HC Deb 16 February 1927 vol 202 cc1026-72

I beg to move, That this House welcomes the Report of the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education on the education of the adolescent, and calls on the Government at once to take all the legislative and administrative action necessary to secure a universal system of post-primary education on the lines recommended by the Committee. In submitting this Motion for the purpose of promoting the interests of and increasing the facilities for secondary education, I trust the House will consider that I have been wisely and happily inspired. No one will deny that the gravity of the problem of the education of adolescents increases in intensity and importance and calls for the attention and energies of legislators and administrators alike. In considering the promotion of this higher education we have to remember that the seriousness of the problem is accentuated by the presence in our midst of a large army of unemployed, and the inferior and low standard of living of the great masses of our working population. When we consider the desirability of promoting the interests of higher education we must also think of and seek concurrently to improve the standard of living of the workers, for the very good reason that those who defend the present educational system or our competitive system of industry must face the inevitable, vast, growing and insistent demand of an enlightened democracy that their children shall be freed quickly and in the future from the disabilities and the handicaps that are imposed upon their intellectual equipment by reason of poverty.

When we come to examine the conditions and the provisions existing for secondary education in this country, I must say that the picture is a very dark and dismal one and is a reflection upon our intelligence, and indicates in some measure our ineptitude in the past. We have between 5,000,000 and 6,000,000 children attending our elementary schools, and over 450,000 per year reach the age of 14, leave school, and enter the industrial market, competing to the disadvantage of their parents and the adult population. That in itself is a serious matter and a handicap. During 1924–1925 we had 1,145 secondary schools on the grant list, and they provided for the education of 327,345 children. It is true that there existed at the same time 269 schools not on the grant list, which provided accommodation for 51,423 pupils.

While it is interesting and gratifying to know that 1,142 of these schools secured the full grant, having provided 25 per cent. of free places, it is also interesting to note that 149 schools were, allowed by the Board of Education to reduce their small percentage of 25 per cent. of free places. I suppose they had some special reason for that. It is to be hoped that they were good and sound reasons. Of our secondary school population there were only 142,523 children who are occupying free places on the 1st October, 1926. While the local authorities are permitted the opportunity of increasing free places from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent., it would appear, having regard to the disabilities from which they suffer through the grave condition of necessitous areas, and the taxes that arise out of unemployment, that some inducements might reasonably have been offered. The President- of the Board of Education in the Labour Ministry did offer some inducement, but I understand the present President of the Board of Education has withdrawn the inducement in regard to the increased grant. It will be interesting to know upon what grounds he justifies that change in policy.

Of the large number of children who leave school at the age of 14, a very small proportion reach our secondary schools. It is estimated that 9.5 per cent. go to these schools, two-thirds of whom pay fees, while one-third occupy free places. Only one out of every thousand of our elementary school children pass into or have, an opportunity of attaining a university education. These are striking and important facts which should engage our attention, and they certainly justify us in placing considerable importance upon advanced education. Out of 2,800,000 adolescents, 80 per cent. are not attending full time at school. There is another serious factor in connection with our secondary school education. It is interesting to know from the class of occupations followed by the parents of the children from whom these pupils come, that in 1921—I cannot think there has been any great change in this matter since then, having regard to the poverty problem—when some inquiries were made, 26.9 per cent. of the pupils attending secondary schools came from the homes of wholesale and retail traders.

I do not mention that to cast any reflection upon their occupation. I welcome the interest hat such citizens take in providing this education for their children. But it is noteworthy that, whereas some 20.5 per cent. of the pupils came from the homes of skilled workers, only 3.2 per cent. came from the homes of unskilled workers. Those figures are a tragedy; they are a tragic commentary upon the inability of our working population to take advantage of this advanced education. We are told that where fee-paying has been abolished, it frequently occurs that the refusals of free places exceed the acceptances. I noticed that some time ago the Director of the Manchester Education Authority said that if all the schools were free, 60 per cent. of the children could not afford a full-time course of secondary education. These facts are an indication of our lack of interest, and, indeed, of the folly of Governments in the past, and in themselves I cannot help thinking that they are a warm condemnation of the policy of economy advocated and practised by the President of the Board of Education. It is clear that there is a shortage of free places, and there is a barrier, due to poverty, erected against the continued education of children of the working classes. We are spending some £250,000 upon maintenance, and I am sure we shall have to increase that considerably in the interests of the children of our working population.

I have said so much to indicate some of the difficulties from which children suffer, even if they wish to take advantage of this education. I turn now to make some reference to the Report itself. The Labour party stands for a systematic and continual process of education from the elementary schools to the university. We do not want higher education to be the privilege of a few on a selective basis, or upon some test or elimination. We want the opportunity to be provided for all. There are people who talk about the ladder. I have had some ex- perience of climbing ladders during my industrial occupation. It is a very painful process. I cannot see anything in a ladder to encourage a student. I should prefer to see the unfolding at every step of a wider plane with a bigger outlook, and universality of continued education. This Report seems to indicate a fuller appreciation of our responsibility in that direction. It tries to create that higher education somewhere in the neighbourhood of 11 years of age. It will certainly save time if I summarise some of the recommendations of the Committee in this respect. They say: Some form of post-primary education should be made available for all normal children between the ages of 11 and 14, and, as soon as possible, between the ages of 11 and 15. Primary education should end at about the age of 11+. There should then be a second stage, which would end for some pupils at the age of 16+, for some at 18 or 19, but for the majority at 14+ or 15+. This second stage should include a variety of types of education which would be determined by the aim of providing for the needs of children entering and passing through the stage of adolescence. Education up to the age of 11+ should be called primary Education and, after that age, it should be termed Secondary. Many children should, of course, pass to the present "secondary" schools. It is suggested that the post-primary education should include the following types.

  1. (a) Grammar Schools.—These would be schools of the present "secondary" type which pursue mainly a literary or scientific curriculum. The pupils would remain till the age of at least 16+. The school courses would be planned for a period of five or more years.
  2. (b)Modern Schools.—These would include schools of the type of the existing selective Central Schools, which give at least a four years' course from the age of 11+ to 15+, with a "realistic" or practical trend in the last two years. Schools of the type of the present non-selective Central Schools, with the same general curriculum, would also be included; there would be due provision for differentiation between pupils of different capacities; the period covered would be from 11+ to 14+, but provision should be made for the needs of pupils who remain at school to the age of 15+. These Modern Schools would plan their courses for a period of three or four years, and, though similar to those of the Grammar Schools, they would be simpler and more limited in scope. While the courses of instruction in the last two years should not be vocational, the treatment of subjects should be practical in the broadest sense, and brought directly into relation with the facts of everyday life.
  3. 1030
  4. (c) Senior Classes.—These would be Departments or classes within the public elementary schools, which provide post-primary education for children who do not go either to the Grammar or Modern School. These Senior Classes, like the Modern Schools, should aim at providing a humane and liberal education, by means of a curriculum containing large opportunities for practical work, and closely related to living interests.
Those paragraphs indicate what we consider should be the objective. It is true that the Committee made a recommendation in favour of increasing the school age to 15. They advanced some very interesting and convincing arguments in favour of their proposition, and they displayed some foresight. They realise that it could not be done in a moment. There was a lack of accommodation, a lack of staffing to cope with the added attendance that would naturally arise, and they foresaw the necessity of giving some notice. Consequently, they suggest a notice of five years, so that any increase in the school-leaving age should not be operative until 1932. I have summarised the attitude of the Committee upon that subject. Let me add that I represent a great industrial constituency. Ninety per cent. are industrial workers, and the majority are unskilled or semi-skilled workers, and are poor. They have a very low standard of life. Apparently our industrial system cannot give them a better living.

This Committee recognises, as I recognise from my personal experience, that parents are anxious for children to remain at school for a period beyond the age of 14, and no matter how bright or clever children may be they are undoubtedly handicapped by lack of means and by the poverty bar. It is a tragedy in itself and it will be useless to increase this age, even in 1932, unless the industrial system from within itself can improve the standard of living of the workers so as to remove the hardships and anxieties which now confront them. If that cannot be done, then the Government of the day must consider the making of generous and substantial grants in the form of maintenance. Something must be done if the education of these children is to be improved, and if they are to be allowed to take advantage of educational facilities. Something must be done to remove the possible hardships, so that poor parents may be able to view with equanimity the prospect of their children remaining at school beyond the age of 14. Of course, it may be said that we cannot afford it, and I know the President of the Board of Education is very anxious for economy, but I think we could raise sufficient wealth to put into operation the recommendations of this report. Professor Marshall in 1913 said the small wealthy class of this community spent £400,000,000 on luxuries, and I should estimate that the amount so spent is now £600,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who can give £42,000,000 to the Super-tax payers, might reasonably be expected to find £42,000,000 for advanced education.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy)



Yes, I think it was £42,000,000 per annum. It will be interesting to see the attitude which the Noble Lord adopts towards this Motion, because in April, 1925, the House passed a Resolution far more drastic and far-reaching than the Motion on the Paper, and the Noble Lord allowed it to go through, as far as I know with his assent, and certainly without a Division. I shall watch with interest how he reconciles any opposition to my Motion with the course which he took on that occasion. We cannot over-estimate the value of secondary school education. It produces a something, a personality in the pupil which unhappily is absent from our elementary school children. Its effects are seen not only in intellectual and physical vigour but in the quality of leadership, in character, in sense of duty and citizenship. It fits young people for the great duties which lie ahead of them and, above all—and I attach more importance to this—it encourages a love of the good, the beautiful and the true. No society can be without it. We have severe struggles here for better materialistic conditions, but a millennium of high wages, short hours and a fine standard of living would be of no use if it were accompanied by ignorance, We want culture and refinement, and in higher education I see a stepping-stone in that direction.


I beg to second the Motion.

I confess I do so with some hope. I hope that the Minister is going to accept the Motion which, as the Mover has pointed out, is milder in its terms than the Resolution adopted. by this House on a former occasion. I have ever held the opinion that an efficient educational system is the greatest asset of a nation. Without it, you have ignorance and where there is ignorance, rest assured there is disturbance. There can be nothing good in keeping a people in a state of ignorance. I want to impress on the Minister that, if we have a proper system of education, we shall have good citizens. If we have good citizens we shall have a good country and good countries make a good world. All that comes from education. I have been for long connected with educational administration, and I have watched its development keenly. I have spent most of my spare time in doing my part to build up an educational system which would be a credit to this country. I hope sincerely that we shall have something as a result of this Motion and that the children of the workers will get their chance of education.

When I first went to the Durham County Education Authority we had places for about 2 per cent. of our school population. By dint of grants and our exertions, that number gradually increased until to-day it is in the region of 7 per cent. That. we did largely by our our exertions. We were kicked and buffeted by different Presidents of the Board of Education and were told there was no real demand among miners for education. That statement was soon disproved. The applicants so outnumbered the places that we have now at least 10 applicants for each seat we can offer in our county schools. We in the counties are in a different position from the authorities in the boroughs. In the counties the only schools that we had were the old schools of the Church and private schools to which we had no access. Consequently, the county authority had to face the matter bit by bit. Secondary schools were erected in the country but, to-day, despite all we have done, the demand is equally great. To do justice to the children we found we must adopt a system of entirely free secondary education. I am glad that ever we did it, because, after all. that free secondary education has given that child who has the brains a chance of getting into school without paying a fee. That has been a great boon, and I am sure that once the county has adopted that, if it is left alone it is going to continue free secondary education. I hope that all the counties will adopt the same course and free their secondary schools as the elementary schools have been freed. That to me would be one of the greatest steps forward that this country could take.

I know only too well that the Minister will say against me: "But you have not the places." I suggest to him that many of our schools that are used to-day as elementary schools could, with little expenditure, be converted into secondary schools for the time being until better buildings could be erected. To me the school and equipment do not count for so much. There are still other things that stand in the way and I, with my friends, deplore them. I think the Minister ought to take the advice given in this Report, and in other Reports that I have read, from other educationists, who in the same way point out that at 11 years of age there should be a distinct break and that all children who are fitted ought to pass forward to secondary education. In my own county we have taken the opportunity of trying to find out how many of our children were fitted to fake secondary education, and we find that in Durham if the right thing be done 75 per cent. of the pupils in our elementary schools at the age of 11 years could be passed on to secondary education. Even the Departmental Committee that was set up here, I think in the first year that I came to this place, 1919, and which was presided over by the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young), after taking evidence from all kinds of people, from elementary school teachers, secondary school teachers, and university dons, come to this conclusion, that at least 66 per cent. of the children ought to be passed on. The Minister should, therefore, at least accept the very mild Report that we have before us, arid commence a system of education that will be a standing monument for further progress inside this country of ours.

I am sorry that the Minister is doing his best just now to compel the local education authorities to cut down their education expenditure, for to save money on education is absolutely the worst place at which he could start. Rather should he advise his colleagues in the Cabinet and in the other Departments to cut down expenditure on armaments. There is a saying which is worth repeating, that the nation of the future is not going to be the nation that we have had in the past, and that we have now, the one with the biggest fleet of ships on the sea, the biggest battalions on the land, and the biggest fleets of airships in the air. The nation of the future will be the nation that is best equipped mentally and morally, the nation that will be looked up to, and I am anxious that England shall be ready to take that position. We are allowing other people to take that honour from us. Other nations are going ahead vastly more quickly than England, and, therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to look ahead and see what the world will be in the next 40 or 50 years. I feel sure that, if he does that, he will do his best to bring his Department up so as to meet the need of making and equipping this England of ours.

I want to mention another matter. Up to now we have had thousands of children attending the evening classes and doing their best in their own time, for they have had no allowance from employers of labour of time off from their employment. They have been doing their level best to make themselves fit citizens of this country, useful people to get into the fields of industry, of education, of the arts, and of other things, but in Durham now they can no longer in the mining areas get the time off for attending these classes. I know the Minister tells us it is not for him to get the children into our evening classes, but I suggest to him that it is his business. As President of the Board of Education, he is charged with the education of the youth of this country, and if an obstacle arises, it is his business to clear the road so that these children may have their opportunity. In the years that have gone by, taking, say, the last five years, young men and women have attended classes for two, three, four and five years, and to-day they are cut out, and all that money that has been spent by the local authority and the Board is simply going to be wasted if something is not done.

If the position is as the President says, and he cannot interfere, I suggest to him that- there is only one way out of it, and that is at once to raise the school-leaving age to 15 years, and as early as possible to make it 16 years. If that were done, the situation would be saved, but if it is allowed to go on as it is, ruin is coming so far as continued education is concerned. I hope the Noble Lord will tell these people in the meantime that they must not do as they are doing to-day, that they must give opportunities to release these-young people from their work so that they may attend their classes. If he does that, I feel sure that the people in Durham will be more than thankful. He knows as well as I can tell him that the classes are going to wreck and ruin and that many of them already have gone, because of the lack of time for attending them in the mining districts. It is only the children outside the mines who are keeping this thing going, and the terrible demand made upon the children by the colliery owners in the county of Durham is not only ruining their mothers, their younger brothers, and their sisters, but them also. It is a terrible score. Some day it may be told in better language than I can use, and I am hoping that it will be told. I want the President, therefore, to see to it that these children get their opportunities and to make representations to his colleague in the Department.

There is one other point I wish to make, and that is that it will be very much cheaper to keep the children at school until they are 16 years of age than to go on as we are doing to-day. The cost will be anywhere from £5,000,000 to £6,000,000. All my colleagues agree that the child should be at school, and his father at work in the- mine, or factory, or wherever he is called upon to work. If that policy be adopted I can see a great diminution in the very near future of the number of men unemployed. Do what you will, someone -comes along and says there is far too much money spent on education. They want to spend it in another way. The Amendment on the Paper says nothing at all. It simply says that it regards the Report as being so good that it ought to be adopted, but not at the present time. I think we have never had such an opportunity as to-day, in consequence of the depression in our industry. If the right hon. Gentleman takes this opportunity to free the children from toil, and give the boys their chance in school, providing something for their maintenance, which you must have for miners' children, he will have done a great thing for the young life. of this country.


I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "welcomes" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words The fact that the general trend of the Report of the consultative committee of the Board of Education on the education of the adolescent is in accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government and with the programmes of the local education authorities, and hopes that the committee's recommendation will assist fie Board and the authorities in taking all practicable steps to develop a system of post-primary education for children over 11. This Amendment, which stands in my name, and in the names of my hon. Friends the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) and the Member for White-haven (Mr. R. Hudson), is in no sense a hostile one. Both the Motion and the Amendment welcome the Report with which the Motion deals, and, indeed, it would be very difficult for anyone who cares for education not to welcome that Report. It is the Report of men and women of knowledge and experience, and with real anxiety for educational advancement, and it is written with fervour for educational progress. The Motion and the Amendment, have much in common. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) might almost have been speaking for the Amendment, for he made very plain the enormous difficulties which lie in the way of carrying out the recommendations in the Report, and I can assure him that, Members on this side fully sympathise will the difficulties of which he speaks, which lie in the way of a great many of the children of the workers, and we can only hope that the industrial improvement of this country will now take place rapidly, so that far more of those children can take advantage of higher education.

9.0 p.m.

It must be a satisfaction to the hon. Member who seconded the Motion that his county has an honourable place in the Report. We all know the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for education, and the great work he has done in his own county for education. But I may be permitted to say that the speeches of the Mover and the Seconder were much more directed to castigating the Minister for his unrighteous economy than to dealing with the subject of their own Motion. Listening to those two speeches, one would have thought that in recent years nothing had been done by the taxpayer or the ratepayer for education. The fact is that in recent years both the taxpayer and the ratepayer have shouldered very heavy burdens in the cost of education. In the matter of pensions to teachers, the Pensions Acts in the years 1918 to 1925, and especially the Act of 1925, which was the work of this Conservative Government, have produced a system of superannuation for teachers which will compare favourably with that of any other country. The establishment of the Burnham scale, in conjunction with the superannuation system, has placed the teachers of this country in a secure position, and both the State and the ratepayers have shouldered a very heavy burden in carrying out those two reforms. There has been the development of central schools, which form the nucleus of that central reform which is advocated by the Report. There has been the development of the secondary system—a system which was established by a Conservative Government in 1902, and a system to which we may look forward with great hope for the future of this country. There has been the reconditioning, and rebuilding in some cases, of defective and insanitary schools. There has been the building of new schools, and in that connection may I read to the House a letter I received this morning from a. leading member of the Bucks Education Committee. He writes: It is stated in to-day's 'Times' that on Wednesday evening the question of secondary education will be before the House. I wonder if this will give you any chance of raising the question of the cost of building secondary schools. I would suggest to hon. Members opposite that they should use their undoubted influence in rendering the cost of building schools cheaper. He goes on to say: The Minister said the other day that the secondary schools built in recent years have cost an average of £200 a place.


May I intervene for a moment? I know, and the Noble Lady will tell you, that a school we opened in September last in Durham County has the entire approval of the Education Departments, and was not at all a costly school. I refer to Houghton-le-Spring. It is now filled to overflowing. We did our best to keep down the cost, I can assure you.


What was the cost?


The Noble Lady will probably give it.


My correspondent goes on to say: If this is anything like true, I do not see how we are going to get tile new secondary schools that we want in South Bucks— In addition to that there is the question of reducing the size of classes. That process has gone on continuously, and we have recently heard from the Minister that there are now 2,400 more teachers in the schools than there were in 1924. In face of these facts, it is scarcely possible to say that the Minister is unduly economical and that he is doing nothing. What he is doing is that he is continually improving our educational system. Let us consider some of the proposals in the Report. The main proposal of that Report coincides largely with what is found in the Prime Minister's election address. In that address we find: The carrying out of agreed schemes as between the local education authorities and the Board of Education. Here let me say that as between the Motion and the Amendment the differences are very small. The Motion says, "Carry out at once"; the Amendment says, "Consult with local education authorities and do all that is practicable." We must consult with local education authorities. Remember what they are. They are bodies which have been developed all through the country; they are becoming increasingly efficient; they include more and more men and women who take an eager interest in their duties. It goes on to say —which shall ensure amongst other matters a progressive reduction in the size of classes, the improvement or, when necessary, replacement of insanitary schools— And then comes what is the chief recommendation of the Report:— the development of Central Schools and other forms of education above the elementary school stage"— If the recommendations of the Report be adopted, "elementary" will be divided into "primary" and "post-primary," and "post-primary" will then become "modern." —with an adequate supply in the number of secondary school places and a corresponding increase in the number of scholarships and free places. That is the central proposal of the Report, that we should develop the post-primary system for children above the age of 11 to the age of 15. With regard to the age of 15, I would remark that the speech of the hon. Seconder was not very relevant to the Motion, if I may say so, but he made up for that by going one better than the Report Iv making the leaving age 16 instead of 15.

There is one recommendation in the Report which, I think, will create a great deal of opposition. It is the recommendation to abolish Part IIL authorities. Those authorities have done, and are doing, excellent work. I have received this letter from one of them the Windsor Education Committee. I am directed to bring to your notice the following resolution which was adopted by my committee on the 14th instant: 'That the New Windsor Education Committee, who have had before them the Report of the Consultative Committee on the Education of the Adolescent, recommending among other proposals the abolition of Part III authorities and the transfer of their powers and duties to the authorities responsible for higher education, are strongly of opinion that in boroughs and urban districts an intimate knowledge of local Conditions is essential for the administration of the public elementary education service, and that the proposals of the Consultative Committee referred to, tending as they do towards centralisation and the consequent abrogation of local autonomy, are in every way inimical to the best interests of education.' It is very important that we should do nothing to lessen local interest and local effort in education. I have spoken of the central proposal of the Report, the development of this post-primary system. We have a secondary system which is being developed on sound lines and is flourishing; we have elementary schools and we have, after the age of 11, central schools, both selective central schools and non-selective; we have junior technical schools and we have departments and classes for the senior pupils in some of the elementary schools, known familiarly as "tops" or "higher tops." The Report proposes 70 provide schools to be called "modern schools" for all the children of the elementary schools, or the primary schools, from the age of 11 up to the age of 15. The reason why the age of 11 was selected is that up to the age of 11 the child mind is busy absorbing facts, picking up facts without connecting them. After 11—I am speaking of the average child—the child begins to connect those facts and to reason, and therefore you want a different type of education. As the hon. Opener said, the secondary schools have a literary or scientific direction of studies. The central schools, which are in future to be known as modern schools, will have, in the last two years of the course, a practical bias. We require in those schools a very efficient and special type of teacher, and there is a difficulty in getting that type of teacher. Let me quote the Minority Report, which was signed by three of the members of the Committee, one of them being the chairman of the London County Council Education Committee: The desirability of prolonging education must depend largely on the character of the education which is offered. They also mention the fact that the provision of modern schools means providing for half a million additional children and obtaining from 15,000 to 20,000 additional teachers. It is very difficult in the time to provide the special type of teacher that would be necessary for those schools. Those teachers have a great problem to solve. They have, as every teacher has, to develop the mind and body and character of the child to the full, and they have also got to solve the problem of turning out those children as youths and girls content to carry on their work in life, which for the great majority of all people in all countries must be manual labour. That is a very great difficulty, and the Board of Education recognises it. In the last Report of the Board for 1924–25, the first 80 pages are devoted to accounts of the Progress of Technical Education, and we find there that it is very difficult to get teachers of the right kind. We all know that the efficiency of the school depends upon the teacher, and, therefore, you must have, the right type of teacher. The greatest work the teacher has to do is to develop the character of the children. In regard to character, the chief points are not the property of any country, but the best points are now the tradition of the British race. Some of those we find in the philosophy of Confucius. He taught that we should do to others as we would have them do to us. It is regrettable that the modern Chinese has forgotten this maxim. You will also find them in the oath taken by the youths of Greece, long ago, when they received their arms: I will not dishonour my sacred arms; I will not desert my fellow soldier by whose side I shall be set; I will do battle for my country whether aided or unaided; I will strive to leave her better than I found her; I will honour the Temples in which my fathers worshipped; of these things the Gods are my witnesses. In that you will find loyalty, patriotism, progress and reverence, and it is those qualities we wish to preserve and develop in our young people. We see great difficulties in the way of carrying out the provisions of this Report at once. We know the difficulties in regard to the final year in many schools, which is not always useful owing to the lack of teaching power, the exigencies of the curriculum, or other difficulties. I ask whether it would be wise under these circumstances to make the leaving age compulsory at 15 until we are able to employ usefully the present final year of school life. In this matter, let us hasten slowly. Let us build on a secure foundation, and let us remember that the object of education is to make good citizens who will take a pride in their work in life, and who will have the power of enjoying their leisure time sensibly.


I beg to second the Amendment.

I cannot refrain from saying that the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) has stolen a march upon his opponents. I do not complain so much that we were kept in ignorance until yesterday of the precise terms of his Motion, but when I discovered the nature of those terms, I realised that it would be necessary for any of us on this side of the House who wanted to make any effective criticism that we should have to be well versed in what, for the sake of brevity I will refer to as the Hadow Report. Certainly, in the time available to prime oneself its contents would have proved to be a rather formidable task, and I should need some of that ingenuity and resource displayed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), when not long ago they argued upon a Bill which they had never seen, and which in fact and indeed had never been drafted.

The shortness of notice is not my only cause of complaint. I have another grievance in that the precise terms of the Motion are so completely at variance with its original form that they induce the suspicion that the hon. Member who moved the Motion was perhaps not quite so well acquainted with the Report I have alluded to as some other hon. Members on this side of the House, and that there is some confusion in his mind as to the precise definition of the term secondary education. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby gave the House a highly imaginary description the other day of a supposed controversy which had taken place in the Cabinet in regard to the King's Speech. I should like to retaliate by indulging in a similar speculation as to what happened between the tabling of the original Motion on this question, and the appearance of the revised version. When I saw the precise terms of the Motion and the terms of reference in the Report, which explicitly state that it should deal with schools other than secondary schools, I thought it was quite possible that the motion would be ruled out of order by the Chair, but I bow to your decision, Mr. Speaker, all the more readily because it suits our convenience on this side of the House. Had the hon. Member been allowed to retable his Motion he might have done so more adroitly and ingeniously, and then the Government would not have been in the impregnable position in which they now stand. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is all this about?"]

Let me say that I am in complete and cordial agreement with a very great deal of what has fallen from both the Mover and the Seconder of this -Motion. In theory and principle on this question, as on others, I often find myself in accord with the party opposite, and I could with a clear conscience cross the Floor of the House if it was only a question of theory and principle. When it comes to the application of theories and principles to practice, then T find the Floor of the House presents to me an impassable gulf. I agree as to what social evils it is necessary for us to address ourselves to and as to what grievances are crying out for redress, but as to the remedy, I am nearly always at variance with the party opposite or, if I agree with their remedy, I differ as to how or in what quantity that remedy should be applied.

Here is a case. The hon. Mover has suggested—I notice he slurred over the expression "at once" when he was moving the Motion—that the findings of the Hadow Report,, with which both he and I agree, should be implemented by the Government at once. May I point out that not only do I disagree, but the Report also disagrees with that suggestion. I should like the hon. Member to refer to page 172, where he will see at the bottom the last sentence reads: Progress must necessarily be tentative and experimental, but the objective—a universal system of post-primary education—should be held clearly in view. There is a familiar ring about that sentence, "should be held clearly in view." Only a day or two ago I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer pressing certain proposals, and in reply received a letter to the effect that he would hold my suggestions clearly in view. Whatever that expression may mean, it certainly does not mean at once. Then the sentence finishes: and the measures necessary to attain it should go steadily forward. "Steadily forward "—the italics are mine. T have no doubt the word "steadily" was italicised, if I might use the expression, in the minds of those who signed the Report. "Progress must be necessarily tentative and experimental"—hut that admonition cuts bang across one of the first principles of Socialism and incidentally cuts bang across the Motion moved by the hon. Member.

I have always been careful to note at election time how Socialist Members answer the various questionnaires addressed to them. The framers of these questionnaires, I should imagine, are unsophisticated persons, because they seem to have a touching faith in those who promise all things to all men. What I notice about these questionnaires and particularly those on the subject of education is that they ask you to urge the Government, provided your Government takes office, to do everything at once, and I notice that the Socialist candidates always reply that they will, as soon as their Government gets into office and power, do everything at once in the first Session of their first Parliament. Personally, I always reply to my questioners that I will hold their suggestions clearly in view. The Socialist party did come into office pledged up to the hilt to do everything at once and they fell in a few months' time. But I would like seriously to warn hon. Members opposite that when they ever come into power with a mandate to run amok in all our national institutions, they should. realise it is neither feasible nor possible to effect great revolutions, be it in education or other spheres of administration, in the twinkling of an eye.

But the very fact that the Mover of the Motion has employed the expression. "at once" convinces me that he has not read the Report of the Consultative Committee with the diligence one expects of a lawyer. I would ask him to turn to. page 178 of the Report and there he will find at the end of paragraph 19 this sentence: At the same time we fully recognise that finance is a limiting factor and, as it is not feasible at once lo establish conditions such as we have described, we must be content to recommend the establishment of the best conditions obtainable in the circumstances. The hon. Mover said he welcomed the Report. Does he welcome that sentence? It does not square with his Motion. I believe the Noble Lord regards this as an excellent report, but not for the reasons of the Mover of the Motion. It certainly does the Consultative Committee very great credit that it has reported, in my opinion, in such moderate and cautious terms, especially in view of the fact, which I believe is the case—and the Noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—that the Committee does not concern itself with finance. It is only right in my opinion that the Consultative Committee should have treated the Noble Lord with that consideration—I hope he thinks they have treated him with consideration—because they have borrowed his ideas.

There are few of those findings in this Report which were not anticipated by the Noble Lord from the very first moment he took office. Of all his utterances on education, none showed in my opinion the measure of his wisdom and foresight more than the speech he delivered on the Education Estimates in the first year he came into office. I confess I have not read all his speeches on education, and of those speeches which I have read I have not read them all from the opening sentence to the final peroration. But I did listen with the utmost admiration to the Noble Lord two years ago when he introduced his Estimates. I think that speech revealed him as a statesman of vision. I could quote paragraph after paragraph to show how much he realised the evil effects of making a hard and fast distinction and division between primary and secondary education and the imperfections of statutory divisions of that kind and the anomalies to which they give rise. He has proved himself absolutely sensible from the first of the necessity of evolving a type of senior school which would not divert pupils from their natural bent. Variety and flexibility has always been his slogan and the report has borrowed it from him. Whether the Committee deliberately or unconsciously adopted his views it must be a source of satisfaction to us that at last we are rejecting that stultifying notion which was entertained so long by hon. Members opposite regarding primary and secondary education as if they were in watertight compartments and the still more fallacious notion that the endless multiplication of places in secondary schools—using it in its obsolescent sense—was the panacea of all evils.

I should like to say one word on the subject of free places in secondary schools, but. before I do so I should like to clear myself of that accusation which has been levelled against this side of the House on the question of economy. I think I remember that. the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Richardson) referred to it as our stunt. Let. me assure him that I hold that true economy in national expenditure does not necessarily consist in the ruthless cutting down of expenditure all round, or of establishing, as it were, a flat rate of economy in all departments. I heard a right hon. Gentleman not very long ago in this House complain that he did not see why he should cut down his estimates unless other right hon. Gentlemen cut down their estimates, pari passu, with his own. That is a view with which we can sympathise, but, I do not think we can approve of it. There are three kinds of expenditure—that on luxuries which if there is any demand for them, those who demand them can surely pay for out of their own private exchequers. There were plenty of examples of that in the spacious days of the Coalition. There is the expenditure which we can regard as a form of insurance, of which the most conspicuous example is expenditure on the Fighting Services. Then there is, finally, that form of expenditure from which the State can reasonably expect a definite return, and in that category I should without hesitation place education. What we want is a statesmanship at the head of affairs which is capable of deciding where it is in the interest of the community to cut down unprofitable expenditure in order that we may maintain profitable expenditure in other departments, if not even increase it.

Those who complain of the £72,000,000 that we have been spending out of rates and taxes upon education are apt to forget the enormous bill which we should have to pay for the moral and physical invalids that a lack of education entails, and that it is only through the medium of education, as the Seconder of the Motion said, that we can possibly expect to compete in the great industrial world struggle. I am of one mind with hon. Members opposite on the subject of economy, but I beg them to join with me in being reasonable. On the subject of the school-leaving age, we have in this Report an allusion to what the raising of the school-leaving age would entail. They refer to the fact that provision would have to be made for half a million new scholars, which I should think is a very modest computation, and that 15,000 more teachers of a particular type would be required, to say nothing of accommodation in the form of school buildings. When we discuss this matter, moreover, we must remember that it is not only a question of money; it is a question of time. You cannot in a night produce 15,000 teachers of a particular type.

Let me tell the House why I consider the Report so much more in conformity with the realities of our situation than the suggestion of an indefinite multiplication of secondary school places. Throughout their deliberations, the motive which actuated the members of the Committee in forming the curricula for what are going to be called eventually modern and senior schools, was that due regard should be paid to the capacities of the pupils and to local environment, that the course of instruction should be brought into relation with the facts of everyday life, and that it should contain large opportunities for practical work.

Our efforts in secondary education have not been uniformly successful, for a reason which has not yet been touched upon. There is a sentence in the Report in which it is said that a humane or liberal education is not one given through books alone, and when I first read that sentence, I thought it was going to lead to a conclusion different from that to which it actually did lead. There is another form of training which is just as essential for the pupil who desires to benefit by secondary education, if he is not to be disillusioned and disappointed in the result, and it is just that form of training which the abominable conditions of the home life in which many of our best brains have to struggle in their early careers do not admit of. Many a young man from such a home has gained scholarships, and has had the character, the intellect, and all the necessary equipment to pursue those vocations to which secondary education leads, but has failed finally in his expectations. There are some, it is true, who surmount all difficulties, and succeed in shaking themselves free from the shackles forged in their early life, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule. You may talk of equality of opportunity in education, but how on earth can you ever have equality of opportunity in education, however wide you throw open the doors of post-primary education, when a vast number of our young men who seek the advantages which these schools provide will carry upon them all their lives the marks of early neglect, the ineradicable and ineffacable evidences of their early environment? You will never make satisfactory progress towards your ideals until that problem is solved. The Minister of Health holds the key to its solution rather than the Minister of Education.

With this reservation, however, I would conclude by saying that, in the words of our Amendment, The general trend of the Report of the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education on the education of the adolescent is in accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government. If we work on those lines, I believe we shall attain the great ideal of equal opportunities in education. It is education that is going to break down the barriers of class prejudice, class hatred and class war, far more effectively than any amount of pious platform resolutions. That is by no means the least of the reasons why I advocase a progressive programme of education. I envy those authorities whose business it will be in the fulness of time bring to fruition the recommendations of this Report, not only because the process will be fraught with a very lively and a very human interest, but because they will have the satisfaction of carrying out a scheme of reorganisation calculated to serve the very best interests of the rising generation.


I understand that a number of hon. Members want to say a word or two in this Debate, and, therefore, I shall confine myself to one main point. I hardly know whether I should congratulate the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment on their ingenuity, on their innocence, or on their party loyalty, because I find that in the Amendment they say that The general trend of the Report of the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education on the education of the adolescent is in accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government. I want to say quite emphatically and definitely that the policy of His Majesty's Government as pronounced by the President of the Board of Education is not in accordance with the report of the consultative Committee. While the Seconder has quoted sentences from the Report, I observe that he was very careful not to quote the recommendations of the Report, and it is in the recommendations that we find the essentials of what they have to say as far as educational policy is concerned.

Mr. CADOGAN rose


Wail, until I have finished my remarks.


On a point of Order. The hon. Member says I have not quoted a summary of the conclusions and recommendations. Surely I have a right on a point of Order to say that I have, chine so.


I will give way to that if the hon. Member desires it, and he can take some consolation from it. I will put it this way, if it will please him, and I ask him to contradict this, that he has not quoted the essential recommendation of the Committee's Report, the recommendation upon which the whole structure of its recommendations is built. The Minister knows it, because he has referred to it in a letter he issued to the Chairman of the consultative Committee. It is found on page 178, paragraph 21— It is desirable that legislation should be passed fixing the age of 15 years as that up to which attendance at school will become obligatory. That is the essential recommendation of the Report, and unless you get legislation making it obligatory for children to attend school up to the age of 15, practically all the superstructure that the Report. recommends will be of no avail at all. [Interruption.] I have read quite fairly. The period of five years is given as the length of time in order that the required number of teachers may be obtained, and the buildings found, but the essential thing is that now authorities want to know that it is going to be obligatory upon them to raise the school age to 15. Now, says the Amendment, the policy of His Majesty's Government is in line with this Report. Is it? I turn to the letter issued by the President of the Board of Education. He took the very first opportunity to tell local education authorities that this policy of making it obligatory upon them to raise the school age was not going to be the policy of His Majesty's Government, and in that respect, therefore, the policy of the Government differs essentially, fundamentally and vitally from the recommendations of the consultative Committee. Let us see what the President of the Board says. I think this is the acid test of the Motion, the raising of the school age. That is why we have compromised on the age. We on this side believe the age should be 16. We believe there should be a whole sweep of secondary schools with the same conditions that now obtain, but we say, here is a Committee composed of all shades of opinion. There are friends of my own on that Committee of the same political colour as myself. There are members of the Committee who are of opposite political opinions to myself. They met together to consider this problem and as a joint Committee they said the essential thing is to raise the school age. Therefore we are being practical by saying, "Let us adopt this unanimous Report and put it into immediate legislative effect." What does the President of the Beard of Education say? The Board will not in present circumstances ask Parliament to add to their existing statutory duties in such a way as to disturb the progress of development, and this assurance is one that I feel T ought to give without delay. There you have the policy of the Government. They are not going to make it obligatory. They are not going to bring legislation in to raise the school age They are going to leave it to the voluntary initiative of local authorities up and down the country to take advantage of the provision in the 1921 Act. That means that, as far as anyone can foresee, we shall not have the compulsory raising of the school age. Local authorities up and down the country say, "It is unfair in this town A that we should compel children to attend school till 15. when in the very immediate town of B children are able to leave school at the age of 14. That would be an unfair competition as between the children of one area and the children of another:' As a matter of fact, I think London Members will agree with me that it was the voluntary nature of the continuation schools, merely applied to the London area, that broke the continuation schools down. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is quite right! "]It is the voluntary operation, one authority here, and another there providing continuation schools and raising the school age which will cause a complete breakdown. You could only do this then in one way, and that is by a national obligation that children in all areas, under all authorities, should attend school till the age of 15. Therefore, anyone who votes for this Amendment votes against the vital principle of the consultative Committee. The seconder said that in theory and in principle he is with us. We invite him to be with us in practice. We invite hon. Members opposite to put the pious aspirations we have heard into practical effect. Let us have the raising of the school age, with maintenance grants. If hon. Members opposite will help us to raise wages, instead of a policy of lower wages and longer hours, that would help us to meet the economic situation.

My final ward is this. It is not the educationist's plea to raise the school age now. It has become something far bigger than that. It is not people like myself, who have been directly associated with education, who are making this plea now. It is not being urged merely for the sake of the individual child. It is not being urged merely for the development of the education system. It is being urged as an essential, social and economic policy that this country ought to adopt. As far back as 1909 the Royal Commission on the Poor Law said, "Raise the school age." I believe the Majority and the Minority Report said that. There were Committees during the War that considered this problem. They said, "Raise the school age." We have had two or three Committees sitting now on education and industry, and in every one of them you find a reference to the raising of the school age. I will quote one, because on this Committee I do not think there was a single practicing educationist. As a matter of fact, I believe the President of the Board of Education received some criticism from educationists because he did not put them on the Committee with his colleague the Minister of Labour. I believe he took the attitude, "Let us have a Committee of business men. Let us have a Committee of men directly associated with industry."

Do not let us have any suspicions that there are educationists on this body who are getting their own way with these people. What do they say: While, as a Committee, owing to the terms of reference, we are unable to express any opinion on the matter, we feel that we cannot afford to let this opportunity pass without emphasising our strong personal opinion that the extension of compulsory education, either whole time or part time, would be in the interests of the boys and girls themselves and of the country as a whole. Why? Quite honestly, I cannot understand the madness of pouring into industry about 500,000 children every year when they cannot be absorbed in in- dustry. They are not absorbed, either as children or as adults, and in this enlightened State of ours, which exists mainly under Tory and Liberal Governments, we find children from 14 to 16 years with no provision for them of any kind whatever. Neither are they insured, nor is there any educational provision for them. They are left alone, as one hon. Member said, orphans of the industrial storm. Tens of thousands from 16 to 18 years—we cannot find their number—are being demoralised mentally and physically every day of their unemployed lives. Yet we do nothing for them. It is vitally essential, in the interests of the country from an economic point of view, that these children should be kept in school when industry cannot absorb them. Unless the President of the Board of Education can get up tonight and say, "We will adopt Recommendation 21 on page 178 to raise the school age compulsorily," he will not lead his party into the Lobby in favour of this consultative committee's report. That is the very essential of it. Merely to stick on a year haphazard, as the Report says, with children going on, somehow or another, for another year longer, is obviously a very different thing from the State saying that, at the age of 11 plus, there is a distinct break, and the psychology of the children, their physical and mental development, demand that we should begin at that age to investigate a new system of education. The Report says, Call that secondary; it does not mean a merely literary education. It says that the problem is not elimination, at the age of 12, of those not fitted to receive further education. The problem is not one of selection. It is not one of finding out who are fitted. The Report says that all normal children are fitted to receive a further education at the age of 11 plus. The problem then, is not one of elimination or selection, it is one, the Report says, of variation.

How can you find a school that will develop the peculiar capacities of the particular child? Some children may not be able to write an essay or to turn out good literary work; but they may be able to work with their hands and fingers, and may have a practical bent. The Report says: "Let us develop these schools from the age of 11 plus under a. secondary system, co-ordinated with the elementary system, not a parallelism at all, but an organic, natural development, arising from 11 plus, with variety schools, so that a child who cannot succeed in a literary way will be able to succeed in a practical way." The Report says that one of the root causes of unemployment in this country is specialisation. Industry offers no variety of occupation. The Committeee on Education and Industry says, further, that we must cure this specialisation and give resilliancy of aptitude to our children so that they may be able to adapt themselves to new methods of industry, to meet new circumstances as they arise, and have the natural resilliency of mind to meet the new organisations necessary in industry. The only way you can do that is outside the factory walls, in the schools by developing in a practical way the variety of type, in order that the children may have such a training ground as will give them the best chance of rendering their little tribute of service to the nation as a whole.

10.0 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR

I must say that I do not quite understand why our side of the House has brought in this Amendment. I want to know if the President is going to adopt the finding of this Committee. I do not ask him to put it in at once, but I want to know if he is going to put it in. We have had two Committees set up lately to deal with juveniles—the Hadow and the Malcolm Committees—both of which have advocated the raising of the school age. That is a thing that some people interested in children feel desperately keen about. Those reports have shown, not only from the educational but also from the industrial and moral points of view, that that is absolutely necessary. The Mover of the Amendment said that we must make haste slowly. You cannot make haste slowly with children. Time goes on in the child's life, and, when you have passed it over, it is gone for ever. I do not like that language about making haste slowly. We have made haste slowly too long in this matter, and I want a definite lead to-night from the President.

The Seconder of the Resolution spoke of the wonderful speeches which the President made two years ago. I agree as to that, but since then he has come up against the stern and vilely Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has not got the vision of the President. I am afraid that the President may be a little too easily pressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not only for the good of his own soul but for the good of the children of the country. I am sorry to have to say this, but there have been so many circulars within the last year that, even if they were called in, they make many of us, who are desperately keen on education, very uneasy. The President knows, and we all know, that the Hadow Report is one of the most complete that has ever been published in the history of education in England. It is so complete that many of us, although we have tried to read and study it, have had to go through it two or three times to take it in. Even then, I could not take some of it in, as I have not had the advantage of a higher education.


Did you drop it altogether?

Viscountess ASTOR

I want to begin with it. We all know that the raising of the school age will take a long time, but we are going to do it. The right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Trevelyan) would have liked to have raised the school age when he was in office. It was not practicable at the moment, but it should be made practicable in five years time, and if we want it we must begin now. When we had this question of juvenile unemployment before us in 1919, we set up juvenile unemployment centres. Then the economy axe came along and cut them down from 150 to three—just the same type of mind that wants to economise on education now. But they found that was not practical, and they have had to open them again at great expense and with much less efficiency. The only practical thing for this Government, or any Government to do is to face up to this question of juvenile unemployment, and when they do that, they will find that they have the Report of two Committees in favour of raising the school age. I am interested in the raising of the school age, not only from the educational point of view, but also from the moral point of view. When I hear hon. Members say, "It is all right, put them into industry at 14," it must be remembered that they cannot easily get into industry at 14, and even if they do, they are turned out at the age of 16 and go on the unemployment list. The Malcolm Report has shown the quick way in which children deteriorate between 14 and 16 if they have no work.

But the real point is on the moral side, and that is what alarms me. Even if you cannot get complete education, and you will not, do let us try within the next five years to keep the children under supervision, as it were, and to keep some hold over them until we can put the whole of the Report into operation. I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) that 16 should be the compulsory school-leaving age. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not 21?"] I think that even 21 would be a splendid age, and I should like to see 21 for everyone's sons. But that is not the matter we are discussing now. The Mover of the Amendment said that we were getting on very well with the reduction in the size of classes, but we have still 20,000 classes with more than 50 children in each class under one teacher, and yet we are economising on higher education. We have economised to the extent of £70,000 in regard to higher education.


That is not the case.

Viscountess ASTOR

I am very glad to hear it. I do not blame the President of the Board of Education in regard to economy, but I blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is nobody more able than the Noble Lady, who works with the President of the Board of Education. I only wish she had the last say about. education. Some of us are really terrified. We have seen this economy tried before, and we have paid for it well when we have had to go to the country. You cannot economise on education, and no matter what the President of the Board of Education says, there is this feeling abroad. We arc up against the same class of mind that tried to economise in 1919. Unless I can get a reassurance that the Report will be adopted as soon as possible, and that the Government will go in for a policy of raising the school age in five years' time, much as I regret it, I shall have to vote with hon. Members on the other side of the House, and I think that would be a kindness to the Board of Education, because, if some of us do that, we shall show the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we are in desperate earnest about the education of the children of the country.


I think the first thing that the House will expect me to do will be to express my thanks to the Consultative Committee for its Report. It is a most valuable Report, and it is going to be of the utmost assistance to the Board and to local authorities. The second thing I think the House would wish me to do is to express my sympathy with the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) and the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson) in the position in which they have been put. I am sure that no one who has listened to them can have failed to see what has happened. The hon. Member for Wednesbury began his speech with a quarter of an hour of great fervour and evident sincerity, about the whole question of secondary schools properly so-called, about free places and the necessity for increased maintenance allowances and so on, and he ended up his speech with a peroration of the utmost sincerity on the same subject. But in between there was sandwiched a. rapid survey of this Report, of which he obviously knew so little and had never seen before, that he had to read every word very hurriedly, and then the hon. Gentleman the Member for Houghton-le-Spring made another speech, the same sort of speech that we have beard before and that we are always glad to hear from him in this House, on the problem of secondary education in Durham and the problem of pert-time education in Durham, expressly excluded from the Report, and we heard practically no word of the Report of the Committee itself. We all know what has happened. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury wanted to move a Motion on secondary schools. He had this Motion drawn up and foisted on him by the leaders of his party or by hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Member for Welling-borough (Mr. Cove), who are out for propaganda.


Thank you, that is cheap.


Get on with your business.


There was foisted on him a Motion which those hon. Gentlemen knew nothing about and cared nothing about; a subject which they had never got up and the consequence is that the House has been deprived of what would have been a very interesting Debate on a real Private Member's Motion on the real subject which interested private members.

The Motion calls upon the Government to take at once all the legislative and administrative action necessary to secure a system of post-primary education on the lines recommended by this Committee. Do the hon. Members who move that really mean what they say? The hon. Member for Wednesbury referred to a Motion in this House a year ago on the same general subject of secondary education. He said it was a more drastic Motion. Will he consult—and I appeal to him, as I can confidently appeal to him—the speech that I made on that occasion and the warning that I gave to hon. Members, not to lead people outside to believe that they said more than they really meant, and, having read my words, I would ask him to consider whether it would be honest of him to make any complaint with regard to my attitude on that occasion compared to my attitude to-night.

In the face of that warning, let us see what we are asked to pass. The hon. Member for Wednesbury asked us—blindly, I know—to pass a Motion whereby Wednesbury would be abolished as an independent local education authority. Does he mean that? Is that the policy of the party opposite? I call for a reply. It is not a question of what I have done, but what the Report says should be done. [Interruption.]


Order, order.


As those questions have not been answered, I will assume that lion, Members did not mean it. Take the question of central schools. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring has told us over and over again in this House that he is opposed to central schools, that he does not like central schools, and that he wants secondary schools or, as they are called in the Report, grammar schools. I gather that he is still of that opinion.


I am.


How can the hon. Member reconcile that with this Report?


Because it is a big step forward.


It is a big step forward to be taken by the methods which I have always advocated, which we on this side have always advocated, and which many hon. Members opposite have advocated—it is not a party question—namely, the establishment of central schools as distinguished from grammar schools, as distinguished from those higher "tops" in which the hon. Member's own educational authority indulges. Does he mean that I am to take administrative action. [Interruption.] Really, hon. Members must allow me to put my point. Does the hon. Member mean that he is now prepared to see central schools set up in Durham and in similar areas? I will tell him why I ask that question; it is because, up to now, one of the great difficulties we have had in our educational advance has been that in mining areas especially, the mining villagers say, "We will have nothing to do with your central schools; we want secondary schools,"


The Noble Lord has asked me for a reply. He knows as well as I do that central schools in a county area are an absolute impossibility. We have been driven to our higher "tops" because of the present system. I admit that it has done good. I do not decry the education that has been given, but I want something more, and the only thing for a county area is a primary school, with secondary education to follow.


The hon. Member is mistaken. There are any number of central schools in any number of counties, and they are being set up every day. It is not a fact that they are impracticable in a county. If he will excuse me for saying so, he has not studied this Report.


I have.


I am coming to the hon. Member. There are, of course, other questions. There is the question of a universal system of leaving examination. Is that the policy of hon. Members opposite? Have they considered the whole question of leaving examinations for all children from 14 and over? Do they desire that immediate administrative steps should be taken in that direction? Hon. Members opposite have no opinions on that subject, I fear, or on any subject mentioned in the Report. Naturally, they have not had an opportunity of making up their minds on these subjects. Let me refer to the words of this Report. This is a Report which proposes a general line of advance. It says that progress must be tentative and experimental. It proposes a line of advance in many directions. No one who reads the recommendations believes for one moment that all the recommendations are to be carried out at once. That is not the proposal of the Report. This Motion bears no relation whatever to the Report. It has been put down by hon. Members who really had not had time to study the Report. In the whole of this Debate hardly any part of the Report has been referred to. The only part that has been specifically mentioned has been the question of the raising of the school age. To that I am coming.

Before I do so, may I say to the hon. Member for Wednesbury, in regard to that portion of his speech in which he referred to matters in which he was really interested, that on those points I think we can satisfy him that very real advance is being made. He quoted a figure for the free places in secondary schools. That figure of 142,000 odd at any rate is an advance of 8,000 on the total of two years ago. We have made that progress. In a speech the other day I gave some figures, which perhaps the House will allow me to read, because I am not sure that they were published. The effect of our progress is this, that whereas in 1919 to 1920 one pupil in 23 of the appropriate age in our public elementary schools secured a free place, in 1930, with our present rate of progress, the figure will be one in 13. That indicates that we are making very substantial advance. So, with the remark of my Noble Friend the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) about the general policy of economy. I address myself to her and to the Mover and Seconder of the Motion and all hon. Members opposite who are really anxious about educational progress, and who want to tell the people of this country what is actually being done. If they look at the figures they will know that there is no question of this Government having placed economy first and having restricted the development of education.

I have given over and over again in public figures which, of course, are not usually quoted in the periodical Press which hon. Gentleman opposite are accustomed to read, but still are available in other papers. They will know from those figures what the facts really are. Take, for instance, a most important indication of the subject we are discussing—how fast we are getting on with the developing of the schools to take these children. Look at the figures of capital expenditure in the last three years. In 1924–25, during half of which right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office, the capital expenditure approved by the Board of Education was just over £4,500,000, and that was greatly above the year before. In 1925–26 it was £6,015,000. This year with six weeks of the year still to run, and in spite of the holding up of building and so on during our industrial troubles, it is already £4,825,000. These are expenditures before the three-year programme of the local education authorities has begun. You have in those programmes a greater rate of capital expenditure. You have provision in those programmes for 50,000 new secondary school places—a very considerable part in the provision of secondary education—and large and very important extensions in the accommodation in central schools, senior schools, and so on, dealing with the older children. You have in those programmes, I think I may say, provision for solving by 1930, generally speaking, the whole problem of defective school premises so far as provided schools are concerned.

There is no doubt about our programme and all the talk about these restrictions on expenditure which prevent development is really very far from the truth. That progress, of which there is no doubt, is quite a sufficient answer to any allegations about the Minister's policy of economy. I want to come to the question of the raising of the school age. We are all agreed that the great problem before us in education—our great task in education—is to increase school life and increase it as soon as possible. The deplorable thing at the present moment is that we have not been able hitherto to provide buildings for advanced instruction fast enough to meet the existing demand, the voluntary demand, of children to stay on beyond the age of 14. We are catching up with that demand. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) knows that perfectly well. Her authority at Plymouth wants to raise the age to 15 but the committee estimated that it would take eight years to deal with the whole of their elementary school problems in order to meet the needs of these children for advanced instruction. That is our problem, that is our task and that is our duty and on that, all the money which the country can spare should be concentrated. There are two things I will not do. I will not throw this question of the compulsory raising of the school age at the local authorities in such a way as would lead them to scrap the whole of the programmes which they have at present providing for these 50,000 new secondary school places. Do hon. Members think that an authority which has made up its mind to provide 500 new secondary school places by 1930 and which by 1930 or 1931 will be incurring the full expenditure consequent on that new provision, whatever it may be—


There is a great drop in the numbers attending the schools.


The secondary schools?


All schools.


No, there is not There is an increase in the number attending the secondary schools. The hon. Member for Wellingborough must have some sort of accuracy in his remarks. We have a net increase in the number attending the secondary schools in the country as a whole. Does anybody suppose that an authority which is willing to incur that expenditure to which I have referred will be encouraged to do so by being told, "In the very year when the full commitment accrues I am going to force you to look after 5,000 extra children between the ages of 14 and 15"? Of course, what the authorities would do would be to say: "If I am going to have to meet this, I will provide the additional elementary school accommodation and scrap the secondary school accommodation that I had planned." Having got your programmes up to this point, you must let the local authorities carry on with them, or you will never get any of the real work done. Any man on the other side who has had practical experience of administration will know that.

The second thing I will not do is this: I will not compel a lot of children to come into the schools before I have made proper provision for their education. Nothing has done more harm to education in the last five or six years, in the last 10 years, than the impression that parents got after the school age was raised to 14 plus that their children were marking time in the upper standards of the schools. It did more harm to education than anything else, and the worst harm you could do to education now would be to force parents to send their children to the schools for another year without having first made adequate preparation for their advanced education. This is not a new policy. It is the policy of the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan). I am really quoting from what he said in his Circular No. 1340, where he said: That issue (of the raising of the school age) involves on the one hand careful examination of the capacity of the schools.… to do justice to the older pupils, and of the time required to increase their capacity. On the other hand, special regard must be had to that element in public opinion which is represented by the views of the parents, and to the degree in which their willing co-operation can be obtained in rendering such an advance fruitful. He goes on to say: The problem of universally raising the school leaving age must be considered in its educational, social, and economic aspects, and in dealing with it the Board naturally look to the Local Education Authorities for information and advice. And he went on to say that the Board would be gratified if the authorities were able to encourage the Board to take a more optimistic view as to the practicability of advance.


What year was that?


This was 1924, the year in which the right hon. Gentleman laid down in the House of Commons a continuous policy for a decade, which I believe is ten years. Those were the right hon. Gentleman's opinions then, and I have no doubt they are his opinions now, that anything of this kind has to be done in consultation with the local autho- rities and taking into consideration the views of the parents and public opinion among the parents, and your capacity to meet the needs of the parents in your provision in the schools. My view is this, and I believe it is the view of the local authorities. We need to go ahead, and are going ahead, with the programmes. We need to go ahead in providing the necessary accommodation to deal with these four years from 11 to 15. We are doing that in the programmes, and when we have proceeded further with that, it will be time enough to decide whether we have reached the point where it is fair and just, having regard to the views of parents and to our provision for the children, to introduce compulsion.


May I ask, with the present development of policy, when the noble Lord expects that time will be reached when it will be practicable to say: "Five years hence compulsion will be introduced"?


I do not think it is possible to say at the present moment in each case when that time will be reached. Local authorities' programmes need to get very much further on than at the present moment before we can see our way to do that. My last word will be this. I have always said, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, that I believe that this country owes a great debt of gratitude to him for having swept away former paper restrictions. That was his great achievement. But, during the short time he was in office, he was naturally not able to agree with the local authorities generally on any scheme of advance. He often complained that he could not get local authorities to move. Since that time, largely by reason of the effiuxion of time, we have agreements with local authorities. We have got an organised programme. We have got each local authority with a definite programme. We must suit our expressions of opinion to that situation. Passing vague Motions of this kind, which are really not well considered, which every hon. Member opposite does not mean interpreted literally, when he does not know whether he wants to do this or that with these recommendations—passing vague Resolutions of this kind is enough to break the heart of any administrator who is trying to get on with his job. The meaning of this Amendment is that we intend trying to get on with our job, because we know the accomplishment of that job on the lines of that Report is an essential if we are ever going to get any increase of school life, and we prefer to get on with our job rather than pass vague Resolutions intending to say more than we really mean, and to mislead and to furnish subjects for propaganda, and not for progress.


Those of us who were here at the beginning of this Debate were, perhaps, a little puzzled at the attitude of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. He was specially anxious to tell us he was not hostile to our attitude. He kept on saying that he agreed with us, and that this Report contained the Prime Minister's election address, but he observed that we did not propose in the Resolution moved from this side of the House to consult the local education authorities, and that lie preferred our hastening slowly to what, I suppose, he regarded as our hastening quickly. But everyone who was listening to him, or who was listening to the Seconder, whose chief objection was that we wanted to do things at once, instead of not doing things steadily, as he quoted from the Report—everyone listening to that felt that there was practically no difference between those hon. Gentlemen and my hon. Friends who moved and seconded the Mo non, and anyone listening would have been rather puzzled to know why the Amendment should have been moved, and still more puzzled when the only other speech from the Conservative side was strongly in favour of the original Motion. The fact is, we all protest we arc in favour of this Report. Then why cannot we pass a Resolution saying we are in favour of it and that we wish the Government to put it into operation at once? I am afraid the author of the difficulty is the right hon. Gentleman. I was very anxious that my hon. Friends should, if possible, get agreement on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman has a very strongly developed faculty for disintegrating political co-operation. Here is a new Report. It has the very high authority of a large number of educationalists of all political complexions behind it. It is practically a unanimous Report. It is not a violent Report, but a cautious one. It is everything a progressive party and a conservative party can support. Why should not we pass a Resolution in favour of it?

The right hon. Gentleman loftily tells my friends they have not had time to make up their minds, that they have not read the Report. Of all queer censures I think that is the queerest—after the action of the right hon. Gentleman himself. The truth is this Amendment has been put down because the right hon. Gentleman, when this Report came out, at once put himself into such a position that he could not accept it. He at once wrote a letter in which he said that he had not had time to study the report but in which he announced that the Conservative Government would not raise the school age to 15. I should not have been surprised had the Conservative Government said they were going to take time to consider the matter, but that at any rate they were going to read the Report; but by saying straight out, "We are not going to do one of the things which this Report recommends" he put himself in a false position, and it became Parliamentarily necessary for one of those Amendments, with the origin of which we are all familiar, to be moved from the Back Benches. It is very unfortunate, too, that at this juncture this question of raising the school age cannot be discussed in a favourable atmosphere. This Report is a cautious report. It does not propose to raise the school age at once. The right hon. Gentleman apparently wanted to rope me in as his supporter against raising the school age because I had said in 1924 that it was not a thing which could be considered at once for the whole country, but that it was a thing we had to consider. The proposal which we have before us is not that we should raise the school age next year. The Committee's proposal is: It is desirable that legislation should be passed fixing the age of 15 years as that up to which attendance at school will become obligatory after the lapse of five years from the date of this Report— that is to say, at the beginning of the school year 1932. That is the proposal. That is what the country is asked to con- sider. It is not asked to raise the school age at once, but after giving the local authorities plenty of time to consider it and build new schools, and, plenty of time to make preparations for its coming into operation. I think that disposes entirely of the main obstacle which the right hon. Gentleman put forward that they would not have time to prepare for this great change.

Ought not the House and the country to be considering this question seriously at the present time. There is a, very strong growing opinion in favour of raising the school age. We all know the difficulties conected with it. We all know than there is a large Conservative opinion represented by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor), and she does not speak alone on this question, because there is a large Conservative opinion in favour of this proposal on the local education authorities of this country. Sir Percy Jackson, the Chairman of the County Councils' Association, is strongly in favour of it. The National Union of Teachers is also in favour of it, and public opinion is growing rapidly in that direction. Therefore I think it is a most unfortunate thing for the President of the Board of Education to take up a line directly contrary to the general trend of educational opinion.

But there is another reason which ought to be pressing upon our attention. At the present time we are going through a period of severe unemployment. There are 1,500,000 unemployed, and this state of things has existed for the last four years. During those four years we have put out into the labour market 500,000 children every year at 14 years of age. Do they not increase unemployment? It is perfectly true that a child coming into the labour market at 14 does not directly drive out the man who is unemployed at 40, but the child that gets work at 14 drives out some young people at the age of 16 or 18, and they in turn drive out the older adults. If we were to spend money during the next five years in preparing the schools and the teachers for this development, if we were to do what I and my friends are pressing more and more we ought to do, namely, to find maintenance grants on a liberal scale by the State to families who are keeping their children at school at 14 years of age; if we did all that and spent all the millions required for that purpose we should be saving some millions now spent in Poor Law Relief and unemployment benefit. The President of the Board of Education may think I am exaggerating, but I am prepared to say that the saving in poor relief and unemployment benefit—of course, I do not say it would amount to all that we might happen to spend—at the other end by getting those children into school would be very considerable. We should be making a great saving on poor relief and unemployment benefit—one of the least productive kinds of expenditure which this country bears and that we should be substituting for it, even if substituting a larger expenditure—an expenditure which would practically all be of real value to the country.


If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me for a moment, I did not wish to be discourteous. What was in my mind was this. Does he ever compare the entry into industry and the total relief to industry by keeping boys and girls in schools from 14 to 15 years with the amount of the normal retirements from industry at the age of, say, 60?


Of course, the thing cannot be clearly or accurately estimated. I have said so. Who pretends that it can. But does anybody pretend that if the 300,000 children who actually get work when they leave school at 14 did not go into the labour market, there would be as much unemployment as there is? As a matter of fact this change of raising the school age is educationally, economically and socially one of the biggest things which we can contemplate in the near future and there is no reason why we should not contemplate it except one thing, that it is going to cost money, and nobody denies that. I am bound to say I am afraid that is the motive of the right hon. Gentleman in his opposition to this proposal.

These proposals if carried out mean a considerable increase in the expenditure on secondary education. I agree that any advance of that sort which implies any large number of new secondary schools or indeed of any other schools seems to be incompatible with the present policy of the right hon. Gentleman, and it would, I agree, be difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to accept this proposal of ours at the very moment that he issues Circular 1388. It is too early to estimate the full effect of that Circular. We have not had time to study its likely effects, but it has a close relation to secondary education. It fixes the standard of increased secondary expenditure at £25 per pupil extra in the year 1927–28 over 1924–25, and as far as those of us who have studied that Circular can make out, it practically prevents the erection of new secondary schools in the near future.

I have got the figures from one county which I will give to the right hon. Gentleman and he can check them if he does not think they are correct. They come from the chairman of the responsible authority. They have taken out the figures in order to show what the effect on the secondary education budget will be, and they find that the increase, at £25 per place—the increase which they have arranged for this year, and which is actually taking place—the permitted increase will be 750 places at £25 per place, which would be £18,750 permitted to the local authority. They find, however, that, taking the actual number of fresh places which they are expecting to have this year, they would, under the right hon. Gentleman's new proposals, be £5,000 out of pocket. I have given him the figures, but the point is this: The right hon. Gentleman is pursuing a policy of economy, issuing circular after circular in which he is inculcating economy, showing new methods by which economy is to be required of the local authorities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and that policy is incompatible with the policy of the Hadow Report, because the Hadow Report implies an immediate and vigorous development of secondary and advanced education, and that is impossible without a change of the kind of policy pursued by the right hon. Gentleman now.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 128.

Division No. 8.] AYES. [10.59 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Rose, Frank H.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Groves, T. Scrymgeour, E.
Ammon, Charles George Grundy, T. W. Scurr. John
Astor, Viscountess Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Sexton James
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston Hardie, George D. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Baker, Walter Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hayday, Arthur Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Barnes, A. Hayes, John Henry Sitch, Charles H.
Batey, Joseph Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Bondfield, Margaret Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Smillie, Robert
Broad, F. A. Hirst, G. H. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Bromfield, William Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Smith, Rennie (Penisione)
Bromley, J. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Snell, Harry
Buchanan, G. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Stamford, T. W.
Charleton, H. C. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Stephen, Campbell
Clowes, S. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Cluse, W. S. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Sullivan, J.
Compton, Joseph Kelly, W. T. Sutton, J. E.
Cove, W. G. Kennedy, T. Taylor, R. A.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Lawrence, Susan Tinker, John Joseph
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) Lee, F. Townend, A. E.
Day, Colonel Harry Lindley, F. W. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Dennison, R. Lowth, T. Varley, Frank B.
Duncan, C. Lunn, William Viant, S. P.
Dunnico, H. March, S. Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Maxton, James Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Montague, Frederick Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondde)
England, Colonel A. Morris, R. H. Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Naylor, T. E. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Fenby, T. D, Palin, John Henry Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Forrest, W. Paling, W. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Gardner, J. P. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Windsor, Walter
Gibbins, Joseph Potts, John S. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Gillett, George M. Purcell, A. A.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Riley, Ben Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.
Greenall, T. Robinson. W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Fraser, Captain Ian Margesson, Captain D.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Mason, Lieut.-Cot. Glyn K.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'i) Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon B. M.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Glyn, Major R. G. C. Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Atholl, Duchess of Goff, Sir Park Nelson, Sir Frank
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Gower, Sir Robert Nuttall, Ellis
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Grant, Sir J. A. Penny, Frederick George
Bethel, A. Greene, W. P. Crawford Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Blundell, F. N. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Boothby, R. J. G. Gunston, Captain D. W. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Pilcher, G.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Raine, W.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Rawson, Sir Cooper
Briscoe, Richard George Harland, A. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hartington, Marquess of Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Hawke, John Anthony Ropner, Major L.
Campbell, E. T. Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Rye, F. G.
Carver, Major W. H. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Salmon, Major I.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Sandeman, A, Stewart
Clayton, G. C. Holt, Capt. H. P. Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) Sanderson, Sir Frank
Cohen, Major J. Brunel Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n) Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Hume, Sir G. H. Shepperson, E. W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Cope, Major William Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Jacob, A. E. Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert King, Captain Henry Douglas Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Storry-Deans, R.
Davies, Dr. Vernon Lamb, J. Q. Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Dawson, Sir Philip Little, Dr. E. Graham Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Edmondson, Major A. J. Lougher, L. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Elliot, Major Walter E. Lumley, L. R. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Everard, W. Lindsay Lynn, Sir R, J. Waddington, R.
Fielden, E. B. Macintyre, Ian Wallace, Captain D. E.
Ford, Sir P. J. Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. MacRobert, Alexander M. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles Wilson, sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Wells, S. R. Windsor Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. Wise, Sir Fredric Mr. Somerville and Mr. Cadogan.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) Womersley, W. J.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."


It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Forward to