mr. GOLDSTONE: The speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down will probably have prepared the President of the Board of Education for the kind of demand which will be put forward by other interests than that which he has endeavoured to represent this afternoon. I gather from the hon. Member for Wilton (Sir C. Bathurst) that he proposes to ask for concessions in the interests of agriculture. It seems there is to be a shortage. of labour, and that young men will not be available before eighteen years of age or after to do the necessary labour on the land. The hon. Member seems to have forgotten what has been accomplished during the period of the War. The output of agricultural produce even in the absence of millions of young men in the Army has been increased, and the hon. Member fails to appreciate what the scientific application of machinery will do for agriculture in the direction of the saving of labour. I am extremely disappointed at the atti-
1658
tude which the President of the Board has taken up towards the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Chorley (Sir H. Hibbert). It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman capitulated far too soon, and there did not seem to me either in the House or the country that volume of opposition to his original proposals which warranted so early a capitulation to the interests which have forced him into the present position.
I ask hon. Members to recall the fact that there will be an interval of seven years, and advantage of it will be taken by those who have made this bargain, and during that period it will be assumed by all those interested in the Amendment which has brought about the concession that there is to be no departure from the Amendment which is to be inserted on behalf of the Government, whether the circumstances would appear in the near future to warrant a return to the original form of the Bill or not. As a matter of fact, there was a considerable amount of evidence produced before a Departmental Committee presided over so admirably by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education recently, and the evidence which came before that Committee seemed to point to the possibility of taking a supply of teachers for continued education drawn from the men at present in the Army who could possibly, with some-amount of normal training, have been made available for continued education. The concession now made will apparently prevent a return to the original form of the Bill, even though it be true during the next seven years that it is possible to get the teachers and the buildings.
There are certain counties who are now of the opinion that this scheme of continued education up to eighteen can be applied in the very near future. The-secretary of the education committee to-the county of Northamptonshire has. declared that they have available buildings which it would not be difficult in their case to utilise as continuation schools for eight hours per week up to the age of eighteen. If there is one part of the Bill which has received a tremendous backing from all kinds of educationists in the country, it is the continuation school system up to eighteen. I have in my hand a volume of evidence which was taken by the Departmental Committee to which I have referred. and one of the witnesses appearing on behalf of the Association of

1659
Local Authorities was the hon. Member for Chorley. Will hon. Members recall the fact that this Departmental Committee was set up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Henderson) while he was President of the Board? That Committee sat during wartime and had to deal with war conditions and war problems. One of the witnesses was the hon. Member for Chorley, and his view then, before, I suppose, he had been subject to the pressure of certain interests in Lancashire, was to this effect:
"Sir Henry Hibbert quoted a resolution of the Union of Lancashire and Cheshire Institutes in favour of a leaving age of fourteen, followed by part-time day classes for six hours a week up to eighteen, facilities for attendance being given by employers."
This evidence was given in support of the very proposal to which the hon. Member for Chorley has now brought forward his Amendment. His evidence goes on to point out that "this resolution did not emanate merely from education committees, but it was the opinion of the representatives of many other interests, including 117,700 evening school students." I want to call the special attention of the Members of this Committe to that portion of the hon. Member's evidence, and I regret that he is not at present in his place. He said:
"I think with textile industries there would be some difficulty at first in letting young people off, but this would disappear in time."
This is part of the evidence adduced on behalf of education committees, directors, and secretaries of education organisations like the Workers' Educational Association, about which I want to say a word or two in reply to the hon. Member's references to it. The hon. Member suggested that the Workers' Educational Association did not truly represent any considerable body of Labour opinion, but in that view he is quite wrong, for, as a matter of fact, that association is a kind of federation of over 2,000 organisations, including 800 trade union branches and 400 co-operative societies, and it is not this particular Bill of which the Workers' Educational Association approve. Of course this association is glad to see the advance towards reform represented in the Bill, but they ask for a great deal more than is incorporated in this measure, and inasmuch as the association speaks for many thousands of trade unions and members of cooperative societies, when the hon. Member endeavours to minimise its representative
1660
character he is quite beside the mark in doing so—in fact, I have never known such a time during my knowledge of educational propaganda when the country was so ripe for a very substantial advance.
One of the things which has appealed most to the many audiences I have addressed previous to the introduction of this Bill was this point of the continuation schools from fourteen to eighteen. I wonder how long in these things we are going to defer to the opinion of Lancashire. I think this has been done far too long. [An HON. MEMBER: "Vested interests! "] We have allowed the call of the employer and the scream of the factory whistle to override real educational interests, and it is a matter to me of regret —aye, and more!—that the Labour party should not be as solid as its conferences have been in the matter of educational progress.
Mr. SNOWDEN: Where are the Labour Members now?
Mr. GOLDSTONE: The majority of them possibly are otherwise engaged. I wish they had more regard to Labour party mandates on education. We have asked in the Trade Union Congress not for a leaving age of fourteen but of sixteen.
Mr. SNOWDEN: And why have you not put down Amendments on this point?
Mr. GOLDSTONE: We have put down Amendments on the Paper, but we quite realise that we have the hon. Member opposite to reckon with. Unfortunately we who hold an advanced view know it is a fact that the private view of some of our friends does not always coincide with the view they represent on behalf of a powerful trade union interest. At the same time we have put down Amendments on behalf of the Labour party adopted by the Labour Members, who represent a considerable advance on the Bill as it stands, and I would that we could count upon a united Labour party to back those Amendments at the proper time. I hope that the President of the Board, having made this concession, will not feel called upon to go any further in the direction of conceding facilities, or, shall I say, a number of important things less in the interests of the children and more in the interests of the supposed efficiency of industry. It is not that way efficiency in industry will come. It seems to me that to have quoted in this House the competition of China, Japan, and India as a,

1661
reason for not making educational advance represents a falling from the high plane which should be occupied by men who are chairmen of education committees. I feel very strongly that, I had almost said, we have been let down, but it is not that. I understand to a considerable extent the difficulties of the President, but I do feel somewhat disappointed at his early capitulation when the attack had scarcely developed, and that early capitulation has made me doubtful as to whether he intends to stand firm on the other Clauses of the Bill. I hope indeed that he will, and that he will take seriously to heart the suggestion which comes from the hon. and gallant Member for Wilton, that having made one concession he may expect demands to be made from other quarters of the House endeavouring to wring further concessions from him. Let him stand by the children. Let him understand that the men at the front, as would be seen if they were polled, are for a better England than there has been, and it is through educational advance that we shall get a better England. They look to us, I feel quite sure, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, to see that those on whose behalf they are fighting shall enter into a heritage which it was not their joy to possess, and it is through this Bill that we shall do the right thing for the men who are fighting for a free England.
Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: The Mover of the Amendment spoke of it as the Lancashire Amendment, and the President of the Board said that all the Lancashire Members supported it. I am a Lancashire Member, and I oppose it. I oppose it because I believe it is an Amendment which will be prejudicial to the cause of education, and I feel that education should take priority over inconveniences in the administration of industry. I feel great sympathy with the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Mr. Goldstone) who has just spoken. I share with him a sense of regret that the President should have seemed to give away so much of the position which I believe he holds in the country with such strength, but for all that I hope that the suggestion that Progress should be reported, in order that further time may be given to consider the matter, will not be pressed. When it is examined I cannot help feeling that the concession that the President has made will be found to be one which is intended to demonstrate the gradual way in which the Clause will
1662
be brought into operation, rather than the abandonment of the principle underlying it.
Mr. FISHER: Hear, hear!
Mr. SCOTT: We all know the difficulties in regard to buildings and teachers, though, as the last speaker pointed out, those difficulties so far as buildings are concerned differ considerably in different parts of the country. I should like to put this definite question to the President of the Board for the information of the Committee: Is he satisfied that it will really take quite as long as seven years to bring in to operation the necessary machinery of teachers and buildings to make it practicable to apply the continuation classes from sixteen to eighteen years of age? If he says he is really satisfied that it is impossible to do it before, then the Committee candies cuss the Clause on the basis of the present proposal being the same as the proposal in the Bill. On the other hand, if he says that it is possible to bring it in before that date, I, for one, very greatly hope that he will see his way to leaving it to the Committee to consider whether it should be seven years or six years or a shorter period of time.
Mr. FISHER: There seems to be some misapprehension in the minds of the Committee as to the period of time. The delay is a delay of five years and not of seven years. The obligation will be imposed upon young persons between the ages of fourteen and sixteen five years later than would have been the case under the scheme in the Bill, because it would have taken two years to carry out the scheme for young persons between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. As to whether it would be impossible to introduce the system for the older young persons, if I may use that phrase, at as earlier date, all I can say is that we can do it very much more effectively if we have that five years' longer interval.
Mr. SCOTT: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for answering my question, and I would venture to ask the Committee to approach the discussion now upon the footing that it is the same problem that we had to face when we began the Debate this afternoon. If it is really the case that for practical purposes continuation classes could not be made effective for young persons between, the ages of sixteen and eighteen till the date mentioned, then there has been no sub-

1663
stantial difference made in the Clause by reason of what the President himself has called a concession. On the other hand, lest those in Lancashire and elsewhere engaged in industry should think that the proposal is one which it is likely to be difficult to deal, and should be unduly disturbed by the prospect of the Bill, it is well that they should know, so far as persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen in their employ are concerned, that they will have at least the period of time mentioned by the President before they will have to make the necessary adjustments in their businesses in order to face the new conditions. There is an observation which is perhaps almost a truism, namely, that changes of this type are much more difficult to deal with if they are brought in suddenly than if after an interval of time and gradually. Conditions then adjust themselves almost automatically. This is not an Amendment to substitute for the scheme of the Bill a half-time system throughout the country. It is absolutely essential to a proper comprehension of the problem that we have to decide to realise that what is proposed is not a general half-time system, but an option to every Part II. local education authority to apply whichever system it thinks right. On the wording of the Clause I was not at all sure whether the option was to be given to the child or to the authority, but the Mover of the Amendment, in answer to a question by the President, has intimated that he intended this discretion to be given to the authority. Let us assume that it is so. What is the difference between a proposal to substitute 600 hours a week throughout the country for the proposal in the Bill? What is the difference between a proposal to allow each Part II. authority in its discretion to substitute in its area 600 hours per year for the proposal in the Bill?
Is it the proposal that the Part II. Authority should be allowed to apply either one or the other system throughout its area but not both, or is it the proposal to allow the Part II. Authority to run both systems within its area? Obviously, the latter proposal involves much greater complexity of procedure than the former, but even the former involves great complexity in practice. Let us take Lancashire. You have there the county authority as a Part II. Authority and you have, as other Part II. Authorities, the big urban authorities, contiguous one to the
1664
other. You have a cotton mill on the borders of two and possibly three authorities drawing its employés from all three districts. Supposing those two or three local education authorities take different views. I assume, first, that they have got to apply throughout their area either the 600-hour system or the 320-hour system. One authority applies the 600-hour system and the other the 320-hour system. What is the unfortunate employer to do? Is he to draw all his employés from one area and none from the other, in which case those people lose their jobs or is he to have two systems running in his mill with a different system of release for the purposes of the education of some of his employés from that which is in vogue for others. You get hopeless complexity from the point of view of the employer.
Again, take two mills in contiguous local education areas. One mill is in a 600-hour area and the other in a 320-hour area. If it be the fact that the 320-hour area system is a disadvantage the other man has an advantage over his competitor in business. Look at it from the point of view of the young person. Are they to lose their employment in a particular mill because the local education authority over whom they have no control has elected to adopt one system rather than the other?
The practical difficulties which are illustrated in that way as regards one industry show the absolute impossibility of running the two systems together. Then you have to take into account the fact that while one industry may find it more convenient to have the 320-hour system, another industry may find it more convenient to have the 600-hour system. You may have different industries within the same area finding their convenience diametrically opposed one to the other. In those circumstances, we should see log-rolling and wire-pulling by every industry over every local education authority to try to get adopted the system most convenient to itself. It is not practicable or business to attempt to combine the two systems. I therefore lay stress on the fact that the proposal before the Committee is not a simple proposal to substitute half-time education for quarter-time education, but a proposal to allow each education authority a discretion to do what it thinks best. Those business reasons absolutely preclude the possibility of considering this proposal. The Committee has not before it any other proposal. There is no united body of opinion sufficiently strong to have

1665
got an Amendment put on the Paper proposing to adopt the general system of half-time education for two years instead of quarter-time education for four years. That is a fact of the greatest moment. During the past two or three years we have all thought much on the question of which was really the best for the cause of education, either to have half-time education up to sixteen or quarter-time education up to eighteen. For many reasons I should prefer the half-time education up to sixteen, because I believe, as one speaker has already suggested, that in a few years' time the advantage of that would be so apparent that public opinion would insist upon the half-time education continuing up to eighteen. That is one reason why I take that view. On the other hand, the difficulty of introducing half-time education throughout the country straight away on account of the dislocation in industry that would result is a practical objection which, on the whole, makes me prefer quarter-time education.
Again I insist that that question is not before the Committee. We have not to choose between quarter-time and half-time education; we have to say "aye" or "no" will we have one method of education for the whole country which is practicable, and which can be carried out, although there may be difficulties in applying it in certain industries, or will we have the hopeless confusion of a double system running in different areas, perhaps one in one area, another in another area, perhaps both running in a third area, which is proposed in the Amendment. No man can have any serious doubt in his mind on the choice between one system as a whole and the other system as a whole, and no man can consider the combination of the two as practical business. It would be destructive in the interests of the employer and of the employed, and it would ruin the education system. How could local education authorities run the two systems concurrently in the same school? For these practical reasons I submit that this Amendment is entirely misconceived. I should like to add one more sentence to the quotation made by the hon. Member for Sunderland from the evidence given by the hon. Member for Chorley before the Departmental Committee on juvenile education in relation to employment of children after the War, which sat last year. All three witnesses for local authorities spoke with one voice. They
1666
were Mr. Henry Hobhouse, the Chairman of the County Councils Association, Mr. Holland, the Chairman of the Education Committee of Northamptonshire, and the hon. Member for Chorley. They summed up their joint evidence in these terms:
"The witnesses thought that the time has now been reached when Parliament might pass a measure requiring that in all boroughs and urban districts, after full-time day attendance had ceased, attendance at continuation schools for a specified period equivalent to from six to ten hours per week should be compulsory up to the age of eighteen, the employers being obliged, under penalties, to give the necessary facilities, including a corresponding reduction in the hours of labour."
That is a considered opinion, apart from local pressure by local industries operating on the Lancashire Members. I submit that this Committee should give due weight to that considered and independent opinion of three distinguished educationists and should say now that it is not going to be bamboozled out of the simple plan which there is in the Bill into adopting an Amendment which will produce nothing but muddle.
Sir H. HIBBERT: I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "No !"]—and in doing so to state to the Committee that Lancashire Members accept the Amendment mentioned by the President of the Board of Education.
The CHAIRMAN: The result of the objection to the withdrawal of the Amendment will be that the Amendment will be subsequently dealt with by the Committee.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I do not wish to delay the Committee in reaching a decision, but it would hardly be reasonable; to ask the Committee, after hearing only two or three speeches, to come to a decision, not upon the Amendment now technically under discussion, but upon the much more important change in the Bill announced by the President of the Board of Education. An urgent plea has been put forward by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. R. Macdonald) that the Debate should be adjourned in order that we might consider this change in the Bill. Although I do not suggest any adjournment of the Debate, I beg the Committee to consider the quite vital alteration in the Bill which the President has announced. The Bill as introduced into this House was a compromise. No one believes, on educational grounds, that a scheme of an hour's

1667
attendance daily at a continuation class for young persons between fourteen and eighteen is a satisfactory or final solution of our educational problem. On educational grounds we all realise, whatever political difference exists and whatever difference exists in regard to certain areas, that the proper line of advance is the raising of the school age for full-time attendance to the age of fourteen years. That is the method we follow in regard to our own children. That is the method followed in regard to the children of the wealthy classes. We do not listen to compromises in their case; we see that those children are kept at school until early manhood. The right hon. Gentleman must remember, in announcing any weakening of the Bill, that the Bill itself is a compromise and is only brought forward as a transitional measure until public opinion should be sufficiently unified to enable him substantially to increase the age for full-time attendance. The change in the Bill announced by the President is, therefore, of quite a vital character. It goes very much further than the Amendment. I do not wonder that the Mover of the Amendment at this early stage of the Debate should rise to ask leave to withdraw it and to accept the Government's offer, because the Government have offered him very much more than he demanded in the Amendment. He said in his Amendment that Lancashire was willing to give half-time attendance up to the age of sixteen if, after the age of sixteen, there was no liability to attend school as proposed in the Bill. The President of the Board of Education resists that Amendment, but, after putting up a resistance based on many good arguments, he then announces that, while not accepting that Amendment, he will give something much more sweeping than is even hinted at in the Amendment—that he would sweep away all education between sixteen and eighteen for a period which he mentioned as being roughly seven years.
Mr. FISHER: Five years!
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman said it would be seven years in effect.
Mr. FISHER: Seven years after the appointed day, but the hon. Member will realise that it will take two years before the fourteen to sixteeners come in; there-
1668
fore there will be a five years' interval between the completion of the first stage and the beginning of the second stage.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, but I am not under any misapprehension. He will see that there is nothing inconsistent with what he said in what I say. It means that from the appointed day there will be no compulsory continuation classes for young persons between sixteen and eighteen years of age for a period of seven years. That is the first thing he sweeps out of the Bill. What is much more serious is that he weakens greatly the arrangements made for continued education between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. The Bill as drafted gives 320 hours annually. The most valuable proviso in connection with that proposal was that if it was found by experiment that they were able to build up the system and having allowed education authorities in the more advanced areas to show the way, it would then be possible to increase greatly those 320 hours, because the President had taken power in the Clause as drafted to increase that maximum number of 320 hours. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to abolish that power, so that whatever success these continuation classes meet with, however much the more progressive education authorities wish to experiment, and however much they may wish to prove that there is no objection to a much wider scheme, the Board of Education will have no power to allow them to increase that small number of 320 hours per annum. It is a grave weakening of the Bill, because the Bill limits the extent of our education system in this country and without another Act of Parliament it is not possible to make any advance. But the right hon. Gentleman does more than that. He says, "I will reduce the minimum number of hours during which attendance may be required at continuation schools from 320 to 280 hours." Let mo observe, in reply to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. L. Scott), that this weakening of the Bill by the President introduces precisely that dual arrangement which he spent much time in showing was so unworkable. The argument in that speech was that it was an objection to the Amendment we are now discussing that, if it were accepted, it would mean having two schemes in operation in this country—one

1669
scheme of 600 hours' attendance and another scheme of 320 hours' attendance— and that the two schemes were unworkable side by side.
Mr. R. McNEILL: The President of the Board of Education used the same argument.
Mr. FISHER: There is a considerable difference. Under the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Chorley the further obligation extending over two years of a student's life was dependent upon the initial difference between the hours. It is quite possible to have some slight variation of hours between one area and another over a period of years, provided that no further matter is dependent upon that slight variation.
8.0 P. M
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: It comes to this, that while attacking the institution of two schemes, the President has now made an alteration in the Bill which will, to a less degree I admit, give us substantially two schemes in operation in this country, because some areas—I presume Lancashire will be one—will take the option now offered by the President of reducing the number of attendances to 280 hours per annum, while other areas—I hope they will be the majority—will take the maximum of 320 hours allowed by the Bill.
Mr. DENNISS: Do I understand that that is optional?
8.0 P.M.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Yes; it is. I am not under any misunderstanding. I think my hon. Friend entirely fails to grasp the point of the President's proposal, which is that you can either have 280 hours annually or 320. That sets up the dual system which the President himself has attacked, and which the last speaker spent almost the whole of his speech in resisting. I want to put the concession as I understand it. Under the concession, if that be the right word to use, which the President has adumbrated, 320 hours is the maximum. I think in saying that I am in the recollection of the Committee. It is clear that any local education authority, however progressive, however clearly it shows that it has the requisite teachers and buildings to give an increased number of hours' attendance, those hours cannot be more than 320, and on the other hand they may be reduced to 280. Obviously in that case 280 is the minimum; therefore you have a dual
1670
system, and that system at its best can never be extended without another Act of Parliament beyond the 320 hours per annum. I want to put this to the right hon. Gentleman. I know, and every Member of this Committee knows, his zeal in the cause of education. It is clear the right hon. Gentleman is not expressing his own views or convictions as to what is necessary when he suggests these changes. It must be quite clear to us all there is a great battle being fought behind the scenes, and that this drastic, and as I think very vital change, is being made in the Bill because of the great force of an opposition of which we know nothing at all.
Mr. DENNISS: No, no!
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should say "No, no," unless, indeed. he is behind the scenes. I regret very much that the opposition with which the President is faced has been of such a serious nature as to lead him to make proposals which greatly weaken the Bill. The whole importance of the Bill is to be found in this Clause 10 and in the proposals for continued education. All the other proposals in the Bill are secondary to the proposals in this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned our present enemy, and suggested we should be put on a level with him in the matter of education. I would suggest that we should also be put on a level with our friends in other countries, and that our educational system should not fall below that of either our enemies or of our friends, if we are to work out the consolidated progress of mankind. The right hon. Gentleman offers as a substitute for the very wonderful system of continuation classes and secondary schools in the Central Empires that our children between the ages of fourteen and eighteen should be liable to compulsory attendance at school to an extent amounting almost exactly to forty-five minutes daily. The Bill as now altered by the President of the Board of Education means that on the average the compulsory attendance at continuation classes shall be for forty-five minutes daily, and that is the alternative scheme to the system in vogue in the Central Empires. But how does that scheme compare with the educational system of America, which I think is much more important than the Gorman system? This is all that is offered to us in substitution for the system in America, where

1671
every secondary school, every high school, and every grammar school is free, where I think books and apparatus are also free, and where, too, the universities are frequently free. I say that the scheme in the Bill which, expressed crudely and briefly, is simply compulsory attendance for forty-five minutes daily between the ages of fourteen and eighteen—and I say it with great respect for the President of the Board—is wholly inadequate, and I greatly regret that vested interests in this matter have compelled the President to make such drastic changes in the Bill.
Sir NORVAL HELME: There is a general consensus of opinion throughout the country that the interests of the nation require a further development of the brain power of our young people. I think that is very well expressed in the first Clause of the Bill, which provides for the progressive development and comprehensive organisation of education for all persons capable of profiting thereby. Speaking as a Lancashire Member, and as a member of the education committee of that county from its formation, I say that we in Lancashire have been sincerely desirous in every way we possibly can to develop the education of the children in that county, and I think we may point to the fact that our annual Budget is more than £1,000,000 per annum, and we vote out of that sum no less than £26,000 yearly for scholarships to encourage children to pass from the elementary to the secondary schools, and from the secondary schools to the universities. Therefore, we, as Lancashire Members, may claim that we approach this important Bill with a real desire to secure the best practicable scheme for adapting it to the needs of the country. It has been recognised in the past by a majority of educational authorities that it is more advantageous to obtain full time instruction for the children up to the age of thirteen years rather than half-time education from twelve to fourteen, and the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Chorley, with the support of the Lancashire Members, was based on the idea that we should do better to concentrate within the two years from fourteen to sixteen the number of hours that the children would be under instruction, rather than to extend it to the age of eighteen.
Our object was not to put a block in the way of a system of compulsory attendance
1672
up to eighteen years of age being adopted in the country. We claim it was an alternative. It might for the time being be possible to adopt either the one or the other. We are sincerely desirous that the limit to eighteen should be maintained ultimately, but it has been our effort in the past to develop, according to the public opinion of the place, to the utmost of our power, and therefore we were desirous that the President should accept our Amendment. However, he has not been able to do so. But the Lancashire Members, as the hon. Member for Chorley has stated, are prepared to advise the withdrawal of this Amendment and to accept the proposal of His Majesty's Government. We feel that there must be a continuity of effort to apply the principles of science to industry, and that we must secure by all means a race of skilled workers who can hold their own in the production of goods that will compete in all the markets of the world. We want to have an educated, prosperous, and contented people, so that we may get the very best service from willing workers out of willing hands. I have great pleasure in supporting the scheme of the Bill, because I believe that the maintenance of the age up to eighteen will be of great advantage to the country. The object of the Lancashire Members was rather to allow that to be imposed at a later stage. Our desire was not to destroy the scheme, but to leave it open, so that we could have the alternative principle applicable. But, under the circumstances, I am glad to be able to say that, as one of the Lancashire Members, I shall have pleasure in supporting the proposals of the President of the Board as now declared.
Sir P. MAGNUS: There is no doubt that the offer of the President of the Board of Education has come upon all of us as a very great surprise. I do not think anyone was prepared for so large a concession as that which he has made. At the same time, I should be sorry if it were thought that the Bill, even in the form in which it will appear, provided that the Amendment of the President is accepted, will not be a very great advance upon our previous educational system. Even with the present Amendment, compulsory education will be obligatory between the ages of fourteen and sixteen, and, therefore, the scheme is a very great improvement upon the system of education which has prevailed in this country from

1673
time immemorial. It is the first occasion on which continuation education has been made operative. Hon. Members will remember that Bills have been introduced into this House in previous Sessions for setting up obligatory continuation education. These Bills were brought in by private Members. I myself was very reluctant to accept any measure of compulsion for continuation education, and as a matter of fact, none of the Bills succeeded in becoming law. I well remember, however, that on one or two of these occasions I distinctly stated that the question of compulsory continuation education must form part of a Government Bill— which, I hoped, would be introduced at some future time. Let us not be unmindful of the step forward in education which will result from the fact of making attendance at continuation schools obligatory even between the ages of fourteen and sixteen
It being a Quarter past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS,

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL (By Order).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  My reason for moving the rejection of this Bill is not with regard to any of its contents, upon which I desire to say nothing. I take it that the Bill is simply to enable the Lurgan Urban District Council, who are bound by a Provisional Order they had before to sell gas at 4s. 6d. per 1,000 cubic feet dry meter, and that all they are asking is that under this Provisional Order they shall be able to raise the price from 4s. 6d. to 5s. 6d. per 1,000 cubic feet. My objection, and the reason I have blocked the Bill, is that
  1674
  the urban district council in coming to this House and presenting this Bill asks the consideration of this House in the period of their difficulty, and the point I wish to establish is that this urban district council refuses itself to give consideration to its employés when they are in any difficulty. I think that when a public authority, or even a public company, comes to this House and asks for privileges to be given to it we have a right to inquire as to whether these people who come to this House to ask for the privileges that this House can alone confer have in the past exercised the powers they have had in their possession in a reasonable spirit before we are entitled to grant any further power to them. There is another consideration in this matter which I should like to put seriously before the House. This country at the present time is going through the greatest war the world has ever known. When this War broke out a special and urgent appeal was made to the whole of the trade unions in this country to cease all the disputes they had then in operation, and to endeavour to do their best to see that while we were fighting this terrible enemy of ours we should endeavour to the best of our ability to compose our difficulties and to carry on the industry of the country in a friendly, reasonable, and amicable spirit.
  I venture to say that as far as the particular workmen employed by this firm, and the organisation with which they were connected, were concerned, desiring an improvement in their wages, they conducted themselves in such a manner as to carry out all that any reasonable Members of this House could desire with a view to avoiding any dispute. So anxious were these men to avoid any dispute or stoppage, and that the matter should be considered by a person appointed with some experience to go into the pros and cons of the case in order that both sides might be enabled to put their case with all their strength and power and that ultimately a person unconnected with either side might decide the question between the two parties, that they asked that the matter should be referred to the Ministry of Labour, and that an arbitrator should be appointed to hear both sides in this difference—because, after all, in the beginning it was only what is termed, in the Munitions of War Act, a "difference," and had not then developed into a "dispute." The

  1675
  Ministry of Labour, at the request of the men concerned, appointed Sir Richard Lodge to hear the difference in Belfast on 21st September, 1917. The representatives of the workmen attended on that date before Sir Richard Lodge, but the Lurgan Council declined to attend the hearing, and it was therefore cancelled. I venture to say that every effort had been made by these particular workmen concerned to avoid anything in the nature of a stoppage of work, and that the urban district council has not acted as most reasonable employers in this country do. We have had scores—one might almost say hundreds—of cases where private employers, who are running their concerns for profit, and have a direct pocket interest in the business but have not even come under the War Munitions Act, have agreed that in order to avoid a dispute in their works the Ministry should appoint an arbitrator, so that the whole case might be heard in a friendly way and settled in a businesslike fashion.
  General McCALMONT: Will the hon. Gentleman say what the date was?
  Mr. DUNCAN: The date of the hearing was 21st September, 1917. The men, having no other course open to them, gave notice to cease employment on 19th November, 1917, and in tendering their notice they stated that it was conditional upon any settlement being effected between the representative of their union and the urban district council before those notices could come into operation. On the 14th November the town clerk intimated the willingness of the urban district council to meet the representatives of the men to hear his views upon the subject. Obviously up to that time no effort had been made by the urban district council to make any inquiry to find out the position of their workmen. On the following day, the 15th November, they revised their decision, and declined to have the interview they had already promised. What influence had been brought to bear I cannot for the life of me understand, but it is obvious that at one time the council were willing that the case might be put before them and discussed, and that afterwards some influence had been at work and had persuaded the council to reverse its decision. The workmen's notices ran out, and they ceased work. Other men were started, and paid higher wages than the men who
  1676
  had ceased work, which proves, if it proves anything, that the request the men had been making to the urban district council must have had some common-sense and reason behind it. It does seem to me amazing in these times, when men are asking, largely because of the increased cost of living, for some commensurate advance in wages that a public authority like this should act in this stubborn fashion, and refuse to meet the representatives of the men for an opportunity to state their case, and should also refuse to take part in proceedings under the Ministry of Labour whereby the whole matter of the difficulty could be thrashed out in a reasonable, fair, and sensible fashion round the table. If these men had been obtaining very high rates of wages the Council might have been justified in their attitude. But what are the wages they have been paying? I have here the wages of eight men out of the seventeen they employed. They had five labourers receiving l6s. per week and 2s. war bonus, one lamplighter receiving 18s. a week and 2s. war bonus, one meter inspector receiving 24 s. and 2s. a week war bonus, and one assistant clerk, also in receipt of 24s. a week and 2s. war bonus. One has only to point out, if it is necessary in the House of Commons at this time of day, that the cost of living has increased in this country 107 per cent., according to the Committee on Production. The result of their examination into hundreds of cases where workmen have applied for an increase in their rates of wages is that the advance which has been conceded to millions of workmen in this country amounts to at least £1 per week, and hundreds of thousands, if not a very much larger number. have received 12½ per cent. above that.
  General McCALMONT: Is that on present rates?
  Mr. DUNCAN: That is since 1914—the pre-war rate. I want to make this comparison, that the workpeople of this country are to-day enjoying a war bonus of 20s., and there are, I believe, roughly 2,000,000 of them receiving 12½ per cent. on top of that, and when we compare this with a war bonus of 2s. a week given to men receiving 16s. and 24s. it does not require any argument to show that it was really impossible for them to live upon the wages they were receiving. I believe people in this position could not live, but could only starve on the wages which were

  1677
  being paid and the price of provisions as it is to-day. That is a condition of things which reflects tragically upon any public authority in this country that they should continue a condition of things like that and should brutally refuse to consider the matter through the mouth of the men's spokesmen, and refuse deliberately and persistently to allow the case to go to abitration, and it is not within the power of any Member of this House, though he searched all industrial England through, to bring a more tragic case than that of these men. It is true the urban district council gave other men greater advances of wages. I should be the last man to desire to take any credit away from the urban district council, and there is nothing I would not do to avoid bringing this case before the House. They have advanced two of their retort men 10s. 6d. a week, two plumbers have received 4s., and two retort helpers 4s.
  There is another point of some importance. In all the thousands of cases which have been submitted to the Committee on Production they have unfailingly adopted one principle. They have agreed, on the representation of the men concerned, that the increased cost of living affects the poor man just as much as the highly skilled, highly paid man, and in all their decisions they have awarded the lowest paid man the same war bonus as the highly skilled, highly paid man. In this instance the poorest paid man, that is, the man in receipt of 16s., has received 2s. a week, whereas men who have been in receipt of 35s. a week received 10s. 6d. The practice that has been laid down by the Committee of Production, covering between two and three million workpeople in this country, would not be entered into lightly, and could only have been entered into and decided after representations from all these people and after agreeing that the case which had been made out was a fair and reasonable case. The highly skilled and highly paid men did not object for a single moment to the lower paid, unskilled and semi-skilled men receiving exactly the same rate of war bonus as they themselves received. This company, of course without any experience, has reversed the operation. It has given the very highly paid men five times as much as the lower paid men, and they have done a double injustice in not allowing them to state their case before the arbitrator appointed by the Ministry. Further, the hours of
  1678
  labour which these men have to work for those wages, if one may call them so, are fifty-six hours a week, and the war bonus, insignificant and miserable as it is, is not paid if the men lose any time. There, again, I know of no award in this country where any such cruel condition is imposed upon the payment of a war bonus.
  The promoters of the Bill find themselves in a difficulty and they are asking this House to come to their assistance. The urban district council is appealing to the House as a tribunal to judge as to the relative merits of their case, but it refuses its workpeople any right to take their case before any tribunal at all. The least public bodies can do is to accept the example of all good employers in this country. This case of the Lurgan Urban District Council stands out boldly and prominently among all the cases I have had anything to do with. Cases of this kind are so rare that they might be termed a negligible quantity. All we ask, and all we have ever asked, is that the case should still be allowed to go to arbitration. We believe we have a fair and honest case to put before that arbitrator. We believe still that the decision of the Lurgan Urban District Council, the wages they are paying, and their method of conceding the advance are an injustice to these people. It is true that when these men tendered their notices their places were filled. The urban district council succeeded in obtaining men to take the places of the men who left their work. We think that the urban council did us an injustice. Despite the fact that they have managed to succeed in forcing us into the dispute and to do without these men, we think that the injustice still continues. We believe that we had a right to expect much more reasonable terms from the council. If this case were put to an arbitrator it might be that none of these men would be returned to their position, but we would accept that decision if the arbitrator came to it. He might possibly decide that some compensation should be paid to these men for what they have lost as a result of this difficulty. In any case we are prepared to leave it entirely to his discretion and to accept whatever decision he might come to. There is a great contrast between the wages paid by this council and the rates paid in Belfast to-day. In the workshops the rate of pay for labourers is not 16s. per week but 36s. per week, and a 12é per cent. bonus.
  General McCALMONT: Is the House to understand that the men employed at the present time are getting only 16s.?
  Mr. DUNCAN: I know that the council give them a. few shillings war bonus, and, as I have already stated, the men who were taken on to fill these men's places were given an increase of wage. My hon. Friend will see that that strengthens my case, and shows that the men who are asking for this consideration are entitled to it and that they were treated very scurvily by the council in not granting them a hearing with a view to further concessions. I think that proves my case to demonstration. There is a tragic disparity between the rates of wages paid to labourers in Belfast—which is not very far from Lurgan—where the labourers, not skilled men, who are performing similar work to the men in question are receiving 43s. per week and a 12é per cent. bonus. I think I have said sufficient to show that this council has not acted in any way reasonably. They have not allowed their workpeople to go to any tribunals in this difficulty. This House views with some concern the action of those authorities who come here for an extension of their powers. In placing power in the hands of either public bodies or public companies the House is perfectly entitled to ascertain whether the authority so given is being used, as this House thinks it ought to be used, in a fair and reasonable spirit. There has been no employer in this country since the War began who has behaved in a more brutal or a more unreasonable way than this council. Nothing would have pleased me better than that they should have seen the light of reason and should have agreed to allow this case —whether it was good or bad or indifferent did not matter to them or to us —to go to an arbitrator. So far as we were concerned we should have been prepared, as we have been in hundreds of other cases, to accept whatever decision had been given. Therefore I suggest that this public authority has shown that it is unfitted to exercise the powers now asked, and I move the Motion standing in my name.
  Mr. HUDSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I am surprised that a public representative body should have taken the action that they have in this case with their own employés. I am quite aware that the gulf between capital and labour in Ireland
  1680
  has been very wide. I know the country very well. I have had a very wide experience there, and there is this to be said for it, that at least during the last three years great strides have been made in the direction of employers and employed coming together. In matters associated with munition workers and large bodies of men in Ireland conferences have been held from time to time and arrangements have been amicably come to. I was in Ireland four times last year arranging matters in regard to war bonuses and war wages, and that was done on more amicable lines than I had ever known in Ireland. I am pleased to know that that gulf has been narrowed so far as many of the most important employers were concerned, and I am astonished to find that the Lurgan District Council should have taken this attitude. I think it would be graceful on their part if they were to accept the position laid down by my hon. Friend and agree to this case going before an arbitrator, so that it might be settled.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): I hope my hon. Friend will not persist in his Motion because although he has made out a very good case this is not one of those cases where you can by dropping the Bill impose upon the directors of a company or anybody of that kind a better course of conduct. I quite believe that my hon. Friend has made out a good case for arbitration. I am sure he will be the last to ask me to express an opinion before I had heard the other side, but on the case as he presents it, and assuming his case to be absolutely accurate, he has made out a very good case for arbitration. Of course, there may be an answer to it. Is that sufficient ground for blocking this Bill? May I remind the House what this Bill does. The Lurgan Urban District Council provide their ratepayers with gas. Not all the ratepayers use the gas. At 4s. 6d. per thousand cubic feet there is a deficiency, and that deficiency has to be made good by the general body of ratepayers. Therefore, unless this Bill is passed it means that the poorer ratepayers who do not use the gas and cannot use the gas will have to pay the difference for the benefit of those richer and better-off ratepayers who do use it. The object of the Bill is to enable such a charge to be made for the gas that the people who use the gas shall pay for it and that those who do not use the gas shall not be charged to make up the deficiency for the benefit of those who

  1681
  use the gas. It is not a case of a company whose directors behave in an arbitrary and improper fashion, where, by checking the power of obtaining dividends, you can bring pressure to bear on them. It will not matter two pence to members of the urban council whether this Bill passes. Probably every one of them is a user of gas himself, and he will get his gas all the cheaper if this Bill does not pass. But it will matter to a number of ratepayers of Lurgan if this Bill does not pass, who would have to pay rates to make up the difference between the cost of the gas and its price. Assuming that what my hon. Friend has said is correct, I think that he has made out a rather strong case for arbitration. I cannot possibly offer an opinion on the case, because I have not heard the other side, but I am prepared to do anything I can, if it is of any assistance, to bring the parties together. I do not know that I have any power in the matter, but, if I can, I am prepared to do all that is possible to persuade the parties to come to arbitration, and I would ask my hon. Friend, and especially my colleague who seconded the Motion— I do think that it is not kind of him to block the Very first Bill that I bring forward—to withdraw the Motion, and I will do the best I can to ensure that the whole question shall be arbitrated upon. It may be—of course, I cannot pledge myself—-that the other side have a perfect answer to what my hon. Friend has said, but if they have not I shall do my best to persuade them to come to arbitration, and meantime, for the sake of the ratepayers, who alone are going to benefit by this Bill, I would ask that the Motion should be withdrawn.
  General McCALMONT: I do not desire to make this a controversial matter, and do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness in all the arguments which he has used. But there are some points which he omitted to mention, and which I think make the case a little less serious than he made it as against the urban council. My hon. and gallant Friend (Major Allen) the Member for the constituency in which Lurgan is, was away on service and is now on short leave of absence, and in order that he should not have to give up two or three days of his leave I undertook to take up this matter for him. I do not think that the House realises, from what my hon. Friend has said, that this whole matter is now six or
  1682
  seven months old, that the whole thing was settled in December last, and that since December last the question has not arisen at all. Therefore, the whole thing is ancient history. In fact, if he had in his speech made it a little clearer that he was referring to the year 1917 I had intended to ask you, Sir, whether it was in order to object to the passing of a Bill on grounds of that kind. There was another point on which I think he was not quite accurate. He said that Six Richard Lodge visited Belfast in September for the purpose of holding his arbitration, that the men were represented on this occasion, and that the urban council declined to be represented. I am informed that Sir Richard Lodge wrote on the 20th September that as munitions work was not involved the case could not be heard under the Munitions Act, but that by the consent of the urban council to arbitration the matter might proceed under the Conciliation Act. The whole question of munitions did not apply at all. Therefore it is not quite fair to say that the urban council refused to go to arbitration without giving any satisfactory reason for it.
  Then, leaving the past entirely out of the question, I think that this is a matter for the present. The right hon. Gentleman has made it quite clear that this is a Bill to enable the present inhabitants of Lurgan to obtain gas without the ratepayers being overcharged for it, and I think that my hon. Friend might have mentioned that the urban council have expressed themselves perfectly as willing that their present employés should join any union they wish, either that which the hon. Member represents or any other union, and that they are perfectly prepared to recognise that union. I think that that possibly removes a great deal of the sting out of what he said about this urban council being so anxious to abuse their position, and so determined to refuse proper consideration to the men whom they employ. On the general question of the Bill I am sure, without being controversial, or disagreeing with the Labour party on the subject, that it must be the general opinion of the House that the Bill is a necessary one in order to enable the inhabitants of this town to get light at a proper charge. It is brought in to remove an injustice. Incidentally, I think that my right hon. Friend might have referred to the fact that this Bill does not concern Lurgan only, but that it refers to two

  1683
  other towns as well. Therefore, I support his appeal to the hon. Member not to proceed with the Motion.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I desire to support the Motion put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow. I regret very much the attitude taken up by the Chief Secretary. He has stated that it is not the Members of the Lurgan Council who, in all probability, would suffer if this Amendment were carried, but the poor ratepayers of the town. If that is the position, then the ratepayers of the Lurgan district require to deal with the members of the urban council. The members of the council have dealt with their employés in a very arbitrary fashion. The hon. Member who has just sat down gave, as among the reasons why my hon. Friend should not persist in his Motion, that this matter was six or seven months old. Suppose that it is, or that it is older than that, that means simply that the men who originally had the dispute with the members of the Lurgan Council have been kept out of their employment for all that time, and that others who have been employed to take the places of the men who came out on strike have been paid higher wages over that time. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend, this dispute commenced without any negotiation whatever taking place between the parties. The workmen applied for an advance of 6s. per week in their wages. To that request the council made no reply. Later on they again approached the council through the union, and the officials of the union were informed that the council had no dispute with the workmen. When the men's union applied for arbitration, and the arbiter was appointed, the members of the council refused to take part in the arbitration on the ground that they were not under the Ministry of Munitions.
  9.0 p.m.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow pointed out, it is very difficult to get a parallel case to this throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain. During three and a half years of stress and strain employers and employed have been doing the best they can to avoid trouble. I would point out, further, in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who said that this dispute is six or seven months old, that it is not so old as he would endeavour to get the House to believe. The Lurgan Urban Council became aware that this
  1684
  Provisional Order Bill was likely to be blocked in the fashion in which that has been done, and they got into communication with the men's union. They for the first time got into real negotiation. Up till then, evidently, they had believed that they had the whip hand, and little or no legal negotiation took place. But when this Provisional Order was going to be passed they got into real communication with the men's union, and an attempt was made to settle the dispute. If a reasonable settlement had been come to, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow would have been delighted to withdraw his opposition to this Bill. What were the terms when the parties got to real negotiation? I want the Chief Secretary to note this particularly. First, it was claimed that there must be a recognition of the men's union. That was a demand which all employers in the country were quite prepared to accept, and I think any public body should be a standing example to private employers. Employers in this country are prepared to recognise the men's unions. The second thing the representatives of the men claimed was the reinstatement of the workers who came out on strike. I think that was only asking for bare justice from the members of the Lurgan District Council. If there was a dispute, and undoubtedly there was a dispute between the members of the council and the men who left work six or seven months ago, in the favourable atmosphere created for the settlement of this dispute. Settlement could only have been accomplished by the reinstatement of the men who had the original dispute with the council. In making such a claim the workmen involved were not making a claim which is not generally made by workmen in similar circumstances all over the country. Wherever there has been a dispute in any part of our industrial system one of the first terms of settlement is almost sure to be the reinstatement of the workmen with whom the original dispute began. The first point that was suggested in the terms of settlement by the men was the claim for increased wages or a joint reference. I want the Chief Secretary to note this point. The representatives of the council were prepared to accept a request to recognise the Workers' Union, but claimed that paragraphs B and C of the claim were not valid owing to the lapse of time and the change of circumstances, or, in other words, they were not

  1685
  prepared to reinstate the men originally involved in the dispute, neither were they prepared to settle the claim by giving their men the increase requested, or to refer the matter to arbitration. What hope is there, if that is the answer of the district council, and should we remove the block from this Bill and let it pass, that the members of the council will be prepared to act on the suggestion and accept the good offices of the Chief Secretary, by putting the whole question to arbitration? They have already refused arbitration, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow will persist in his Motion until they are prepared to refer the whole dispute to arbitration. If the members of the council say they are prepared to do so, nobody will be readier than I to advise my hon. Friend to withdraw his opposition to the Bill. I do not think that opposition should be withdrawn until the members of the council are prepared to agree to the dispute being referred to arbitration. I do not think that Members of this House are entitled to agree to the passing of this Bill until they get such a promise. If any public company or any employer comes to this House to get certain powers delegated to them, then I think it is the duty of this House to see that those powers are delegated to them under proper conditions, and proper conditions cannot be obtained unless the employés of either public companies or private firms are given fair and reasonable conditions and fair and reasonable wages. I hope that the House will refuse the powers asked for, and will refuse the Second Reading of this Bill until we have a satisfactory settlement of the point in dispute.
  Mr. CURRIE: As a rule a Member representing a Scottish constituency seldom takes any part in a discussion of this kind affecting an Irish matter, but I confess that the hon. Members who have raised this subject are entitled to the gratitude of the House as a whole for having done so. We know that we are shortly to have a large number of Bills promoted by other gas companies, and I may state that I am interested in matters which have led me to make a special study of the labour conditions which obtain in gasworks, and notably the present system which was initiated by the late Sir George Livesey some years ago in connection with the Metropolitan Gas Company. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow, who is known among Members in the House as
  1686
  a fair-minded man, has given us a statement of the facts, and I must say, after listening to him, that I have arrived at the conclusion that a council in Ireland which behaves in this way behaves in a most abominable and unreasonable way. If I were satisfied that pains and penalties would fall on the council if this House turned this Bill down, I would take care that the Bill was turned out of doors without further delay. No real defence has been suggested. While my hon. and gallant Friend did his best for the council and spoke very reasonably, I do not think he made out very much of a case for them. I should like to ask the Chief Secretary if he will tell us what evil effects will really happen if this Bill is turned out. Will it be possible for this council in Ireland to come forward after a short interval, in the meantime having put its house in order, and ask for these powers again? If that could be done without evil effects, I see no reason why it should not be done. If the House had the power to take steps which would ensure without further delay that a more reasonable temper should prevail amongst the members of this board, I think it would be well advised to take them. I do not know that it would be justifiable to block the Bill if the Chief Secretary says that in his judgment the Bill ought to be passed, and that he believes that he will succeed in his efforts to bring about a better state of things, but unless he will take the responsibility of saying something of that kind, all I can say is that I think it would serve the members of this board right if their Bill were turned oat of doors.
  Mr. T. WILSON: May I make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman? If the Bill is passed on Second Beading to-night it will go to a Committee. Will he give a pledge that between now and the Report of that Committee he will do his utmost to induce the Lurgan Council to agree to arbitrate? I recognise that there is some force in what the hon. Gentleman opposite said that this is an old story, but it is not an old story so far as the men who are discharged are concerned. They feel that an injustice has been done them, and if the right hon. Gentleman will give a promise that he will bring all the pressure to bear that he possibly can on the Lurgan Council with the object of effecting a settlement of the dispute, I think my hon. Friend might not carry his Motion to a Division. The attitude of this Council during the last two months, and previous to that

  1687
  even, has been such that personally I feel inclined to take advantage of every possible opportunity of blocking the Bill, in spite of the fact that many persons may have to pay more for their gas, and it might not be a bad thing to teach the council a lesson through the ratepayers, who might take it into their heads that the men they have elected to represent them on the council were really not competent to represent them intelligently. That being so, if the right hon. Gentleman will agree to bring all the pressure he can to bear on this council to come to a settlement on fair terms, I would suggest to my hon. Friend that he should not press the Amendment to a Division.
  Mr. SHORTT: It is not possible for me to promise to-night to bring all the pressure I can to bear on the council to go to arbitration. What I can promise to do is to hear what they have got to say, and if they have got no fair explanation, then I will bring all the pressure I can upon them to go to arbitration.
  Mr. WILSON: The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor made all inquiries into the matter, and if he looks in the pigeonholes he will find all the information he requires.
  Mr. SHORTT: I cannot pledge myself to form an opinion in any case unless I hear both sides of the case, but I am prepared to ask the council what they have got to say, and if I think my hon. Friend's case is substantially accurate I am prepared to press them to the extent that I can to go to arbitration.
  Mr. BOOTH: At any rate the Chief Secretary can put the House in possession of his report when we come to the Third Reading, and whatever be the result of his investigations the House will be a little clearer. I understand there are two other places mentioned besides Lurgan, and I think it would not be right to hit two inoffensive places. It is quite clear that this Lurgan authority have got no defender. The hon. and gallant Member who spoke is quite capable of speaking at the right time and of keeping his own counsel when necessary, and I think his silence on most of the indictment is very eloquent indeed. It is quite clear that this is really an atrocious case, which could not occur, I believe, in this country and not in very many places in Ireland. But at any rate the Chief
  1688
  Secretary, I think, might undertake that the result of his inquiries shall be made known to this House before we finally pass the Bill into law.
  Amendment negatived.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed.

EDUCATION BILL.
Again considered in Committee.
Postponed proceeding resumed on Amendment proposed, in Clause 10, Subsection (1), after the word "require," to insert the word "either."—[Sir H. Hibbert.]
Question again proposed, "That the word 'either' be there inserted."
Sir P. MAGNUS: When I was interrupted I was endeavouring to point out that although the Bill as proposed to be altered by the President's Amendment indicates a considerable weakening, nevertheless it does represent a very important step forward in our system of national education. When this Bill was introduced the President of the Board pointed out that one of the great objects of this proposed system of obligatory continuation schools was to prevent what has happened during many preceding years, namely, that the children from cur elementary schools leaving at the age of thirteen, and some even at the age of fourteen, soon forgot a great part of the education which they had received in the elementary schools, and the opinion throughout the country was general that some form of continuation classes or schools was essential in order that the sums of money expended on elementary education should not be entirely thrown away. I venture to think that the Bill as it now stands will bring about that important object. The proposal now is that education shall be compulsory between the ages of fourteen and sixteen, and I cannot help thinking that boys and girls who have received an efficient and continuous education up to the age of sixteen will be far less likely to forget what they have learnt than if they leave school at the age of thirteen or fourteen.
When I spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill I ventured to point out some of the administrative difficulties which I then realised would attend Clause 10 as

1689
it stood, in which it was proposed to make education compulsory up to the age of eighteen. I pointed out that the teachers had not been trained, that the kind of education to be given in these continuation schools had not been carefully considered, and, further, that buildings were wanted, and therefore I, for my part, am not sorry that the proposal for continuing the education compulsorily between the ages of sixteen and eighteen should be deferred. I believe that during that interval, when the experiment of making education compulsory up to the age of sixteen will have been fully tried, we shall know far better than we do at present what kind of education we propose to give during those later years; and one very great advantage of restricting, for the time being at any rate, the compulsory education at the age of sixteen is that there will be no question now during those years between fourteen and sixteen of giving what is called vocational teaching. The education between fourteen and sixteen will be, I hope, of a thoroughly general character. It will be absolutely and entirey what it ought to be—a continuation of the education up to fourteen, so that it shall place the young person of either sex somewhat in the same position as those who have been able to attend the secondary school up to sixteen. I desire that this education should be of a secondary character in all respects, that of course it should be literary, scientific, manual, moral, and disciplinary, but, at the same time, the character of that education should be such as to prepare the people for the higher education which some of them will desire to obtain, and equally to prepare them for the technical education which is at the present time so efficiently provided in our large technical institutions throughout the country. During the last few years nothing has struck those engaged in giving technical instruction more than the fact that the young men and the young women who came to these technical schools in the evening were unable to take advantage of the education that was there provided through having neglected or forgotten so much of the elementary education that they had received in early years. The Bill as it now stands will obviate that which is the greatest defect in our present system of education, and I for one welcome it even in the form in which it is now before us.
1690
There is another thing, and that is that, whereas children who left school at the age of fourteen and went at once to work, without any obligation to continue their education, had lost their desire for further instruction in the more fact that they had forgotten so much they had learnt, if their education is continued even up to the age of sixteen, and then they go to work, or if during the ages of fourteen to sixteen they are in manufacturing industries, commercial offices or some other form of useful occupation, they will by that time have been able to realise some of the advantages of education, and will be most anxious, I am quite certain, to continue their education voluntarily either in the technical school or in some of our university extension classes. Therefore, I would like the Committee to feel that, although for administrative reasons, with which I have the utmost sympathy, the President of the Board of Education has thought it necessary—and I believe it was necessary—not to require compulsory continuation education between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, I would like the Committee to realise that the Bill as it now stands is a very important advance upon our previous system of national education. Notwithstanding that fact, I am disposed to think it would be advisable, if the President would allow us a certain interval of time between the consideration of the Amendment that he has proposed and the resumption of the Bill in Committee. We have not seen his Amendment on the Paper. There is no doubt whatever that it must affect other Clauses of the Bill which we have not had time to consider, and therefore I do suggest at this hour— nearly half past nine o'clock—that he should consent to the proposal made by the hon. Member for Leicester, which I shall be very glad to move in his absence, that we be allowed now to report Progress, and to continue the discussion of this Bill at some later stage. I therefore move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Donald Maclean): I would point out to the Committee that any Debate which arises on that will have to be strictly confined to the reasons for the Motion. I cannot allow a Debate on the general question.
Mr. DENMAN: May I ask my hon. Friend if on consideration he will allow us to proceed with this Bill. There will be

1691
plenty of time to give the Amendments a Second Reading and to put down Amendments to them, and of course there is always the Report stage. Not only that, but the subject can be brought up further on Clause 45, which, presumably, we shall not reach for some days. Really, to postpone the whole progress of this Bill merely to give a little more leisure to take one of many opportunities for consideration of this matter is really, I think, asking the Committee to waste its time, when it is anxious to get on with the Bill.
Sir H. CRAIK: I would appeal to my hon. Friend not to press this Motion. I do think there is a very fair arrangement which will give opportunity for consideration.
Mr. KING: I hope the Motion will be persisted in. When I move to report Progress it is generally out of order, and I get dropped on. I congratulate the hon. Member for London University on having the Motion accepted by the Chair, and that very fact shows that a crisis, or, at any rate, an important event, has transpired. We were all very much surprised, and very much surprised indeed, by the line taken up suddenly, without warning, and, if I may say so, after a private intimation that the Government would not give way, that a new policy had been adopted by the President of the Board of Education. Probably, on mature consideration, we shall find that there are more in favour of the other policy than at first sight appears. At first sight it appears as if he had given away more than has actually been demanded. That, I think, is really the explanation of the position. I quote what people are saying in the Lobby in order to let the Committee and the President see that his action, thus suddenly taken, and involving such a reconstruction of this Clause, is not understood. The bearing of this and how it will work is not understood, and that, I think, is a very good reason why we should report Progress. I believe if we were to report Progress we should meet again on the next occasion clearly understanding the problem that we have got to meet. Therefore I hope the Government will not oppose this Motion, because in the end it will really probably prevent recriminations and discussions which will seem, in the light of a few days, to be quite inopportune and unnecessary.
Mr. C. ROBERTS: I join in the appeal to my hon. Friend not to press his Motion —
Sir P. MAGNUS: Sir Donald, I take it that the general opinion of the Committee is to proceed with the business. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no'"] Under these circumstances I ask leave to be allowed to withdraw my Motion. [HON. MEMBERS. "No, no!"]
Mr. SNOWDEN: As a Lancashire Member, might I just be permitted to say one or two sentences? The concession announced by the President of the Board of Education this afternoon is a very great surprise to those who have been—I might almost say continuously — in communication with him about this Clause for the past few months. I have been present at very large conferences addressed by the Minister of Education, consisting of representatives of both employers and workmen connected with Lancashire trade and industry. After what the right hon. Gentleman had said we were led to believe that he had not even in mind such a concession. It might have been as well to defer the proposed Amendment for the reason that I think a day or two ought to have been given for the people of Lancashire, both trade unionists and employers, to consider this proposal. That is most important, because this has come to them, as to Members of this House this afternoon, as a very great surprise. The alternative had never entered into their minds at all. I cannot, of course, discuss the respective merits of the proposals before the Committee, but the ascertained opinion of the people of Lancashire should be taken into consideration.
Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I very much hope we shall report Progress. I do so on the ground that the so-called concessions that have been made are a bitter disappointment to those who have seen in this Bill real progress in the education of the country. I have received from many of my Constituents strong appeals to resist the whittling down of this Bill
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The present Motion before the House does not deal with the Bill generally, but is a Motion to report Progress.
Mr. WILLIAMS: My argument is that these people should have the opportunity of understanding what the Government are now proposing. I was trying to show their

1693
keen interest in the matter and suggesting that they should have an opportunity to know of these whittling-down proposals and of expressing their view in regard to them. It would be altogether wrong for the House to accept an emasculated proposal of this kind without giving the country an opportunity of saying what they think about it. I am perfectly sure that those who will really care about education in the country will express their opinion with no uncertain sound, and I, therefore, beg to support the Motion to report Progress.
Sir G. TOULMIN: The Lancashire Members have already met, and we have seen representatives of the operatives and of the employers. The decision we came to was that the Amendment which had been proposed by the Minister of Education should be accepted, and supported. As to any further discussion on the proposals after they have been communicated to the interests concerned in the country I think the Report stage is the proper occasion for that. In view of the fact that the House has already suspended the Eleven o'clock Rule, it would be a great pity that we should really waste time at this period of the Session when we are very much pressed and want to make progress with the Bill.
Mr. RAFFAN: Might I be allowed to enforce the argument of my hon. Friend opposite. We are still some distance from the proposed Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. Might I, therefore, suggest that it would be possible—the Minister might agree—not to take any decision upon this Clause to-night. If that were done there is no reason why we should not take the intervening Amendments till we reach the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, and, if time permits, open the discussion upon it. Possibly this might meet with the view of the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. I trust the Committee will enable us to proceed with the Bill.
Mr. FISHER: I would like earnestly to impress upon hon. Members who are enthusiasts in the cause of education and those who are disappointed by these concessions the urgent necessity of getting this Bill placed upon the Statute Book. I feel that unless we take every opportunity to press forward, with the utmost skill and the greatest application, we shall
1694
never get this Bill on the Statute Book at all. We have already spent a great deal of time on a great number of somewhat small questions. I do, therefore, earnestly hope that the Committee will assist me in getting forward. Some hon. Members appear to think that the Bill with these concessions is a worthless Bill. All I can say to that is that it is a most absurd view. With all these concessions this Bill will be the greatest educational advance that any country in the world has attempted to achieve within so limited a period of time. We are undertaking to do in a short period what no country has attempted yet to do. I do venture to appeal to my hon. Friends not to undervalue the Bill as it will eventually, I trust, emerge.
Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.
Question again proposed, "That the word 'either' be there inserted."
Mr. PETO: I desire to respond to the appeal made by the President of the Board of Education to get on with the Bill, but I wish to point out why this Amendment, which has been considered all the afternoon practically from the point of view of Lancashire and the cotton trade, is of special interest to members associated with agriculture. I am quite sure that the proposal to limit the age of continued education to sixteen and having a minimum of 600 hours would have been a system which would have offered a practical solution to the agricultural difficulty. I am convinced that the education which is proposed from fourteen to eighteen, limited to 280 hours a year, when it comes to full maturity in seven years time, will be found to be a cumbersome, if not an unworkable, system, which will waste an amount of time out of all proportion to the educational advantage derived by the children or young persons. I think the Scottish system adopted years ago, which provided seven months learning practical work in the summer, and in the winter full-time education for a limited number of weeks, would have been much better, and that was a system under which the finest Scottish agriculturists were brought up, and if that had been put into the Bill it would have provided a practical education out of proportion in value to anything which can be achieved under Clause 10.

1695
I see with regret this proposal for 600 hours disappearing from the Bill, for it seems to me that the needs of the cotton trade could have gone hand in hand with agriculture, and not opposed to each other, as has been suggested by some speakers. The President himself drew a picture of an unfortunate child coming from a rural district where they were giving 320 hours into an area where 600 hours was the rule, but we could have got over that difficulty by working the system together. In spite of the appeal made by the President, I suggest to the Committee that there are other aspects of this question than the Lancashire aspect, and I believe that the true solution of continuation education would have been by admitting that there are certain trades such as the sea, agriculture, and possibly the cotton trade, where a four years' course of part-time education is not suitable either for the trade, the young people, or the cause of education. What we require is more elasticity. The first sign of elasticity was this Lancashire Amendment, but even this was something different to what would be suitable to some other trades. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that this concession does not really alter the Bill, but merely hangs up the appointed day for the period of seven years, but I wish to point out that it still leaves one cast iron rule throughout every trade and industry of education from fourteen to eighteen whether it is suitable or not. It is a great pity that this has been accepted as any real solution of the difficulty in regard to the cotton trade, and if this particular trade had tried to fit in with some other trade we might have had an agreement between agriculture and the cotton trade which would have given us something substantial and sensible.
Sir W. DICKINSON: The Minister of Education has appealed to us to support him and to allow this Amendment to go through without any further discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I understand that we are now discussing the Amendment of the. hon. Member for Chorley, which is going to be withdrawn, and then some other Amendment is going to be included. On behalf of those who have been supporting this Bill, and who are so intensely interested in this subject in London, I say that we look with the gravest disappointment upon the announcement of the change which has
1696
been made by the right hon. Gentleman. I think the proposal to allow the humbler classes of the community the opportunity of a similar extension of the benefits of education up to the age of eighteen to that which has hitherto been enjoyed by the richer portions of the community has commanded a remarkable assent all through the country. I feel certain if the right hon. Gentleman had stuck to his guns he could have commanded the assent of this House notwithstanding anything that was proposed by the Lancashire members. I must say honestly that I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has treated those who would have supported him through thick and thin if he had stuck to his original proposals quite fairly in that respect.
What is this change going to bring about? Both the proposal of the Bill and the proposal of the hon. Member for Chorley would have extended at the very earliest possible moment the benefits of this continued education to the children of this country. That is to say, that both by the proposals of the hon. Member for Chorley and the proposals in the Bill the child who is now under twelve years of age would have come into the benefits of continued education up to the age of eighteen. If I understand this suggested compromise rightly, it means, instead of giving to all the children under twelve this particular benefit of continued education up to eighteen, you would be striking out all children over the age of five years at the present time. That is to say, the great mass of children at the present moment between five years of age and twelve years of ago will be shut out under any circumstances from this proposal to give them education up to the eighteenth year.
I submit to the Committee that that is a very serious change, and one which will be very detrimental indeed to the immediate future of this country. This is all being done because it is supposed that it would be difficult to give this class of education in practice to the children as they grow up. I understand the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Chorley gives an alternative—that is to say, it would allow the different localities where the local authorities were prepared to start as early as possible a system of education up to eighteen, an opportunity of doing so, and in that respect I should much prefer the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chorley.

1697
That is the position in which I and many of those who warmly support the Bill on behalf of London stand. We should prefer the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chorley to the Amendment suggested by the Government, because it gives this improved education at the earliest possible moment, whereas the other proposal defers it for several years. We should prefer it because once this suggestion of the Government is carried, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for Parliament to accelerate the advent of the time when a full and complete continued education will be given. If the Amendment suggested by the Members for Lancashire were carried, we should, at any rate, be in the position that continued education between the ages of fourteen and sixteen would at once commence, and at a later period Parliament could review the situation if it thought it well to do so. Under the circumstances, I, for one, regret, and I believe that the great education authorities in the south of England, who would be quite able and willing to provide this higher education, at any rate, before seven years from the appointed day, will regret the change advocated by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. ROWNTREE: I do not feel easy to let this Amendment be withdrawn without expressing my profound regret that the right hon. Gentleman has felt it necessary to make these very important changes. I cannot help doubting whether he has made the best bargain that is possible with some of those with whom he has had to deal. It is a very striking thing that this afternoon we have had the representatives of Lancashire unanimously saying that they are willing to work a system of half-time education between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. If that could have been carried out, I should have had very little doubt that we should have found that the great majority of the children that had had this half-time education up to the age of sixteen would have realised by that time the value of education, and would themselves have insisted that they should have the opportunity of continuing it. More remarkable than the support of Lancashire is the support of the hon. Member for the Devizes Division (Mr. Peto). Speaking, I understand, for the agriculturists, he welcomed this suggestion of half-time education from fourteen to sixteen. That is a very remarkable
1698
statement, coming from the quarter that it does, and, if it really represents the considered view of agriculturists, I feel very doubtful whether my right hon. Friend would not have done better to have accepted the support of Lancashire and of the agriculturists, and to have adopted this Amendment. It is probably too late now to get the right hon. Gentleman to alter his view, but I should like to suggest to him, that, at any rate, he should consider whether it is not possible to make some concession whereby localities that want to give this 320 hours' education between the ages of sixteen and eighteen and can make the necessary arrangements with the teachers should have the opportunity of doing it before seven years have passed. I am convinced from what I have heard that there are localities who would be glad to do it, and to do it now. I believe nothing would help my right hon. Friend more than to have certain progressive localities having this system in operation, because others would be ready to follow and to follow quickly. I am perfectly certain that another influence that will help my right hon. Friend is the knowledge that will come from Germany and other countries as to what they propose to do. It is very difficult to get information from Germany now, but we make a mistake in not studying what Germany and the Central Powers are proposing for after the War. I believe, if hon. Members will look at what Germany is proposing with regard to education in the future, that they will realise once more that we are handicapping ourselves as a nation by what we are proposing. If we want to keep our place, as we all do, in the realm of progress, we are falling far short in what is being proposed to-night. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will not close his mind to the possibility of making some arrangements whereby localities who want to give this continued education and can make the necessary arrangements shall have the liberty of doing so.
Sir H. CRAIK: I would urge upon my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Sir W. Dickinson) and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Rowntree) to consider whether they are not using exaggerated language. Is it necessary to believe that the whole of this advantage will be thrown away because it is not introduced at once in the most complete form? Listening to the right hon. Gentle-man the Member for St. Pancras, one

1699
would believe that the effect of the President's proposal would be to put off entirely this important extension of education beyond the age of fourteen. If it would do that, I would decidedly oppose it, but we must look at things in a practical way. All that we can possibly do to advance the most important part of education and stop the great loss and wastage which occur between the ages of fourteen and eighteen we ought to do, but look at it in a. practical way. Will we not, under the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, have the very best means of effecting what we want? We are now in a very difficult position. We have an unusual demand for employé's, we have an unusual burden upon the rates and taxes, and we shall have for some years to come an unusual shortage of teachers. Is it not wise to offer every encouragement and every inducement and every help, monetary and otherwise, to local authorities to establish those advantages which, to listen to the right hon. Member for St. Pancras and the hon. Member for York, one would believe are to be entirely denied because they are not made compulsory? Is it not better to give people an opportunity to accustom their minds to this new range of education, and then, after a certain number of years have passed, to put your compulsory powers, if necessary, into operation? I would urge the Committee to consider that compulsion is not the be-all and end-all of our education. It is an utter mistake to think that by exercising compulsory powers you are adding to the real impulse for and efficiency of education. Let the people's minds grow up to it and accustom them to the opportunities that are open to them. Under the right hon. Gentleman's proposals all those opportunities will be open to them, and a certain number of years will be allowed in order to ripen and accustom people's minds and habits to suit them. With all my anxiety to bridge over this wastage from the age of fourteen to eighteen, I accept—I would not accept them if I thought they would lessen a single hope for educational progress—the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman as a wise, practical and workable compromise which will help to achieve what we all desire.
Question, "That the word 'either ' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) in Sub-section (1), after the word "for" ["for three hundred and twenty hours in each year "] to insert the words "not more than," does not make sense in this place. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot accept it.
Mr. ROWNTREE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "three hundred and twenty" ["in which they reside may require, for three hundred and twenty hours in each year"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the prescribed number of."
This Amendment must be read with the further Amendment on page 293 of the Amendment Paper, which says:
"The prescribed number of hours means such number, not being less than 320, as the local education authority may from time to time, with the approval of the Board of Education, prescribe."
The object of these two Amendments will be clear to the Committee. It is to enable an authority that desires to give more than 320 hours continued education to do so. The Amendment is all the more important after the discussion which has just taken place. The President has announced that he finds it necessary to make the minimum number of hours 280 instead of 320. It is perfectly clear from what has been said this afternoon that there is a large number of localities which are willing to give much more than that. Lancashire is willing to give much more than that. The agriculturists are willing to give more than that. Therefore, I hope the President will be able to give favourable consideration to these two Amendments. The argument for them is strengthened by the fact that probably there is to be a delay of five or seven years until we get continued education between the ages of sixteen and eighteen. If that is so, it is all the more important that the education between the ages of fourteen and sixteen should be as complete and thorough as possible. If there are localities glad and willing to make arrangements whereby a larger number of hours education can be given, it is clearly in the national interest that they should have the power to do so. Again, the fact that a certain number of localities are giving a larger number of hours' instruction will help on the general movement in the country which we all desire to see.
10.0 p. m
Mr. FISHER: I need hardly say that I have the greatest sympathy with the object the hon. Member for York (Mr. Rowntree) has in view. He desires to give local education authorities power to increase the number of hours above the figure of 320 hours per annum, and he thinks it possible, if that power were given, that it would be made use of in a certain number of instances. I think, however, that it would be very difficult to give that power. According to the hon. Member's Amendment, a local education authority might be empowered to prescribe full-time attendance for the young people in its locality. There is the further objection to the Amendment that a system of local variation—a very strong local variation— whereby young persons would be under a lesser obligation in one area and a very much higher obligation in another, would be very difficult to work practically. If the variation were within narrow limits, such as I have indicated, I do not see any particular difficulties in the way, but if there were very great variations it would be very difficult to work the system practically. I suggest to my hon. Friend that it would be wiser to wait until the conditions prescribed in the Bill are adequately fulfilled throughout the country before we entrust such a power as he proposes to entrust to particular local education authorities.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: I want to understand the position. I believe that at the present time it is quite possible for a local education authority to provide opportunities for education for more than 320 hours, and that what they are prevented from providing is compulsory education for more than 320 hours.
Mr. FISHER: That is so.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then the point of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Rowntree) would be met.
Mr. ROWNTREE: Would there be the same arrangements as to Grants! Amendment negatived.
Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "year" ["for three hundred and twenty hours in each year"], to insert the words "distributed as regards times and seasons as may best suit the circumstances of each locality."
1702
This is a simple Amendment and largely explains itself. In my view elasticity is wanted in this respect. We want to avoid a cast-iron scheme. I would submit that the acceptance of this Amendment would raise no administrative difficulties, no social difficulties, and no economical difficulties. What it aims at doing is to synchronise the industrial or agricultural conditions with the inconvenience which might very easily arise in the various districts. The variations which would take place if my Amendment were accepted would be all within the limits of the 320 or whatever other number of hours may be finally inserted in the Bill. I need hardly point out to the Committee that the varying circumstances will have effect in various localities. The harvest, for instance, is necessarily a varying matter. In the South of England, of course, it comes considerably earlier than in the North. In Cornwall, in the spring, the conditions are very different so far as agricultural purposes are concerned—and horticulture as well—from those which obtain in other counties, Penzance and Redruth are in a different position to districts around Hexham. After the discussion we have just had it is scarcely necessary again to emphasise the fact that Lancashire has very peculiar conditions and views of its own, but I think within the limits of my Amendment it might be allowed complete latitude. Leisure and work in factory districts are obviously different to leisure and work in agricultural districts, and I do think it would be of real assistance to the smooth working of this Bill if some words such as I propose could be inserted which would enable the local education authorities to fit the machinery of the Bill more conveniently to local conditions.
Mr. FISHER: I am quite wiling to accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: After the word "hours" ["such number of hours "], insert the words "distributed as aforesaid."—[Mr. Evelyn Cecil.]
The CHAIRMAN: I have now a Government manuscript Amendment.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Do I understand that the other Amendments at the end of the first paragraph of Sub-section (1) will not be ruled out of order, and that the Government manuscript Amendment which is now to be taken will simply take precedence of them?
The CHAIRMAN: I have no Amendments tendened affecting this particular part of the paragraph, which, in my view, are in order, other than the one submitted by the Government.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: There is an Amendment standing in my name limiting the hours of labour of these young persons. Will that come on at the proper time?
The CHAIRMAN: That can follow the Government Amendment. I will deal with that point when it arises.
Mr. SNOWDEN: I have an Amendment in common with other hon. Members with regard to maintenance Grants. Will it be in Order to move that as a proviso after the Government Amendment has been disposed of?
The CHAIRMAN: In relation to that Amendment, I have to say it is quite incomplete in its present form, and I informed one of the hon. Members, in whose name it stands, of that fact earlier in the evening. It does not say who should pay the maintenance Grant or how much it shall be. I must have an Amendment in something approaching a complete form before I can put it to the Committee. However, I will not rule against it being brought up at some later stage, either on this Clause or in the form of a new Clause, providing that it approximates something like completion.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it be possible for us to decide on the question of the adoption of the Clause as a whole unless we know first whether maintenance grants are to be allowed? Would it suffice if the hon. Member for Blackburn moved his Amendment in the form of a proviso, leaving the question of how the maintenance money is to be provided to be settled later?
The CHAIRMAN: No; I think it must be brought in in a more complete form. It can be brought up at a later stage of this Clause, and I will not make any further ruling at the moment than I have done.
Mr. WING: May I point out, in reference to the Amendment standing in my name, that it does not suffer from the same disqualification as that which applies to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Blackburn, for it states particularly who is to pay?
The CHAIRMAN: I regard the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member as entirely outside the scope of the Bill. It is not in order on this Bill to impose a tax on employers or any other person, and the Amendment, therefore, does not come within the scope of the Bill.
Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), at the end of the first paragraph, to insert the words,
"Provided that (a) the obligation to attend continuation schools shall not within a period of seven years from the appointed day on which the provisions of this Section come into force apply to young persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen nor after such period to any young person who has attained the age of sixteen before the expiration of that period, and (b) during the like period, if the local education authority so resolve, the number of hours for which a young person may be required to attend continuation schools in any year shall be 280 instead of 320."
I will not elaborate the reasons which have led me to propose this Amendment. I have already explained them to the Committee. Hon. Members will realise that under the original scheme of the Bill two years would, in any case, be necessary for the development of continuation education between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. This Amendment proposes that after that period has been reached there shall be a further period of five years before the scheme of the Bill is applied to the adolescents between the ages of sixteen and eighteen. During that five years it will be possible for the Board of Education and the local education authorities not only to perfect their arrangements for the continuation schools in the earlier period, but to make adequate provision for the far more difficult task of extending the period of education to the older adolescents. I say "far more difficult task," because it is obvious that the teachers of these young men of the more advanced age must be more highly trained than the teachers of those who are younger.
Teachers cannot be trained in the twinkling of an eye, and I submit to the Committee that this period of five years will not be wasted, but that it will in my view in any case be necessary if the system of continuation education is to be really effectively applied to young persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen when first the system is applied to them. As to the second part of the Amendment, I have been impressed by the evidence which has flowed in from many quarters

1705
that there are parts of this country to which it is very difficult to apply the continuation school Order unless you are prepared to concentrate on a single day. It is also likely to be to the convenience of many agricultural districts that the teaching shall be concentrated on a single day of the week, and I have come to the conclusion that at any rate in the winter and in agricultural districts a seven hours day is as much as you can expect. You have to remember that boys and girls will be going back in the dark if you prolong the teaching. On the whole I feel that this system would be stronger in the country if we admit, at any rate in its initial stages, rather more elasticity than the original form of the Bill provides. I think we shall get that by allowing local education authorities, if they think it necessary, to prescribe in the initial period of seven years a number of hours slightly less, but not greatly less, than the number originally prescribed in the Bill and intended to be the normal for the whole country.
Sir J. SPEAR: I venture to say that the Amendment that the right hon. Gentleman has made in the Bill will afford very considerable relief and satisfaction to the parents of the children. The Bill as it stood when brought in proposed that children should attend continuation schools between fourteen and eighteen years of age. As far as that proposal is known at present, it has caused a very considerable amount of opposition, but when its meaning was fully realised it would seriously endanger the success of education. Prior to the last election nothing much was said about this, and here we are, a practically moribund Parliament, passing very drastic legislation dealing with the training of children. The training of children, after all, is a great responsibility to the country, but the main responsibility rests with the parents, and they have had no opportunity hitherto of expressing their opinion on this matter, and hence I feel that in deference to that opinion the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is of very considerable value. He will recognise the desirability of continuation schools and provide them in at first a very moderate degree. If they prove successful and if they are appreciated by the parents and the children, there will be an opportunity further on to extend their scope and their usefulness. The Amendment, therefore, is
1706
a sound, businesslike proceeding, inasmuch as it recognises the desirability of children having within their reach an opportunity for continuing their education, but applies it in a reasonable and common-sense degree in the first instance, and the Bill will provide an opportunity, if the parents and the country desire it, to go further after seven years have elapsed. Especially in the rural districts, I think, the Amendment is of great importance. I am not against the education of the rural or any other class, but having regard to the fact that elementary education to-day begins at six years old up to fourteen—that is, eight years' opportunity to get education, and that is a very different position for lads in rural districts from what it was twenty or thirty years ago. I am prepared to go further, and, provided the education in the continuation schools is of a character suitable for children in rural districts, I believe it will do good, and they will learn to appreciate it, but the Amendment applies that physic in a small dose to begin with, and gives an opportunity for extended use further on when the people have had an opportunity of saying whether they desire to have it or not. From an educational point of view I believe it will promote the success of the Bill. If the Bill had been forced upon people as it was brought in, there would be great resentment and opposition to it. I earnestly hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that do rural districts the children who attend these schools, who hope to follow an agricultural life, will have an opportunity to study plant life, the nature of the soil and the dignity of labour on the soil in food raising, and the diseases and care of cattle. Thereby in the continuation schools they will naturally follow their occupation do the cultivation of the soil for their own success and the benefit of the Commonwealth. The way proposed by the Amendment is wiser than it would be for the Government to force their Bill as it was originally brought in on to people unacquainted with what was intended. I believe that if it had been so forced upon them it would have caused resentment, and would have interfered very much with the success of the effort to bring the opportunities of higher education within the reach of the children of this country.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I want to suggest one modification of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment which will meet to

1707
some extent the disappointment we feel that under his scheme advanced education authorities who are in a position to apply these compulsory classes to young persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen before the lapse of seven years would be prevented from doing so. I want to suggest an Amendment which, while not making it compulsory on any local education authority to institute these classes within the seven years if they do not wish to do so, would allow those authorities in a position to make the experiment to do so.
I beg to move, after the word "eighteen," to insert the words "in any area where the local education authority decides that it is inexpedient to enforce the obligation."
The Sub-Clause would then read:
"The obligation to attend continuation schools shall not within the period of seven years from the appointed day on which the provisions of this Section come into force apply to young persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, in any area where the local education authority decides that it is inexpedient to enforce the obligation."
That would have this important effect that where an authority is in the position and desires to carry forward these continuation schools without waiting for this great lapse of seven years from the appointed day they would be in a position to do so. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this compromise and remove some of the disappointment we feel.
Mr. FISHER: I do not feel that I can accept this Amendment. At the same time it is an Amendment which the hon. Member is obviously quite entitled to move, and an Amendment on which he might desire to offer further observations. I suggest that he should move this Amendment on the Report stage.
Mr. ROWNTREE: I hope that before the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman will give this Amendment favourable consideration. There are many arguments that might be used. I think he knows that already there are schemes prepared by local authorities who feel that they can go right up to eighteen. Although the question of teachers is one of great difficulty, yet, if you take the education of girls between sixteen and eighteen, there is no difficulty. There are a large number of teachers who will teach housewifery
1708
admirably. The President has again and again in his speeches pointed out that there is a large development of physical and recreational education and of camps. There, again, the experience of the last two or three years has qualified large numbers of men and women to give that form of education. I do hope, remembering these facts and knowing that there are educational authorities who have schemes ready to give education up to eighteen, that before the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman will give this question most careful consideration.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I hope that the hon. Member who has just sat down appreciates what the Government Amendment is. There is nothing in the Government Amendment as it stands to prevent a local education authority at the present time, if it is ready, carrying on continuation schools to eighteen, and such things as recreation camps, I believe, would be taken advantage of without compulsion. The only point in the decision which the Government has made is that compulsion should not be enforced for a particular time. Personally, I differ entirely from this Amendment. It seems to me that a compromise has been arrived at between the Government and the Lancashire Members and some agricultural Members on this point, and if the Government are going to reopen this on the Report stage they will only have themselves to thank if prolonged debate arises. They have come to a definite agreement with the Lancashire people, and if they are going to make an Amendment such as that of the hon. Member for Lanark, which is absolutely inconsistent with the Government Amendment, it is likely to give rise to a great deal of discussion. Of course, it implies the condition of compulsion, but it is to be enforced by the local education authority.
Mr. FISHER: The hon. and learned Gentleman is labouring under a misunderstanding. I said that I should not accept the Amendment.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I was rather frightened, because once the Government begins to come to terms there is the fear that it may go down a step further. I only wish to press strongly that if this is adopted by the Government on the Report stage it will certainly be perilously near a breach of faith. I am not dealing with the merits. The Government Amendment is not now so bad. Sixteen is the

1709
furthest away, and seven from sixteen only leaves nine, and, therefore, it cannot affect the child who is under the age of nine at the present time. The whole essence of the Government Amendment is that it does not in any way stop these matters being carried on, but deals only with the question of compulsion for the next seven years.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is one point in this connection as to which no reply has yet been given. It is suggested that the local authority, if they wish, can carry on this continuation education up to the age of eighteen, and that the only difference would be that they will not be enabled to use compulsion upon the young persons in the area. The question which was addressed to the right hon. Gentleman was, Would grants be paid or not for persons who attend voluntarily, where local authorities set up continuation schools?
Mr. FISHER: Yes.
Sir W. DICKINSON: I understood my right hon. Friend, in asking my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment, to hold out some hope that the matter would be dealt with on Report. From his last answer, I think the position is totally different. I hope the hon. Member will not withdraw his Amendment, but will go to a Division. I understood that the main reason why the change has been made was that the education authorities will not be ready until seven years from the present time to fully carry out their duties, and that, therefore, there is no necessity for the powers of compulsion. I have had a consultation with the representatives of the London County Council, who are anxious to put in operation the compulsory Clause and all the other Clauses relating to education. I do not see why they should not do so, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will keep an open mind until the Report stage, in order that the local authorities may be able to express their desire on the subject in regard to carrying out these compulsory powers.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: I have the greatest sympathy with the hon. Member for York and the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University in their view, and it seems to me that the assistance given to compulsory education should also be given to voluntary education.
Mr. FISHER: That is so.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: If schools are raised to eighteen voluntarily by the education authorities they will receive the same Grants. I am one of those who believe that the voluntary system would eventually render compulsory education unnecessary, but some consider that the voluntary system in the end would render compulsion necessary; but, for myself, I should certainly deplore compulsion where there is a chance of making good with the voluntary system.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: If I withdraw my Amendment and bring it up on the Report stage, will the right hon. Gentleman consider it?
HON. MEMBERS: No!
Mr. FISHERindicated assent.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: As this matter is important, I must ask the President to say —
Mr. FISHER: It will be convenient to the Committee and to the hon. Member if I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should bring up his Amendment in the Report stage, when we should have every opportunity of considering its effect upon the Clause, but I do not hold out any hope, and I cannot hold out any hope to the hon. Member of my accepting it.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
Words proposed there inserted.
Sir H. CRAIK: Is the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Colonel Yate), requiring that not less than 25 per cent. of the time shall be devoted to physical training, in order, Sir?
The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter for Clause 3, and not for Clause 10. The nature of the teaching or instruction to be dealt with was debated and decided on those earlier Clauses. In Clause 10 we are only deciding which persons, at what ages, and to what extent, shall be under an obligation to attend school, so that the proposal is not relevant to the subject-matter of this particular Clause.
Sir H. CRAIK: The point discussed on that previous occasion was whether military drill should be introduced. I wish to deal with this as a matter of general

1711
training, physical as well as mental, and and I do not know whether that would come under your ruling, Sir.
The CHAIRMAN: Yes. If the hon. Member desires to bring up the subject on one of those earlier Clauses on the Report stage, I have no doubt he will find a means of bringing it in. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Whitehouse), he proposes a proviso restricting the employment of young persons required to attend continuation schools to a period not greater than twenty-five hoursper week. With regard to that Amendment and a number of other Amendments of a similar character, I have to say this: Amendments dealing with the number of hours of employment of children and young persons are, generally speaking, Amendments of the Factory and Workshops Act, and not Amendments of this Act, but there are some classes of Amendments which might be held to be strictly relevant and cognate to the question of education, and it is a difficult task for me to perform, but it is my duty within those limits to confine Amendments to those which appear to me to be strictly relevant and cognate to an Education Bill and not belonging to a Factory and Workshop Bill, and I have come to the conclusion that the proposal of the hon. Member to which I have referred comes under the factory and workshop category. I might perhaps, for his and for other hon. Members' convenience, indicate that the extent to which I feel justified in going is indicated. in the Amendment standing in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck)—providing that the hours of any young person required to attend a continuation school, when added to the time necessary for such attendance at school, shall not exceed forty-eight hours in any one week, inclusive of meal hours—in which employment questions may be said to be relevant to the subject-matter of this Bill.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: On a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Whitley, to consider this relevant point, that the Bill as drafted provides for interference with the hours of labour, because it provides that, in addition to allowing children the necessary time to attend these continuation classes, the employer should also allow further hours, not exceeding two
1712
hours daily, for the purpose of attending the classes, and my Amendment was directed to this point, that that provision is inadequate for the protection of young persons in certain classes, and that was why I was going to suggest a statutory limitation of the hours to meet those cases. My point is that as the Government themselves propose to interfere with the hours of labour, my Amendment is only an Amendment of the Government proposals.
The CHAIRMAN: That is exactly the fact I had in my mind, and when we come to Sub-section (5) the hon. Member can raise the question of the extension of the number of hours proposed by the Government. The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for North. Dorset (Colonel Sir R. Baker), is not a matter for this Clause. The next Amendment dealing with sea-service
Mr. PETO: May I ask whether I shall be in order in asking to report Progress before we deal with this important subject of sea service—it is an entirely separate subject?
The CHAIRMAN: In any case this Amendment is out of place here. The hon. Member will see that the hon. Member for the Exchange Division has an Amendment later in the Clause which brings up the question in the right way, and I propose to call that when we reach it. The next Amendment of the hon. Member for Devizes is in order.
Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words,
"Provided that at any time after the expiration of five years from the appointed day the Board of Education may, after such inquiry as they think fit, and after consulting the local education authority, by Order increase in respect of any area or part of an area or any young persons or classes of young persons the number of hours of attendance at continuation schools required under this Act, and this Section shall, as respects the area to which, or the young persons to whom, the Order applies, have effect as if the number of hours specified in the Order were substituted for three hundred and twenty; but no such Order shall be made until a draft thereof has laid for not less than thirty days on the Table of each House of Parliament."
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I did not hear the reasoned reply made by the President to this Amendment. I do not understand whether the President just announced that he was accepting or disagreeing with the Amendment. I understand that he accepted the Amendment
Mr. FISHER: Yes.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: This is that part of the concession that the right hon. Gentleman made to the opposition to the Bill that I most regret, because this is a Clause which empowers the local education authority, with the approval of the Board of Education, to increase the number of hours above 320 annually. By accepting this Amendment the President, until new legislation is passed, is going to prevent any local education authority from increasing the number of hours of attendance by compulsion. That means that we are to be content with the daily hour, or what has now become the daily forty-five minutes. My regret is more than I can say, and I want even now to appeal to the President to accept this modification of the proposal, that is, to move his Amendment in such a form as will allow the Board of Education to give approval when requested to do so on application from a local education authority which is in a position to increase the number of hours. I think" he will also meet all reasonable opposition to his proposal if he would reserve this right of power to give the authorities such permission.
Mr. FISHER: My hon. Friend, I am afraid, does not appreciate the difficulty in providing for these continuation schools. There is, amongst others, the very great difficulty of allowing one local education authority to adopt one system in one area, and another to adopt another system in its area, because certain employers are penalised in comparison with others.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, after the word "reasonable" ["all the circumstances consider reasonable"], to add the words
"Provided that the local education authority, under schemes to be approved by the Board of Education, shall pay maintenance allowances for young persons who are in compulsory attendance at such continuation schools."
As this is an Amendment of some importance, I should like to know whether it would be advisable to move to report Progress now that we have about reached the time, eleven o'clock, at which we usually adjourn? My Amendment raises the whole question of the provision of maintenance for young persons who are compelled to attend continuation schools.
The CHAIRMAN: It is rather close to the time that we had a previous similar
1714
Motion, and, as the House has decided to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule, I think that debars me from, at present, accepting the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. Before very long, however, I may be prepared to entertain it if the Debate continues.
Mr. SNOWDEN: Very well; I will not press the Motion. This Amendment is a very fundamental one. There have been many expressions of opinion in the course of the Debate of various points of view of the children, and of the national interests. There is no one, either in this House or outside it, who is not anxious to see a very great improvement in our system of national education. I want to assure hon. Members that what they call the opposition of Lancashire to educational reform does not spring from any opposition to education itself. There is no county in England where education is more entirely appreciated than it is in Lancashire. But we cannot consider this question of education apart from other matters which are intimately and vitally associated with it. We are proposing in this Bill, by a Clause which has already received the approval of the House, to abolish an institution which has been, I think I am right in saying, in existence in Lancashire for nearly a century. Within my own recollection the age at which children might be permitted to work half-time in factories has been raised from eight by steps to twelve, and it is now to be abolished up to the age of fourteen. The arguments which have been used on this question in the past are well known, but I believe this is the first occasion on which, when the question of raising the age of compulsory attendance at school has been proposed, we have not been told by the employers of labour that it was absolutely indispensable for the maintenance of the cotton industry that young children should be sent early to the factory, because it was necessary that their fingers should become subtle, and that at a very early age they should be trained in very delicate textile operations. John Fielding once had sent to him a. petition to this House, declaring that
"It is absolutely essential for the maintenance of the cotton industry of Lancashire that children of eight should be permitted to work for twelve hours a day."
I am glad that the day is passed when such an argument will carry any weight

1715
in this House. Lancashire is united in desiring to see educational reform and in seeing that the children should be kept at school for a longer period than at present. There are other matters to take into consideration which we cannot ignore. I have been taunted more than once during these Debates by the Member for Sunderland with not subscribing to the resolutions passed by the trade union and Labour conferences. Very often pious resolutions are passed at those conferences, but there is all the difference in the world between passing resolutions of that sort and translating them in Acts of Parliament.
Captain SMITH: Those resolutions have always been associated with maintenance.
11.0 P.M.
Mr. SNOWDEN: As my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe has just pointed out, whenever those proposals have been made at trade union and Labour conferences the extension of the age of compulsory attendance has always been associated with maintenance. My Amendment proposes to translate into legislation this demand of the Labour and trade union conferences. We cannot dissociate the economic from the educational question, for they are very closely and intimately associated. For instance, there are many hon. Members of this House who went to school till they were eighteen years of age, and after that they went to a university for five or six years. Why do they not bring forward a proposal that every child should go to school until eighteen years of age and then go forward to the university? If that was a good thing for these hon. Members, it is a good thing for others. Why do they not do it? The answer is that it is an economic question. They know that it is not possible to impose such a condition as that upon all the parents of the country, and therefore it is only a question of degree as to whether we raise it to fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, or eighteen. It is not a question of the desirability at all, and therefore we have to take the facts as they are. Take into consideration the question of the sacrifice that we are asking the parents to bear. This question of compulsory education has been admitted to be an obligation upon the State. When compulsory education was instituted it was found to be necessary in the interests of the State
1716
that its future citizens should be educated, and when the State made education compulsory it also made it, in the first instance, to some extent and later to the full extent, free. Why? The answer is the same as that I gave just now. It was recognised that the State, by compelling attendance at school of their children, was imposing upon parents a financial obligation that they were not able to bear. I am simply asking that the State should be consistent, and that it should continue to do what it has done in the past. It is now proposing to take away from parents the earnings that they have received from the labours of their children between the ages of twelve and fourteen, and it is proposing tinder this Clause to still further impose compulsory attendance between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. I pointed out upon a former occasion that half-time employment between twelve and fourteen would involve an average sacrifice to the parents of each child of something like £20, a quite serious consideration to people of low incomes. Between fourteen and sixteen will involve a sacrifice of a larger amount. The Lancashire Members have not asked today that children should be permitted to work full time between fourteen and sixteen. We do not want that. We want their education to be continued; but when Parliament says that it is essential in the interests of the country—and that is the ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman put his case, for he said, in view of the great struggle that the country would have to engage in after the War, that its workpeople and citizens should be better educated—it has no right to put the whole financial sacrifice upon the parents of the children. The State itself must shoulder the financial responsibility. That is the purpose of my Amendment. It may be said that it will cost money. Of course it will, but the return will be compensation for the expenditure. The best, the most remunerative expenditure that this country can make is to spend money upon education. I heard the speech of the hon. Member for London University (Sir P. Magnus) with special gratification. I observed to one of my hon. Friends that it was a speech that I had made scores of times in different parts of the country. The point of that speech was that the money that we have hitherto spent upon education has been largely wasted, because the education has stopped before the children have begun to love

1717
education for itself. Therefore, I repeat that I am heartily in favour of extending the age of compulsory attendance at school, but, in order to lighten the burden of the financial sacrifice that it imposes upon parents, I want it to be accompanied by such a provision as that which I now propose. It will cost money—how much I do not know. It is very likely that it would not cost much more—indeed, I do not think it would cost so much — than the burden which was placed upon industry by the Workmen's Compensation Act or by the National Health Insurance Act; but, whether it costs a lot of money or does not, it is an obligation the State ought to discharge. If the President of the Board of Education will accept the Amendment, I can assure him that he will, by that one act alone, remove all opposition to all the other educational proposals in this Bill. They will all be accepted with enthusiasm, because there is no opposition to education in this country. Parents are longing for education, and the only difficulty in the way is the economic difficulty.
I can speak on this subject from an experience that some hon. Members of the Committee do not possess. I was born of working-class parents. My father was a factory worker all his life. I had the good fortune to be the youngest of three children. The two elder children went to the factory, and it was because of the wages they were able to bring into the home that I was given a better education than was given to the average of the working-class children in my position. That is not an exceptional case. There are thousands of similar cases where the elder children help to give a better start in life and a better education to the younger members of the family I therefore hope that this Amendment will receive not only sympathetic support from the President of the Board of Education, but the support of the whole Committee.
Mr. FISHER: Much as I sympathise with the plea the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Snowden) has made on behalf of the poor people of this country, I am afraid that I am unable to accept his Amendment. The hon. Member proposes that maintenance allowances should he paid to all young persons who attend continuation schools for from 280 to 320 hours a year. He makes no distinction between employed and non-employed young persons or between the richer and the poorer
1718
young persons; maintenance allowances are to be paid to all alike, irrespective of their family circumstances. If maintenance allowances are to be paid to young persons attending continuation classes between the ages of fourteen and sixteen, ought they not, by parity of reasoning, to be paid to children attending elementary schools between the ages of five and fourteen? It is quite clear that the acceptance of the hon. Member's Amendment would lead us very far. I suggest to the hon. Member that while no doubt exceptionally hard cases ought to be met—there are at the present moment means for meeting exceptionally hard cases—the remedy for the evil— and it is an undoubted evil—is to raise the standard of adult wages. I believe it will be one of the consequences of the present educational legislation that it will have a very considerable effect in reducing the amount of juvenile labour, end thereby raise the average of adult wages in the country. What is the ideal for which we ought to strive I We ought to strive for a state of society in which the head of the family will be able to earn a sufficient income upon which to support his family decently. I feel it would be a very great mistake if Parliament were to sanction this very special legislation for the benefit of a small class of young persons attending continuation schools between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. For these reasons, I am afraid I am unable to accept the Amendment.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: This Amendment, of course, goes to the whole root of the matter. If it were carried it would make the rest of the Bill almost unnecessary. There is no doubt that the people of this country are ready for education, and, as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) has said, there is no doubt that the objection to education and the need for compulsion comes really from this maintenance factor. People are not able to make both ends meet at home and at the same time send their children to school until they are eighteen years of age. If we could carry this Amendment, and if we could extend it to the elementary schools as well, then you would be able to scrap the provisions for compulsory education and let parents look after the education of their own children. Even if maintenance were given during the ages of fourteen to eighteen, it would not compensate for the loss of wages. There would still be sacrifices demanded of the parents, but

1719
although there might be need for such sacrifices there would not be that driving force which makes education so difficult for the working classes at the present time. I cannot help thinking that if a system of maintenance could be added to these proposed facilities for education that would lead to the giving of a superior education than now obtains. There would be no incentive to the teacher to look better after one scholar than another. Parents would be able to select the classes and teachers for their children and there would result a higher standard of teaching. You would get even more than that. Parents would make sacrifices for their children: it would bring out all that was best in the parents, and the children who benefited would be a credit to the country instead of remaining in the ordinary rank and file. If parents are willing to make sacrifices for one son even at the expense of other sons—the son who gets the chance will make the best possible use of it. We have an illustration of that in the case of the hon. Member for Blackburn. We want more people of his type. I dislike the compulsory system because under it we shall have no more Philip Snowdens: we shall only get the ordinary rank and file. If you take away the initiative from the parents the children will have no chance of turning out self-respecting men and women who think and act for themselves. I believe this Amendment is one of enormous importance to the whole future of education. True, it will be voted down to-night or to-morrow, but it is a question that will come to the front again and again until it is finally carried and put into operation. When we get maintenance for children, whether at elementary or at continuation schools, then you will have, and not before, real sound education in this country.
The right hon. Gentleman said in his speech that it was impossible to provide maintenance for children between fourteen and eighteen and not for elementary school children. I think there is a very strong difference between the two cases. This is a new obligation we are imposing on the parents of this country. When you are imposing a new obligation they are entitled to ask you to give them some compensation for the loss. If we were imposing a new obligation on any vested interest in this country, whether it be the brewing, landlord, or any form of
1720
capitalist interest—if any legislation were passed in this House that imposed a new burden on any vested interest or corporation in this country, not only should we have a demand for compensation for that vested interest, but that demand would be met by whoever was on the Government Bench. Because we are imposing a demand on the whole working-class population of the country it is apparently accepted by the House as quite natural that they should be dragooned into accepting that demand, and any idea of compensation and maintenance of their children is ruled out as an extravagant proposition which cannot possibly be met. I think that way of handling the problem is wrong too. You ought not to impose a heavy economic burden on the people of this country, particularly at the present time, and least of ail ought such a burden to be imposed by a House of Commons which represents the country less than any House of Commons within the memory of any living man at the present time. We have here before us a revolutionary Bill, and the people of the country know nothing whatever about it. We are speaking now at twenty minutes past eleven, and the country will hear nothing about this Debate. In to-morrow's papers there will be not one word of this Amendment. It will be voted down, and the country will never know this has been passed, except that the hon. Member for Blackburn will probably tell his constituents. The country is in absolute ignorance that this Bill is being put through the House at the present time, or that any efforts are being made to prevent its being saddled with this enormous financial loss. It is deplorable that this tired House, with a Press which is incapable, owing to the limited space at its command, of reporting our Debates or informing the people of what goes on in this House, should, in the middle of a great war, pass legislation in this way.
Sir M. BARLOW: While we are on this question of maintenance and the payment of some sort of allowance—to use noncommittal words—to parents, I should like to call the attention of the President of the Board to the promise he gave me in dealing with the same matter relating to the extension of compulsory education in public elementary schools. I ventured to point out to him, when we were dealing with the extension of the age to fourteen, that there must, in my view, be very

1721
serious inconvenience and alarm amongst parents in the poorer industrial areas when they discovered that they were being compelled to give up, from their point of view, another year of the life of their children just at the time when they were going to begin to contribute towards the expenses of the household. The answer he gave me was that there is provision made in Section 11 of the Act of 1907 for the local authorities to provide nurseries, and that under Section 38 of the principal Act the Treasury is bearing half of that expense. I pointed out to him then that under Clause 11 of the Bill the emphasis comes not on maintenance but on education, in other words that that Clause unites in effect the local authority to take a single clever child of a family and by means of a bonus or bursary or whatever you call it stimulate its education still further. I do not wish to say that is not a commendable thing, but the type of family I have in mind where I think assistance will be abundantly necessary is the family of eight or ten children, where the burden is falling very heavily on the parents to keep the home together at all just at the time when the eldest child is just beginning to contribute to the expenses of the household. The President on that Amendment gave me the assurance that he would, when we got to Clause 36, consider an Amendment if I submitted words to him to modify Section 11 of the Act of 1907 so as to include maintenance as well as education. I should hope it will give the provision of bursaries in this way not only for elementary education but also for secondary educational purposes, though I think, at any rate, some effort will be made to deal with the difficulty which this Amendment suggests. In my view, this Amendment goes too far, but if the President could give us an assurance that when he accepts this inclusion of the word "maintenance" in bursaries for elementary education, those words shall be extended so as to cover secondary education as well, I think we shall get a (substantial step forward.
Colonel Sir R. WILLIAMS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood) spoke about the vested interests of the parents. I think he forgot that we are talking about education. We are talking about the vested interests of the children, which are much more important. We want to look after the children. The hon. Member (Mr. Snowden) spoke keenly of the struggles which were made
1722
by his family to give him a good education. That was in the days when they had to pay fees, and working-class people did pay fees. My own impression is that a larger proportion of the population care much less about education now they get it free and have all the trouble taken off their hands when they really had to think how they were to get the 1d. or 2d. a week to pay for the education. It was a good and a right thing to make education free if it was to be compulsory, but at the same time free education has its bad effects, like all free things do, in taking away a great deal of responsibility. It has now come to be thought that children of fourteen ought to be wage-earners. Not many years ago it was thought children of eight ought to be wage-earners. I am thankful to say the public opinion of the country did away with the idea and no longer are children of eight allowed to be wage-earners and I think public opinion is right and it realises that it is unfair to make children of fourteen wage-earners. From fourteen to sixteen are precious years in a child's life, and from sixteen to eighteen even more so, and to perpetuate a condition which would make it feasible even for the children of the country to become wage-earners at an unnaturally early age is a bad thing for the country. If you give these maintenance allowances it will still further take the responsibility off the parents, and will still encourage the idea that a child ought to work at fourteen. I do not think any child, boy or girl, ought to work at fourteen. If they are meant to work, their parents ought to be paid. I think it is an entirely wrong idea, and in the interests of education and of the children I hope the Amendment will be rejected.
Mr. T. WILSON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman has not said the last word upon this matter. He adopted a line of argument that if this Amendment is accepted it logically means the maintenance of the child while it is at the elementary school. If you follow that out logically, it means that the child shall be maintained from its birth by the State. It has been the duty of the parent to maintain the child under present conditions until the age of thirteen. We recognise that—that the parents should maintain the child until it arrives at the age when it can work for its living. There is no loss of wages until the child really begins to work. Therefore I submit that the Amendment is a reasonable

1723
one. The hon. Member (Mr. Snowden) said that owing to the fact that two of his elder brothers were bringing wages into the home he was able to get a better education. All that we ask for in this Amendment is that the two elder children shall have a better education as well as the youngest one. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to get the best out of this Bill, and wishes that the children shall have the best education that the Bill offers, he must give them every opportunity of going to school well fed and well clothed, and also an opportunity of living in decency and comfort. The additional cost will only be about one half day's cost of the War. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to make the mistake that was made by hon. Members when the Old Age Pensions Bill was before the House. They said that the Bill would ruin the country. The additional cost will not affect the finances of the country very much, but it will give an opportunity of education to the children which they do not possess now. This question of maintenance allowance has been an economic problem for the last twenty years, and if the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment, even if he goes so far as to say that it shall only operate for a period of five years, so that the workers may adjust themselves to the new circumstances. it will be well. The Government opposition to this Amendment will mean
1724
that the big industries of this country will be prevented from adopting the Whitley Report, but will reserve to themselves the right to strike for increased wages, and that means industrial unrest. It means injuring the industries of the country. Looking at the matter from a broad standpoint, the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to accept the Amendment. If he cannot accept it in its entirety, I hope he will be able to make an offer that will meet us part of the way. I hope he will meet us the whole way.
Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty-eight minutes before Twelve o'clock