HC Deb 16 October 1918 vol 110 cc115-47

As soon as may be after the passing of this Act a Board shall be established to be called the Scottish Education Board (in this Act referred to as "the Board") having its principal office in Edinburgh, and from and after the establishment of the Board the Scotch Education Department (in this Act referred to as "the Department") as constituted by the Secretary for Scotland Act, 1885, shall cease to exist, and all the powers and duties vested in, or imposed on, the Department by any Act of Parliament in force at the commencement of this Act shall be vested in, transferred to, and imposed on the Board, and shall be exercised and performed by the Board in like manner and subject to the same conditions, liabilities, and incidence, respectively, as such powers and duties might, before the commencement of this Act, have been exercised and performed by the Department, or as near thereto as circumstances permit.—[Mr. Hogge.]

Brought up, and read the first time.


I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The marginal headings of this and the subsequent Clauses which I have put down give a summary of my proposal, which is to establish not a Scotch Education Department, but a Scottish Educa- tion Department. It deals with the constitution of the Board, the seal, style, Acts, Orders and Rules of the Board, the transfer of officers, and the construction of Acts and deeds, etc. I understand from the Secretary for Scotland that, so far as the form of this new Clause is concerned, it is watertight in its proposals. I moved this in Committee upstairs. Of course, then I had a financial Clause in it which at that time was in order. Obviously on the Report stage I cannot introduce a financial Clause, but the Secretary for Scotland is aware of the Clause in its original form, and he knows perfectly well how this Clause could be made operative at once should it receive the assent of this House. What we are doing in this Bill is practically the creation of an enlarged Education Department for Scotland. This is being done at a time when the Scottish Education Department is still located in London. In these days of self-determination the Scottish people, who are primarily interested in this Bill, and whose concern it chiefly is, are the people who ought to be consulted in regard to the provisions of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland must know, just as he has been acquainted with the religious opinion on the religious Clauses, that there is no single body of public opinion in Scotland but is in favour of this Clause, and that the only opposition to the proposals of the Clause comes from his own Department and his own officials here in London. When we are also near the settlement of new constitutional matters, when, among other things, it is proposed that Scotland shall have a Home Rule Bill, it seems to me folly, when we are passing an Education Bill, that we should not provide at once for the transference of the Scottish Education Department to Edinburgh.

Every other Scottish Department at the moment is located in Edinburgh. There is no Scottish Department except the Education Department, which has its offices in London. The extraordinary inconveniences to local authorities in Scotland of always requiring to come to London in order to transact business which is domestic business is obvious, if not to English, Irish, and Welsh Members, at any rate to Scottish Members. As the latter know, the Lobbies of this House yesterday and to-day have been full of deputations from school boards all over Scotland. While we were in Committee upstairs there were never fewer than a hundred members in attendance from various local and civic authorities in Scotland to watch over the details of the Bill. We who represent Scotland are charged by our constitutents to express the view here that the time is ripe for the transference of the Scottish Education Department to Edinburgh. On the bench opposite are two ex-secretaries for Scotland (Mr. McKinnon Wood and Mr. Tennant). Both these hon. Gentlemen know the strength of public opinion in regard to this demand.




Yes, they do! There are only a few isolated Unionist Members in Scotland who do not know anything at all about public opinion in Scotland, and consequently take a contrary view. The bulk of public opinion in Scotland, as expressed by the school boards and municipalities, and as expressed by, at any rate, three-fourths of the electors, is in favour of having these offices transferred to our own country. I very much hope both of the hon. Gentlemen that I have named will add something to this Debate, bearing out what I have said as to the strength of Scottish public opinion in this matter.

In detail this is a proposal to transfer the Department from London to Edinburgh. It gives powers administratively to make this Educaton Bill a much more valuable instrument than it would be if it were administered from London. There are four branches of education in Scotland all of which are vital to the future interests of our own country—namely, elementary and secondary, continuation classes, and technical education. In the Clause which I am moving power is taken to create someone, or somebody, who will give these branches of Scottish Education their precise and particular attention. It is quite obvious—to repeat a commonplace—that this nation has to prepare itself for what people popularly call the New War—the war to follow after peace is made with the Central Powers. We are all agreed that one of the best instruments for waging that war is the efficient and complete education of the children in our schools. Certain departments of our education have been largely neglected in the past. In Scotland we have done particularly well in elementary and secondary education; not so well in continuation classes, and certainly not nearly so well—with certain notable ex- ceptions in the large towns—in technical education. Technical education is going to mean a very great deal more to the people of Scotland than ever it has meant before. In the West of Scotland we have all the technical engineering occupations associated with what is called the Clyde, Since the War broke out a similar kind of activity has grown up in the East. We have had created at Rosyth very large departments of Government activity; there is growing up around Rosyth and district a new population which has necessitated great new town-planning schemes, of which Dunfermline has been the centre. It is obvious, in both East and West of Scotland, that if the children growing up there are to be adapted to the future needs of Scotland much more attention must be given to technical education. This can be best achieved on the spot if you have special men, specially qualified to give their attention to this very important subject.

The other argument in favour of the transference of this Department to Edinburgh and the creation of the Department I have suggested is the absolute impossibility of the Secretary for Scotland paying adequate attention to the work which is being laid on his shoulders. I do not know whether this House realises what are the functions of the Secretary for Scotland? I do not intend to weary the House by going through them, but I think my right hon. Friend would be the first to admit that the Secretary for Scotland, in his own person and office, has the control in Scotland of many Departments which in England are represented in this House by separate Ministers on the Front Bench. My right hon. Friend has the questions that come under the Local Government Board—agriculture, fisheries, and education. Altogether there are some twelve or thirteen separate Departments, for all of which he is responsible in this House. The Bill we are about to pass throws upon the right hon. Gentleman's shoulders a great many more burdens than were thrown upon him by the existing Statutes under which Scottish education is administered. The majority of those who represent Scotland have come to the conclusion that we must relieve the Secretary for Scotland of a great many of his duties if they are to be attended to properly and efficiently. I do not mean that my right hon. Friend does not do all that one man can be expected to do. I think it only fair to say that so far as his colleagues and public opinion in Scotland are concerned we are amply satisfied with the assiduity with which he attends to his duties, and no Secretary for Scotland has made so great an impression upon the people of Scotland by the way in which he has attended to his duties. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself would be the first to agree that the proposition I am making is true, and if he were relieved of a great many of those duties he would not only have more time to attend to the others, but he would have more leisure for himself. If the majority of the Scottish Members want the proposal, I cannot see how the Geovernment can resist it, and they can only do so by the votes of Members of Parliament who do not represent Scotland. I am certain if a free vote is taken among the Members for Scotland this new Clause would be supported, and I am sure it would be supported by the Secretary for Scotland if he were not sitting on the Treasury Bench, because his recent policy has been all on the lines of Scottish Home Rule. I have listened to many of the right hon. Gentleman's speeches on public platforms in Scotland, and I have cheered him when he has said that the Scottish Education Department should be transferred from London to Edinburgh. Now that the right hon. Gentleman is in the proud position of being in authority I am looking forward to him carrying out the promises he made in those speeches upon many Scottish platforms in those days of less responsibility. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to create a monument to his political memory in Scotland, I suggest that he could not do better than take this first step in the creation of a separate administration of Scottish affairs in Scotland. After all Scottish people know something about education, for they have had a long and honourable tradition. Their public bodies are very advanced and energetic, and it is a thousand pities, when passing a Bill of this kind, that you ought not to take advantage of it in order to set up a Scottish Education Department in Edinburgh which would energise Scottish education.


I am sure that I cannot be accused of any hostility to this Bill for I have always encouraged it, and my greatest desire is to see it as rapidly as possible on the Statute Book, because I think it is the greatest boon you can give to Scotland at this time, and, indeed, it is the only possible way in which you can keep Scotland in the forefront of education. Happily we have got very easily through what promised to be the quicksands and the shoals of a religious controversy. We have, I think, two full days before us in which we can put every point of view and investigate this Bill in the light of the Amendments set out on the Paper. Without in the slightest degree jeopardising the Bill, I think we can go in for making a thoroughly good job of it. The proposition is that the Board of Education should transfer the Scottish Education Department to Scotland, and for the life of me I cannot find a single valid argument against that pro-position. I believe that my right hon. Friend in Grand Committee quite agreed that if we had a Home Rule Bill for Scotland the Education Department would have to go north of the Border. I assume the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to deal with that topic in this Bill because he did not wish to prejudice the Home Rule Bill of the future. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is quite aware of the extraordinary development of the Home Rule sentiment which has taken place in Scotland since the War began, for it is simply amazing, and it is entirely due to the mismanagement of Scottish affairs in England. I will guarantee that I could get a four to one or a five to one majority for Home Rule in any division of the City of Edinburgh at the present time, and here is an excellent opportunity for my right hon. Friend to demonstrate the sincerity of his convictions with regard to Home Rule. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman may think he ought not to put his opinion into a Bill of this character, let me remind him that ever since the office which he so worthily holds was created in 1885 the trend of legislation has been to locate in Scotland all those Government Departments dealing specially with Scottish affairs, and by accepting this Clause he would be simply conforming to the trend and intention of the legislation which began by the establishment of the Local Government Board Act of 1884. We have a Board of Agriculture and a Commission of National Insurance, and I suppose that shortly we shall have a Ministry of Health. If my right hon. Friend is going to be consistent he must propose that a Ministry of Health for Scotland shall be established in London but I am sure he would not dare to make any such proposition. The Scottish Education Department is a kind of relic of the days when all Scottish affairs were administered as part and parcel of English Departments The thing we see is neither rich nor rare, We wonder how the devil it got there! It is the fly in the amber; it is a kind of barnacle which has become attached to Whitehall and has been left high and dry by the tide of national development. If it is necessary that we should have local government, agriculture, national insurance and the Ministry of Health administered in Scotland, why should we not have our education administered there? There is all the greater reason. I say that official convenience is no argument at all. If it were a genuine argument, then all the agencies now established in Scotland should be brought to this side of the border. I am sure that there is no valid argument against the transfer. Probably, we shall not have an Education Bill in this House again—at least I hope not—for the next ten years. It is incumbent upon us therefore to transfer this Department at this, time for the sake of consistency, and, beyond all, for the sake of national efficiency. You are by this Bill very largely extending the operations of national education. My hon. Friend has enumerated the branches. The time for having a one-man management for anything has gone by. Autocracy of that kind is on its last legs everywhere. The time has come when a group of experts with a chairman can deal far better with these many branches of education than any individual man. All of them, especially technical education, need the assistance of men who have devoted a considerable portion of their lives to the study of them. I have the greatest hope that my right hon. Friend will accept this Clause. I am sure, if he refuses, that he will have the greatest possible difficulty in Scotland in explaining why he has not done so.


I should like to have the opportunity of saying a word or two in support of this Clause. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Clause (Mr. Hogge) rested the arguments for it very largely upon opinion in Scotland. In so doing he took absolutely sure ground. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that I believe the vast majority of the people of Scotland would strongly support the proposal that this Department should have its place in Edinburgh, and that the education of Scotland should be administered from the capital of Scotland itself. I shall await with very much interest what is said in answer to that view. During the sittings of the Committee upon this Bill we were inundated with representatives from Scotland who came here at great personal inconvenience. We have therefore had an object lesson of the expense and inconvenience which might be avoided if we had a Board dealing with these matters in Scotland. The suggestion has been made that it is not desirable in the interests of education that such a Clause should be accepted. I read with interest the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman when dealing with this matter in Committee. His main argument was that so long as we have a responsible Minister in London it is convenient and desirable to have the headquarters of the Scottish Education Department also in London. I should like the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, to indicate what distinction he-draws between the work of the Scottish Education Department and the work of the many Boards to which my hon. Friend has already referred and which is being carried on in Scotland itself. We know perfectly well that under the present system the Secretary for Scotland is very much overburdened with work and that he has to have representatives of these Boards attend in London—no doubt their presence is necessary—to advise him. What distinction can he draw between the case of education and the case of agriculture, or public health, or local government, and so forth? It seems to me very difficult to say. Perhaps we shall have some light from him on this subject when he replies.

Then there is another good reason for this Clause. Under the present system we have references continually made to the Department, and by this new Bill immense authority is naturally being conferred upon the Department. We have been for a considerable time really under the necessity of accepting what I venture to say is somewhat of a mediaeval fiction with regard to the Scottish Education Department. We have asked again and again what it is, and we have been told that it consists of "My Lords," who under a Minute of the Council are appointed from time to time to consider these important matters with regard to Scottish education. We have asked how often these gentlemen meet and discuss together the questions which affect the interests of Scottish education, and we have been led to believe that practically they never meet. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to unearth some information with regard to one or two meetings which have taken place over a period of years, but, if there is a Department in charge of education in Scotland, we want to know who are the persons who are managing that Department, and what work they are accomplishing in the name of the Department? Reference has been made to the work being carried on by individuals. I want to pay the highest tribute to the Secretary of the Scottish Education Department for his ability and for his courtesy to all Scottish Members who approach him. I do not want for one moment to suggest that he is not in every way an admirable official for the work that he is doing, but surely the Scottish Members of Parliament are not going to rest content with the suggestion that the whole of education in Scotland is to be placed in the hands of one man, however able he may be!

The suggestion which my hon. Friend makes is a very sound one. We should have the best experts meeting together in conference, dealing with these matters, giving expression to the views of the people in Scotland, and in close contact with them, instead of having to bring people to London to discuss matters with officials here. It seems to me that an unanswerable case has been made out. My right hon. Friend may say that this is a matter of immense importance, and will affect the future of the Bill which we are all anxious to see passed into law. I respectfully submit that this is the opportunity to raise this question. We are dealing with Scottish education. We are dealing with a very important matter affecting the welfare of our nation, and those who are prepared to pass by a question of this kind owing to certain difficulties to which it may give rise are not doing fair by their constituents and by those interested in education in Scotland. I earnestly suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there is a great deal more in this Clause than may appear at first sight. The principle involved is a very big one. If he refuses to accept in any shape or form the suggestion that Scotland deserves special consideration for its own special educational requirements and deserves to have these matters administered in its own capital, then he is laying himself open to a considerable challenge from the Scottish people themselves. While we may be defeated upon this matter, I sincerely trust that we shall not be defeated by Scottish votes, but that we shall be able to appeal to the people of Scotland, and tell them that this matter was not decided by the Scottish Members of the House of Commons, but that we were swamped by the English Members, and that it is a decision which we are not prepared to accept.

4.0 P.M.


I have listened with great care to the interesting speeches which have been made, and I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) for adding to his other Parliamentary gifts with which we are familiar the gift of Parliamentary draftsmanship. He said that I had expressed the view that this was a watertight Clause. That may be so. It has been ertremely well drawn, as a Clause of this kind ought to be. That, however, does not carry one very far with regard to the merits of the argument. I have examined the Clause with great care. It really divides itself into two quite separate proposals, the one having nothing whatever to do with the other. The first proposal which it makes is that there should be a board set up to replace the Secretary for Scotland, who meantime is solely responsible to this House for education in Scotland. The Board is to replace the Secretary for Scotland. The second proposal, which is quite distinct from the first, and really has no bearing upon it, is that the Board shall sit in Edinburgh—that its principal office shall be in Edinburgh. May I, for a moment, examine these two separate proposals and see how they work out? The first proposal is that a Board of four members shall be set up. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend means that the members shall be paid, but, looking back to the terms of the proposal which he set down in Committee, I think that is his intention. If that be so, then he would be increasing the cost of administration very considerably. In my opinion, it would also mean delay in administration, and it would certainly also involve a weakening of ministerial responsibility. On that last ground, I should like to quote a very important recommendation made by the Royal Commission upon the Civil Service which recently sat. It was a very strong Committee, and in the course of their report they say this with regard to Scotland:— We believe that the time has now come when this system of boards should be reconsidered for the following reasons: In the first place the evidence which we have received indicates that the board system is less-effective in securing responsibility for official action and advice than the system followed in the office of the Secretary for Scotland. We therefore recommend that your Majesty's Government should take such steps as may be necessary to substitute the organisation which prevails in the Scottish Office for the board system as the normal form of organisation in the Edinburgh Departments. I do not think the House will readily disregard this express recommendation which I think entirely bears out the view I ventured to express a moment ago, that if you had such a Board you would certainly weaken ministerial responsibility. I should like to ask my hon. Friend this further question: He proposes that at the head of this Board there should be a Minister. Suppose that Minister ceases to be a Member of Parliament. What then? Is he still to be responsible for the administration of education? If he is, where does Parliamentary control come in? Are these five members to continue administering Scottish education exactly as they please, without any representative in this House who shall be answerable for their action? I really think that any such proposal is unthinkable from the point of view of the House of Commons, which would be very slow to abandon that control which it now freely, firmly and properly exercises over education through a Minister who is a Member of the House. So much for the first point.

On the second question—the proposal that the offices of the Board should be in Edinburgh—that, as the House knows, and as my Scottish colleagues know, is not a novel suggestion. It has often been debated and has been seriously considered by successive Secretaries for Scotland. It is important to remember that, while the suggestion is that the principal offices should be in Edinburgh, the Board of Education is not unrepresented there to-day. It has offices in Edinburgh with a gentleman in charge who is known to every Scottish Member, and who is held in the highest respect—I refer to Dr. Macdonald—and that office is the connecting link between Scotland and London at the present moment. My view is that so long as you have a Minister for Education in London it is more convenient that you should have the principal office in London also. My hon. Friend has referred to other Boards in Scotland. It is a fact that such Boards do exist in Edinburgh. But does that exempt them from criticism or make them more acceptable in the country? I have my own view about that. I am not reflecting on any Board, but the suggestion that to have the main Board in Edinburgh makes it more acceptable to public opinion or ensures that it should be regarded with more favour is not borne out by experience.

The whole question is: Are we prepared to accept this new Clause for transferring the Board to Edinburgh now? The Bill is drawn from the point of view of existing conditions, and not of conditions which may exist in the future. I take back nothing I have said on the subject of Home Rule. The question is: Are you to put the cart before the horse, as I respectfully suggest the new Clause would do? The question of what conditions we hope may exist in the future is not the issue now before the House. That issue is: Shall we, here and now, transfer this Department from London to Edinburgh at a time when you have not got a Scottish Home Rule Parliament? As far as devolution is concerned, I adhere to everything I have said. This seems to me to be a purely practical question. Is a case made out for doing this now, before you have a Home Rule Parliament set up in Edinburgh? My view is that so long as the Scottish Minister is here it is more convenient—and I think the experience of my predecessor will bear that out—it is more convenient from the point of view of successful administration that you should have the Education Office here, with an office in Edinburgh acting as the connecting link, than that you should now, prematurely as I think, transfer the whole organisation from London to Scotland. While I recognise the value of this Debate, I would ask my hon. Friend not to press this proposal to a Division now. He has made his speech and expressed his views with his usual candour and with entire friendliness to myself. While that is so, I venture to put it to the House most respectfully that however important this may be on its merits for the future, it would be inadvisable at the present moment that the transfer should be proceeded with. I therefore appeal to my hon. Friend not now to press his proposal.


Although it happens that I am, by accident, an English and not a Scottish Member, I am certain the House and my Scottish Friends will not object to my intervening in this Debate, because I cannot dissociate myself from the educational system of Scotland. I will be very brief however in what I have to say, but I think I shall be able to go a little bit more fundamentally into the question than has so far been done. The education of a people affects the life of that people. If the Education Department in Scotland was merely a matter of administration, and if the London section of that Department was merely a matter of convenience, then what my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland has said would be absolutely final. The Education Department should be in London, and its connecting link should be in Edinburgh. But that raises the whole question as to what the nature of the Education Department should be. The history of Scottish education is totally different from that of English education. Anyone who reads the literature of the Scottish Education Department and that of the English Education Department knows that the whole conception of Scottish education has been different from the conception of English education, and that from an educational point of view England is practically an alien country from Scotland. I spent part of my holidays in looking through some of that literature and nothing amazed me more, taking the very earliest stages of Scottish education, at the time of the Reformation, and comparing the educational literature of England covering the same time, than the fundamental difference of conception. From that fundamental difference of conception you have a totally different system evolved.

What you have to-day is the whole spirit of Scottish education being dominated at Whitehall. It is true you have a most efficient and admirable officer in the person of Dr. Macdonald in Edinburgh, but his is an advisory position. The Department and the spirit of Scottish education is across the road here. Its atmosphere is English. The influence which lies about it is English, and if any- one cared to take up the time of the House, which I do not want to do, by going into details of the changes in Scottish education during the last fifteen or twenty years, it could be shown that English influences have been changing fundamentally the conception of Scottish education, and certainly not for the benefit of Scottish education. On the Civil Service Commission, when we were dealing with the question of Scottish education and the need for the Scottish universities to supply efficient candidates for the Indian Civil Service, nothing was more clear to us than the extraordinary changes for the worse which had taken place in certain sections of Scottish education. You cannot create a little island at Dover House which is not influenced by the policy pursued inside and outside Dover House. Nobody will dispute this, that if the Scottish education policy was determined in Edinburgh under Scottish influence and in a Scottish atmosphere, the Scottish educational system would be developed in accordance with its own line and traditions and that it would not be something of the nature of engrafting English traditions on the original Scottish stock. That is what is happening to-day, and until the Scottish Education Department is removed to Edinburgh, with an office with Dr. Macdonald to preside over it in London, with the system and policy determined in Edinburgh but with a connecting link in London, the Scottish educational system will not develop on its own lines. But if you make that transfer we shall be able to keep our heads high in the eyes of the world as we have hitherto done. I hope my hon. Friend will carry his proposal to a Division. If he does, I shall support him, because I am in favour of the life of Scotland being developed upon Scottish lines, and this cannot be done if Scottish education is to be governed by the Department in London and not in Edinburgh.


I desire to express my regret at the attitude which the Secretary for Scotland has taken up on this question of transferring the Education Department from London to Edinburgh. It is only another instance of the different note that is struck by Members of this House when they reach the Front Bench as compared with the note they strike when they had not the honour of sitting on that bench. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) has pointed out, this was one of the strongest questions calling for Home Rule for Scotland and it was one of the doctrines which was assiduously preached by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland until he reached the Front Bench. The right hon. Gentleman has advanced one or two points which will not stand investigation. He has talked of expense, and said that before my hon. Friend pro-poses his new Clause he should ask himself the question whether it would cost the country more money. But I would point out that those who at present engaged on Scottish education, one of whom has been mentioned in this Debate, are at present taking more pay, and this question of expense is altogether illusory. It is said that the responsibility of the Minister would be affected if this Department were transferred to Scotland. But the House must realise that there are fourteen Departments over which the right hon. Gentleman already presides, and the offices of thirteen of these Departments are in Scotland. It is only the fourteenth, namely, the Education Board, that has its head office in London. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, what about the Ministerial responsibility of those thirteen offices. Has he less responsibility for them than for education? He cannot for a moment say he has. Therefore the argument about responsibility is absurd. The right hon. Gentleman further tells us that it would be neither suitable nor convenient to bring about this change. He remembers his former speeches, and he cannot object to the principle of Home Rule which underlies this Clause, but he tells us, "Not now; later on; some other day." He fails to remember that the Government of which he is an ornament and a light came into power on the maxim of "Do it now"; and, to come to concrete fact, my right hon. Friend fails to carry out what in an earlier day, politically, he felt it to be his duty to carry out. But we all know the reason why this fourteenth Department is not transferred to Scotland. There is at the head of the Department one who has no desire to live in Scotland, and he has unfortunately got the ear of my right hon. Friend, and, that difficulty existing, we are told that the time is not suitable for this proposal, and in this way Scotland is deprived of a measure of Home Rule now demanded. I think that hon. Members from Ireland realise that this is a demand for Home Rule for Scotland, and I hope that they and the great majority of Scottish Members will support this proposal. It will be interesting to see in the Division Lobby—because my hon. Friend is determined to go to a Division—what Scottish Members are thorough for the Government and what Scottish Members are thorough for Scotland.


I suppose I must apologise for intervening in this Scottish Debate, but I desire to say that the Mover of this Clause will undoubtedly have the support of Irish Members. At the same time, in making that statement, I wish to utter a word of warning to my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh on the whole question, because we in Ireland know something of what is meant by administration through Boards in that country. The system of administration by a Board has been more disastrous to education in Ireland than perhaps anywhere else. Our system of education in Ireland, in consequence of this administration by a Board, has been bad, and I endorse the words of the hon. Member for Leicester in regard to the administration of Scottish education in London. I submit that it is an outrage on any nationality to have these matters administered from a far-distant capital. That is all the more the case when we recognise that of the four nationalities of the United Kingdom, Scotland, above all the others, has had a system of education far ahead of that of England or Wales, and, I regret to say, of Ireland also. That Scottish education should be administered in an English atmosphere in London is nothing short of an outrage. I do not know myself much about Scottish education, but I have not the least doubt, after what the hon. Member for Leicester has said, that this influence is a very unfortunate one. Apart front these considerations, however, I promise the support of the Irish party to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh in the Division Lobby. But I would again warn him against the substitution of a Board for ministerial responsibility. During the thirty years I have been a Member of this House my idea has been to get rid of the Board of Education in Ireland. In Ireland we have about fourteen irresponsible Boards, that are the curse of that country, and, above all, are the curse and the destroyers of education. I am in favour of direct responsibility of representatives to the people in educational matters; therefore, while I strongly support the Home Rule aspect of the question, I am strongly of opinion that the chief offices of the Scottish administration of education ought to be in Edinburgh; it should be administered in a Scottish atmosphere, and in accordance with the great traditions of Scottish education. If the hon. Member for East Edinburgh succeeded in carrying the Clause, the Bill might be modified hereafter so as to secure the principle of Ministerial responsibility on which the Scottish Secretary, a skilled and practical lawyer, has dwelt. The Secretary for Scotland pointed out that the hon. Member's proposal would destroy Ministerial responsibility, but I trust that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh will be able to find some method of preserving responsibility whilst securing a Scottish atmosphere for the administration of education in Scotland.


The hon. Member who has just spoken has answered the whole question and situation. We had this matter discussed in Committee, and I believe that all of us heartily agree with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh as to the fundamental principle of Home Rule, and we in Scotland have not enjoyed that principle in its real form. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh, however, is now making a proposal for which we must all recognise that there is not now in Scotland the machinery necessary to put it into operation. I think it would be far better to wait until Home Rule is carried, and then we could have in Scotland a system of education which would be a model. I am, therefore, opposed to our Friends insisting just now upon the carrying of this Clause, and I would ask them, as the Secretary for Scotland has asked them, that it should be withdrawn. In a few years we shall have Home Rule carried for Scotland, and then we can have a system of education such as is desired administered from Edinburgh.


I have listened to the Debate, and I do not think that some of the speeches represent the general view of Scotland. The speech of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) in support of this Clause was the very strongest answer against the course which is now proposed to be taken, and with a very large part of the argument that he used I agree. The hon. Member pointed out the difficulties with regard to education in Ireland under the administration of a Board, and I myself know that there is little to be said in favour of a Board of Education; it is evasive of responsibility, leads to intrigues, and impedes thoroughness and efficiency of administration. We have become accustomed to establishing new Department after new Department and calling them Boards. I remember on one occasion being in the House of Lords, when the late Duke of Devonshire was at the head of the Education Department. He was asked why it should be called a Board of Education, and he replied that be did not know, and that, looking at the draft of the Bill, he could not give the reason why it was called a Board. We have still preserved the name Department, but we have root found it absolutely crippled. We all know that in establishing new Departments with the name of Board—Board of Trade, Board of Local Government, Board of Education—it does not mean a Board. It means one President who is at the head and is responsible. If you really mean to try to administer education, or anything else, by a number of people sitting round a table arguing with one another and throwing responsibility across the table, you will never get anything done. When the Pensions Bill was first before the House I said the plan of having a Pensions Commission seemed to me the very worst which could possibly be adopted. It may have been because of my opposition, or for some other reason, but I was asked to take a place upon that Commission, and I sat on it for some two years. All our operations only proved the truth of what I said, that a Commission was absolutely hopeless, and at the end of some eighteen months, in spite of what we did to try to get something practical done, as we could have done in the old days in the Education Department, we found we were not one step further, and the consequence was that a Minister of Pensions had to be established, as most of us prophesied would be the case, in place of the absurd scheme of trying to administer pensions by a Board. Does the hon. Member (Mr. Macdonald) think that because we happen to live within the sound of Bow Bells we must necessarily have forgotten all our Scottish tradition, be dead to all feelings of Scottish patriotism, and be unable to remember the peculiarities of Scottish education? Does he really think that I have no knowledge of Scotland, that I have no experience of her schools and know nothing about her universities, and that I have ceased to be a Scotsman? If there is any place in this city where strong Scottish patriotic feelings and intimate knowledge of Scottish ideas prevail it is among those who at Dover House are at present connected with the administration of Scottish education.




I know they do not rise to the height of patriotism of hon. Members behind me, but patriotism is perhaps not less appreciated in Scotland, and when we hear that the whole trust of Scotland would be implicitly and without question placed in a Board that happened to be situated in Edinburgh I would ask hon. Members if they have forgotten history. We once had a Board of Education in Edinburgh, and when its limited functions were inherited by the Scotch Education Department we had a good deal of quarrelling and a good deal of entanglement to clear up before we got the administration in order. I do not know of any Board in Scotland that succeeded in stirring up more controversy than that old Board which ended in 1878. During the six years that it existed its course of action was not altogether popular in Scotland. There are other parts of Scotland than Edinburgh. I have the greatest admiration for the capital of Scotland, but do you think Glasgow, with a very much larger population and with an enormously larger number of schools, would like to have its affairs entirely dealt with by a Board sitting in Edinburgh? There is nothing that Glasgow dislikes more than a Board in Edinburgh, and Glasgow will go a considerable way in predominating in a question of this sort. It is just as easy for Glasgow to communicate by post with Dover House as it would be with an office in Edinburgh. I am perfectly sure if you go further North into the Highlands they would sooner deal with a Board in close contact with the Government of this country in London than with a Board situated in Edinburgh, having after all to report all its decisions to the central Government here. Will hon. Members only consider how things are worked practically? This Education Departmnet differs from all the other Departments which have been mentioned in Scotland in that it is the great spending Department in Scotland. It is absolutely necessary in order to preserve the balance in regard to that spending and to have its voice properly heard to be in immediate touch with any movement that is going on at the centre, to be within range and in immediate contact with the Treasury.


How does the Irish Department get on?


There is a Department in London.


It has nothing to do with education administration.


No, because you have an Education Department under the Board the irresponsibility of which to Parliament has been repeatedly asserted and admitted by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. That is just what we do not want to have, and you will never have any Board under responsibility to this House of Commons unless it is in immediate contact with Ministers sitting in this House.

It is always rather a doubtful policy to refer to the permanent officers of a Department. They are not here to answer for themselves. Fulsome compliments do not do very much good when you are constantly nagging at the actual work done. But no secretary of a Department is able to exercise his own arbitrary rule for one moment, or, unless he were a fool, would try to exercise it. He knows that at each step he must carry with him the political leader who is his responsible chief. He knows, of course, that his chief cannot go into all the details, and a great deal of detail will be left to the discretion of the permanent officer. But to say that the permanent officer will move one step without being certain that he can give an explanation which is absolutely congenial and satisfactory to his political chief is to talk absolute nonsense. No permanent head of a Department could carry on his work for a month if he were even to seek in the remotest way to act upon a policy of his own in which he was not certain that he had the sympathy of his chief, and that he was carrying out what he knew to be the desire of his chief. Whatever hon. Members' opinions may be as to Scottish Home Rule, they will not improve the efficiency of the Department or secure the sympathy of the Department with Scottish ideas by any flimsy change of this sort, calling a Department a Board and making it consist of three or four instead of one man. No miraculous change will be brought about by the change of locale of the Department from Dover House to some house in North Britain. The officials at Dover House are familiar with Scottish conditions, and I am certain the work will not he in the least helped by a change of territorial position.


The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has brought to bear upon this question a long experience of Scottish educational administration, and that long experience entitles him to be heard upon this practical administrative question by this House with all respect. But at the same time in listening to his speech one felt that the arguments which he put before the House were more prompted by predeliction for his own old office than by real consideration of administrative efficiency or of the educational interests of Scotland. My right hon. Friend in the latter half of his speech deprecated attacks and criticisms upon permanent officials, and I entirely sympathise with that view. Discussion of the proposal now before the House raises none of those questions. The individual character and the tendencies either of the present occupant of the office and Secretary of the Department or of his distinguished predecessor do not affect that consideration at all. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the impossibility of autocracy being exercised by any such official. That, of course, depends upon the respective force of the personality of the permanent secretary and of his political chief. In some cases where there is a weak political chief and a strong permanent secretary undoubtedly it is possible for the permanent secretary to create something in the nature of an autocracy; but whether that has happened at the present time or at any time in the past, it is perfectly irrelevant to the question we are discussing, and it might equally arise if you had a board in Edinburgh as well as if the existing arrangements were continued.

The only defence, so far as I can gather, which the right hon. Gentleman has put up is based upon two grounds. First of all, the importance of keeping the education Department in close contact with the Secretary for Scotland in London. The second ground was the necessity of having this Department, which is the largest spending Department in connection with Scotland, located in London on account of financial responsibility. Undoubtedly, it is for the convenience of the Minister, whoever he may be, to have the Department in London, as I believe it would be to his personal convenience if other Scottish departments had their headquarters in London. There is a greater ease of communication between the political chief and the heads of his Departments in those circumstances, but the convenience of the political chief is not the sole matter to be considered. It seems to me that a far more important consideration than that is that there should be close contact between the Departments and the people of Scotland. I believe that the location of the Department in Edinburgh would make for closer contact, better knowledge, and greater sympathy. It is an interesting fact which I think we should take note of, that since the establishment of the office of Secretary for Scotland not a single Department has been established whose headquarters is in London. In every other case the headquarters of the Department has been established in Edinburgh. I think this circumstance can only be explained because of the force of the considerations which I have just put to the House.

My right hon. Friend said that this was a great spending Department. There is a very recent precedent in regard to a great spending Department, certainly a Department which handles and is responsible for very great sums of money. When the National Insurance Act was passed the Scottsh Commission was established with its headquarters in Edinburgh, and I think that most people who are familiar with the working of the Scottish Insurance Commission will bear me out when I say that the separate existence of that Commission in Scotland has been of the utmost advantage to the efficient administration of that great scheme in Scotland. You have had contact with local conditions and a knowledge of those conditions which would have been quite impossible in a centralised Department working only in London, no matter how close the contact thereby secured with the ministerial chief of the Department. I think, therefore, that these considerations justify on practical grounds the proposal which has been put before the House by my hon. Friend, and are in my opinion much stronger than any considerations which have been advanced by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down.

When I come to some of the other arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, it struck me that the only explanation which could be put forward to justify his addressing them to the House is the flimsiness of the case he had to state. He referred to the unhappy existence of a former Board. He is familiar with all the circumstances connected with that Board, but he cannot represent those circumstances as analogous to the proposal now before the House. That was a Board existing in Edinburgh which had to some extent jurisdiction along with the Scottish Education Department. It consequently constituted a kind of system of dual control which was bound to lead to friction, and which inevitably had to end in the extinction of one Department or the other. It happened that the local board, for some reason or the other, went to the wall—probably because my right hon. Friend, the former Secretary to the Scottish Education Department, was such a strong personality as he is. It does not seem to me that that unhappy experience has any relevance to the proposal this House is now considering.

We have also had the oft-repeated tale about the rivalry between Glasgow and Edinburgh. It has been said that Glasgow, with its huge population and immense commercial interests would never submit to having its educational affairs administered from the more modest city which has the honour to be the metropolis of Scotland. I am, in a sense, a Glasgow representative, though a Lanarkshire Member, and I think I can speak for some of the other representatives of Glasgow upon this point and say that whatever may be the emulation which exists between the two cities the rivalry between them would never stand in the way of the establishment of a national department for any part of our administration in the ancient capital of Scotland. Every one of the Members of Glasgow, or at any rate the majority of the Members for Glasgow, have at one time or another committed themselves in favour of Home Rule for Scotland, and there has never been a proposition put forward for Home Rule for Scotland that did not contemplate the establishment of a national Legislature and Administration in the ancient capital of the country. It seems to me, therefore, futile to suggest that any rivalry, real or imaginary, beween Glasgow and Edinburgh, would stand in the way of the efficient administration of a Board of Education established in Edinburgh.

My right hon. Friend was constantly referring to the advantage of having an impartial Department in London as if it were impossible to obtain an impartial Board in Edinburgh, and as if there were something in the atmosphere or condition of Edinburgh which was fatal to the existence of the virtue of impartiality. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Department of Education as it exists in London has not been impartial—that is not our quarrel with the existing system—but it is entirely irrelevant to say that its removal to Edinburgh would in any degree derogate from its impartiality. After all, our great judicial system in Scotland has its centre in Edinburgh, and no one could suggest that the atmosphere of Parliament House has at any time been fatal to the exercise of judicial impartiality. I think I have dealt with practically all the considerations which the right hon. Gentleman put before the House. Some of those considerations are quite irrelevant to the respective merits of the location of the Board in Edinburgh or in London. In so far as he has dealt with the question of administrative convenience from the point of view of the responsible Minister there is a case for remedy, but in the larger case, the interests of Scotland and the bringing to bear of local knowledge and local opinion upon the Department, the whole balance of the argument is in favour of the proposal contained in the new Clause of my hon. Friend. I therefore hope that the House will agree to accept that proposal not only as a measure of educational and administrative efficiency, but as a concession to the national sentiments of Scotland.


Of the two points contained in this Amendment, the first one, dealing with the Board, I think has been effectively disposed of by the hon. Member for East Mayo and my right hon. Friend. I do not propose to deal with that. What we want is ministerial responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh, the Mover of this Amendment, will not deny that that is what he desires. I honestly think that his proposal would be detrimental to ministerial responsibility. I have only risen because my hon. Friends have made an appeal to me as one who was formerly one of their lordships—the only time I ever was a lord. Then it was my duty to stand up for the Department of Education as it exists in London. I have not altered my views. Therefore I thought it was only proper that I should say what I am going to say, and what I have said before, that this really is not a question of principle at all. It is a question of pure convenience. I disagree with those who think that we do not get the Scottish atmosphere by administration at Dover House. I think you do. I think the proof of it, as the hon. Member for East Mayo has said, is that we in Scotland have been enormously ahead of other nationalities in the British Empire in the matter of education. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say in one breath that you have in your mind an unfortunate influence from Dover House and at the same time say, as you do say, that the Scottish system of education has been admirable.


Surely it is not Dover House that has brought that about!

5.0 P.M.


I do not think that my hon. Friend will go quite so far as to say that the whole position of Scottish education was achieved before anything was done at Dover House, but there it is. You have had a marriage between a Department in Edinburgh and one in London, and the result has been astonishingly good. I hope that my hon. Friend will think that that is so.


Will you contest Berwickshire?


I have sat for Berwickshire now for a quarter of a century, and the number of times I have been approached as to the location of the Education Department as between London and Edinburgh I can count on the fingers of one hand. I do not believe that there is any such strong desire for a change in the location of the Department as my hon. Friend thinks.


You do not care about the sentiment of the Scottish people.


I do care as much about the sentiment of the Scottish people as any Member in this House. I am most anxious to maintain Scottish sentiment, but this is not merely a matter of sentiment; it is a matter of convenience, convenience to the Minister, to the Members of this House. I would like to know how my hon. Friends would feel if every time they wanted to make representations to the Education Department they had either to write to Edinburgh or go to Edinburgh from London. Inasmuch as we have not yet got Home Rule, though I am in favour of Home Rule for Scotland, I cannot help thinking, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland also thinks, that to put such an Amendment as this into the Bill would be to put the cart before the horse.


I would like to give an opinion from the far North-neither from Edinburgh nor from Glasgow. I am not aware of any great rivalry between them, but I appeal to my hon. Friends behind me to look at this in a common-sense way. When you have got Home Rule, as I have always said you must have, all your Departments must be where you have got the Parliament. That goes without saying. But, unfortunately, in the two cases in which you have moved the Department you have put the cart before the horse and appointed an executive in Edinburgh while Parliament sits here, and in both cases there has been a failure. We have a Board of Agriculture from which we cannot get any information about anything. It is the same with the Local Government Board. It is all very well for my hon. Friend, who represents Edinburgh, to go to the offices in Edinburgh and get what he wants, or as much as he can, but it is a different thing for me in far off Aberdeenshire. It is just as easy for me to come to London. It is all done by correspondence. Here you have got the officers. I am entirely with sympathy with the demand for Home Rule, but until we have got Home Rule the Government is here and I want to be in touch with the officers and with the Department, and I am in touch with it here and can get my answer within twenty-four hours, but if the Department is in Edinburgh I have to go to the Secretary for Scotland, and he has got to communicate with Edinburgh, and they take their time over it in Edinburgh, and probably by the time a letter comes back we have forgotten all about it. That is not the way to do business. Where you have got the head of the Government there you ought to have the body, and there you ought to be able to settle things straight away. The Department should be within easy access from this House, and you should have your responsible Minister here while you have your Parliament here. To have the offices at Edinburgh or Glasgow is to do what is not practicable and not common sense. I am perfectly certain that my right hon. Friend from the North of Scotland (Sir A. Williamson) will back me up. So long as you have not got Home Rule, so long as you have got the Imperial Parliament here, I shall oppose the transfer of any more of the Departments from London to Edinburgh.


The North of Scotland has been appealed to by the last speaker, and I can only say in answer to his observations that so far as I am able to judge the opinion of my Constituents, they are strongly in favour of the Education Department being in Scotland, and I think that that opinion is held not only by those who are described as Home Rulers, but by many who would not be so described. They think it a great advantage to be able to have personal contact with the Department in Edinburgh. They go frequently to Edinburgh. They do not go nearly so frequently to London. The journey to Edinburgh is much shorter. Naturally Edinburgh attracts them for various reasons, and owing to business reasons, and they go there much more often than to London. I do think that many difficulties would be removed and misunderstandings would be allayed if they could come into personal contact with the Department. Furthermore, they think that there is something in the Scottish atmosphere, and they believe that if the Departments were in Edinburgh they would get matters connected with education viewed more entirely from the Scottish standpoint. Whether it is right or wrong, I think that that is the opinion which is held in my Constituency. Therefore I am going to support the Amendment. I do not hold personally with all its words. I do not like the idea of any lessening of Ministerial responsibility, which it is suggested would be brought about, but I am supporting the general principle that the Scottish Education Department should be in Scotland and not in London. But while I do not hold with all the words of the Amendment, I do say that in supporting it I am interpreting generally what I believe to be the wishes of my Constituents, and what I also believe to be in consonance with common sense.


In view of the speech made by the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen University (Sir H. Craik), who said that this Amendment was an attack upon officials, may I say that in support- ing this Amendment I have not the slightest idea that I am attacking any official whatever. Speaking for myself, I have made it a rule always to go to Departments, more particularly the Education Department, and I have received there nothing but courtesy, and I have always got what I wanted, or if I did not get what I asked for it has been proved to me that what I asked for was unreasonable. Therefore as far as officials are concerned I have no complaint whatever to make. But this I can say, that there is growing discontent all over Scotland at the way in which things are kept in Departments here in London, and if this Department were removed to Edinburgh, I believe that it would be very acceptable to the Scottish people. My point is this: when you take the executive to the people you have to deal with there is an atmosphere created by the very fact of its being there, and there is the feeling that grievances will be more readily listened to. My hon. Friend (Mr. Henderson) said that it was as easy for him to go to London as to Edinburgh. Yes, because he does not pay anything! He has got a free pass. Then, being a railway director, he wants us to spend all the money we can on railway fares. So I rule out my hon. Friend entirely in this matter. Not only that, but the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen University said that it was quite as easy to go to London as to Edinburgh. That is not so. You can go there and back in the same day.


People would rather go to London than to Edinburgh.


I believe that if you do this it will Rave a very marked effect upon education in Scotland. In days gone by Scotland was a long way ahead of England, Ireland and Wales in the matter of education, and I say with great regret that it has not now the same lead as it used to have. In Wales, for instance, the way in which education is dovetailed from the lower into the higher is in advance of Scotland. My belief is that if this Department had been in Edinburgh it would have kept our education system vastly more in touch with the wishes of the Scottish people. Scotland has not got to-day the lead which it had, but if you remove this Department from London you will do something to encourage the prospect of education in Scotland.


I think it right to say a few words on this subject, because I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland. I think that a great many of the arguments which have been put forward, attractive as they are from the point of view of national sentiment, are a little deficient in practical experience. I have experience of Departments in London and of a Department in Scotland. It has been pointed out by some of my hon. Friends that the new Departments have all been settled in Edinburgh; but what has happened? We started the Board of Agriculture entirely in Edinburgh, but, after some years' experience of that Board, I was driven to the conclusion that the arrangement was extremely unsatisfactory, and if it had not been for the War I certainly would have made a new arrangement. My successors found it absolutely necessary to make a new arrangement, and one of the members of the Board has been brought to London to be permanently resident here. I think that a matter which is overlooked is this. We are all agreed that if we had Home Rule we should have our Boards in Edinburgh. This Motion does not help one towards Home Rule. A sincere friend of Home Rule I think should vote against this Motion. At least, that is my opinion. As a sincere friend of Home Rule, I shall vote against it. Who are the people concerned? There is the Minister responsible to the House of Commons. My hon. Friend and I think it ought to be to a Scottish House of Commons. I should like to see Scottish education entirely under Scottish control, but the Amendment of my hon. Friend will not secure that result. As long as we have the present system the person responsible to Scottish Members is the Secretary for Scotland. Who are the next lot of people interested? The representatives of Scotland. Surely no one would deny that when any educational difficulty arises the natural course of an educational authority or anybody interested in the subject is to apply through his Member either to obtain information or to represent his views to the authority responsible! Now it is not only a question of the convenience of the Secretary of Scotland; it is a question of the convenience of the Scottish Members in at least an equal degree, and the real point is this: How can you make the machine work satisfactorily? I was unable to follow the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Elgin and Nairn (Sir A. Williamson) when he said he supported this Amendment, but entirely disagreed with the major proposition of the Amendment. Because what is the major proposition of this Amendment, after all? As my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland pointed out, it is a very serious proposition. It is that you take the control of Scottish education out of the Scottish Secretary responsible to Parliament and put it practically in the hands of a Board who may be responsible to nobody.


The President is a Member of Parliament.


It does not say so. It says he may be a Member of Parliament, but he is not required to be.


That is the usual phraseology.


I entirely disagree with the tendency that has grown up to sever the Executive from Parliament. I am extremely astonished at my hon. Friend.


It does not do it.


My hon. Friend does not understand his own Amendment.


I do, but you cannot.


What is the point? Everybody is agreed that the right solution—or far more people are agreed than were five years ago—is Home Rule for Scotland, complete Scottish control of education. Do you get more satisfactory provision by setting up a Board on the model of the Local Government Board in Edinburgh divorced from the responsible Minister, and so relieved from the control of Members who represent Scotland? Because that is really the essence of the objection to this Amendment. I think my hon. Friends would have been better advised to concentrate their efforts to get Scottish Home Rule, and not to try to manage Departments in such a way that neither the Minister nor the Members have effective control.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 92; Noes, 155.

Division No. 81.] AYES. [5.20 p.m.
Alden, Percy Gilbert, James Daniel Pearce, Sir Robert (Leek)
Anderson, William C. Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Harbison, T. J. S. Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Pringle, William M. R.
Bethell, Sir John Henry Hazleton, Richard Raffan, Peter Wilson
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Hearn, Michael L. (Dublin, S.) Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arfen)
Boland, John Plus Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Durham) Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Booth, Frederick Handel Hinds, John Rowntree, Arnold
Bowden, Major George R. H. Hudson, Walter Scanlan, Thomas
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) John, Edward Thomas Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Brady, Patrick Joseph Jones. Rt. Hon. Leif (Rushcliffe) Shaw, Hon. Alexander
Buxton, Noel Jowett, Frederick William Sheehy, David
Byrne, Alfred Kenyon, Barnet Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)
Chancellor, Henry George King, Joseph Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Clough, William Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry Stanton, Charles Butt
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Lambert, Richard (Cricklade) Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Lundon, Thomas Thorne, William (West Ham)
Cotton, H. E. A. Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Tootill, Robert
Cowan, Sir William Henry Marshall, Sir Arthur Harold Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Crumley, Patrick Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Walton, Sir Joseph
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy) Millar, James Duncan Watt, Henry A.
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Molteno, Percy Alport White, James Dundas (Tradeston)
Devlin, Joseph Mooney, John J. Whitehouse, John Howard
Dillon, John Morrell, Philip Whitty, Patrick Joseph
Doris, William Muldoon, John Wilkie, Alexander
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Nolan, Joseph Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea)
Esmonde, Capt. J. (Tipperary, N.) Nugent, J. D. (College Green) Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald
Ffrench, Peter Nuttall, Harry Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Field, William O'Malley, William
Finney, Samuel Outhwaite, R. L. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Flavin, Michael Joseph Parrott, Sir Edward Mr. Hogge and Mr. Adamson
Fleming, Sir John (Aberdeen, S.) Partington, Hon. Oswald
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir James B. Macmaster, Donald
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam) McMlcking, Major Gilbert
Anderson, O.K. Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham) Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Anstruther-Gray, Lt.-Col. Wm. FitzRoy, Hon. Edward A. Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James Ian
Archdale, Lt. Edward M. Fletcher, John S. Maden, Sir John Henry
Baldwin, Stanley Geddes, Sir A. C. (Hants, North) Marks, Sir George Croydon
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick Gibbs, Col. George Abraham Marriot, John A. R.
Barnett, Capt. Richard W. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John Mason, Robert (Wansbeck)
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, B.) Glanville, Harold James Morgan, George Hay
Barran, Sir Rowland H. (Leeds, N.) Greig, Colonel James William Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas
Beale, Sir William Phipson Hamilton, C. G. C. (Altrincham) Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Beck, Arthur Cecil Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence (Ashford) Neville, Reginald J. N.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)
Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth) Hayward, Evan Nicholson, Sir Chas. N. (Doncaster)
Bigland, Alfred Helme, Sir Norval Watson Norton-Griffiths, Sir John
Bird, Alfred Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Bliss, Joseph Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Hibbert, Sir Henry Parker, James (Halifax)
Boyton, Sir James Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E. Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)
Brace, Rt. Hon. William Higham, John Sharp Pease, Rt. Hon. H. P. (Darlington)
Brassey, Maj. H. L. C. Hodge, Rt. Hon. John Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Brunner, John F. L. Hope, Harry (Bute) Perkins, Walter Frank
Bryce, John Annan Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Peto, Basil Edward
Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay) Hope John Deans (Haddington) Pratt, John W.
Butcher, Sir J. G. Horne, Edgar Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton) Hume-Williams, Sir Wm. Ellis Pulley, C. T.
Carnegie, Lt.-Col. Douglas G. Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H. Randles, Sir John
Cator, John Ingleby, Holcombe Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Cautley, Henry Strother Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York) Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George Jessel, Colonel Sir Herbert M. Roberts, Rt. Hon. Geo. H. (Norwich)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor) Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.) Roberts, Sir Herbert (Denbighs.)
Cheyne, Sir William W. Jones, Wm. S. Glyn-(Stepney) Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Clyde, James Avon Joynson-Hicks, William Rowlands, James
Coates, Major Sir Edward F. Kellaway, Frederick George Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)
Coats, Sir Stuart (Wimbledon) Kerry, Col. Earl of Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (N'wood)
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Samuels, Arthur W. (Dub. U.)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Larmor, Sir Joseph Sharman-Crawford, Col. R. G.
Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives) Levy, Sir Maurice Shortt, Edward
Cory, James H. (Cardiff) Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Courthope, Maj. George Loyd Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Somervell, William Henry
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, E.) Lonsdale, James R. Spear, Sir John Ward
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Lowe, Sir F. W. Stewart, Gershom
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Loyd, Archie Kirkman Stirling, Lt.-Col. Archibald
Croft, Brig-Gen. Henry Page M'Callum, Sir John M. Stoker, R. B.
Currie, G. W. MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.)
Dalrymple, Hon. H. H. Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falkirk) Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Macleod, John M.
Turton, Edmund Russborough Whiteley, Sir H. J. (Droitwich) Wood, Rt. Rt. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Walker, Col. W. H. Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. Yate, Col. Charles Edward
Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince) Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) Younger, Sir George
Wardle, George J. Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (York)
Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.) Wolmer, Viscount TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Wheler, Major Granville C. H. Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) Captain F. Guest and Col. Sanders.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Donald Maclean)

That disposes of the following Amendment. That standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) is not in order, because it imposes an extra charge.


May I respectfully call your attention, Sir, to the fact that a similar Clause was moved in the Report stage of the English Education Act, and the Speaker held, when the point of Order was raised, that it did not impose a charge on the public necessarily, because it would be quite easy to avoid any increased public charge being caused by equalising the salaries of men and women teachers? I ask you, therefore, Sir, after that explanation, to allow me to move my Amendment.


I have no recollection of what took place on the occasion to which the hon. Member refers, but I have no doubt at all that this Clause as it stands is out of order, and therefore I cannot alter my decision. The same ruling applies to the Clause—[Expenditure]—in the name of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson), and also to the Clause—[Religious Instruction]—standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Central Division of Glasgow (Mr. Macleod).