HC Deb 30 May 1918 vol 106 cc1092-121

(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 ease 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 not less than thirty days on the Table of each House of Parliament.

(2) Any young person—

  1. (i) who is above the age of fourteen years on the appointed day, or
  2. (ii) who is above the age of sixteen years, and either—
    1. (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;
    2. (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—

  1. (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
  2. (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 during 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 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 Subsection 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.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The first Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Blackburn does not read. It seems to me not in the right place.

Mr. SNOWDEN

You say it does not read. It seems to me that it reads all right, if I may respectfully say so.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN

The Amendment is after the word "provided" to insert the words "including the provision of maintenance grants" It is quite impossible to put these words in here.

Mr. PETO (seated)

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "all" ["all young persons"] and to insert instead thereof the word "such" We have now got to the Clause which introduces, perhaps, the most revolutionary of the proposals in this Bill, namely, that children should attend continuation schools from the age of fourteen to eighteen. The first question is whether when we make this great change it should be a change of universal application applied to all children, whether they are book children or children which are represented in every class of child life who are anxious to be getting to something real and doing something with their hands rather than continuing their education with their heads. The Clause proposes that all young persons shall attend such continuation schools. There will be enormous difficulties in providing suitable continuation schools, and still more in suddenly providing the immense new staffs of teachers, and teachers of a new and different class. The teacher who can teach a young person from fourteen to eighteen years of age in these 320-hour-courses per annum, so as to increase their efficiency and their well-being in every way, as well as their book learning, will certainly have to be men of wide experience and with a wide outlook upon life, with a full appreciation of what are the real things which count in life for the people whom they arc to teach. It will not be very easy to find this large class of teachers at once. That is only an incidental difficulty, and one of the difficulties which I propose to deal with by this Amendment. Instead of the word "all" I propose to insert the word "such," and immediately after I propose to insert the words "not exceeding one-fifth of the total number of scholars leaving the elementary schools in any year" I am not pinning myself to the exact traction.

In making this great change, particularly in view of the fact that it has been brought out in the Debate on the last two Clauses that the people of this country as a whole have not really had these proposals laid before them and do not understand them, it will be very wise to make this continuation education apply only to selected children in the first instance, and while giving an opportunity to every child to get the advantage of this continuation education, arrange it so that only those who have shown the most aptitude in their past studies up to the age of fourteen, and indicated the most probability of benefiting by further education, should be selected for this experiment of continuation classes. Further on I have an Amendment to add the words Provided that in selecting the young persons who are required to attend continuation schools regard shall be paid by the local education authority—

  1. (a) to the wishes of the parents;
  2. (b) the aptitude, mental capacity, and attainments of the scholars;
  3. (c) the class of employment or career that the young persons adopt or intend to adopt"
These are the considerations which I think should govern the selection of the children in the first instance at any rate. It is a very common thing in the case of boys who show more aptitude and intense desire to get on with the practical work of life, to withdraw them from school at the age of sixteen or seventeen, which is a still more common age, and put them down to the definite work of life. It is done with the boy who is doing no good by being kept longer in school, and this happens constantly, even in the greatest of our public schools.

Why should we suddenly raise the age of compulsory education, which has generally been up to thirteen, of every single child, whether he is likely to benefit by this continued education or not, right up to the age of eighteen? It is a jump of five years and not one year in compulsory education. In view of the fact that it is obviously quite impossible to find this great staff of suitable teachers all at once, and from the other point of view of familiarising the young persons themselves and the parents, not with the idea that they have to attend certain classes up to the age of eighteen, but with the idea that education is a privilege, and that we cannot provide education for everyone up to eighteen, it would not be fair to compel every child, whether stupid or clever, or poor or well off, to attend these continuation classes up to the age of eighteen. Would it not be better to say that we will provide for one-fifth or one-fourth of the children, or whatever fraction the Committee may think fit; and in selecting that fraction we will have some regard to the wishes of the parents, the aptitude and mental capacity of the individual child and the class of employment or career which the child means to take up? It is obvious that Clause 10 cannot be accepted as it is. Therefore, I am glad that it falls to me to move the first Amendment of the Clause, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider at the very outset whether this is not essentially a problem that ought to be met by a process of selection, at any rate in the first instance. If he begins with one-fifth of the children, and finds that he has got the teachers and that everybody is anxious to make a success of the scheme, what is the difficulty in a few years, when he has the Act in operation, if he, finds that that is not sufficient in raising the proportion?

It is clear that the Clause has never been really thought out from the point of view of the various trades of the country. It has never been explained how the requirements of agriculture can be reconciled with the proposal of the Bill to put in 320 hours' work, during forty weeks of the year, in these continuation schools. Already it has been found that it will not provide boys for the Merchant Service. Then practically no young persons would enter the building trade if their employment were so irregular during the time when, under the old system, they would be apprenticed to their trade. For those reasons I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider seriously whether he will not get the new principle accepted much more easily in the country and get to work quite as quickly, from his own educational point of view, if he begins with the selective principle, taking a reasonable fraction of the children, than if he attempts, at any rate on paper, to lay down the principle that all young persons shall attend continuation schools for exactly the same period all over the country, whatever their position and whatever the class of district in which they live. I am quite sure that this is not the way to get this new principle to work smoothly. The method which I proposed in this Amendment, read with the other two Amendments which follow, the principle of selection, is far preferable to this principle of cast-iron universal compulsion for every young person all over the country.

Mr. LEWIS

The proposal embodied in Clause 10 of the Bill is one of the two main proposals of the Bill itself. My hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment attacks it on a point which, if it be successfully attacked, would be vital. We regard this particular Clause as vital to the Bill, and we regard the provision which the Amendment seeks to alter as vital to the Clause. My hon. Friend proposes that we should proceed by a system of selection. I am not at all sure whether or how a system of that kind would be likely to work in practice, but we believe that the benefits of continuation education should be extended to all boys and girls between the ages of fourteen and eighteen. It is true that many of them are dull boys and girls, but, after all, the system is intended primarily for ordinary boys and girls, because they are to be the fathers and the mothers, citizens, and voters of the future. The main object of this particular provision is to prevent the enormous waste of time, energy, and money which is entailed by our present elementary education system. I have said before in the course of these Debates, and I repeat it now, that a considerable part of the £30,000,000 a year that we spend on elementary education might just as well be thrown into the Thames, for the simple reason that the education is not continued. The young people lose the education they have acquired at elementary schools, and I urge, on economic grounds, if on no other, that the education should be continued for a reasonable time between the ages of fourteen and eighteen. We have another object in view as well. The enlistment and recruitment of our New Army has revealed great and most serious defects in the physical constitution of a large proportion of the population of these Islands. We wish to improve the physique of the coming generation, and an essential part of the education and training which will be imparted to young people between the ages of fourteen and eighteen will be physical training. But I would remind the Committee that none of the objects I have referred to can possibly be achieved unless the system is made a universal system. I readily admit that the system ought to be framed in such a way as to provide for cases of exceptional ability, and, indeed, the continuation classes themselves will enable teachers from time to time to select the brighter and more brilliant boys and girls, those who will be fitted for a higher system of education, in order that special provision may be made for them, if possible, by transferring them to some suitable form of full-time instruction. I do not think it can be said that there are any classes of boys and girls who cannot profit by the new teaching. It has been suggested that there are boys who are not good at head work or at books. If that be so, the physical training will be an admirable thing for them, and they can be educated not only through their heads but through their hands; they will receive valuable training of hand and eye. What we desire is that the education should be fitted to the capacity of the young person. We believe that there is no class of boys or girls so dull that they cannot profit by continued teaching. Even in the case of defective children it is a matter, by now, of practical experience that 45 per cent. of that poor, unfortunate class, blind, deaf, and epileptic, have been sufficiently well taught to earn their own living. I hope that, without troubling the Committee with considerations which have already been entered into very fully upon the Second Reading and the First Reading of the Bill, the Committee will come to the conclusion that what we need in this respect is a system of national and universal character, a system which shall enable all citizens of the future to have the advantage of a good continued education.

Amendment negatived.

Major BARNSTON

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "shall" ["persons shall attend such continuation school "] and to insert instead thereof the words, "may on the written wish of their parents, or parent if but one be alive"

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I have some doubt in my mind whether I ought to admit this Amendment. Its effect apparently is to negative the Clause, because the Committee has already set up continuation schools; but I will hear what the hon. Member has to say.

Major BARNSTON

The object of my Amendment is to make these continuation classes for young people between fourteen and eighteen of a voluntary character, giving the parents the right to decide whether their children or child shall or shall not attend those continuation classes. I think there are a great many reasons why this Amendment is worthy of the consideration of the House and of its support. I was away during the Second Reading to-day owing to a great family sorrow, but I read very carefully most of the discussion, and I observe that hon. Members during the Debate spoke about poor parents in the country being anxious that their children should have as good an education as possible. I believe that to be perfectly true. At the outset I will point out that my Amendment does not take away from a single parent the right for their children to attend a continuation class. All that my Amendment affirms is, "these are your children, and it is your right and your privilege to decide whether you wish your children or child to attend these classes or not" I think this is a case where the parent, or somebody, wants a really wise discretion. The mental capacity and capabilities are as different in children as the facial expression of their parents, and you cannot pass all the children through the same sort of educational machine and hope to have the same result in every particular case. That is not the way in which you carry out the education of children in other situations of life. If a child evinces promise and is fond of his books he is sent to the university, but if he is fond of out-door life, and hates books, he is trained for an out-door life, for farming, or he goes out to the Colonies. I believe that the more you separate the responsibility and the rights of parents from their children the worse it is for the children, and the worse it will be for the country afterwards. We always hear a great deal on platforms and no doubt we shall hear again about "trusting the people," "the. people's will prevails," and "the people's will must decide," but my Amendment merely says that as regards continuation classes the people or rather the parents should have a voice in the training of their children. I suggest that it is vital as a general principle in a matter of education to carry the parents with you.

What is the position of Parliament to-day? Everybody knows that this House of Commons is practically dead. We have chosen to elect ourselves to sit here, and we have not been before the constituents for seven and a half years, and seven and a half years ago there was not a whisper about education or anything connected with this Bill. I believe myself that the parents of the country properly understand the position, and I do not think that in the country districts this Bill is understood in the least. I should very much doubt if it is realised in the country districts at all, and I suggest parents will very much resent the way in which they are treated. Assuming there is no discretion, and that the parents will have no voice in this matter, what, in my humble judgment, will happen? My hon. Friend pointed out just now that all young people are very anxious to work with their hands, to do what their elders are doing, and above all things, to do something useful. For the most part, they look forward to the time when they are going to leave school. After all, you must remember that these young people who are going to attend these classes will not be children in the ordinary sense of the word; they will be eighteen before they leave. The girls, before they leave these continuation classes, may be engaged to be married, and, decrepit and old as I am now, when I was eighteen years of age, I thought myself a good deal older than at the present time.

What will happen? They will be summoned before a local bench of magistrates, they probably will have the sympathy of their parents, their employers, the neighbourhood, and probably the local bench of magistrates themselves. Not a single director throughout the country could ever have been consulted on the subject at all, and until it is passed the parents will not know it exists. By these means education will not really be advanced. There is one other point I might mention. I think I am right in saying that it will be a great many years before there are sufficient teachers in the country to carry out these continuation classes, and while that is so, surely from every point of view and from the point of view that this House has exhausted its mandate, it would be wise to start by making these continuation classes voluntary, and see how they work, and in the future alteration may be made.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

This is, of course, the most important Debate on the whole of this Bill. It is a question whether revolution is to be made or not, because of all the revolutionary proposals in this Bill the proposal that you should make education compulsory up to the age of eighteen is far and away the most revolutionary. First of all, let me point out to this House that we are not only eight years old, but even for an eight-year-old Parliament we are more out of touch with the country than any previous Parliament since the Revolution. During the War some of us have been down to our constituencies once or twice, but we have not had the constant drain of previous Parliaments, the constant necessity of attending to our constituencies in order to see that the other party did not get a step ahead of us, and, party politics ceasing, Members of this House become more divorced from their constituencies than ever before. It is well known that many Members are not standing again—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

It is quite obvious that the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member are not directed to the Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

The Amendment is to prevent education being made compulsory beyond the age of fourteen, and making it compulsory up to the age of eighteen. That is a matter of such importance to the people of this country that we ought to consider whether, with all our excellent aims and objects, with all our enthusiasm for German systems of education, we really have the right to throw these enormous burdens upon the parents of this country, and to start this revolutionary form of education. I think that this House of Commons is most unfitted to pass this measure or to raise this question.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

This will not do at all. The Amendment is in quite a small compass, and the hon. and gallant Member knows from the discussion which I have had with him in private that I had doubts whether this Amendment ought to be admitted at all. I have admitted it, but I must ask him to confine himself as the Mover of the Amendment did quite strictly to the Amendment before the Committee, which is as to whether you are going to give one parent or both parents the right to take their child out of the operation of this Clause.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I think that is the most important Amendment of the whole Bill. It is true you were in doubt as to whether you were to allow the discussion on this "shall" or "may"—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

It is not "shall" or "may."

Colonel WEDGWOOD

it is "shall" or "may," as to whether the continuation classes are to be compulsory or voluntary. It seems to me a vital point. It is not a minor Amendment, which can be passed over. We may have a discussion now or on the end of the Clause, but whenever we have it, it must be the most important discussion of the whole Bill. As I have said, I think we in this House are particularly unsuited at the present time to decide upon any such point as this. My objections to making this secondary education compulsory are, first, that we are unfitted to propose this revolutionary state of things, and, secondly, that we have not had an opportunity yet of discussing the first consideration which we ought to tackle, and that is to say whether the parents arc to be paid maintenance allowance for their children taken away from these schools and sent to the secondary schools. From the attitude of the Government on other Amendments it would appear that they do not contemplate paying any maintenance for these children.

Sir M. BARLOW

He promised to pay half.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

Up to the age of thirteen.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member again, but I would point out that an Amendment dealing with that very point appears on the next page.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

Yes, I know; but I am pointing out to the Committee the difficulty of deciding as to whether this should be voluntary or compulsory until we know first of all whether the parents are to receive maintenance allowance for their children. I must assume, therefore, that the Bill will pass through without such a provision for maintenance, and the House has got to realise that, in carrying the Bill as it stands, and in rejecting this Amendment, they are going to ask the working-class people in this country to send their children to school until they are eighteen without any monetary compensation whatever. Whenever it is a question of any vested interest being superseded, whenever any person's business is taken away by the State, or his income affected by the action of the State, we find them very ready in some things to grant compensation, but here you say to a man and his wife, or it may be to a widow, that their son, who is now thirteen years of age, from whom they expect to get a certain amount of wages every week in a year's time—that, although he represents the potential income, by a mere stroke of the pen we are going to alter all that, so that not at the age of fourteen, but at eighteen, will he begin to earn full wages. That may be right or it may be wrong. All I am saying is that it is a question of such importance that we ought to hesitate before we accept the views of the educational enthusiasts and adopt this compulsory education up to eighteen. I am particularly anxious to have it voluntarily, because from a great many points of view I like this system of continuation classes. I want them to succeed. Work in our factories, especially work for the children, is becoming more purely mechanical every day. The system which has sprung up in America, called the Taylor system of efficiency, is gradually creeping in here, eliminating all brain work and turning all our working people into absolute mechanical tools, with the smallest possible motion of the fingers and hands. All this is taking the interest out of every piece of work done in our factories to-day, and to turn children into that life at fourteen seems to me like turning them into hell. For that reason I would welcome any system which took them out of that.

Therefore I want these continuation classes to be a success. If they are to be a success, they must have the people of this country behind them. You cannot impose a system upon a people which is naturally conservative in its ideas, and which naturally desires to keep its economic standards up to pre-war level. If you want to see this system a success—and I believe I want it just as much as the President himself—I am quite certain if you come along and say, "Here is an ideal system which we, the all-highest, think is the best for the country, and, whether you like it or do not like it, you have jolly well got to have it"—that is a system which. will not work in this twentieth century in this country. People in this country do not take laws easily. I can imagine some hot-headed member of the Labour party going to his constituency and saying to the children, "You strike; they cannot send you to prison" You would break down that law right and left by the solidarity of the working classes in refusing to obey. Some do not realise the power of direct action that is coming into play in. this country. You have got to realise that the power of combination is a very vital factor in preventing the efficacy of your laws. We know we have passed law after law for ten years and they are dead letters.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Member must really address himself to the Amendment or I must finally stop him. This is the third time I have asked him to endeavour to keep to the Amendment.

Sir J. D. REES

The fact that but for the hon. Member for Haggerston (Mr. Chancellor), those three benches, except for the hon. Member, are unoccupied, makes this the occasion for stating a general proposition without fear of contradiction. I have always noticed that when a Member of this House states anything without fear of contradiction he always states the most debatable proposition. Nevertheless, I would suggest that the most disagreeable feature of any entertainment is the bill—I do not mean the Bill to be discussed, but the bill to be paid. From that point of view my hon. Friend's Amendment, which has been accepted, I understand, in substitution of, on in parimateria, with that of my hon. and gallant Friend behind me and myself, is one on which this point, namely, the bill to be paid, arises. In the first place, this Amendment immediately raises the question of the definition of a young person. The Bill runs: The expression 'young person' means a person under eighteen years of age, who is no longer a child When a person under eighteen years of age is or is not a child has never been explained by the draftsman.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I do not see anything about the definition of a young person, but I see something about parents. I have not heard a single word yet from the hon. Member which is relevant to the Amendment.

Sir J. D. REES

I have no intention of trespassing upon the patience of the Committee in this matter, but I do submit upon this Amendment—or, if you rule it would be more convenient to discuss this question upon the Amendment which is in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend and myself, in which case I shall immediately sit down and wait until that Amendment is moved—I do submit that it would be the right way to deal with the question. But my hon. and gallant Friend led off his speech as if it raised his own Amendment and not that of the hon. and gallant Member for Cheshire.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN

This Amendment disposes of the succeeding Amendment.

Sir J. D. REES

On a point of Order. I submit that if that is your ruling, the Amendment of my hon. Friend does not dispose of that Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I think it does. The decision of the Committee on this Amendment disposes of the succeeding Amendment. If the hon. Member wishes to speak to that Amendment, he must address his remarks on this, and relevantly, too.

Mr. LEWIS

My hon. Friend has put down four Amendments, which have to be read together, and the effect of those Amendments would be as you, Sir Donald, indicated, practically a negation of the Clause. The intention of my hon. Friend, apparently, is to substitute for the universal obligation upon young persons to attend continuation schools an obligation which could only be entered into on the option of each young person, with the consent of his parents. I am afraid that it is not clear from my hon. Friend's Amendment whether there is to be any power to the young person to reverse his option at a later date, and to get out of the obligation or not. But whether that be so or not, I submit to the Committee that if this Amendment were accepted it would strike a vital blow at the Clause under consideration. This is an extension of elementary education. Elementary education is, and must be, compulsory in this country. It is compulsory in every modern civilised State, and as these continuation schools are an extension of a compulsory elementary system it is essential that the continuation schools should also be of a compulsory character. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not at all!"] I will give a reason why they should be of a compulsory character. My hon. Friend's Amendment would have the effect of enabling parents or young persons, as the case might be, to withdraw themselves from the scope of these continuation schools. Now, the fact of young people attending these continuation schools does impose—we have never attempted to deny it—a certain amount of inconvenience upon industry.

That being the case, the employer would naturally accept the services, not of a young person who was under any obligation to attend continuation school, but rather of one who was not under that obligation. There would, therefore, be on the part of the parent a tremendous inducement to draw a young person from the continuation school, and there would also be a tremendous inducement on the part of the employer to give a young person so withdrawn preference over one who was under an obligation to attend such a school. I was delighted to hear my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) say what he did. In the course of these Debates nothing has given me greater pleasure than to hoar him say he earnestly and profoundly desires these continuation schools to be a success. I accept that in the fullest sense of its meaning, but if my hon. and gallant Friend desires to paralyse this system of continuation schools, he can do so by the method he is adopting in supporting this particular Amendment, because, if the Amendment were carried, the effect would be that the work of the continuation schools would be paralysed, and their organisation in many parts of the country would be made practically impossible. It is out of the question for us to face the prospect of setting up a national system of this character unless accompanied by a national obligation of attendance.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

The Parliamentary Secretary really must not misunderstand me. I am very anxious that these schools should be a success, but I do not think that they can be made a permanent form of education if compulsion is insisted upon. If the system is voluntary parents will be willing to make sacrifices, but if you make it compulsory they will simply be up against it.

Colonel Lord Henry CAVENDISH-BENTINCK

Is not the hon. and gallant Member repeating the speech he made five minutes ago when he was called to order?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)

I am afraid I was deprived of the pleasure of hearing that speech.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

We were discussing general questions five minutes ago. This is the really important point—Are you going to make people do that which we want them to do voluntarily? If you make your system of education voluntary you will get the people keen to support it and you will get satisfactory results, but if you suddenly start with a compulsory system without teachers and without ex perience—and we shall want a lot of experience in order to eliminate dangerous forms of working—if you spring on the country a plan of continuation schools without teachers and without a proper system, you will have a failure. It is known perfectly well it is not going to be started during the War—

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is now repeating the speech which I did hear.

Mr. T. WILSON

The Parliamentary Secretary made a statement which I would like him to put a little more clearly. He suggested that in other countries it was compulsory for young persons eighteen years of age to attend schools during the working hours of the day.

Mr. LEWIS

I said that in this country and in other modern countries in Europe elementary education was compulsory.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

You said continuation education.

Mr. WILSON

We are speaking now of compulsory education over the age of fourteen. If the remark of the right hon. Gentleman meant anything, it meant that compulsory education obtained in other countries in Europe, and perhaps in America, up to the age of eighteen, and if it did not mean that it did not mean anything at all, and then the right hon. Gentleman was simply attempting to sidetrack the Committee.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS

My argument was that elementary education was compulsory, and it was necessary for this extension of elementary education to be compulsory also. In the earlier part of my remarks I said that elementary education was compulsory in this country as in other modern countries of the world; and I will now go further and say that in some countries continuation schools are compulsory, that in certain cantons in Switzerland they have been compulsory for many years past, that in parts of Germany they are compulsory at the present time, and also in parts of America.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

No!

Mr. LEWIS

Yes; I believe I am right in saying that they are compulsory in certain States of America, and when the enemy was thundering at the gates of France a Bill was brought forward there providing for compulsory continuation teaching to a much later age than is suggested in this Bill.

Mr. WILSON

I again say that the right hon. Gentleman is begging the question, because in America, as he will find, if he will read a reply given by the Foreign Secretary to me a day or two ago, it stated there, quite clearly, that what he says obtains in America does not obtain in America or in Germany or in France. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman in making that statement was misleading the House. We want correct statements made here as to what obtains in other countries and we have not had a correct statement in this instance. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman again, Will he say that in America, or in France, or in Germany, it is compulsory for young persons between the ages of fourteen and eighteen to attend continuation schools during working hours? I am quite certain, if he will make inquiries, he will find it is not so.

Mr. LEWIS

I will reply to that at once. I never said that continuation education was compulsory in France during working hours; I do say it is compulsory in many States in Germany, and I believe I am right in saying it is also compulsory in some American States during working hours.

Mr. WILSON

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in America—at any rate, in some States there—children can go to work at the age of thirteen and attendance at continuation schools during working hours is not compulsory? If he will refer to the reply given by the Foreign Secretary to my question on Tuesday last, he will see that that is so. I am surprised in connection with this Bill that while we are told that everybody is prepared to trust the parents yet on this particular Amendment hon. Members will not trust them at all. I cannot say that I agree with the Amendment. I do not like the wording of it. I do not see why one parent should have the option of saying that his child shall not go to a continuation school while another parent is denied that right. Let the rule be general and apply to everybody, if it is to apply at all. Therefore, I cannot support the Amendment that has been moved by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I do, however, say that in connection with this matter the parents of the children of this country ought to have more time given to consider how the Bill is going to affect them. Although the right hon. Gentleman is addressing a large number of meetings in the country he has never really got the opinion of the working classes on this subject, and I would point out that if he is not prepared to make a concession on this particular point, if not by this Amendment in some other words, the parents of the children will take the matter into their own hands. I can speak in regard to Lancashire and Yorkshire, and then not only would the Act be made ridiculous, but those responsible for it would be made ridiculous in the eyes of the people of this country. It is possible that right hon. Gentlemen do not care about that, but I agree with the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this Parliament has outlived its usefulness, and that we really have no right to pass a Bill of this description without consulting the people who are going to be affected by it. Whilst I cannot support the Amendment, I do say the Government ought to reconsider the position with regard to this particular Clause, and should recognise that the people have some right to a voice in the legislation that ought to be passed in connection with education.

The CHAIRMAN

I must point out that if the lines of the last speech are to be followed the discussion should come on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and not on an Amendment to the Clause.

Sir F. BAN BURY

I will be careful not to infringe your ruling, Mr. Whitley. I must say I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. T. Wilson). I did not hear the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, who apparently—I am sure, of course, quite inadvertently—has misled the Committee with regard to the procedure in other countries.

Mr. LEWIS

Indeed, I have not.

Sir F. BANBURY

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has stated that in America the education in continuation schools during working hours is not compulsory, and I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to admit that that was so.

Mr. LEWIS

What I said was that I believe that in certain States of America compulsory continuation teaching does exist in working hours.

HON. MEMBERS

Some !

Mr. LEWIS

Some States.

Sir F. BANBURY

I understand from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Wilson) that he made a statement to the effect that in America compulsory teaching in continuation schools during working hours was not compulsory. If that is so there is a difference of opinion between him and the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. LEWIS

I am afraid I must interrupt the right hon. Baronet again. He cannot speak of "America" in this connection. America is a system of States and each State has its own law.

Sir F. BANBURY

It is very important if precedents are going to be quoted that we should have them correct. I do not know whether in America these things take place or not, but we have had a distinct assurance from the hon. Gentle man below the Gangway that in America —I assume that in "America" he includes the whole States—certain things do not occur. We have the statement from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lewis) that he believes —

Mr. T. WILSON

I put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary asking him if he could state where this did obtain, and he could not give a reply.

Sir M. LEVY

On a point of Order. Is this the right place to discuss whether the continuation education should be given during working hours or not, because it might be found possible to raise the 320 hours to be given outside the regular working hours.

The CHAIRMAN

The question of working hours is raised in a subsequent Amendment. The question here is "may" or "shall"

Sir F. BANBURY

I was not discussing whether or not it was right that young persons should be kept in continuation schools during working hours. The only reason I brought in working hours is that the hon. Gentleman has stated that that was not the case in America, while the Under-Secretary has said that he believes that in certain States in America it has occurred. My point is that if the Government of the day come forward, bring in a Bill, and make statements they ought not to make those statements in the House on hearsay or because they believe they are correct, but because they know they are correct. Otherwise, they are misleading the House and doing something which they ought not to do. I would further say that I am not influenced by the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary that these things occur in Germany. The only comment that occurs to me on that is that we had better vote against them if they do occur in Germany. It is all very well to say, "Oh, no." I see that the Parliamentary Secretary made a motion of disagreement, but at any rate the result of this has not been successful.

HON. MEMBERS

Not in the War?

Sir F. BANBURY

I thought this was going to civilise the nation and improve the moral tone of the people. It has not done that in Germany, and therefore I venture to say that the illustration that these things are necessary because they are done in Germany is a very bad one. I am inclined to think that if the hon. Gentleman goes to a Division I shall support him.

Sir W. DICKINSON

I have been asked to speak on the subject on behalf of the London County Council, and I do not want to take up more time than is necessary. Having Listened to this Debate, however, and having heard the series of speeches in opposition to the proposal to make this provision compulsory, I feel bound to say that the largest education authority in this country, and I believe the one which has had the greatest experience in this subject of educating children above the age of fourteen, is unanimous in the opinion —

HON. MEMBERS

London is not the whole country!

Sir W. DICKINSON

No; London is not the whole of England, as hon. Members say, but at the same time London constitutes a very considerable part, and experience there is worth having. For thirty years the London County Council, or its predecessor the London School Board, have dealt with this particular question, and they have become convinced that it is necessary, in the interests of the children at their schools, that this continued education should be made compulsory. I am informed that that body, which includes employers and representatives of labour—[HON. MEMBERS: "And parents!"]—and I have no doubt members not only whose parents have been educated in the schools, but who them selves have been educated in the schools—at any rate you. have nobody with a better insight into the conditions of the people in London than this representative body—are anxious in view of their experience to obtain that this Clause should be carried through, and I am told that that experience has brought them to realise that so far as London is concerned not only the working classes but also the employers themselves would be in favour of these proposals. The employers throughout London have been most helpful in the work that has been done by the London County Council. The county council deals with some 200,000 young men and women who at the present time attend their continuation schools. They do this in conjunction with trade unions, with associations of employers, and with individual employers. For example, the London and North-Western Railway Company has for many years, in conjunction with the county council, kept the school going for 500 of their young employés; some part of the instruction being given in their own time and some part in the time of the company. It is more or less required that these children shall attend school. Of course, the company have no power of compulsion. But, so far as they are convinced that it is necessary for their own benefit as well as for the benefit of the children that they should go to this school, it is made more or less obligatory upon them. The same thing applies to Government Departments. I understand that the Post Office has 2,500—

The CHAIRMAN

I must point out again, as I did a few minutes ago, that this is not a discussion on the Clause as a whole. The Debate as proceeding is equivalent to a suggestion to negative the Clause. All I have heard of the Debate convinces me that what I said was correct. An Amendment such as is suggested, properly comes on the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir W. DICKINSON

I am very sorry, Mr. Whitley, and I should not think of going beyond your ruling in the least, but f have followed this Debate, and it is simply because of speeches that have been made that I rose to state that a very large body of representative men hold that this should be compulsory. I understand that to be the proposal, and this is the only time we shall have the opportunity of stating whether or not it should be compulsory. I do not wish in the least to carry on undue criticism in this Debate, and if you think I ought to cut down my remarks I am quite willing to do so. I was simply, in conclusion, going to suggest that there are these associations and these Government Departments who have found these classes so beneficial that they have made them more or less compulsory. I understand that the Ministry of Food now sends 700 girls to the schools, and that it employs these girls on condition that they should attend these schools.

Mr. T. WILSON

The Department pays their wages at the same time.

Sir W. DICKINSON

I have no doubt they do. That is quite a different matter. At any rate, I have said all I wish to say. So far as London is concerned, I believe there is a generally unanimous feeling that this proposal should be made compulsory.

The CHAIRMAN

In this discussion each speaker carries it a little wider, and makes me more convinced that I shall be obliged in the course of my duties to withdraw the Amendment from the Committee if the discussion proceeds further. It is clearly equivalent to a negation of the whole Clause.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

What was moved from the Chair was to leave out the word "shall," and this is the only opportunity we can have of discussing whether these continuation schools shall be compulsory or not; whether on the Clause itself we shall decide whether we shall have continuation schools of any sort or kind. In other Bills that have come up we have suggested that the word "may" shall be inserted instead of "shall" For instance, on the National Insurance Bill the same question came up, and even more so than at present, it was suggested it would wreck the whole Bill. In this case it will not wreck this Clause. Continuation schools would still go on if they were not compulsory. I maintain that this is the only opportunity of discussing whether this burden should be put on the people.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

On the same point of Order. Is not the difficulty the fact that the Amendment is a negation of the Clause? If we discuss the Clause we are bound to raise the question of the policy of the Clause. Is not the real remedy to withdraw the Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN

The point submitted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not quite correct. In an earlier Clause of the Bill we have decided that provision shall be made for continuation schools. The effect of leaving out this Clause would be to make attendance at the schools voluntary, and not compulsory.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

On that point of Order, we have only provided that schemes put forward by the councils shall include a scheme for continuation classes. That I maintain is not enacting that continuation schools shall be put into force, but merely providing that schemes put before the Board of Education shall contain a proposal about continuation schools.

The CHAIRMAN

This Clause in itself does not provide continuation classes; it simply provides for compulsion, with certain exceptions.

Mr. CHANCELLOR

I do not rise to prolong the discussion, but to justify the statement of the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench. I have consulted a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and it shows that his statement is correct.

The CHAIRMAN

That would simply reopen the question.

Question put, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the Clause"

The Committee divided: Ayes, 106; Noes, 29.

Division No. 44.] AYES. [5.59 p.m.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Willoughby H. Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Dixon, C. H. Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)
Archdale, Lieut. E. M. Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B. Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)
Baird, John Lawrence Du Pre, Major W. Baring Kellaway, Frederick George
Baker, Rt. Hon. Harold T. (Accrington) Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Kenyon, Barnet
Baldwin, Stanley Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray Klley, James Daniel
Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N. Fell, Sir Arthur King Joseph
Barnett, Capt. R. W. Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam) Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Barnston, Major Harry Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham) Larmor, Sir J.
Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)
Barton, Sir William Fletcher, John Samuel Lee, Sir Arthur Hamilton
Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Gloucs., E.) Foster, Philip Staveley Levy, Sir Maurice
Bathurst, Capt. Sir C. (Wilts, Wilton) France, Gerald Ashburner Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert
Beale, Sir William phipson Galbraith, Samuel Lonsdale, James R.
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Gibbs, Col. George Abraham MacCaw, William J, MacGeagh
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Gilbert, J. D. Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falk. B'ghs)
Bellairs, Commander C. W. Gilmour, Lieut. Col. John Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Lelcester)
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Glanville, Harold James Mackinder, Halford J.
Bigland, Alfred Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford McMicklng, Major Gilbert
Bird, Alfred Goldstone, Frank McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred Maden, Sir John Henry
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W. Greig, Colonel James William Magnus, Sir Philip
Boyton, Sir James Gretton, John Malcolm, Ian
Brace, Rt. Hon. William Guest, Capt. Hon. Fred. E. (Dorset, E.) Mallalieu, Frederick William
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William Marriott, J. A. R.
Bridgeman, William Clive Hambro, Angus Valdemar Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Brunner, John F. L, Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Bryce, J. Annan Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.) Millar, James Duncan
Bull, Sir William James Harris, Rt. Hon. F. L. (Worcester, E.) Morgan, George Hay
Burn, Colonel C. R Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, s.) Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas
Butcher, John George Harvey, T E. (Leeds, West) Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)
Cator, John Helme, Sir Norval Wateon Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)
Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George Henry, Sir Charles Nuttall, Harry
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T. Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon R Parker, James (Halifax)
Cheyne, Sir W. W. Hewins, William Albert Samuel Parrott, Sir James Edward
Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon) Hibbert, Sir Henry F. Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Cochrane, Cecil Algernon Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E. Pease, Rt. Hon. H. Pike (Darlington)
Colvin, Colonel Richard Beale Hills, John Waller Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Holt, Richard Durning Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Cowan, Sir William Henry Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Philipps, Maj.-Gen. Sir Ivor (S'ampton)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Hope, Lieut.-Col. J. A. (Midlothian) Philipps, Captain Sir Owen (Chestor)
Currie, George W. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Pratt, J. W.
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Hughes, Spencer Leigh Prothero, Rt. Hon. Roland Edmund
Davies, David (Montgomery Co) Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk. Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York) Pulley, C. T.
Dawes, James Arthur Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Jessel, Col. Sir Herbert M. Richardson, Albion (Peckharm)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. George H. (Norwich) Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)
Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbigh) Swift, Rigby Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Roberta, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central) Wilson-Fox, Henry
Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M. Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) Winfrey, Sir Richard
Robinson, Sidney Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)
Rowlands, James Thomas, Sir A. G. (Mon, S.) Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dawsbury) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) Yeo, Sir Alfred William
Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince) Younger, Sir George
Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Walton, Sir Joseph Yoxall, Sir James Heary
Sharman-Crawford. Colonel R. G. Wardie, George J.
Smallwood, Edward Weigall, Lieut.-Col. W. E. G. A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Spear, Sir John Ward Whiteley, Sir H. J Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr.
Stoker, R. B. Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. Dudley Ward,
NOES.
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G. Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel
Booth. Frederick Handel Wedgwood and Mr. Peto.

Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 45.] AYES. [10.20 p m
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Gilbert, J. D. Mount, William Arthur
Allan, Arthur A.(Dumbartonshire) Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)
Anderson. W. C. Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford Nuttall, Harry
Barnett, Capt. R. W Goldstone, Frank Pease, Rt. Hon. H. Pike (Darlington)
Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N) Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Barton, Sir William Hambro, Angus Valdeman Pratt, J. W.
Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Bathurst, Capt. Sir C. (Wilts, Wilton) Helme, Sir Norval Watson Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Beale, Sir William Phipson Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham) Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arfon)
Beck, Arthur Cecil Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon Roberts, Chares H. (Lincoln)
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Hibbert, Sir Henry F. Roberts, Rt. Hon. George H. (Norwich)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.
Boyton, Sir James Jacobsen, Thomas Owen Robinson, Sidney
Brace, Rt. Hon. William Jones, J, Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Rowlands, James
Bridgeman, William Clive Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe) Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)
Brunner, J. F. L. Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)
Bryce, J. Annan Joynson-Hicks, William Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Kellaway, Frederick George Samuels, Arthur W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor) Kenyon, Barnet Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur
Chancellor, Henry George Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Cheyne, Sir W. W. Larmor, Sir J. Stoker, R. B.
Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon) Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Compton-Rickett. Rt. Hon. Sir J. Lee, Sir Arthur Hamilton Thomas, Sir A. G. (Monmouth, S.)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Levy, Sir Maurice Thomas G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert Toulmin, Sir George
Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) McCalment, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A. Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)
Davies, Sir W. H. Howell (Bristol, S.) MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh Whitehouse, John Howard
Dawes, James Arthur Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Whiteley, Sir H. J.
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St.Augustine's) Williams, Aneurin (Durham)
Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H. Maden, Sir John Henry Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)
Dougherty, Rt. Hon, Sir J. B. Magnus, Sir Philip Winfrey, Sir Richard
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Maltalieu, Frederick William Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Du Pre, Major W. Baring Marks, Sir George Croydon
Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam) Mason, David M. (Coventry) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord
Fletcher, John Samuel Morgan, George A. Edmund Talbot and Mr. Parker.
Gibbs, Col. George Abraham
NOES.
Archdale, Lieut. Edward M. Gretton, John Peto, Basil Edward
Baker, Maj. Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Pulley, C. T.
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G. Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S. Spear, Sir John Ward
Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South) Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T. Swift, Rigby
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Hickman, Brig. Gen. Thomas E. Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)
Booth, Frederick Handel Hope, Lt.-Col, Sir J. A. (Midlothian) Wilson-Fox, Henry
Brassey, H. L. C. Jackson, Lieut-Col. Hon. F. S. (York) Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Colvin, Col. Richard Beale Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Henry Page Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Major
Denniss, E. R. B. Malcolm, Ian Barnston and Colonel Wedgwood.
Foster, Philip Staveley Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
The CHAIRMAN

I understand that the hon. Baronet the Member for the Everton Division (Sir J. Harmood-Banner) does not propose to move the Amendment standing in his name—In Sub-section (1), after the word "shall"—[" all young persons shall attend such continuation schools"]—to insert the words "until attaining the age of sixteen years"

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER

After the discussion, I think it would be "better to take this matter up on the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Sir H. Hibbert).

The CHAIRMAN

I have to inform the Committee that I have a similar Amendment handed in by the hon. and gallant Member for the Clitheroe Division (Captain Smith), the hon. Member for the Black- burn Division (Mr. Snowden), and the hon. Member for the West Houghton Division. (Mr. Tyson Wilson).

Captain SMITH

I feel rather in the same position as the hon. Baronet the Member for the Everton Division, and I also feel that the hour is now late to move such an important Amendment. Could we persuade the right hon. Gentleman to adjourn now and let the Amendment be moved first the next day that the Bill is considered in Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] I should like hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to realise that very important arguments will be used on this Amendment. It is very important that the Committee should have a full opportunity of knowing that this Amendment is coming on. If this course does not meet the wishes of the Committee, we are quite willing to make the best of the time we can. It is in no antagonistic spirit to the wishes of the Committee that I make this suggestion. If the right hon. Gentleman will agree, I will give way.

The CHAIRMAN

To put that in order, the hon. and gallant Member had better move to report Progress.

Captain SMITH

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"

The CHAIRMAN

I understand that, in the event of that being accepted, the hon. and gallant Member will waive the Amendment he has handed in, so that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chorley (Sir H. Hibbert), which stands first on the Paper, will be the next to be taken.

Captain SMITH

Yes.

Mr. FISHER

I shall be very willing to fall in with the suggestion, but should not the hon. Member for Chorley first move his Amendment and then we can report Progress?

Captain SMITH

I agree to that.

The CHAIRMAN

It would be possible to do that by immediately withdrawing this Motion and the hon. Member for Chorley then moving his Amendment. That would prevent anything coming between the hon. Member for Chorley and the first place. He can formally move it and speak on it on the subsequent occasion, but it is first necessary to withdraw the present Motion.

Captain SMITH

I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. L. JONES

Before the Motion is withdrawn, I wish to enter a protest against the extraordinary course taken by the Government in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For one thing we are exceedingly short of time for dealing with this Bill. We have yet half an hour to the end of the Sitting. We want to get the Bill through, and we might use the half-hour in discussing this important Amendment. We are all here, and the matter is fresh in all our minds, and I do not see why we should waste half an hour.

Captain SMITH

May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that that would put the hon. Member for Chorley in this predicament, that the Committee would adjourn in a short time whether he had finished his speech or not. That would be unfortunate. If I wanted to waste time, I might move my Amendment and so waste half an hour.

Mr. FISHER

I understood that there was a general wish on the part of the Committee that the discussion of this very important Amendment should be taken as a whole and should not be severed. In view of that fact, I have taken a course which otherwise I should not have taken, because personally I am as anxious to get on with the Bill as any hon. Member of the Committee. I thought, however, that I was consulting the convenience of hon. Members in taking this course; therefore, if the hon. Member for Chorley will move his Amendment formally, I will move to report Progress.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

Before the Government finally come to a decision in that form, I hope they will make some arrangement as to the termination of the discussion on the Amendment which is going to be proposed by the hon. Member for Chorley. If it suits the general convenience of the Committee that we should not use the last half-hour this evening,, surely it will also suit the general convenience of hon. Members and the beat, interests of the Bill that we should know that the Committee will come to a decision on the Amendment at a fixed time on the next occasion the Bill is considered. If we are not going to have a fixed time for taking a decision on this Amendment, we ought to make full use of our time on this Amendment now. I hope the Government will not lose half an hour without having a distinct understanding that when we resume our discussion of the Bill we shall know how much of the time of the Committee is to be taken up by this Amendment. This is not the only occasion on which there has been a good deal of time expended on matters which were not of primary importance. I hope, therefore, there will be no further discussion on the Motion to report Progress, but in reporting Progress the Government should have a clear understanding that we are not to have the whole of our next sitting absorbed with one Amendment only.

Mr. T. WILSON

I am surprised at the speech we have just heard by a right hon. Gentleman claiming to be one of the Progressive party suggesting that the Government should apply the guillotine to the most important Amendment on the Bill. I wonder where we stand sometimes when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, who are supposed to understand the wishes of the people of this country, endeavour to closure the discussion upon an Amendment of this character.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

No, no!

Mr. WILSON

If the right hon. Gentle man's speech did not mean the guillotine, what did it mean? I hope the electors of Dewsbury will fully recognize—

The CHAIRMAN

That does not really arise on the Motion to report Progress. I would point out to both hon. Members that neither the Government nor the hon. Member has that power. It is in the hands of the Committee, and in certain -conditions in the hands of the Chairman. It does not lie with the Government. They can give no such pledge. That matter, therefore, need not be pursued further. I thought the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman to forego a double Amendment on this question was meeting the convenience of the Committee and a saving of time.

Mr. WILSON

The suggestion has been made that we should use the twenty minutes to discuss the Amendment of the hon. Member (Sir H. Hibbert). I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will carry his Motion to a Division if the opposition insist upon discussing the Amendment. I quite agree that the wisest course is to withdraw the Motion providing the offer made by the Government is accepted unanimously. I can quite see that if my hon. and gallant Friend withdraws his Motion, and then the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Hibbert) formally moves his Amendment, and the Government get up to report Progress, the opposition will oppose the Motion to report Progress. That being so, I want to have a clear understanding with regard to the position of the Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench.

Mr. L. JONES

The Government must not think those who feel with me in the matter think we are getting anything by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Smith) not moving his Motion. I would far rather that he moved it in order that his constituents and others and the country may understand exactly how this matter stands. It is far better that this opposition, which comes from Lancashire, to this proposal should be very fully debated, and that we should all thoroughly understand one another. I do not think we are gaining anything by the fact that two Amendments have not been moved.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER

I only want to point out that when I withdrew my Amendment I had intended to speak on behalf of the coal trade, which is very largely interested; but, seeing that the textile industries were represented here, and are more affected, I was quite willing that they should move their Amendment, as they cover the ground as well as the coal trade. It is not only the textile trade that is interested in this question, but the coal trade and other trades are also largely interested.

Mr. FISHER

The course which I indicated was, I think on the whole, the most satisfactory. My hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Smith) proposed his Motion. He is willing to withdraw that Amendment on the understanding that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chorley can be taken as the first Amendment when we resume the discussion. I should have thought that would be for the general convenience of the House. There is no intention on the part of the Government to burke discussion of the Lancashire case. We arc very anxious to have that debated as fully and freely as possible. It is because I felt that some injustice might have been done to the Member for Lancashire if we started the discussion on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chorley and resumed it next week or the week after, that I thought it best to report Progress. I am in the hands of the Committee, but still I think that course is the best.

Sir F. BAN BURY

This is a very important question, and we have only a quarter of an hour left. What is the state of the House as disclosed by the last Division? There are 126 Members present out of 670, and I appeal to my right hon. Friend, who is a very fair-minded man, as to whether it is not better that we should begin an important Debate of this kind in a full House, when we can start after prayers with everybody present, and the Press can report what is going on? It is much better than beginning it at a quarter to eleven with only 126 Members out of 670 present.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

It is no use pressing any further objection to the acceptance of the Motion to report Progress, but I hope my right hon. Friend will realise that the half-hour which is taken out of precious Parliamentary time now is taken out of it by those who are opposed to this Bill, or at any rate to this Clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!" "Withdraw!"]

The CHAIRMAN

I do not like these accusations. The purpose is to make a good Bill. Will the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Smith) now withdraw his Motion, and afterwards I will call upon the hon. Member for Chorley (Sir H. Hibbert) and immediately I will allow the Committee to consider a second Motion to report Progress?

Captain SMITH

I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir H. HIBBERT

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "require" ["may require"], to insert the word "either"

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again"—[Mr. Fisher]—put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.