Commons Sitting of 5 February 1929

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Leamington and Warwick Traction Bill.
Crowborough District Water Bill. Bills committed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (SUBSTITUTED BILLS).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
  London and North Eastern Railway (Air Transport, Scotland) Bill (Substituted Bill).
  Methodist Church Union (Scotland) Bill (Substituted Bill).
  London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Air Transport, Scotland) Bill (Substituted Bill).
  Gas Light and Coke Company Bill (by Order),
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  Chester Corporation Bill,
  Ordered,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Chester Corporation Bill to have regard to Section 56 of the Public Health Act, 1925, on its consideration of Clause 147 of the Bill."—[Sir Basil Peto.]
  Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899,
  The Chairman of Ways and Means reported, That, after conferring with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Bills, introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, should be first considered, they had determined that the following Bills should originate in the House of Lords, namely:—
  Galloway Water Power Bill (Substituted Bill).
  Grampian Electricity Supply Bill (Substituted Bill).
  West Highland Water Power Bill (Substituted Bill).
  Report to lie up the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY (HEALTH).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade with reference to the committee set up to consider the health of seamen, which members of the committee are, or represent, shipowners, shipbuilders, and officers and men of the merchant service, respectively?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The object of the Advisory Committee to which the hon. Member refers is to coordinate more closely the functions of the Board of Trade and Ministry of Health relating to the heath of the Mercantile Marine. Its membership is therefore confined to officers of the two Departments.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The officials of which two bodies?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Board of Trade and the Ministry of Health.

    PENSIONS AND SUPERANNUATION.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any progress has been

    1557
    made with the proposed pension and superannuation Scheme for the masters and officers of the Royal Mercantile Marine; what is the present state of the negotiations with the shipping companies and other interested bodies; and how many private pension and superannuation schemes for their officers have been established by British shipping companies?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Retired masters and officers of the Mercantile Marine may, in common with other seafarers, apply for pensions from the Seamen's Pension Fund set up under the National Insurance Acts, and they are also eligible for Old Age Pensions; but as the hon. and gallant Member was informed on 6th May, 1924, and 7th August, 1924, it is impossible for the State to contribute to a special pension scheme for any one industry unless it is prepared to contribute to similar schemes for all other industries. There are no negotiations on the subject in progress with shipping companies or other interested bodies. I regret I am not in a position to state how many private pension and superannuation schemes for officers are in existence.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this scheme could be put into force if a few recalcitrant private companies could be brought into line with the majority of the shipowners, and that that could be done without any Government subsidy whatever?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I am not aware of that. The answer that I have given to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, which I think is strictly accurate and fair, is the same answer as he received from my predecessor when his own party was in office.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nearly five years have passed since that answer was given? Why does he always fall back for security on his predecessors?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not always do so; I do so only when they were right.
    Sir BASIL PETO: Will my right hon. Friend make it quits clear that his
    1558
    answer has no reference to pension schemes for officers and men serving in the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think that that question arises. Any question dealing with conditions of service in the Royal Navy is entirely governed by Admiralty Regulations.
    Sir ROBERT THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is complete understanding on this matter between the shipowners and the Sailors' and Firemen's Union?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I could not give precise figures as to the number of schemes in operation, but I believe that there is a very considerable number of arrangements at present in operation in a large number of shipping companies.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in all matters concerning the Mercantile Marine, where the welfare of. sailors and firemen is concerned, there is the closest possible understanding and co-operation between the trade union and the shipowners?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The officers whom I have mentioned are not members of the Sailors' and Firemen's Union.
    Mr. STEPHEN: In the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Sailors and. Firemen's Union do exactly what the bosses tell them?
    Sir R. THOMAS: NO, They do not.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    SAFEGUABDING OF INDUSTRIES (STATISTICS).
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can estimate the value of safeguarded manufactured goods and non-safeguarded manufactured goods imported into this country and retained for domestic consumption for the calendar years 1925 and 1928, respectively; and whether he can state the value of exports of safeguarded manufactured goods and exports of non-safeguarded manufactured goods for the same two years?
    Mr. CRAWFORDasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the values of the imports, exports, and re-exports of the various classes of manufactured goods which are now subject on import to safeguarding or other duties during each of the years 1924 to 1928, inclusive?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: A statement is being prepared, and I will have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as it is ready.
    Mr. HANNON: For the information of the House may I ask whether the effect of the statement will not be to prove that the policy of His Majesty's Ministers, in reference to safeguarding, has been a complete success?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it would be improper for me to anticipate a Return which I haw not yet had prepared. If the hon. Gentleman founded his statement upon the Return of 1927, the answer would be in the affirmative.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Would it not be very much better in the Return to give the figures in cwts. and lbs. weight instead of in pounds, shillings and pence, so that we could get a correct estimate?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER; I am not sure. Speaking' from memory, I think that the very large Return which was printed before did deal, as far as possible, with- both volume and value: In any case, I would like notice of the hon. Member's specific question.
    Mr. THORNE: I put the question account of the values going up and down. It seems to me that it would be very much better to give the figures as I have suggested.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I quite agree. I have always said that it is very important to take into account the volume figures, Where it is possible, but of course there is a certain number of Returns Which include the official figures, and these are not stated in volume at all, and in that case' the only way in Which one can arrive at a comparative statement is to take the general trend of prices over a period.
    Mr. LEE: Will the Return's show the estimated or the actual value?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: All trade Returns are founded upon the actual value.
    Sir JOHN POWERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he would consider the possibility of supplementing the quarterly estimates of the volume of British trade in terms of the average prices of 1924 by means of estimates, showing separately the volume of exports and retained imports of manufactures which are safeguarded and non-safeguarded, respectively, in eluding in the former category goods subject to the McKenna Duties; the Silk Duties, as well as those subject to Safeguarding Duties?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have carefully considered the matter, and I regret that the information available is not sufficient to permit of detailed estimates being made as my hon. Friend suggests.

    PETROL PUMPS (REGULATIONS).
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any date has been fixed for the coming into force of the new Regulations respecting petrol measuring pumps under the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Act, 1926; and what reasons account for the delay in issuing the revised Regulartions?
    Sir P. CUNLIFPE-LISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary on 28th January to the hon. Member for Wandsworth Central (Sir H. Jackson), a copy of which I am sending him.

    GAS SUPPLIES (PIPE LINES).
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the President of the Board-of Trade whether he is aware that in Germany 53 of the leading coal and allied undertakings' have co-operated in a scheme to cover the country with arterial pipes for conveying gas over long distances for the use of industrial consumers; and whether the Government contemplate taking action to encourage and assist financially similar schemes in this country?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware that gas is conveyed by pipe lines over considerable distances in Germany, and that there are proposals for further extending the system there. On the

    1561
    recommendation of the National Fuel and Power Committee an investigation is now being made by a Committee, of which Sir Alexander Walker is the Chairman, into the possibilities of a similar system of gas distribution in particular areas of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Will that Committee report soon?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It has only just started its work, but I am sure that it will not delay. We want a complete investigation, and it is no good asking the Committee to hurry unduly.

    HIDES, SKINS AND BONES.
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to take steps to bring into operation the convention for the abolition of import and export prohibitions and restrictions of 8th November, 1927, and the two international agreements concerning the exportation of hides, skins, and bones of 11th July, 1928?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: His Majesty's Government have decided to ratify these instruments on behalf of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the instrument of ratification will be prepared and deposited at Geneva so soon as certain documents which are required for the purpose are received from the offices of the League of Nations. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that the effective entry into operation of both the Convention and the Agreements is dependent upon their ratification by a number of other States.

    BAIRD TELEVISION DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Baird Television Development Company, Limited, has not held any annual meeting or submitted any accounts and balance sheet since the company was floated in 1927, a period of more than 18 months; and if he is proposing to take any action to enforce the law against this company?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand from the chairman of the company that the meeting was deferred in view of
    1562
    negotiations with the General Post Office and British Broadcasting Corporation, which were in progress in the latter part of the year for the provision of facilities for an experimental broadcast of television, that arrangements have only just reached a stage at which progress can be reported to the shareholders, and that a general meeting is now being convened. In the circumstances, I do not think that any action on my part is required.

    EX-ENEMY PROPERTY.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total sum that has been paid or awarded to German nationals as compensation for dyeing and chemical interests held by them in this country at the outbreak of the Great War; whether any part of this sum has been paid or is to be paid by the Exchequer; and, if so, how much?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The question of the compensation awarded or paid by the German Government to German nationals is one for the German Government, and His Majesty's Government have no information on the matter. The amounts realised from the sale of all property, rights and interests in this country of German nationals are credited to Germany in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, but no cash payment is made by the Exchequer.

    ENGLISH CHANNEL (PASSENGERS).
    Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give an estimate of the number of passengers who cross the English Channel annually; and what proportion of these passengers are British and what proportion are foreigners?
    Sir J. POWERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of British and alien passengers who travelled from British ports to French ports and vice versa during 1928, or during the latest year for which the figures are available?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the reply is somewhat long, I propose, with the permission of my hon. Friends, to-circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir A. KNOX: Can my right hon. Friend give the approximate number of visitors who go to France every year?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I could not do that. If the House wished it, I could read the whole answer, but it is a long one, and I think it would be much more intelligible if the House saw it in print.
    Following is the reply:
    The following figures show the numbers of passengers between the ports of Dover, Folkestone, Newhaven and Southampton and ports on the French coast, in 1927 and 1928, as compiled from the returns furnished to the Board of Trade by the masters of the ships which carried the passengers.

    —

    Passengers from English Channel Ports to French Channel Ports.

    Passengers from French Channel ports to English Channel Ports.

    1927

    707,312

    738,188

    1928

    742,671

    759,062

    The returns do not distinguish British passengers from those of other nationalities. The number of passengers of all nationalities from the above-mentioned British ports to all ports on the Continent of Europe was 886,626 in 1927, and the statistics respecting alien passengers, which are prepared by the Home Office, show that in that year 204,119 aliens left those ports for ports on the Continent of Europe. The corresponding particulars of passengers from Continental ports in 1927 are 926,704 of all nationalities and 218,517 aliens. Corresponding figures for alien passengers in 1928 are not yet available.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    TRANSPORT VEHICLES (SUBSIDY).
    Major GLYNasked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been reached in regard to the payment of an annual subsidy for suitable passenger road vehicles of approved design which may be of use with the troops on mobilisation; and whether any inducement is being made to road transport undertakings to order vehicles that will conform to War Office requirements?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington Evans): It is not at present considered necessary to offer any subsidy for this class of vehicle.
    Major GLYN: Does that mean that no passenger vehicles will be entitled to this subsidy?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is not necessary to give them a subsidy.
    Major GLYNasked the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office have made any census of goods road vehicles of design suitable for War Office purposes; and what number of such vehicles are now entitled to an annual subsidy; and whether, in view of the large annual increase of these vehicles, the War Office have considered altering the previous regulations on this matter so as to rely only on the most up-to-date vehicles, whilst assuring the owners that the examination and periodical inspection will not unduly interfere with he normal work these vehicles are called on to perform?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Information is being obtained of the number of mechanical transport goods vehicles in the country of a kind suitable for Army requirements. As regards the seaond part of the question, the number of vehicles which may be subsidised under the present scheme is limited to 1,000, and that number is at present enrolled. As regards the last part, the regulations which are constantly under review, are framed to secure the objects to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Secretary of State for War the number of new motor transport vehicles which qualified for the Government subsidy last year; the average amount of subsidy paid per vehicle; and the total cost to the Exchequer of this regulation from the commencement of its operation?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: 484 vehicles were subsidised during the year 1928 in replacement of a similar number which had ceased to be eligible. The subsidy is £40 a year in each case, and the total payments made since the beginning of the scheme in January, 1924, until the end of January, 1929, have amounted to approximately £147,000.

    THEATRICAL PERFORMANCES.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Secretary of State for War if permission has been given for men serving in His Majesty's forces to take part in plays at present being performed in London; if so, what is the number of men so appearing; and what are the terms on which they are engaged?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have no information.
    Mr. BRIANT: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiry; and is it a fact that permits are given on these occasions to soldiers to take part in plays on the stage? The right hon. Gentleman is sure to know that.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No permits are given and no permits are necessary, so long as the appearances on the stage do not interfere with military duties.

    CHILWELL DEPOT.
    Sir JAMES GRANTasked the Secretary of State for War whether, if the site of Chilwell is not to be used for departmental purposes, he will at once consider the desirability of allowing business people to acquire spaces for private enterprise at that centre?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is not yet settled whether Chilwell dep6t shall be retained for departmental purposes, but every effort will be made to expedite a decision in the matter.
    Sir J. GRANT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if a decision will be come to within a week's time?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am afraid I cannot say that a decision will be come to within a week's time. It is an extremely complicated matter, involving a great deal of expense and I am not yet in a position to say when a decision will be made.

    TERRITORIAL ARMY (REORGANISATION).
    Mr. COUPERasked the Secretary of State for War whether the reorganisation of Territorial Army infantry into three rifle companies and one machine-gun company will involve reduction of establishment, and, if so, to what extent; and whether the mechanisation of Terri torial artillery will involve reduced establishment and, if so, to what extent?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, Sir. In the former case the reductions in establishment will amount to approximately 50 men a battalion, and in the latter to approximately 2,200 in all.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: What does the right hon. Gentleman estimate will be the saving through this reorganisation; and is he going to start reductions in the establishment of units not fully complete or other units?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As regards the first part of the question, it is very difficult to give an answer. The process of mechanisation is, in itself, expensive, and I doubt whether there will be any net saving. As regards the latter part of the question, reduction in numbers will come from wastage. There will not be any reduction in existing numbers—that is to say, no one will be dismissed—but there will not be any replacements.

  SCOTLAND.

    SHARE FISHERMEN.
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, having regard to the fact that share fishermen are in a substantially different position from ordinary employed persons, he can see his way to include among the exemptions allowed in paragraph 2 of the Share Fishermen Order, 1928, share fishermen over 65 years of age?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The matter referred to in the question is being sympathetiacally considered, with a view to seeing what action, if any, can be taken to meet the position.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: When will consideration be given to this matter? If I put down a question on Tuesday next, may I expect an answer?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not quite certain, but I will see if an answer can be given then.

    LAND PURCHASE, KENNISHEAD.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department have approved of the purchase of ground situated at Kennishead by the Glasgow Corporation; if so, what was the price paid: if not, have any negotiations

    1567
    taken place and what is the reason for the delay in settlement?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is that the purchase referred to has not been approved. As regard the last part, I am informed that negotiations hare taken place and are delayed meantime owing to the illness of one of the superior's agents.

    INFLUENZA, GLASGOW.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the present epidemic of influenza in Glasgow and the increase of the death-rate arising from it; if his Department had made special investigation into the cause; and, if so, what is the result?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As regards the first part of the question, I am aware that these is at present an epidemic of influenza in Glasgow, and a regrettably high general death-rate. There is an exceptionally high incidence of acute pneumonia, both primary and influenzal. As regards the second part, the Department of Health are in continuous touch with the Public Health Department of Glasgow and are aware of the extent and efficacy of the measures taken in cooperation with the Poor Law and voluntary hospitals to provide hospital treatment and nursing and medical care in the home. Notwithstanding the notification of nearly 1,200 new cases of pneumonia in the week ended the 31st January, the waiting list has been cleared and the epidemic, it is believed, has passed the peak. As regards the last part, research into the causation of influenza, into its spread in epidemic form, into its pathology and into its remedy is being continuously pursued by workers in this and in other countries, and in this connection the present outbreak is being watched and studied. I am of opinion that it is from research of this kind that the most useful results are to be expected.

    HOUSING, GLASGOW.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons at present residing in slum clearance houses built since 1819 in Glasgow by local and Government aid; and the total number of tenants who have been evicted in the same time for arrears of rent?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: On the basis of 4½ as the average number of occupants per house, the number of persons at present residing in houses built since 1919 in Glasgow under assisted slum clearance schemes is 14,650. The total number of tenants who have been evicted in the same time from these houses for arrears of rent is 82.

    SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, GLASGOW.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he received the new building programme for schools by the Glasgow Education Authority last year and the date of reply by the Education Department sanctioning the scheme; whether he is aware that the long delay has considerably affected the efficiency of education in Glasgow and entailed considerable loss to the authority; and the reason for the delay and what steps he intends to take to compensate the authority for the additional expense entailed by the delay?
    Sir J GILMOUR: The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension. I am not aware that there has been any delay in dealing with the plans for school buildings which have been submitted to the Department by the Glasgow Education Authority during 1928. The only statement in the nature of a general building scheme that was received in that year reached the Department on 4th September. No question of sanction was involved, but a reply was sent on the same day. The answer to the second part of the question is, therefore, in the negative, and the third part would not, in any case, arise.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Did the right hon. Gentleman's Department not receive a programme of building in February of last year and reply to it in the following June?
    Sir J. GlLMOUR: If the hon. Member refers to the scheme of building in February, 1927, it is true that a final answer was not given for some time, but during all that period constant negotiations were taking place between the Department and the authorities.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the overcrowding in Glasgow schools, and particularly in some of the schools recently transferred;

    1569
    and will he take steps to see that proper buildings are provided for the children when there are so many builders out of work?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer the hon. Member to a number of questions which have already been answered on this subject. Great expedition is being made, and very shortly there will be no overcrowding at any time.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the fact of a programme being sent on in February, and only sanctioned in June, shows that an unnecessarily long time is taken by his Department; and will he in future see that the negotiations are carried through more expeditiously?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot admit in any way that any buildings were held up during that period.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that some classes from Mount Florida School, Glasgow, are meeting in the hall of Mount Florida United Free Church; that this hall is below the ground level and that artificial light is necessary all day; when new accommodation will be provided by the Glasgow education authority; and whether more suitable temporary premises could be procured in the meantime?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. One of the four rooms involved is in the basement and in the present weather conditions artificial lighting is necessary. The accommodation is the best available in the district and the arrangement is purely a temporary expedient. Plans for a temporary school to relieve the situation are ready and will, it is anticipated, be received in the Department in a few days.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is one of the cases which was delayed because of the long time taken by his Department to deal with the building programme?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Well, it is.

    MATEBNITY BENEFIT.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that many poor people are being refused maternity benefit on the ground that they failed to complete and sign a form of declaration of unemployment stated to be supplied by their approved society; and whether he will take steps to have notices prominently posted in post offices and Employment Exchanges of the date when those forms are to be returned, or whether he will arrange that the forms be sent by registered letter so that the rights of members may be fully safeguarded?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: A limited number of cases have come to my notice where insured persons have lost their title to maternity benefit because of arrears of contributions due to unemployment, and it is possible that in these eases a credit of contributions sufficient to entitle the insured persons to maternity benefit might have been granted, if the form of declaration referred to had been completed and timeously returned to the societies concerned. As regards the second part of the question, it is hoped that arrangements which have been in operation since the commencement of the present contribution year for the franking of health insurance cards by Employment Exchanges during periods of genuine unemployment will in future simplify the procedure in connection with the credit of free contributions to unemployed persons. In these circumstances I am of opinion that it is not necessary to take the steps suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Am I to understand that there will be no such cases in future in regard to poor people, and that the Exchanges will be responsible in this matter?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I think it is clear that the cards will obviate the necessity of signing these forms.
    Mr. STEPHEN: If the society gets from the applicant for maternity benefit in these cases a notification from the Exchange in regard to unemployment, will the claim for benefit be paid?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The individual, I understand, will have to produce his card which will be stamped by the unemployment insurance official.
    Mr. STEPHEN: With regard to past cases, if the applicant can give to his approved society a notification from the Employment Exchange regarding his unemployment, will his application be considered?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir, I think these schemes must only apply to those cases which have arisen since the scheme has come into operation.
    Mr. STEPHEN: But does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that there are a great many poor people suffering because of this arrangement that has been made and of which they did not know: and will he not do something to provide for them?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not think it is accurate to say that they did not know of the arrangements. That they were not fully carried out is certainly true.

    MURDER CHARGE, DUMFRIES (CROWN WITNESS).
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been drawn to the refusal of the prison doctor who was called as a witness for the Crown in the murder charge at Dumfries on the 20th December last to give a precognition to the defence until the day of the trial; and whether steps have been taken to ensure that any Crown servant called as a witness for the Crown will in future, if called upon to do so, provide the defence with a statement of the evidence which he intends to give at the trial?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The medical officer appears to have been under a misapprehension as to the meaning and effect of certain of the prison rules. I am not satisfied that these rules are expressed in terms sufficiently clear, and I am taking steps to secure that the causes of the misunderstanding which has arisen in this case may be removed in the future.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it quite clear that no regulations in future will be allowed to hamper a person accused of murder in obtaining information which is relevant to the charge, and may be essential to his defence?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am dealing with the question of this particular case, and, in so far as future cases dealing with prison regulations are concerned, as I have informed the hon. and gallant
    1572
    Member, I propose to make it clear that there will be no further difficulty in this matter.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    BAANDONED MINES (REVISED CATALOGUE).
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Secretary for Mines by what date does he expect to secure the publication of the proposed further volumes of the revised catalogue of mines; and will he under take to place a copy or copies of each volume, as published, in the Library of the House?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly). I gladly accept the suggestion that a copy of each volume, when published, he placed in the Library.
    Mr. JONES: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say why it is that no indication is given of the extent of mineral areas that have been abandoned, and is he aware that the lists now published are of very little value?
    Commodore KING: I do not think that is the general opinion.
    Mr. JONES: But it is the view of those who have had access to Volume 1.

    BOYS UNDER 16 (ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. GEORGE HIRSTasked the Secretary for Mines how many boys of 16 years of age and under are employed in the mines of Great Britain?
    Commodore KING: Persons employed are only classified to show boys under 16 years of age. In December, 1927, the latest date for which definite information is available, the total number of boys under 16 years of age employed above and below ground at mines under the Coal Mines Act was 42,100. Assuming that boys of this age form the same proportion now as then of the total number of persons employed, the number of such boys would be 39,300 at the present time.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Are the Government considering legislation so that these boys will remain in school until 16?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this question.
    Mr. G. HIRSTasked the Secretary for Mines how many fatal and nonfatal accidents have occurred to boys of 16 years of age and under in the mines of Great Britain in 1927 and 1928, respectively?
    Commodore KING: The accident figures in my reply relate to boys under 16 years of age. The number of such boys killed during the year 1927 was 37, the number seriously injured 264 and the number less seriously injured 7,349.
    In 1928 the number killed was 36 and the number seriously injured 268; the number less seriously injured is not yet available.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman had brought to his notice the alarming increase of fatalities in collieries, whose owners employ boys to do men's work, and does that not explain the increase?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this question.
    Mr. JONES: On that Ruling, I wish respectfully to point out that this question involves a very serious position, and that we, as miners' Members, are aware that there is a deliberate policy on the part of the owners to do this.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We must confine ourselves to the actual subject matter of the question on the Paper.
    Mr. G. HIRSTasked the Secretary for Mines if there is any other country where boys under 16 years of age are not allowed to work in the mines; and, if so, what countries are they?
    Commodore KING: I am informed that in some parts of the Dominion of Canada, of Germany, and of Czechoslovakia, boys under 16 years of age are not allowed to work underground, but I regret that I have no definite information.
    Mr. SHINWELL: If it be good enough for foreign countries, why is it not good enough for this country?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we not able to follow the example of our great Dominion of Canada in this matter?
    Commodore KING: It is only in some parts. There is no general rule.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then could we not follow the example of those parts?
    Mr. HARDIE: Can the Secretary for Mines give us the reasons for not employing boys in those countries?
    Commodore KING: I could not give them.
    Mr. HARDIE: Will the hon. and gallant Member take the trouble to find out why, in the cases he has mentioned?

    PRICES.
    Brigadier-General BROOKEasked the Secretary for Mines the average pithead price of coal and the average selling price in Great Britain in 1910, 1911, 1912, J913, and 1921 onwards?
    Commodore KING: I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of the average pithead price of coal. The second part of his question, I assume, refers to the average price paid for coal by consumers and, if so, I regret that this information is not available.
    Following are the particulars:
    Average net selling value per ton of coal raised in Great Britain in 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913 and 1921 onwards.

    Year.

    Per

    ton.

    1910

    8

    2

    1911

    8

    2

    1912

    9

    1

    1913

    10

    2

    1921

    26

    2

    1922

    17

    8

    1923

    18

    10

    1924

    18

    10

    1925

    16

    4

    1926

    19

    7

    1927

    14

    7

    1928 (estimated)

    12

    10

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. GRUNDYasked the Secretary for Mines how many pits, and the number employed, are working under the Eight Hours Act; the earliest time for descending and latest for ascending, and the average time of the workpeople underground; how many pits, and the number

    1575
    employed, are working under a seven-and-a-half hours' arrangement; the earliest time for descending and the latest for ascending, and the average time of the workers underground; the percentage of fatal and non-fatal accidents in the pits under the Eight Hours Act; the percentage of fatal and non-fatal accidents in the pits working under the seven-and-a-half hours' arrangements; and the fatal and non-fatal accidents in both cases to the latest available date?

    Accidents at Mines under the Coal Mines Act during the year 1928†

    Rate per 1,000 persons employed.

    District.

    Normal daily hours of work below-ground.*

    Average daily numberof hours spent below ground.*

    Number of pits producing coal (26.1.29.)

    Number of wage-earners emploved below and above-ground (26.1.2a).

    Number of persons killed.

    Number of persons seriously injured.

    Persons killed.

    Persons seriously injured.

    hrs.

    mins.

    Northumberland and Durham.

    Hewers 7½

    7

    55

    316

    176,200

    160

    747

    ·91

    4·23

    Others 8

    8

    25

    Yorkshire, Nottingham, North Derby and Kent

    7½

    8

    0

    413

    272,300

    270

    1,055

    ·94

    3·65

    Restof Great Britain

    8

    8

    30

    1,337

    458,500

    654

    2,283

    1·12

    4·61

    Great Britain

    —

    —

    2,066

    907,000

    984

    4,085

    1·02

    4·26

    * In certain districts it is customary to work a shorter shift on Saturdays.

    † Provisional figures.

    No information i- available as to the earliest time of descending and the latest for ascending. Information is not yet available of the number of persons less seriously injured.

    ROYALTIES.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Secretary for Mines the increase in mining royalties in the North Staffordshire area in 1927 and 1928, respectively; and whether he can explain the cause of the increase?
    Commodore KING: I have no separate figures for North Staffordshire before 1927. In 1928 the average cost of royalties showed an increase of 0. 16d. per ton disposable commercially, as compared with the previous year. I have no special information as to the reason for the increase, but output was lower in 1928 and it is possible that minimum or certain rents may have affected the figures.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Do we understand that as the output diminishes the amount of royalty charged increases?
    Commodore KING: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a tabular statement giving such information as is available.
    Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman also state the number of accidents per hour worked underground?
    Commodore KING: I could not give them in this statement, as it is already prepared.
    Following is the information:
    Commodore KING: No. If there is less coal raised, it is obvious that, if there is a fixed rent in addition to the rate per ton, it would be slightly increased.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Does not the answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave me relate to the average amount of royalty charged per ton of coal raised?
    Commodore KING: If the hon. Member will read my reply, he will see that I say that the output was smaller in 1928, and it is possible that minimum or certain rents may have affected the figures.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman not give me a reply to a question last week on the amount of increase or decrease in royalties charged in this country, and did not that relate to the average amount per ton raised?
    Commodore KING: Certainly. The hon. Member asked me a question, and I told him that in some districts, in most districts, the actual royalty rent had gone down.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that where the royalty rent is fixed, just as the production of the mine falls, the royalty per ton increases?
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Secretary for Mines whether in view of the facts that the estimated trading loss on British coal last year was Is. per ton, that miners' wages are far too low, while some 250,000 moners are unemployed, that the lowering of royalties by a penny per ton has enabled pits to reopen, His Majesty's Government proposes to inquire into the question of royalties which at present are 6d. per ton?
    Commodore KING: No, Sir; the question of royalties was inquired into by the Royal Commission of 1925, and by other Commissions before them, and I do not think that any further inquiry could be expected to disclose anything which is not already known.
    Mr. WELLOCK: Ought not something to be done, seeing that the wages have come down? Surely the royalty owners should not be left untouched.
    Mr. PETO: Is it not a fact that the average gain by de-rating under the Local Government Bill will exceed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

    BUNKER COAL SUPPLIES.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that in the last week many ships were seriously delayed for lack of coal, and that many steamers have been waiting their turns for coal in the Tyne and elsewhere; and whether, in view of the cost involved in keeping these vessels idle and in view of the unemployment in the mining industry, he can explain this state of affairs?
    Brigadier-General BROOKEasked the Secretary for Mines the number of steamers at present held up at British ports owing to a scarcity of bunker coal and the names of the ports affected?
    Commodore KING: I will answer these two questions together.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether these questions do not refer to different matters?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is for the Minister to decide.
    Commodore KING: Though there were some delays last week for bunker coal, the position in this respect is now easier and I am unable to find any serious cases of delay at the present time. There is, however, a shortage of coal for export which is causing delays to ships mainly on the North-East Coast and in South Wales due to the considerable increase in demand. If this increased demand continues I have no doubt that by the opening up of pits now closed and additional districts in collieries already working, the demand will be met. The weekly output is already about half a million tons above the weekly output in October.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the Secretary for Mines taking any steps in the direction of getting pits opened for the purpose of supplying the demand?
    Commodore KING: No, it is perfectly-obvious that if this demand continues, the owners will need no pressure to open pits.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a definite statement in the northern Press that they are not going to open the pits, and is he quite sure that the real trouble is there?
    Mr. AUSTIN H0PKINS0N: Is it not the case that the shortage of bunkers is almost entirely on the Humber, and is the direct result of the artificial restriction of production known as rationalisation, which was recommended by the Samuel Commission?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is the increase of 500,000 tons output since October due to export or to ordinary seas anal demand?
    Commodore KING: It is clearly impossible for me to dissect, all the movements of the market. It is very encouraging to know that there is. this great increase. With regard to the question put by my hon. Friend, the shortage of bunkers is not marked anywhere, and the shortage of cargoes is more to be noted on the North-East Coast and in South Wales than on the Humber.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it the case that in South Wales several mines which are trying to open need 2,000 colliers and cannot get them?
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it in order for an hon. Member to make insinuations with regard to the miners of South Wales in that way? It is absolutely untrue.
    Mr. HARDIE: I desire to put a question.
    HON. MEMBERS: Sit down!
    Mr. JONES: Do not tell a lot of fibs! [Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: A point of Order was raised, to which I will give a reply. It is certainly not in order for any insinuation to be made, either now or at any time, and I hope that hon. Members will not do so.
    HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: He has got to withdraw.
    Several HON. MEMBERS rose—
    Mr. KIRKW00D: If you are going to deliver a lecture, Mr. Speaker, deliver it to the other side, and not to this side.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    Mr. WESTW00D: Does the hon. and gallant Member know that he has not only insulted the miners, but insulted the Heir to the Throne by his insinuations?
    HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
    Mr. KIRKW00D: We are going to have a withdrawal. Is he going to withdraw?
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Might I say that it was in all yesterday's newspapers.
    Mr. KIRKW00D: Tell us the paper it was in. You are making bad worse. Withdraw! [Interruption.] The House is not going to allow it, and we are not going to allow our people—
    HON. MEMBERS: Name!
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member knows quite well that that is not the way to behave in this House. He only makes matters worse, and more difficult for me. I hope that he will understand that, and not continue these interruptions.
    Mr. SHINWELL: May I put a question?
    Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman made a statement, and, in endeavouring to verify it, stated that it had been in all the newspapers yesterday. I should like to put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that, when a statement has been made conveying not merely an insinuation, but an accusation, and an attempt is made to verify it by referring hon. Members to newspapers, it is not the proper manner of putting facts before us. I would like to ask whether it is not the case that, where a statement cannot be verified, the hon. Member who has made it has usually shown his gentlemanliness by withdrawing the statement, or promising to bring proof later before the House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have often warned hon. Members against placing too much reliance upon statements in newspapers.
    HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who made that remark did not mean an insult to anybody.
    Mr. SHINWELL: May I put a question?
    Mr. LAWSON rose—
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I was simply quoting yesterday's papers.
    Mr. G. HALL: It was an aspersion on the miners.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: May I put a point? I know the position very well, and I was there on Sunday morning, and that statement is untrue.
    HON. MEMBERS: Is that a point of order?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I want to put a question to you, Sir.
    HON. MEMBERS: Sit down!
    Mr. KIRKW00D: Your dignity is at stake, Mr. Speaker. If you do not make the hon. and gallant Member withdraw, you will not make me withdraw.
    HON. MEMBERS: Name!
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: We will defy you! You have insulted the Heir to the Throne.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: A man who has never worked down a mine in his life to insult thousands of men!
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have already said that I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member did not mean to insult anybody.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: We are far too generous with him.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I might tell hon. Members opposite that I had no intention whatever of insulting anyone. I simply quoted a statement which I read in the papers yesterday.
    Mr. CLYNES: May I submit to you, Sir, that, apart from the intention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he used words, relying solely upon certain things that appeared in the newspapers, implying an intention on the part of the miners deliberately to refrain—[Interruption]—from accepting work when work is offered to them. May I suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this is an offensive and wholly undeserved observation, and, in view of the feeling which he has provoked by it, I think he might very well withdraw.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to have said that he had no intention of saying anything that might give offence.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, he has not.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): On a point of Order. Is it not quite a usual practice for hon. Members to make statements in this House, relying on such evidence as has been brought before them, which statements are corrected from time to time by the feeling of the House and by the general information which is afterwards provided? Since when has it become a matter of making it a grievance between parties that a statement about which two opinions exist may not be made. [Interruption.]
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Mussolini!
    Mr. LAWSON: The hon. and gallant Member gave expression to statements which have been quietly propagated in certain circles, and the right hon. Gentleman, from the Front Bench, has justified the hon. and gallant Member behind him. Can the right hon. Gentleman wonder at
    1582
    the feeling prevailing on this side of the House in view of the disgraceful state of things which is prevailing among the miners throughout the country? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech I"] May I not ask you, Sir, if, in view of the suffering prevailing among the miners, it is not decent to ask the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Gentleman to withdraw the statements that they have made?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has already said that he had no intention of insulting anybody.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Am I not entitled to ask a question, which is all I did, on a statement which I read in the "Times" yesterday?
    Mr. SHINWELL: May I put my point of Order?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think an hon. Member is entitled to ask a question of that kind. The hon. and gallant Member said that he had no intention of insulting anybody.
    HON. MEMBERS: But he did.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I have been on my feet a dozen times to put a point of Order. The point of Order I have been trying to put is this: Is it not possible for the hon. and gallant Member who represents the Mines Department to say, from the facts at his disposal, that there is no truth whatever in the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: On that point of Order—
    Mr. SHINWELL: Allow the Speaker to reply! You sit down!
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Control the Chancellor of the Exchequer at once, Mr. Speaker. You cannot dictate to us now.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is within his rights in asking a further question on that point of Order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Further to that point of Order! Would not the best solution of this difficulty be for a question to be put on the Paper and for an answer to be given—
    HON. MEMBERS: Settle it at once.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Now's the day and now's the hour."
    Mr. SHINWELL: Cannot you trust the Secretary for Mines? Must he consult you about it?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: You are not going to dictate to us.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Would it not be very much better for the question to be placed on the Paper and for the Secretary for Mines, or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, to give a considered answer at the end of Question Time to-morrow?
    Mr. CLYNES: In the event of such a question being put on the Paper, may we have some assurance that the Secretary for Mines will approach every side of this question before supplying the answer?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: On behalf of the Government, I gladly give the assurance that a most careful and sincere answer shall be given upon this important issue to-morrow afternoon, if Mr. Speaker can permit it in accordance with the Rules of the House.
    Mr. SHINWELL: May I put a further question? May I ask whether it is not possible for the Secretary for Mines to say from the facts presently at his disposal whether there is any truth in the contention of the hon. and gallant Member? He knows the position.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Hall.

    SOUTH WALES (ROYALTIES).
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that the amount of royalties charged per ton of coal disposed commercially in South Wales is almost 4d. per ton higher than the amount charged in some of the English coalfields, and an average of 2d. per ton over the amount charged over all the coalfields of the country; and, as these charges place the South Wales coal as a disadvantage in competing with coal produced in the other coalfields, will the Government take steps to bring about a reduction in the amount of these charges?
    Commodore KING: I am aware of the figures to which the hon. Member refers, but they are essentially a matter of private bargaining, and I have no power to vary them.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that question 38 has not
    1584
    yet been answered by the Secretary for Mines, and it is of great importance to shipping interests?
    Commodore KING: I answered that question.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With great respect, the question has not been answered, and it is of great importance.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question was answered together with another question earlier on.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No figures at all have been given.

  TRANSPORT.

    THAMES (PASSENGER BOAT SERVICE).
    Sir DOUGLAS NEWTONasked the Minister of Transport whether, with a view to relieving the. congestion of the roads and railways through the Metro polis, he will take steps to encourage the provision of a passenger boat service on the Thames?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): While I should generally welcome the extension of passenger boat services on the Thames, I do not consider that I could assist the promotion of schemes for this purpose or that they would materially affect congestion of traffic in the Metropolis.
    Mr. PETO: Is it not a fact that the Thames steamboat service was destroyed under municipal ownership?
    Mr. MARCH: No, it was destroyed before they had it.

    MOTORWAYS.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to a proposal to make a special London-to-Brighton motorway; and whether he can supply any information as to the use of special motorways in other countries?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware of the proposal for the construction of a motor way between London and Brighton. While I have some particulars of certain motorways abroad, I doubt whether the circumstances are sufficiently analogous to enable any useful deductions to be drawn from these few examples.
    Mr. BROAD: Will the Minister of Transport and the Government consider the advisability of giving a monopoly of all the roadways of the country to Lord Ashfield and his friends?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I think we ought to get an answer to that supplementary question. It is a most intelligent supplementary question.

    SLIPPERY ROADS.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Transport whether he has taken or contemplates any action in connection with the question of slippery roads in the interest both of motor traffic and of horses?
    Colonel ASHLEY: So long ago as June, 1925, a letter was issued from my Department to all county surveyors on the subject of slippery roads, recommending appropriate remedial measures. More recently, with the assistance of the County Surveyors' Society, the Asphalt Roads Association and other technical bodies, specifications for various types of road construction have been drawn up, embodying what my officers consider to be the most approved methods that can be adopted in order to combine sound construction with adequate foothold. These specifications have now been published by the British Engineering Standards Association, and I am proposing to issue a circular to all local authorities drawing their attention to the need for the general application of these improved methods. At the same time, I am circulating recommendations as to the best means to be adopted for the treatment of existing road surfaces.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Cannot the interests of pedestrians as well as motorists be considered?
    Colonel ASHLEY: We are doing what we can to provide footpaths.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Has the Minister also considered including in his recommendations in regard to horse traffic the use of pads on the hoofs of horses?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir; these are the recommendations resulting from a very comprehensive conference, and I do not think I can go outside them.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising out of that statement with regard to slippery roads,
    1586
    I would like to ask the Minister of Transport if it has ever dawned on him to deal with slippery Chancellors of the Exchequer?
    Sir B. PETOasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the action brought by Major Coldwell against the Somerset County Council and the Chard Rural District Council for damages for injuries sustained by Mrs. Coldwell owing to her horse falling on the slippery surface of the road; and whether, in view of the fact that the jury could not agree and no decision was arrived at and no judgment could be given, and the frequency of accidents of this nature to horses and other animals owned by farmers, he will make it a condition of a grant of assistance towards the making and maintenance of roads that local authorities should maintain the surface or a portion of the surface of all roads in such a condition that they can be safely used by animals?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware of these legal proceedings and I fully share my hon. Friend's desire that due provision should be made on highways for horses and cattle. So long ago as June, 1925, a letter was issued from my Department to all county surveyors on this subject. As to the steps now in contemplation, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the last question.
    Sir B. PETO: As it is so long ago that the right hon. Gentleman sent this notice to the local authority and no action has been taken, is it not axiomatic that all persons required to support public services through the rates have an equal right to enjoy those services, and upon what principle can support be given to local authorities to arrange their roads in such a manner that one class of traffic is impossible upon them?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am sending out this week a circular on this subject.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Will the Minister of Transport consider the importance of having pathways of such a character that people can walk upon them instead of being forced to walk in the roadway?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I will consider that point.
    Mr. HARDIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the de-rating Bill contains a mathematical formula, and has he tried to apply that formula in this case.

    BOOTHFERRY BRIDGE.
    Brigadier-General BROOKEasked the Minister of Transport when the Boothferry Bridge over the River Ouse will be opened for traffic; and what progress has been made in the approaches thereto on both banks of the river?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I hope that the bridge will be completed in May. The northern approach is well in hand, about a quarter of the work having already been completed. Work on the southern approach is to begin during the present week.

    EMPIRE COMMUNICATIONS (TELEPHONE CHARGES).
    Viscount SANOONasked the Post master-General what conditions, which do not apply to this country, make it possible for Germany to establish telephonic communication with the Argentine, for Holland with the East Indies, at a rate only just over a quarter of our charge for conversation with America, which is less than quarter the distance, and for Holland to carry out successful conversations with Sydney, Australia; and at what date he contemplates following the lead of these foreign countries in communicating with distant parts of the British Empire?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The answer is long and, with my Noble Friend's permission, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    My information is that the rate for a telephone call between Germany and Buenos Ayres is about £6 12s. for three minutes, as compared with a rate of £9 for a call between this country and the eastern parts of Canada and the United States. The former service is, however, at present limited to one public telephone station in Buenos Ayres, to which the person called has to be summoned by previous notice. Moreover, the service is only open for a few hours daily
    1588
    and is wholly dependent on one shortwave radio channel; whereas the British transatlantic service is available for l5½ hours daily for any subscribers to speak under normal commercial conditions from their own house or office telephones, and is conducted by means of two channels, one long-wave and one short-wave, which together give a much greater degree of reliability and freedom from interruption.
    The service between Holland and Java is similar in general conditions to the German-Buenos Ayres service, but even more restricted in scope; calls at the lower rate of £2 10s. for three minutes have to be booked two or three days in advance. For calls booked for completion as early as possible, not necessarily the same day, a rate of £10 for three minutes is charged. The distance between the terminal radio stations is not the governing factor in the cost of radio telephone service: and the British transatlantic telephone charges compare favourably with those of the other services mentioned in relation to the service rendered.
    As regards the last part of the question, a satisfactory and reliable public telephone service is already available between all parts of Great Britain and all the principal towns in Canada. and experiments are being arranged for services with Australia, India and South Africa. The date by which public services can be opened must depend on the results of these experiments. The calls between Holland and Sydney referred to were conducted under very favourable experimental conditions, which are essentially different from the technical conditions which have to be faced in a public service designed to meet everyday business requirements.

    UNEMPLOYMENT.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the; necessity of a more effective treatment of the problem of unemployment, the Government will consider the advisability of raising a national loan for the purpose of internal development and assisting schemes of Empire migration?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The various measures which the Government have adopted towards the solution of the

    1589
    problem of unemployment have already been stated to the House. The various important and interesting considerations which arise from suggestions such as that made by my Noble Friend cannot readily be discussed within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question.
    Major-General Sir NEWTON-MOORE: Is it not a fact that the money provided under the Empire migration scheme does not include unemployment?
    Mr. BROAD: In view of the special responsibility of the Government for increased unemployment in recent years, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer reconsider this matter?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of all the schemes which have been put into operation by the Government, there are more men and women unemployed now than there were 12 months ago?

    INLAND REVENUE APPEALS.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the remarks of Mr. Justice Rowlatt in Court on 25th January as to the delays in inland revenue appeals; and what action he proposes taking in the matter?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; my attention has been directed to these remarks. On the genera] question, I would invite my Noble Friend's attention to the reply which I gave him on the 20th December, 1927. I am sending him a copy of it. As regards the present case, the Judge, while deploring the delay, did not assign the responsibility for it to the Inland Revenue authorities, whose explanation if invited would have been at once weighty and complete. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue, so far as they are concerned, take every measure to expedite the passage of cases to the Court. Exceptional cases will, however, arise from time to time where, owing to a variety of circumstances, a long period elapses before the matter in dispute reaches the Court.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that this question relates to a case which was dealt with in 1924, and dates back eight years prior to that date?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sending a copy of the answer which was given on a previous occasion.

    ALL-ENGLISH BEER (DUTY).
    Lord APSLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that pure beer brewed from British malt and British hops is on sale at Norwich and at Helston, Cornwall, the latter containing four ounces of the best English malt to one pint of beer: whether he is aware that 1928 was a good barley year and yet that the brewers are reducing their demands for British barley in favour of cheap foreign substitutes, notably maize, molasses, and various chemicals; and whether, with a view to assisting agriculture and protecting the consumer, he is prepared to consider giving some relief of taxation to the pure British article?
    Mr. HARDIE: Is this not an advertisement for beer?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have noted with interest the developments referred to in the first part of the question. With regard to the second part, I have seen reports as to the generally satisfactory nature of the 1938 barley crop, but I have not at present any information to enable me to judge the accuracy of the allegation that foreign substitutes are increasingly displacing British barley. With regard to the third part, once again I can only refer my Noble Friend to the answer which I returned on 13th December last to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford.
    Lord APSLEY: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that the Minister of Agriculture has stated inside this House and outside on several occasions that it is impossible to brew beer from British barley malt, and, in view of the existing evidence to the contrary, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision?

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is considering an arrangement with any assurance companies for handing over control of the National Health scheme; and whether he will put the House in possession of all the facts?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have seen this suggestion in a weekly journal and it is only another illustration of the danger of basing Parliamentary questions upon newspaper statements. I gave a denial to it in answering a Supplementary Question put on the 31st January by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). I am glad to have this opportunity of repeating the denial. The story is quite untrue. No such project has ever been brought before me or considered by me or by any of my advisers.
    Mr. CLYNES: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see the suspicions and misapprehensions which would have arisen from the newspaper report had his denial not been given?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) for having given me a proper opportunity of making such a denial.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Why did the right hon. Gentleman not put the country in possession of the facts when the report which appeared in this periodical was presented to him, and why did he wait until a Parliamentary Question was put to him before giving this emphatic denial?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If I went about correcting every misstatement made, not only in the Press but on the platform, I should have no time for the duties with which I am entrusted.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the journal in which this statement appeared, and does he propose to take any action against it?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I think there ought to be a very wide measure of free speech in this country.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In what way would the handing over of this
    1592
    service to a private company differ from previous actions of the present Government in handing over national property?

    COMPANIES ACT, 1928.
    Mr. CLYNES(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received representations as to the importance of bringing into force without delay Section 53 of the Companies Act, 1928, and what action he proposes to take?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have received strong representations as to the urgency of bringing into force immediately Section 53 of the Companies Act of 1928. This Section provides that the simple procedure laid down in Section 120 of the Act of 1908, for obtaining the sanction of the Court and the consent of shareholders or creditors, shall be available in all cases of reorganisation. I understand that important schemes of capital reconstruction cannot be carried through satisfactorily until this change in the law is made. The change itself, which the House enacted last year, I believe commands universal approval in both legal and commercial circles. I feel sure, from inquiries which I have made, that it would be the general wish of the House to expedite this reform: and the necessary steps will be taken to that end.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. POTTS:
    56. To ask the Minister of Pensions whether he can see his way clear to have reviewed the pension of 8s. per week, plus 2s., paid to the wife of Ernest Gillett, late sapper, residing at 10, St. George's Road, Barnsley; whether he is aware that Gillett enlisted for the Great War, passed Al, was drafted to Ireland, where he sustained injury on 24th June, 1916; that he was granted a pension, reviewed by medical boards, as follows: Sheffield 13s. &d., Lancaster 19s. 3d., again reviewed and raised to 28s., Liverpool, reduced to 25s. and 15s., followed by final award of 10s. for himself and wife; and that he is totally disabled, cannot walk and has to be wheeled in

    1593
    a bath chair, his wife continuously in attendance, and has to be found shelter by his father and mother and principally maintained by them?
    Mr. POTTS: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it would be possible for this question, which is a very important one and has not been reached, to be placed on the Order Paper to-morrow? If that is not possible, should I be in order in raising the matter upon the Motion for the Adjournment of the House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid we cannot allow questions that have not been reached to-day to be asked again to-morrow. The hon. Member will receive an answer to his question to-day in the ordinary way.
    Mr. POTTS: If I receive a negative decision, shall I have to give fresh notice myself, and put my question on the Order Paper again?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can give notice to-day that he wishes to ask a further question.
    Mr. POTTS: I beg to give notice that after Eleven o'clock to-night I shall raise this question.
    Lord APSLEY: Is it not a fact that this question would have been reached if it had not been for the little display which we have just had?

    NORTHERN IRELAND LAND BILL,
    Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committe to be printed.
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]

NEW MEMBER SWORN,
Andrew Bathgate Clarke, esquire, for County of Midlothian and Peebles (Northern Division).
INDIAN HIGH COURTS BILL,
"To equalise the position under the Government of India Act of barristers, advocates, and pleaders as respects qualification for appointment as judges of High Courts and as respects the proportion of such judges required to possess special qualifications, and to render any person qualified under the said Act to be appointed a judge of a High Court eligible for appointment as Chief Justice of such a Court," presented by Earl Winterton; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee. [Progress, 4th February.]
[2nd ALLOTTED DAY.]
[Mr. DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Transfer of functions of education authorities and of functions relating to police and registration of electors.)
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, to leave out Sub-section (1).
  We have now reached Clause 3 of the Bill, and, the atmospherics having been cleared away, I hope we shall be able to discuss it in a judicial spirit. The object of Clause 3 is the transference of the powers and functions of certain authorities to county and city councils, and the object of the Amendment is to exclude the transference of education administration to those councils. I propose to refer more particularly to the transference of these powers to the county councils. When the Bill was before the House for Second Reading, the Secretary of State asked all parties to give him assistance. I am sure that he is in considerable need of assistance, and that he will be in need of more before the end of the Committee stage is reached. Unfortunately, when we attempt to give him assistance, we are immediately called' partisans, and, after being called partisans inspired by nothing but party spirit when we attempt to criticise the Bill, we are then beheaded by the Guillotine. The whole of this discussion on the proposed changes in the local government of Scotland is the most tremendous argument against the Guillotine procedure that can possibly be imagined. There is always
  "That two-handed engine standing in the door,
  That strikes once, and strikes no more."
  When that strikes, no further discussion is possible, even of matters vitally affecting local government in Scotland. Yesterday we had the unfortunate example of
  1612
  only being able to devote something like half an hour to the great question of the Royal and Parliamentary burghs in Scotland, but fortunately to-day the great question of education comes first, and, therefore, I hope that we shall have at least a limited opportunity of discussing that question fairly thoroughly.
  I should like briefly to state the history of the administration of education in Scotland during the last 200 or 300 years. By the Act of 1696, education was put under the heritors and the minister of the parish, and, if one follows the history of education after that, one finds that all the Acts of the last century—those of 1803, 1838, 1861 and 1872—continued the administration of education under the parish and church authorities, and that the Act of 1918 still continued the principle of ad hoc administration which is embedded in the system of control of education in Scotland. Under the Act of 1918, education is administered by a body of persons specially elected for the purpose. It is true that that Act changed the area, which prevously had been that of the parish and the burgh, to that of the county. Under the new proposal the reconstituted county councils, which are to be the new authorities in the county areas, are to have placed upon their shoulders all the duties and obligations that have hitherto been carried out by the education authorities, and we may fairly ask ourselves what are the reasons for this change.
  Is it because it is necessary to have a widened area? The question of a widened area has been brought up in connection with various other matters with which the Bill deals, but there is no change here in the area; the area is to be the same in the future as it was in the past, namely, the county area. The reason, therefore, cannot be the necessity for a wider area. Then we may ask, has this change been asked for Can anyone bring evidence from any quarter to show that this change has been asked for in Scotland? Is it because the education authorities in the past have been inefficient? No; on the other hand, we have been told from all quarters that their work has been most efficiently carried out. Has it anything to do with de-rating? I do not see how the Minister by any possible means can associate this question of education with de-

  1613
  rating. Is it on the ground of economy? No; there again there is no possible argument for associating the change with economy. To all these different questions, therefore, -which may be put forward—whether a widened area is necessary, whether the change has been asked for, whether the authorities in the past have been inefficient, whether it has anything to do with de-rating, or whether it is a question of more economical administration in the future—the answer is in every case "No."
  With regard to the question of economy, I should like shortly to refer, because I think it is sometimes forgotten, to the extent to which education authorities are bound in regard to the way in which they can dispose of the money which is under their control. Of the total amount of money which education authorities have to dispose of, 75 per cent. is either disposed of under Statute or sanctioned by the Scottish Education Department, and 15 per cent. of the total is devoted to the maintenance of school and continuation classes, leaving only 10 per cent. that is discretionary expenditure. It will, therefore, be seen that, even if it were possible to bring forward a charge of wasteful extravagance in the past, the possibilities of wasteful extravagance are limited within very narrow bounds.
  4.0 p.m.
  The next point in considering this change is how it is regarded in Scotland. Though the education authorities are unanimous against the change, I can quite understand it may be put forward on the other side that nobody likes to be abolished. If anybody likes to be abolished certainly it is not people who have devoted hours, days and years of unpaid work to the service of education in Scotland. One can quite understand that they do not wish to be abolished, and, naturally, they do not wish to be abolished because they see that the work to which they have devoted so much time and attention is about to be put in the hands of people who are not likely to be nearly so well equipped to carry on the work as they are. Anyone who has the interest of education in Scotland at heart must have very grave doubts as to whether the reconstituted councils are as well qualified to further the best interests of education as the education authorities which it is now proposed to abolish.
  1614
  Then, I would ask, what is the feeling in Scotland generally outside the authorities themselves? I think I shall be supported in the view that the bulk of opinion in Scotland is against the change. So that from every quarter it appears that the change has not been asked for. The authorities are against it, the bulk of opinion is against it, and no real reasons have been put before the country or the House of Commons to show why this change should take place. What the real reasons are, therefore, we have to surmise. I have been trying to find out, and I suggest that the Secretary of State for Scotland is determined to assimilate the system in Scotland to the system in England as far as he can. We know there are two different systems. Education has been administered in two different ways on each side of the Border. Because the system in England ha,3 well suited that country, it does not follow that the same system will work in Scotland. The slogan of bureaucracy is always to centralise and to assimilate. But that is not the best way in which the art of government should be carried on. I always understood that regard should be had to the natural genius and traditions of the people, and you cannot override this, and lay it aside simply because you want to assimilate your system to that of another people. In that; connection I would like to draw attention to this fact, that if the real intention is to assimilate the system in Scotland to that in England, in England the county boroughs and all boroughs with over 10,000 population, and all urban districts with over 20,000 population, are the local authorities for education, and therefore a closer supervision is very much more possible than it would be under this scheme for Scotland, where the whole of the duties of the education authorities are to be transferred to the newly-constituted centralised county council.
  Let us look at what will be the actual results of the scheme. In the first place, the administration of education will be put in the hands of men who are not specially interested in it. That is a very vital matter. County councils, we all know, are elected for a variety of reasons. We know the sort of people that we get in the county councils in the rural districts of Scotland—worthy and excellent men, but you cannot say that, as a whole, the county councils of Scotland are

  1615
  specially interested in the furtherance of Scottish education, and it seems to me a most retrograde movement to go back from our specially elected ad hoc bodies interested in education, and to put the administration into the hands of men who are elected on the county councils for a hundred and one other reasons than those of education. Then the county councils themselves are already overburdened with work, and under the new scheme they will be still more overburdened. I should like hon. Members to remember what a vast amount of work the administration of education really entails. There are Members of this House who are on education authorities in Scotland, and they know from experience what an amount of time is taken up by attention to their duties in that respect. All this extra work is going to be put on the shoulders of the newly constituted county councils. How are they to be expected to carry it out? I would like to quote a rather interesting paragraph from an article which appeared in the Educational Supplement of the "Times" of 29th December last. It has reference to something which was said by the hon. Member who represents the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan), and it puts the case so clearly that I would ask the permission of the Committee to quote it in full. It says:
  "The fate of education in Scotland, at any rate of its administration, hangs in the balance…Mr. John Buchan can find no place in his scheme of things for the man of one talent, a flair for education and its management. At the same time, there are diversities of opinion, and he would probably admit the possibility of an earnest desire to promote education, detached from any consuming zeal for the management of utilities such as lighting, drains, or even public health. The former is the type from which education authorities have been recruited during the past 10 years; and the work has been well done. Besides, the risk of overloading the willing and competent members of a town council is imminent. The limit of unpaid service has been reached. The alternatives are payment of members or relegation of the administration to official experts. Neither is attractive."
  I think the Committee will agree with me that neither of those prospects is attractive. We do not want to relegate our administration either to experts or to paid members. It has been our pride in the past that people in Scotland who take an interest in this vital question have
  1616
  freely devoted so much of their time to it. I admit that the newly constituted councils, if they have this duty placed upon them, will do their best. I do not deny that for a moment, but what I do say, and say unhesitatingly, is that they will not and cannot be so well equipped to do this work as the old education authorities were, and I ask myself most seriously whether the change is in the best interests of Scottish education. The Minister, I think, is on a wrong and a dangerous path—wrong because it is running counter to the feelings and wishes of the people of Scotland, and dangerous because we feel that the course he is pursuing is likely to imperil the best interests of education in Scotland which we prize so dearly. The proposal could be dropped entirely out of this scheme, and leave the rest of the scheme intact. There is no reason why it should be included in this scheme, and I hope very much that before this Debate is finished we shall hear what reason there really is for bringing education into this new scheme of local government in Scotland. I do not know why it has been included. Why it has been included, as far as I can see, is known alone to God and the Scottish Office.
  Mr. BUCHAN: There was one point in the speech of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) with which, I think, there will be very general agreement on all sides of the Committee, and that is the tribute which he paid to the specially elected education authorities. Changes are always invidious if they involve the disappearance of some special body, for they seem to imply some criticism of its work in the past. Here there can be no such implication. The work of the specially elected education authorities has been, by general agreement, highly creditable. The argument for a change is not inefficiency in the past, but the hope of greater efficiency in the future.
  I have been trying for some time to find out the real reason for the objections to this change which are alleged to exist among the people of Scotland as well as among the Members of this House, and. as far as I can judge, there are three main grounds of opposition. The first is the natural, human dislike to any kind of change at all, and, in passing, I should like to pay a humble but heartfelt tribute to the depth of conservatism which this

  1617
  whole Debate has revealed in Opposition quarters. I am bound to respect that feeling even when I think it misapplied. The second main reason has been expounded by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. It is a practical reason—the difficulty of overburdening already burdened authorities. I admit readily that there is substance in that objection, but I believe it is a legitimate risk which we are bound to face. I believe that the difficulty can be got over with a proper division and delegation of functions, and I would point out that this same objection has been raised to every local government proposal of the last 40 years. The final, and, I think, the most important reason which the hon. Member has given is an educational reason, that this change is educationally retrograde, that it involves a break in the natural development of our Scottish system. On that last point, which is a very material point, I join issue wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I believe that the change proposed is in the direct line of development. I believe that if one looks back upon the long history of Scottish education, one is bound to admit that this step is an inevitable, a natural and logical consequence.
  I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee by any historical disquisition, but perhaps I might be allowed in a very few sentences to sketch what, I think, are the stages of development. Our modern educational history began with the Act of 1872, under which the State took over the different types of schools owned by individuals, by private bodies, churches or town councils, and organised them into one system. It gave them unity of standard and unity of administration. The next stage was the very important Act of 1908, which dealt not only with machinery but also with quality. It attempted a new definition of education altogether. It enlarged our whole plan of education and cast the net far wider. It attempted to make education adequate to the national needs. Then came the Act of 1918, which carried on that purpose. Under it the whole fabric of Scottish education, outside the Universities, was revised. Every form of educational activity apart from the Universities was put under one direction, the direction of the specially elected educational authorities.
  1618
  There remained to my mind one further step to be taken, the step which this Bill takes. We have now got a rich and generous conception of education and we have every activity winch tries to realise that conception co-ordinated into one system. The next step to my mind should be to affiliate this unified system with the other social services. [An HON. MEM-BER: "Sewage!"] The earlier Acts gave us a unified administration. It is now our business to align that unified administration with the other activities of local government. Therefore, this proposed change is in a direct line with our natural development. It is a logical consequence and a logical stage in that long history of Scottish education of which every Scotsman is justly proud. One hon. Member mentioned the word "sewage." We know the taunt that to municipalise education is to degrade it, to bring it down to the same level as gas, water, sewage and police. I find that a very curious argument. You might just as well say that because you teach the Ten Commandments by the same people and under the same curriculum as the multiplication table, you are degrading religion to the level of a mechanical science. Surely those who use that ancient gibe are curiously forgetful of the educational history of Scotland. In the 18th century the most progressive schools were the burgh schools, owned and managed by the town councils and paid for partly out of the common good and partly by private subscriptions. These burgh schools were the educational pioneers of their age. Take the case of the burgh school of Ayr. In the middle of the 18th century it broke away from the old barren, grammatical tradition and first began the teaching of science. A more remarkable case still is that of the burgh school of Perth, which in 1761 not only followed the example of Ayr but actually began technical education. The man who gibes at the municipalisation of education is singularly forgetful of a most honourable chapter in Scottish history.
  We have to-day a far richer and wider and more fruitful conception of education than our fathers had. We do not regard it as a mere appendage, something added to life, but as life itself, the preparation for every duty and privilege which may fall to our lot and an influence which will inspire all our thought

  1619
  and action. Our aim is to teach the young of the nation, not merely how to get a living, but how to live. If that is our conception, surely we cannot make education an enclosed preserve. We cannot treat it as a kind of walled garden in the suburbs. We must bring it within sight of the market place, where the ordinary business of life is being conducted. I believe the best guide, the best general director in education, as in every other kind of human activity, is the ordinary man with the ordinary variety of interests. That, to my mind, is the justification of democracy. I believe by allying this great service with the other activities of local life we shall enlarge its bounds, quicken its vitality and double its usefulness.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I have no intention of attempting to follow the line of argument that has just been submitted to us. [HON. MEMBBES: "You could not!"] At any rate I have heard the finest argument for the abolition of the direct representation of the Universities. If the argument is true that has been used against direct representation with regard to education, it is doubly true in connection with university representation. I have not the slightest intention of attempting a platitude, I want to get down from the heights of platitude to the actual business and the administration of education. After all that is the work of the Committee stage of the Bill. On the Second Reading not a single argument was adduced for the abolition of the education authorities. In all the speeches of the Secretary of State, at any rate prior to the Second Reading, in dealing with these changes in connection with local administration, in his meeting with deputations or the executives of education authorities, he has never yet submitted a single argument for the abolition of the authorities except that if we were to get the benefit of the de-rating proposals we must take the Bill as a whole. You might go back in the columns of the "Scotsman," the "Glasgow Herald," and our national newspapers and there has never been an educational argument submitted by the Secretary of State in favour of the abolition of the education authorities.
  The Bill for which he argued when he first of all met the representatives of the
  1620
  education authorities no longer exists. The Clause we passed yesterday destroyed altogether the original proposals that were submitted for the consideration of Scotland. Where can we get the benefits of de-rating, if there are any benefits attached to it? We were told the Bill stood as a whole and that we had either to take it or to lose the benefits of de-rating. I do not agree with the hon. Member when he says there is only alleged antipathy towards the Bill. Practically every education authority has practically unanimously passed resolutions against it. At the educational congress last Thursday and Friday, by 93 votes to 13, the representatives from the various parts of the country decided against the proposals we are now discussing. Having considered the argument that we have to take the Bill as a whole or lose the benefits of de-rating, will the Secretary of State argue for a moment that if we were to keep the education authorities out of these proposals, it would not be possible to get the advantages in connection with de-rating, if advantages there are? It might be all right on the ordinary platform, or even in meeting a deputation, but there is a body of reasonable business men in the House and an argument of that kind will not hold water for a moment.
  Let us examine the position in connection with these authorities. I will not go back to 1872, I was not born then. I will only go back on live history and not to dead history. In 1919 the existing education authorities were created, or built up, out of the old school board system. You have only bad 10 years of that administration. No Member of the House, least of all the Secretary of State, will be able to argue that during those 10 years the education authorities have not done their work efficiently and in a splendid and businesslike way. They were faced with a crowd of problems, made ten times more difficult because they were elected immediately after the War, and, despite all the difficulty, despite the fact that the repairing of the schools had been in abeyance for five or six years, despite the fact that all our problems had been multiplied during those five or six years because the energies of the nation were directed towards success in the War, there has been tremendous progress so far as real

  1621
  education is concerned under the existing education authorities. The work this House gave these education authorities to do the Secretary of State has kept them from performing, because he himself has merely to name the day so far as the further advantages in connection with continuation class work are concerned, and the raising of the school age from 14 to 15, and if we have not made the progress we might have made, the responsibility is not to be borne by the education authorities but by the Secretary of State, who had that greater responsibility and refused to hand it on to the respective education authorities.
  When the Act of 1918 was passed, creating the authorities set up in 1919, it was stated in this House that the authorities were to be elected really by the population of the areas as a whole, in the interest of the population as a whole, without the undue emphasis of minor parochial interests and with due considerations for the interests of minority. That was the object so far as the elected side of the education authorities was concerned. Now, at the end of 10 years, you are going to wipe out the whole scheme of minority representation, to throw into the melting pot the whole of the problems relating to religious instruction, and to start religious controversy in many parts of Scotland. The difficulties in connection with the sectarian struggle have been got over so far as the administration of education in Scotland is concerned. Those difficulties are not there now, because provision has been made for minority representation, and at such a time you are creating trouble. No one knows better than the Secretary of State for Scotland what those troubles are. Even at this moment he does not know how to frame an Amendment which will meet the desires of the respective Churches and give fair play. He has no such Amendment on the Order Paper. He is still waiting to see how the Committee will demand that he shall deal with these particular problems. We have got over our difficulties because in connection with the elected education authorities provision was made for minority representation.
  It has been argued, but no one can prove it, that the existing system has failed. Although it may not have given us that perfection which everyone desires
  1622
  in connection with religious education, it has not failed. It has been suggested that we were to have a scheme somewhat similar to the English scheme. The scheme which we are now discussing is not similar to the English scheme. In Scotland there will be under the proposed scheme, 34 education committees. In England there are 318 education committees at the present time. Even if it had been true that this scheme was similar to the English scheme, the conditions applicable in Scotland at the moment did not apply in England when the English scheme was introduced in 1902. It is a remarkable fact that in England, in 1902, there was a larger number of children in the various church schools than the board schools. Some 2,500,000 children were at that time being educated under the publicly elected boards and were attending the board schools, while 3,000,000 children were attending the church schools. There were at that time 8,000 to 10,000 villages in England which had nor, a single school that was controlled by the publicly-elected representatives. Consequently, the legislators of 1902 had to face an entirely different problem from the one with which we are now faced.
  The teaching profession in Scotland suggests, and it has been suggested by the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) to-day, that we should place education in the centre of the picture. They did not want to do that in England when they introduced the Bill of 1902. Then it was a question of leaving education out of the picture altogether. Those were the arguments that were used in the Debates in this House at that time, because there was always the fear of religious controversy. Everyone who has studied history in connection with English Education Acts knows that hundreds of people went to gaol in England rather than allow their system of education to be changed. We have got over those difficulties. Certainly, that problem is not with us to-day so far as Scotland is concerned. To our credit, in the County of Fife—I quote the County of Fife because I am proud to be associated with it in its educational administration and in many other ways—there is not a single school that is not under the control of publicly-elected representatives. Do hon. Members imagine for a single moment that if

  1623
  education had been under the control of the county council that we would have been able to negotiate the transfer of Bell-Baxter School, Cupar, Madras College, St. Andrew's, and Waid Academy, Anstruther, and to have used all the money left by wonderful benefactors solely for the purpose of education, rather than have allowed it to be used merely for the purpose of reducing the rates? That could have happened. To the credit of those associated with the administration we were able to use all the money, so far as those endowments were concerned, for the purpose originally intended by the donors, so far as our country is concerned.
  There are other counties, as well as the County of Fife, where every pupil attending a State-aided school is under the control of publicly-elected representatives, and I have heard no complaint from anyone with regard to the administration of those schools, except from representatives of county councils There are some of those county council representatives who are sitting in this House now and whose whole interest is to get the control of education in their own hand3 so that they can cut down the expenditure on education. They have blamed us for the last 10 years for spending money on education even to fulfil the responsibilities which the State has imposed upon us. They have argued that in this House. We agreed to meet them, but when we did meet them they had no arguments. They had not even a word to say when the statement was made with regard to the cost of education that had been imposed upon us. Therefore, even if it were true that it was the English scheme that was sought to be imposed upon us by this Bill, the conditions are not the same in the two countries, and the necessity for the change does not exist so far as Scottish education is concerned.
  It has been suggested by the representative of the Scottish Universities that, whilst there may be no complaint against the present system of administration, we must aim towards greater efficiency in administration. Another argument is that the system might be more economical. Let us see where we could economise. I have no illusions with regard to the arguments about
  1624
  economy. I will quote from a typical balance sheet of an education authority. I know some of the directions in which the county councils would economise. For instance, I find that the expenditure for books was £20,000, some of which we are compelled to provide. Certain counties which I have in mind, and my own county, provide books for every child attending school, from the time the child enters the school until the time, if it has the ability, when it enters the university. A sum of £12,000 might be saved by making the unemployed miners, the starving miners, provide the books for their children. You could save £12,000 in that way and lot the teacher attempt to teach a class under such. circumstances, when the books were not provided for the children.
  I know the bitter outcry that there is even from some parts of the County of Fife, again from the county councillors, about the expenditure on education. The same thing applies in Midlothian and East Lothian. Because the education authorities decided to feed the schoolchildren during 1921 and 1926, there was the most hostile opposition by the county councils, who were prepared to allow us to starve the children whilst we were attempting to feed them mentally. Those who took the responsibility then would take the responsibility again for the feeding of the children. I took the responsibility and I have said more than once on public platforms that I would take it again. I would far rather be sent by an earthly judge to serve six months in gaol than be sent to hell by the Heavenly Father for starving children, when I had an opportunity of saving them from starvation.
  The teachers have betrayed the educational administrators as far as this problem is concerned. They are willing, by an overwhelming majority, to agree that the machinery of education should be handed over to the county councils. Let me tell them that there is another way in which a saving could be effected in the County of Fife, if we were so disposed, and that is in regard to the salaries of teachers. We pay in that county, approximately, £56,000 more than we are compelled to spend under the national minimum scale of salaries. The county councils, when they get control of the machinery, could save £56,000 on

  1625
  that account in the County of Fife. I could give other illustrations in Scotland where we have not been prepared merely to pay the minimum, because we wanted to get the best type of teachers. I accept a certain amount of responsibility for the action of the administrators of my own county, because I suggested a particular policy. I said: "Pay a decent salary and then we shall be able to get the pick of those who are coming out of the universities."
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: What about the other places who could not afford to pay as much?
  Mr. WESTWOOD: If they were prepared to starve the teachers and to starve education, that was their responsibility. I was prepared to meet the electors and to allow them to decide whether or not we had done the right thing. The result of our action has been that in the County of Fife we have the finest set of teachers that can fee got, and in our administration we have the most friendly relations existing between the education authorities and the teachers. Under the county councils in England there have been strikes and lockouts of teachers. Time and time again, the. education department in England has had to interfere as between the administrators, the county councils, and the teachers. How the teachers think that they are going to better themselves under this particular scheme I cannot for the life of me understand. Some of them are listening to me now, and they might just as well take their medicine.
  I could give more instances from the balance-sheet where savings could be effected, but they would be effected at the expense of education. If education is considered to be the problem with which we are dealing, then it can best be looked after by those who are directly elected for the purpose under our national system of education. We are told that under the proposals in the Bill there will be a more efficient system of administration. Anyone who suggests that is trying to perpetrate a Scottish joke on English soil. How will it work out? I will take three counties with which I am most interested and I would ask one of my constituents, the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities to take note. In him, I believe that I have
  1626
  a good constituent, and I think he believes that he has a good Member of Parliament. I will take the county of Peebles where there are 11 members of the Education Authority. Under the proposals in connection with the re-constitution of the county council, there are to be 18 members of the county council. Assuming that you are only going to allow one half of those members to form the county committee to deal with education, that would mean nine. Then there are to be co-opted members, so that you will, at the very least, increase the number from 11 to 15 or 16, and all in the sacred name of economy and efficiency.
  You are going to have the education authorities far larger than they are at the present time. Under the reconstitution, according to Command Paper 3263, there will be in Midlothian, a county council of 53 members. The education authority of Midlothian only numbers 24 at the present time. Again, if only one half the members of the county council serve upon the education committee, there will be more than the existing number of administrators now dealing with education. In the county of Fife, in the reconstituted county council there will be 90 members. The education authority at the moment numbers 44. Again, supposing that only one half of that number are to form the elected side of the education committee. there will be one more member on the education committee than the existing number now responsible for educational administration. Surely, it is a joke to suggest that that is in the interests of economy, and it is equally a joke to suggest that it is in the interests of efficiency.
  The more one examines these proposals, the more ridiculous they appear. Education is Scotland at the present time is being sufficiently well administered. Of course, there are problems which we might consider, such as the transfer of certain duties from the education authority to the health side of the administration. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is particularly interested in the health side of the administration. There is room for negotiation in connection with that, but do not let us destroy the whole scheme of education administration simply for the purpose of looking after one par-

  1627
  ticular side of the physical well-being of our children. it is impossible to get that close touch in connection with education administration if you are going to hand this work over to the county authorities. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said on one occasion that it did not require experts, but even the Government has admitted that with the scheme you must have co-opted members who know something about education. Under this scheme, you might have in connection with your Education Committee one outstanding individual with a knowledge of, say higher education on the administrative side, knowing the difficulties in connection with various schemes that ought to be available for the children, and trying to adopt circumstances so as to get the best out of it for every child instead of attempting a mere machine output at the present time. You might have someone who had given years to this study, but what use would he be so far as the financial side is concerned He would be merely a co-opted member. He might know all these problems in connection with the curriculum and so forth, but then all of them are bound up with the question of money and you must have someone inside the council to argue for expenditure on these schemes.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has stated that, so far as education authorities are concerned, there might have been a case for them in 1919, when they had to initiate the work. I could tell him this afternoon of many schemes that have still to be initiated. It if was true that you required initiative from directly elected bodies in 1919, it is equally true to-day. You have problems in connection with adult education, and many other quite difficult problems requiring initiative. For these and many other reasons, I trust that we are going to get some concession from the Government. Desirous, as I am, to see the education authorities in Scotland keep in the forefront—and in all important considerations I have honestly come to the conclusion that we have the best system of education and are providing better opportunities for our children in Scotland than any other country—anxious as I am to see Scotland in this respect kept in the forefront and doing the best that can be done by keeping her elected repre-
  1628
  sentatives, I say that, if you concede this for which we are asking, it will not destroy the fabric of the Bill and will allow an opportunity to carry out the de-rating proposals.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I trust that the Committee will regard this problem as a matter affecting the present and the future organisation of the service, which we are considering. I would be the last to say anything in language of a derogatory nature either of the great past history, the progress and development of education in Scotland, or indeed of the efforts of the various education bodies that have been charged with this problem in the course of time. Nor am I going to say anything to-day which will, I trust, be taken as indicating that I think the education authorities which were brought into being under the Act of 1918 have failed to carry out their duties to the best of their abilities, and with no inconsiderable success. But I would ask the Committee to realise that we are considering the reorganisation of the system of rating and of local government, and, while some Members seem to think that I have said in the past that so far as education was concerned they must take this Bill or leave it, what I said and have endeavoured to convey to Scotland, and to those immediately concerned with Scotland, was that in my judgment we have arrived at a stage when it would be eminently unfortunate if we took any step that would segregate and separate the general development of education from the larger social services of the country. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I do not wish to treat this matter in any sense of levity or unfairness: I want to examine the problem with an earnest desire to do nothing which shall be harmful to the progress of education, but quite the reverse.
  What are the problems which concern all educationists at the present time? Truly is it not certain that one of the things which we are all striving to do is to bring education, both in its elementary and its further stages, into accord with the circumstances of the time, the conditions with which we are surrounded; to make education, not our master but our servant, and the means of

  1629
  developing the minds of our children, so that they can apply themselves to industry, art, or agriculture with the best results? A separate ad hoc education authority may have served its purpose, and may have done good service, but I want to emphasise that, in my judgment, and this is one of the telling factors which has influenced me to make this change, education is not a matter which solely concerns any particular ad hoc body elected for a particular purpose imbued with the idea that they have sole knowledge of how education should be directed. On the one side, there is the great Education Department, drawn from those who are trained in the matter of directing education. They are the servants of the Administration and of this House, and it is their duty and responsibility to see to the management of education and its development to the best advantage. In addition, you have your scientific body of teachers. They are the experts who must convey the information to the children of to-day and of to-morrow. If I turn to them, as I have a just right to turn, for advice, either to the Department who have this great responsibility or to the teachers, who are the individuals upon whom you must depend for conveying this information to the children, both the Department and the teachers are unanimous in their recommendation that this change should be made.
  I well remember being in this House when some of these discussions were taking place on the Measure of 1918. It was in the Department then as to-day, and the unanimity of the teachers at that time was as great as, if not greater than, it is to-day upon this subject. It is true that, as a result of pressure from certain quarters, the proposals of the Government at that time were altered, and that the ad hoc body was set up. What were the arguments? They were that the county councils of that time were county councils composed in the main of lairds. farmers and factors, that they were out of touch with local feeling and local knowledge and local circumstances. To-day we are asking for the transfer of this service, not to the old county councils, but to a new body composed of representatives both of the county council and of the burghs. That, to
  1630
  begin with, is an essential difference. If brings into these consultations and into this body new factors which cannot be said to be other than essentially democratic.
  Of course, I realise that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has taken a keen interest in many problems concerned with education in our country, but it seems to me that he was setting up one ninepin after another in order to knock them down. He appears to think that the numbers of the education committees of these new county councils are going to be swollen in excess of that of the existing authorities—
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I said half.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Why take half? Why not a quarter? The real answer to all that is that the number of members on these new education committees of the central authorities will be submitted in the schemes of organisation which they will have to submit; and these schemes will have to show what body they consider will be best fitted to deal with the circumstances peculiar to each case.
  5.0 p.m.
  Let me turn to the more important side. Hon. Members say to me that there has been no overlapping that there has been no difficulty arising between one authority and another upon the problem. One hon. Member seemed to indicate that the question of sewage was a matter of little importance.
  Whereupon the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went: and, having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to

1. Imperial Telegraphs Act, 1929,

2. Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1929,

3. Law of Property (Amendment) Act. 1929.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Again considered in Committee.
(Mr. DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.)
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word ' burgh,' in line 24, stand part of the Clause."
Sir J. GILMOUR: When I was interrupted, I was speaking on the subject of a comment which had fallen from one hon. Member on the other side, in which it seemed to him that the question of sanitary provision was a matter of some hilarity and was not closely linked up with the really efficient and proper organisation of the education services. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) has, I think, in language very well chosen, shown how foolish such a view can be. I would like to remind the Committee that, by bringing these services into line with all the other great social services, such services as the health services, the public assistance services, the lunacy and mental deficiency services, we are going to create an opportunity for dealing afresh with these many problems which are all closely related. All these matters are going to be brought under the purview of one central county authority. Questions of machinery, sites, buildings, finance and law, all these things will, under this new scheme, be dealt with by one unified authority.
If I may make one other observation upon this problem it is this. The ratepayer is after all one and the same person whether he is receiving services for sanitation, lunacy and other services or for education, and it would be, in my judgment, very detrimental to education if you had a consolidated rate including all other services and leaving out only the service of education. I would press very strongly indeed the necessity of bringing education into line with the future great development of what must be reconstituted and powerful authorities in every one of these localities. These newly constituted authorities will have far greater cohesion and influence than any we have yet seen established in local government work in Scotland. From
1632
every point of view it is desirable that, when the ratepayer is called upon to meet these demands which fall upon us all, education should be included in that consolidated rate as part and parcel of his proper duties as a citizen.
Mr. WESTWOOD: Would it be absolutely impossible to retain the elective principle associated with education administration and get what you are suggesting in connection with financial control? Is it not a fact that we have submitted for your consideration alternatives to the existing order whereby you get control of finance but get the elective principle so far as the administration of education is concerned?
Sir J. GILMOUR: As was my duty, I have, of course, considered a great variety of suggestions, and no one could have been more anxious than I have been to meet what might be called legitimate suggestions or easements, so long as the great fabric of the structure of the scheme is maintained. But I cannot honestly see how it is possible to adopt the proposals to which the hon. Gentleman refers and at the same time to preserve one central unified authority in the area, for that is the essential part of the scheme. I believe that the scheme which we are proposing will bring in new and fresh factors which will be a stimulus and a spur to the interest taken in education throughout Scotland. I believe that by the setting up of these Committees under this scheme we can still keep closely in touch with those whose peculiar and particular interest is the progress of education, and that whatever may be thought of the co-option proposals in this particular case of education, it is peculiarly suitable and applicable to the conditions.
Mr. HARDIE: Not at all.
Sir J. GILMOUR: That is a matter of opinion. Any suggestion that this scheme has been produced in order to assimilate it to an English scheme is far from the truth. I observed that one of the critics who spoke this afternoon quoted on this subject, not Scottish newspapers, but the "Times." Do not let us be so ultra-Scottish as to shut out an open and broad-minded consideration of all the aspects of this problem, or set our minds to this or that side of it, but to what is to

1633
be most serviceable. I repeat that I think the greatest disservice that could be done to education is to entrust it to a separate body, whether it is elected or not. If you are to have a further development, say, of adult education, what problem is there more suitable or more applicable to an organisation such as we are setting up, which comes into actual daily contact with the lives and feelings of the very people whom it is designed to serve?
I submit that this proposal is in the best interests of education, and I am supported in that view by the opinion of the teachers of Scotland who, whatever hon. Gentlemen may think, are after all those who have to carry the heat and burden of the day. If they feel that they can work this scheme, as they felt in 1918, and as they continue to feel, because they have expressed their view on it—that they can work to the best advantage under the proposal that I am making, a great deal of the apprehension of those who are only generally interested in this problem is swept away. What are the duties besides provision of teachers which the education authority has to perform? It is the proper allocation and distribution of the funds before disposal, the setting up of schools, the obtaining of land and the development of the service. Under all those circumstances, a unified form and an absence of overlapping in such matters as the feeding of children and medical attendance of children—in all these things it is infinitely better, from the point of view of the ratepayer and the taxpayer, that they should be under one central authority.
Mr. BARR: I would like to advance some reasons for this Amendment and in opposition to the scheme of the Government. After having listened very attentively to the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland, I agree still with the hon. Gentleman who proposed this Amendment, that no substantial educational reason has been advanced for this change. It is not a matter of area. The area is already co-extensive with that of the county council. It is not a question of uniformity of rating, because alike in the towns and in the counties this is already in operation. It is not a question, as has been argued for other services, of the block grant. Here I would like not only to thank him for his
1634
speech, but to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peebles and South Midlothian (Mr. Westwood) on the very able and expert and noble speech that he made this afternoon. It has been pointed out that 90 per cent. is already in the form of a capitation grant, or is expenditure allowed by the Education Department, or is necessary expenditure; and only 10 per cent. is discretionary.
As a matter of fact we have heard almost nothing, in the whole of this controversy, about the child and about the superior education that is to be given. We have no proof of any superior education. We have not had even an attempt at proof. I recognise that the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan), in his short resume of the subject, was quite accurate in saying that in 1872 the burgh school stood ahead of the church school and far more ahead of the adventure school. That is quite correct. It is pointed out in the Report that was given in 1867. But is it not remarkable that, when these burgh schools were in existence and the burghs were dealing with education, and in a large number of the burghs there was very little work in the town councils compared with what there is at the present time, yet in 1872 the statemen still said, "We will not put it into the hands of the burghs; we will keep it by itself, and will thereby preserve the best traditions of Scottish education?" hat is a complete reply to what fell from the -ion. Gentleman who represents the Scottish Universities.
There have been various reasons, other than educational, given for this Measure and this Clause. I was a little entertained when I read the reason given by the Prime Minister in his speech in St. Andrew's Hall, Glasgow, on 22nd November last. It was as remote from an educational reason as one could possibly imagine. This was what he said:
"The proposed reform of the Poor Law system in Scotland, amongst many other things, abolishes your present system of ad hoc authorities."
The proposed reform, as remote as you can make it, is to carry this with it; no educational argument but an extraneous argument. The only argument was that of the brotherhood of services, to which I shall refer later. My hon. Friend referred to an article in the Education

1635
Journal by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who said this:
"I will freely admit that the record of the education authorities during the last 10 years has been good. The ad hoc body is undoubtedly useful at the inception of a service, since creative ideas, undivided attention, specialised knowledge and strong driving force are then necessary to overcome inertia and launch a new scheme."
But surely initiative and creative ideas are necessary at the present time and for the future—and undivided attention and specialised knowledge and strong driving force? As a matter of fact, if you are not continually advancing in education you are going back. I am speaking not of the machinery of education, but of education itself. A challenge was thrown out at one of the first meetings that the right hon. Gentleman held with the Association of Education Authorities in Scotland, on 2nd October last. Mr. Duncan, who, I think, represented the Aberdeen Authority, threw out this challenge which is still unanswered: he challenged the writer of the White Paper to name one single educational institution which could be better or more fully used by reason of the proposed changes, and to state how a much fuller use could be brought about. He asked the writer of the document to state one single particular where education authorities had failed.
My next reason for supporting this Amendment is that the scheme is casting too great a burden, as things are, on the town councils and on the county councils of to-day. In this particular there is to be no district committee to assist in the work. Education is definitely ruled out from the province of the district committee. It would bring in specialists and experts, we have been told, if we were to elect direct to an education authority. We would be narrowed to one interest, as the hon. Gentleman who represents the Scottish Universities said. You want to bring in people from the market place, it is said. I sat for 11 years on the education authority of Glasgow, and there they were not men of one idea, but men from the market place, men who came up just as much as town councillors or county councillors from contact with daily life.
I must express some regret that in his various schemes, so many of them, the right hon. Gentleman has not done some-
1636
thing to revive local interest. While I justify the Act of 1918, I think we then did lose something of local control, and that something more might have been done. School committees have not functioned as they might have done. Any body which is simply advisory and subsidiary is not likely to be helpful in that regard. That brings me to this further point, and it is one of our main objections to this scheme. You are not able to carry it out without co-option. One of the Ministers, or one speaker yesterday, said that you could pick out these men who had proper experience and could be serviceable in this way. I am bound to say that, as I know the present. county councils, and as I conceive the reconstituted county councils, it will be almost impossible for working-class representatives to be on them in any large number. I cannot conceive that many men will be chosen who will be in sympathy with the great social ideals of democratic advance in education. I cannot conceive that, on the question of free books and other questions of that kind, this proposal will be helpful to or will represent advancing democracy.
I take, as illustration, the city of Glasgow where at present the members of the town council have to attend hundreds of meetings in the course of the year. The average of meetings for members of the education authority was 152, for the last year of which I have record. There are 22 groups of schools which have to be visited, and the result of this system will be that the duty of visitation will fall mainly on those co-opted members who have been described as persons of leisure. To a large extent, the schools will be visited by persons who are not even at the centre of the new system or in touch with what is going on in education. You have 14 standing committees: you have 49 cases where there would be representation on outside bodies; you have an unlimited series of co-options on sub-committees and overlappings in the sub-committees and the co-options. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of overlapping in regard to medical inspection and treatment and in regard to the feeding and clothing of necessitous children. All the information which I can glean, and my own experience indicate that there has been very little overlapping in that respect.

1637
I recall to the Committee that the provision for the feeding of necessitous children was only conceded after a very long struggle, and it was a special provision. It was to be extra treatment, quite apart from any treatment given otherwise and in the ordinary course. It was to be given on special grounds connected with education. It was to meet cases where the child, by reason of poverty, or lack of food or clothing, was not able to take proper advantage of the education provided. Now the Government are putting it over along with other things and they are not preserving its distinction from any pauper taint or any connection with the Poor Law. This provision has been satisfactorily carried out in the past and there has been very little overlapping. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman which I have just mentioned is the only argument for the change which would appear to have any substance, and I think I have shown that, after all, even it is a mere pretext. The right hon Gentleman referred to the consolidated budget, and spoke of the disadvantage of having education singled out, but, even as things are—if it is of any advantage to the ratepayer in knowing his civic duties—we get education, poor rate and town council rates totalled together. Therefore, that argument does not obtain.
I support the Amendment because of the new and heavy duties that will necessarily come upon town councils, county councils and education authorities as they stand. As has been pointed out, there are many provisions of the 1918 Act which have not yet been put into operation. There is the extension of the school age for instance. Then we have not yet had the full value of the provisions as to the employment of children and young persons, and the provisions as to continuation classes are hardly in operation at all. I ask, in view of these accumulating services, is there any limit to the amount of work that can be put on councils or individuals? I would like to use a classic illustration from Virgil in this connection. We read of how the Titans sought to pile Ossa. on Pelion and to pile "leafy Olympus" on Ossa, and of how Jupiter threw down the up-piled mountains. Perhaps it will be better if I give it in the words of Dryden rather than in the original tongue. I think it is very appropriate to the Government's proposal because that proposal means
1638
piling mountain upon mountain of work on the shoulders of both authorities and individuals. The Government are not Titans but their fate will be the same as that of the Titans:
"With mountains piled on mountains, thrice they strove.
To scale the steepy battlements of Jove
And thrice his lightning and red thunder played,
And their demolished works in ruin laid."
That is a prophecy for the hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is one other argument which I wish to emphasise. The work of education is in future to be done in committees and not publicly as at present. I remember the long struggle which we had in the school board of Glasgow, extending over many years, to get our meetings held in public. When we did at length hold our meetings in public, it produced a great change in the popular interest shown in the subject and the percentage of those who voted at elections went up gradually. The percentage of those who take an interest in education in Glasgow compares favourably with the figures in other parts of the country. In 1922, 57.1 went to the polls in connection with the Glasgow authority; in 1925, 45.7 and in 1928, 46.9; and in connection with the town council of Glasgow, in 1927 the percentage was 57.3. This proposal as has been pointed out, portends the curtailment of education services on grounds of false economy. The right hon. Gentleman has twitted us with quoting the London "Times" and I propose to give him something from the "Glasgow (Herald" which brings out Very clearly the design of the Government. We understand chat that paper is in very close torch with the designs of the Government. This is evidently designed so that expenditure shall be cut down if it is thought that education is soaring. These people are to act as judges and to adjudicate as to how much should be spent on this or that service. The "Glasgow Herald" of 3rd July last said:
"This authority, through its finance committee, will secure that each service gets its proper share and that the cost of services does not amount beyond the ratepayer's capacity."
That is to be one of the great duties of the reconstituted county councils and town councils. The Lanarkshire education authority in its memorial, referring

1639
to the provision of the Bill for the appointment of a minority of
"persons of experience in education and persons acquainted with the needs of various kinds of schools"
says:
"It appears from this provision that experience in education is approved in principle so long as it can be effectively controlled by members who do not necessarily possess that qualification."
I hold that there is no mandate for this line of policy by the Government. Even to-day we have only had the teachers adduced as in favour of this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to 1918, when these proposals were put forward and withdrawn. He says it was owing to pressure from certain quarters; but the then Secretary for Scotland stated his reasons. He said that he had come to the conclusion that there was considerable opposition to the proposals and that indirect election and co-option were not acceptable to public opinion; and that he recognised that his views had not prevailed. He added:
"I therefore bow to public opinion as I understand it."
We have to-day a Secretary of State who does not bow to public opinion. We had in Scottish history a notable man, James Guthrie, of whom it was said that he was "the short man that could not bow." That was a noble quality when directed to a good object; but stubbornness in error and persistence in doing wrong are not good qualities. We do not admire the persistency which is blind, which is acting contrary to the best educational traditions and is resisting the national demand for the preservation of a system that has approved itself. The Government admit that the Measure is unpopular and that this Clause in particular is unpopular. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Well, shall we quote the "Glasgow Herald" once again? I shall remind hon. Members of what the Prime Minister said at Glasgow on 22nd November, 1928:
"There is, very naturally, tolerably strong feeling on this matter in many parts of Scotland."
When the right hon. Gentleman said as much as that, we know that there must have been considerable resistance to it. The fact of the matter is that we hear nothing but funeral panegyrics on the system which the Government are
1640
destroying. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities gave us one of those panegyrics. I quote from the Prime Minister's panegyric on the system which he is destroying. Referring to the ad hoc system he said:
"The present system has worked satisfactorily in Scotland for half a century. Your activities are well known to us and I should like, here, to pay a warm tribute to the members of your education authorities and to your parish councils in Scotland for the self-sacrificing work they have done for generations for their country."
So that they come, at once to bury Caesar and to praise him. They pronounce the funeral oration on the ad hoc system and say mournfully "We shall never see its like again." The only consolation that we have is that we shall never see this Government's like again. The Secretary of State was a little raw yesterday at an historical allusion made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels). I am confident that he will take in good part the historical allusion with which I am going to close, because I do not propose to apply it specially to himself, but to the Government of which he is a foremost Member. I go back to the year 1399, when Richard II was deposed, and they put into his hands to read this document, which he read out prior to his deposition, that he was
"incapable of reigning, and worthy for his great demerits to be deposed."
So I am confident that in a few months' time, and particularly in Scotland, in view of what the Government is proposing here, the verdict of the whole country and of Scotland will be that this Government is incapable of ruling, and worthy for its great demerits to be deposed.
Sir ROBERT HORNE: If the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr). believes with all the fervour with which he has stated his conviction that this Bill is going to be the death blow to the Government, then I gather that it is something which he would welcome rather than decry, but I confess that I speak with a little diffidence after the Jove who has been scattering, with so much freedom, the mountains which he says have been piled up against him. As far as I am concerned, I do not feel as if I were one of those who were piling up mountains to attack anybody. What we

1641
are trying to do here is not to make any assault upon any system, but to do that which the hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) so eloquently claimed that we ought to do, and that is to keep Scotland in the forefront of educational advantages rather than ever to let it lag behind. I am one of those who are somewhat belated converts to the view which the Secretary of State for Scotland has put forward, but I am sure that, whatever side we take in this controversy, we shall all agree that there is nothing upon which Scotsmen have been more ardent than upon the question of education. and there is nothing we are so anxious to see put in as efficient a position as is possible.
Both sides of the Committee will agree about that, and I, for one, believing that the ad hoc system had for long served the country well, would not have thought at this particular moment of changing it. There are various views put forward as to why we should not change it. For example, the hon. Member for Peebles said, "Why should we not take the position which to-day is supported by the whole of the education authorities in Scotland, who are unanimous in demanding that the Government should not embark upon the scheme which is now before the House of Commons?" I can quite well understand the reluctance of the education authorities to replace this system. If I had been a member of an education authority myself, I should have been somewhat resentful of the idea that the system could be in any way made more perfect, and I appreciate entirely the views which have been presented throughout the country by those who have, up till now, carried on the system of education in Scotland with the highest possible efficiency. On the other hand, it is to be noted that the teachers of Scotland, who are the people who have got to produce the results, are unanimously in favour of this scheme, and surely it is upon them that the main responsibility for turning out well educated children in the end rests. I have no doubt that there are education authorities that are moved by those political ideas to which the hon. Member who has just sat down gave vent, but the people who are concerned with making a well educated people are, on the other hand, entirely in favour of the
1642
change which is now suggested in the Bill.
What are the merits of this change? I have heard, during the course of this afternoon, very frequent asseverations from the opposite benches that no argument has been adduced for so completely altering the system upon which elections for educational authorities are conducted in Scotland, but indeed, on the other hand, I have heard no plea for the present system other than the statement that an ad hoc system is the best. There has been no attempt made to prove that it is the best, and all that has been pointed to is the fact that we have done very well up to now, but there has been no claim made that we could not do better under the system suggested. There are many reasons, of which I will adduce only two, why we should begin to reconsider that position. In the first place, I want to say that it must be very well known to everybody who is well acquainted with Scotland to-day that the public are losing interest in elections in Scotland because of the numbers of them that we have had, and you have only to look at the statistics of the votes for our various local authorities and education authorities to see that interest in our local government and in our educational government is as present very tax. You will find a most extraordinarily low poll of the electorate in connection with some of the most important elections.
Like the last speaker, who has been long associated with Glasgow, as I have, I am very glad that the Glasgow figures show better than those of other towns in Scotland. Last year, I think, something like 47 per cent. of the electorate went to the poll for the education authority, although that in itself, in a country like Scotland, interested in education as it is, is a very, very meagre number. We must acknowledge that at the best it does not come very high, but it is as good as it is for many other local bodies. But if you could only have one election, which would encompass a large number of these subjects, you would indeed have; in my view, an interest in all of them put together which would show a, very much better proportion than you have now. But leave Glasgow out, and look for a moment at the other towns in Scotland in the same year. I will take Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, the city in which it is proposed that the new national

1643
Parliament of Scotland should sit, and which is supposed to be, and certainly is, a capital of ancient name and high repute. Why, only 25 per cent. of the electorate voted in Edinburgh at the election for the education authority.
Let us go further north. Let us go to a region which comes nearer to the constituency of my hon. and gallant Friend who is the Whip of the Liberal party. Go to Dundee, and you will find there that only 26 per cent. of the electorate voted. Go north still further, to that home of education, Aberdeen, and you will find that there was no election at all—I suppose because the people were mainly interested in the political election that was going on, which was to send a Member to Parliament whom we were all glad to welcome back. But the fact is this, that throughout these great towns of (Scotland the interest in the elections for the education authorities is not of a character that any of us would regard as creditable, and the way in which to increase the interest in these topics is undoubtedly, in my view, to bring the great subjects of your popular service together and have an election in which the great mass of your people will be really interested.
Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman, then, explain why, in the London County Council election, the percentage is just about 30?
Sir R. HORNE: I hope it will be very much better in Scotland than it is in London. We in Scotland have always shown a much more eager interest in popular matters than they have in the South, and I hope we shall continue to do so.
Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to Aberdeen, I am sorry to continue the tedious process of correcting his misstatements, but the late Member for Aberdeen was not even dead before the education election was over.
Sir R. HORNE: That was not a statement on the merits of the question; it was only a reference to show that I recognised that my hon. Friend has returned to the House. I have reflected greatly upon this question, to the best of my ability, and having, as I
1644
say, started with a prejudice on the opposite side, I have come to the view that we shall do far better, and have a far more efficient service for all purposes, if we have an election which will comprise all these great objects of public interest. Let me take as an example the honourable House in which we all sit. Is it to be said that because we are elected upon an enormous variety of topics, far greater than those which a county council or a town council has to consider, there is any one of them that we are utterly incapable of dealing with, or that we are going to neglect? That, surely, is the last argument which members of a popular assembly would use as against a county council or a town council because it happens to have a large variety of subjects to deal with. It is suggested that, although county councils would deal with many services, education should be left outside, that education should be the step-daughter of all the services. I can think of no way of rendering education, not only less interesting, but perhaps negligible, than by leaving it outside of the great services upon which the highest form of popular local election is going to take place in Scotland. Accordingly, I have come to the conclusion that, so far from adherence to the ad hoc system being for the benefit of education in Scotland, it is time we made a change, in order to create that popular interest which is necessary if we are going to make the education of the people of Scotland thoroughly efficacious, and, indeed, not only efficacious, but keep it ahead of the rest of the world, as it has been in the past.
There is one more point which I will venture to put to the Committee. There are a great number of people in this country who are interested in diverse topics, and particularly there is a vast number interested in education, who would be useful people on educational authorities, but who yet are not willing to run the gamut of popular election and to go through all the trouble which we, for example. go through in order to come to this House. It is not everybody who is willing to endure the fatigue and trouble of an election.
Mr. HARDIE: They are willing to keep things back.
Sir R. HORNE: I think the hon. Member will recognise that there are adherents of his own party who are of the particular temperament to which I refer, and indeed does not Parliament constantly show it? If there is any subject of great difficulty or of technical interest, what does Parliament do? It does not depend simply upon those whom popular favour has acclaimed as representatives in the House of Commons. It goes outside, and it appoints Commissions, on which it places the representatives of the particular interests concerned, and it endeavours to get the aid of all the expert evidence obtainable to reinforce the conclusions to which a particular Parliamentary Committee may have come. It is not to be supposed that all the wisdom of the country is collected in representative assemblies. On the contrary, surely we all recognise that there are vast numbers of people, particularly well fitted to give opinions about a variety of things, who yet are not on popular aasemblies.
6.0 p.m.
I welcome the present Bill of the Secretary of State for Scotland for this one reason more than any other. I hear co-option constantly being derided, as if it was some sort of pariah which ought to be thrown out on the streets, but co-option in this matter is a very good thing. Co-option will enable you to get people who take a keen interest in education on to your committees, and many who, as I say, would not go through the trouble of popular election. I am so convinced of the efficacy of what is now being done that I welcome the plan which the Secretary of State for Scotland has put before us, and for no reason more than that we should have the advantage of a great deal of expert help in such matters, which the education authorities have not been able to get in the past. The hon. Member for Peebles said that he would not go back to 1872 as the year when live history began, because he happened to be born in that year.
Mr. WESTWOOD: No, I was born many years after that.
Sir R. HORNE: At any rate, the hon. Member refuses to go back to the beginning of the education system in 1873 because, I suppose it had been born before him. There is an old phrase that
"There were great men before Agamemnon,"
1646
but the hon. Member will not recognise that there were any men before him or any history before him. Scotland produced an excellent system of education long before we had school boards, and that was done by the influence of the people in Scotland who were interested in education, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Peebles is. Let us not think, therefore, that by electing people by co-option we shall do any harm to education in Scotland; indeed, it may do it a very great service.
Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I am a little embarrassed, in dealing with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home), by finding a little difficulty in knowing which of his arguments we are to take seriously, and which are merely amiable irrelevancies, such as his welcome back of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. W. Benn). He tries to base an. argument on the figures of the voting in education authority elections in Scotland, but the argument cuts both ways. If you take the figures for local elections, you will find that they were not perhaps very dissimilar, but supposing the figures for local elections to be very much larger—
Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Baronet must have misunderstood my argument. I referred to many election;; affecting all local authorities, not merely elections for the education authorities.
Sir A. SINCLAIR: I accept the correction, but the fact that there are a great many other elections, or whatever else the reason may be. results in a smaller interest being taken in education than in other local concerns, and it tends to show that if you have one authority to administer education as well as all the other local concerns, the interest taken in education by the voters and therefore the members of the new authority will be smaller, for people will be returned who are interested in other social and civic questions and very few interested in education. Then the right hon. Gentleman says that the people who are concerned in making education a success are unanimously in favour of this change. By that he means the teachers. But the teachers are not unanimous. He means that the Educational Institute of Teachers have

1647
passed a resolution in favour of the change, but they are not the only people concerned. They are not the people mainly concerned. The people mainly concerned are the parents of the children in Scotland. Moreover, the Secretary of State for Scotland told us that the teachers were at least as greatly opposed to the ad hoc authority in 1918 as they are now, implying that they were more greatly opposed in 1918 than now, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead began his speech by saying that he was a recent convert to the ad omnia authority. Therefore, until recently, this argument carried no weight with the right hon. Gentleman, as I hope that it will not do with the Committee to-day. We do not want our educational system damaged. We are proud of the Scottish system. The right hon. Gentleman talked about making it more efficacious and equal to other educational systems of the world—
Sir R. HORNE: I said "better."
Sir A. SINCLAIR: I accept the correction.
Sir R. HORNE: If the hon. Baronet uses my phrases, he had better use them correctly.
Sir A. SINCLAIR: I agree that he wants to make it better; I accept his correction, and I am grateful to him for it. The fact is, however, that it is better, and has long been better and the admiration of the world, and we believe that that cannot be dissociated from the circumstance that it originally was administered by an ah hoc authority. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) gibed at hon. Members on these benches for what he called their conservatism, but his gibe leaves my withers unwrung. Our plans for education are well-known; we have pressed them repeatedly upon the Government on the Education Vote and whenever an opportunity has offered. We object to the particular methods which the Government propose. All movement is not progress: there is movement backwards, and that is why we find ourselves compelled to resist these reactionary proposals. The fact is that we have to defend the ground which has been won by the progressive forces in the past against the reactionary assaults of this Government.
1648
The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities retailed what he thought were the principal arguments against the change which the Government propose, and in order to do this he manufactured out of as brittle material as he could lay his hands upon, some arguments which bore a sort of superficial resemblance to the cogent contentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton). Surely it was his duty to employ his time less in meeting the arguments against the change, and more in giving the Committee the arguments for the change, because the onus of proof must be on those who are trying to alter what has been the foundation of so much educational progress in Scotland. The hon. Member said that the earlier Acts gave unified administration, and that it is now our business to unify this system with the other activities of local government. He went on to say that the burgh schools were the pioneers of education, and that the man who scorns municipal control is forgetful of an honourable chapter of Scottish history, and he referred to Ayr Burghs. Why was Ayr Burghs so successful in ancient days? Because you had there a community deeply interested in education, devoting its energy to educational progress, and a burgh authority devoting time, energy and thought to this question.
Have you got that now I Can you have it now? We know, in point of fact, that our burgh and county councils have now to engage on a whole range of complicated activities. How can they possibly concentrate their thought, energy and attention upon the subject, of education, as it was possible for a burgh council to do in those old days long ago? We are piling upon these burgh councils and county authorities, who have already a far greater complexity of business to undertake than they had centuries ago, a great many new duties. We decided last night that they were to have the work of the parish councils in addition to all the work that they have already. They are to have the work of the boards of control and of the small burghs. We are piling these burdens upon the local authority, and how can any comparison be drawn between the duties which they have to perform, and the opportunities which they have of serving the cause of education, with the opportunities which were at the disposal of the people who

1649
were responsible for educational advance in Ayr centuries ago? The remarkable thing is that a great many of the town councils in Scotland realise it, and they do not want these extra responsibilities. They would like to have some control over finance but, that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) said in his admirable and cogent speech, could easily be arranged without destroying the ad hoc authorities altogether.
Why should these over-burdened men be more efficient than men who are elected solely for the purpose of dealing with questions of education? It is contrary to common sense that they should be more efficient and have as much time to devote to this great question in future on ad omnia authorities as they have had in the past under the ad hoc system. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities asked who were the best kind of people to direct education, and he said the ordinary man with the ordinary range of interests. What better description could there be of the men and women who now man our education authorities? They are ordinary men and women with the ordinary range of interests. Those who will man the authorities of the right hon. Gentleman may be ordinary men and women, but they will have a most extraordinary range of interests spreading over almost every conceivable social and civic activity.
The Secretary of State demurred to any steps being taken to separate or segregate education from the larger social services of the country, but that is exactly what we have been doing in Scotland for centuries with the most admirable results. The system has triumphantly vindicated itself. In Scotland we are proud of the education system which has enabled out-young men and women to go into every country of the world to contribute immensely to the upbuilding of those countries and to the progress of civilisation. It is a remarkable fact that in Scotland more than in any other country, and certainly more than in England, the educational system has done more for the boys and girls in the countryside, and has given them splendid opportunities of which they have made such good use. Sir John Struthers used to say that the remote and sparsely populated county of Caithness led Scotland in education, and he added that Thurso led Caithness. It
1650
is a remarkable fact that in the Aberdeen University examinations last year the three burghs which came out first were Elgin, Buckie and, then, this little burgh of Thurso, away in the far north of Scotland. It is a very remarkable system which gives these results and enables people living in those remote and scattered districts to compete on level terms with and to beat in open competition people from the great towns.
Sir R. HORNE: Scotland did this long before there were school boards—led the world long before.
Sir A, SINCLAIR: But my argument is not directed particularly to the retention of school boards, because we have not got school boards.
Sir R. HORNE: Long before there was any ad hoc system there was an elected authority.
Sir A. SINCLAIR: There was an ad hoc system before we had the system of elections. But under the other system there was this, which you can get now only by means of the ad hoc system, and that is a cencentration of interest on education, because the people who were interested in education were not occupied with this great range of activities which they will have if this Measure is passed into law.
Then the right hon. Gentleman said that unless we adopt these proposals there will be no opportunities for bringing various other activities—health activities and so forth—under closer control, and that we ought to prevent overlapping. I am not going into the overlapping argument. He gave us one specific case to-day, the case of the feeding of destitute school children, and on that matter he was most admirably dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr). On every platform in Scotland Tories are talking about overlapping, but they never give instances, because although overlapping does occur to a certain extent it is on such an insignificant scale that it would be laughed at if it were put forward as a reason for doing away with education authorities and the rest of the structure of our local government.
Then the right hon. Gentleman referred to the consolidated rate, but. as the hon. Member for Peebles said. that could be

1651
dealt with by consultation between the bodies concerned. At the present time these bodies are standing in the dock, and the question is whether they are to be executed by this Committee or not. What is the charge against them? Surely that is a relevant question. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities proved none. He said there was no criticism of the work of the education authorities, and that their record was highly creditable. Then why get rid of instruments of educational progress which have served their purpose so well? He said we should get greater progress in future under the new authorities. I think he is very optimistic. If you have instruments like this, which are working well giving so much satisfaction, and producing such magnificent results, why throw them away in favour of an instrument like that suggested in the Bill, which is not going to be devoted solely, or even mainly, to the service of education, but will be occupied with the whole range of social and civic interests among the people of Scotland?
The Secretary of State for Scotland spoke in rather different language. He did not follow the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities in saying there was no criticism of the work and that the record was highly creditable. He said he would be the last to express anything of a derogatory nature. That is very much more tepid praise, if, indeed, it be regarded as praise at all. If there is anything at the back of the minds of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they have any charge to bring against education authorities, let us have it. If any other Minister is going to reply, let us hear what the charges are, let Ministers give expression to anything of a derogatory nature which they may have at the back of their minds. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities has appealed to us to accept these proposals. He thinks this new body is well suited to foster the interests of education in Scotland. Would he submit his own universities to its control? Would he, for one moment, say that the great work of a university should be directed by people whose actual duties comprise the whole range of other interests?
Mr. SKELTON: Is the hon. and gallant Member really suggesting that he would
1652
put the universities under the education authorities? If not. his argument has no point.
Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am suggesting that they are under an ad hoc authority. Just as the education authority is an ad hoc authority for the purposes of educa-tion, so the universities have their ad hoc authorities, and I am suggesting to the hon. Member that he would not care to change that system in the case of the universities. There is no mandate for this proposal from the people of Scotland; I go further, and say there is no Scottish majority for it in this Committee. The Government should either leave this matter to a free vote of this Committee or they should save our time debating this subject by withdrawing the proposals altogether.
Sir PATRICK FORD: This question of ad hoc authorities seems to raise some heat. Personally, I cannot understand this tremendous enthusiasm for such a newly-born thing as the ad hoc authority. If we go over the whole noble range of Scottish history and Scottish education we are confronted by the interesting fact that the ad hoc authority was introduced in 1872. There was a long connection between popularly-elected bodies and education before that date. In my own native city of Edinburgh the High School was practically the child of the town council, and when the Edinburgh Academy, an honourable school of which I was a member, was founded in 1826, there was a great outcry that there should be this rival to the town council school, the old and honourable High School of Scotland. Historically, a great deal too much has been made of, and too much has been founded upon, the idea that there is in this ad hoc system something of such antiquity and such proved worth that we cannot go back beyond 1872. When we come down to principles, although the Opposition speak with different voices on the question, it seems to me that in theory they are rather pleading for an ad hoc authority, because at the back of their minds they think that in that way they will get experts to run education. In the government of this country the ad hoc system is not that which we adopt. We are not in the habit of appointing admirals Civil Lords of the Admiralty, or of putting generals at the head of the War Office; in fact, we usually try to put there men with minds

1653
trained on other lines, who can have the advantage of their experts and then give the judgment of a well-trained and balanced mind. That is what we shall have in this matter of education. There will be the highly trained people in the Department, there will be a highly trained body of teachers, and there will be a certain number of co-opted members, and I think it is far better that a body constituted in the way proposed should, subject to Parliament, control the destinies of Scottish education.
In the last few years I do not think that Scottish education has really been quite as effective as it was some years ago. I think that when we get back to more common-sense control we shall do better. In the conduct of the Great War, it was when the civilian mind was brought in, and its ideas sometimes clashed with and sometimes led the routine minds of the people brought up in the professions connected with the conduct of war, that we got the best results in most cases. For that reason, among others, I see no great argument in favour of the ad hoc system. That system would be out of harmony with the whole structure of the Bill. There are hon. Members opposite who admit that there is a good deal which is good in the Bill. If we are to introduce the ad hoc system in connection with education, we shall have to throw open the door in many other directions, and the idea of getting on these authorities a body of men who are chosen for their general intelligence and general business ability in dealing with the subjects in which the ratepayers are interested must inevitably go by the board. I think that as a matter of principle we must support the proposal and that it will be for the benefit of education itself.
Mr. WHEATLEY: I would like to bring the Committee back to the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) who, as has been frequently stated, comes in and makes a speech and then disappears to take part in a multitude of duties—a case such as we are citing in argument against this Bill.
Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) waited until the following speaker had answered him.
Mr. WHEATLEY: The hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Lane Mitchell) will sit a long while in this House before anyone answers him. At the outset I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to this—that it is a most remarkable thing that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead and the hon. Member who represents the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) are both sons of the manse. Education in Scotland has been for centuries, and is to-day, under Protestant control, and I think the public should mark the fact that the two gentlemen who are taking an active and a conspicuous part in the removal of it from that control are the two Members to whom I have referred. I state that lest religious controversies should be introduced into our forthcoming elections owing to the appearance of this Bill, and I hope it will go forth to all parts of Scotland that that control upon which Scotland prides itself so much is being destroyed by the Members of the Conservative party. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead referred to Scotland's anxiety about education. I think I can claim that Scotland has enthusiasm for education, that to the Scottish mind, and particularly to the Scottish working-class mind, education is something sacred, something far too sacred to be dealt with in the tinkering manner in which it is being handled by the Tory Government to-day. The right hon. Gentleman repeated an argument which was used by the Secretary of State for Scotland. He told us that the teachers had declared themselves strongly in favour of this Measure. that the teachers are the people who have been doing this work, and that they are just the people who should guide the House of Commons. Surely that is a very strange doctrine to come from the Tory benches. Acting on the same principle, I should like to ask if the Conservative party would look for light and leading to the miners in regard to the management of the mines? Would they look to the steel-workers on questions relating to steel works, or would they look to the railway workers upon questions affecting the working of the. railways.
I assume that a Member of the Front Bench will reply to this Debate, and I notice that those sitting on the Treasury Bench are already putting their heads

1655
together in order to arrive at some common finding as regards their views on this Bill. In view of the eulogies which have been paid to the teaching profession, I would like to ask if the Government intend to withdraw from the Bill the provision which provides that the teachers are the only people who cannot be co-opted by the education committees in the future. If the Government want men and women who know this work, surely the teachers are the first people whose knowledge and value should be appreciated. Instead of taking that course the Government select the teachers as the very last people to be consulted in regard to educational administration.
Hon. Members opposite have referred to the value of co-opted members on these committees, but my experience is that those wise people who are co-opted are generally people who can never secure election on a local authority. Who will be the judges in the future of the capacity of people to represent them in public life? Are we going to take away the judgment from the people? If the discards, the despised and the rejected of the electorate are to be selected to manage our local affairs, surely that is a departure from the political wisdom that has governed this country for at least one and a-half centuries. It is a remarkable fact that co-opted members very seldom have much influence on the policy of the authority upon which they serve. The mere fact that they cannot be elected puts them in an inferior place in the eyes of the people. Glasgow has had an opportunity of applying this system of co-option, and the Glasgow Corporation have refused to apply it. They have power to co-opt members in the case of the child welfare committee, but they have refused to take advantage of that provision. I submit that all this parading of the co-opted member as being something likely to give us more superior administration than we have had in the past emanates either from ignorance or from an attempt to humbug this Committee.
I thought that we should have received from the Secretary of State for Scotland some sound arguments for proposing this drastic change in the national system of Scotland. Under this Bill, the education authorities are in the dock, and they are being tried for their lives. Under those
1656
circumstances, surely the onus is on the prosecution to show why they should be executed. We have been given no reason at all. The Secretary of State for Scotland commenced his speech by telling us what he told Scotland, but we are much more interested to know what Scotland told the right hon. Gentleman. Scotland has not been seriously consulted. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman has consulted various authorities. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in future, when he consults people on education in Scotland, they will not be representatives of education authorities, but they will be the representatives of federations of municipalities and county councils. When you have approximated the education machinery of Scotland to that of England the probability may be that you will have to consult the associations representing the municipalities of England and Scotland combined as well as the representatives of the county councils of England and Scotland combined. We have only four large centres in Scotland out with the county councils, like Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, and Aberdeen, but the geographical position is vastly different in England where you have a large number of municipalities. I can imagine a multitude of advice coming from all these associations in connection with the education system of the future.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has no authority whatever from the people of Scotland to pursue this Measure, which is a mere mockery of democratic control. The people of this country have little or no say at all as to what the laws of the country should be, and I take this as an instance. Here you have a political party which went to the country in 1924, and they were returned upon every question under the sun except the question of abolishing education authorities. The party opposite at the last election may have told the electors that they intended abolishing the Russians and the Communists, hut nobody ever gave them authority to abolish our education authorities. The Secretary of State for Scotland says that he represents the voice of Scotland. On that point, I would like to re-echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) and say: "If that is the case, then God help poor old Scotland."
We have been told that the existing education authorities have been sue-

1657
cessful. Surely that is not an argument in favour of their abolition, but in favour of their retention. Everybody knows that it is much better to stick to tried and experienced machinery than to scrap it, simply because the scrapping of it suits the political requirements of the Government of the day. As I pointed out yesterday, this Bill does not come from Scotland, and it has nothing Scottish about it. The one and only argument used by the Secretary of State for Scotland was that this Measure was required to complete the great change that is taking place in rating, and it fits in with the De-rating Bill; in fact, it is a cog in the wheel of de-rating. Where did the De-rating Bill come from? It did not come from the Universities of Scotland, or the Pollok Division of Glasgow, or from the Hillhead Division of Glasgow. It was made in Birmingham, where all shoddy goods are made. The De-rating Bill, coming from Birmingham, was polished up in Whitehall, and, after that, the Secretary of State for Scotland consented to adopt the humiliating position into which Scotland has been put under the present Tory Government. The Secretary of State for Scotland has been told that in order to conform to this Birmingham-made De-rating Bill he must scrap the whole machinery of the country we represent, and he has adopted this policy without consulting the people of Scotland. He has taken this course without any authority at all, and he has been acting entirely on the instructions of the Minister of Health.
We have been given no substantial argument in favour of this Measure. We have just been told that the ad hoe authority is not specially qualified for dealing with education. Are we to take it that the members of a gas committee or a sewage committee are more qualified to deal with education than the people specially elected because they have convinced the electors that they are specially fitted to deal with education? We have been told that men and women with experience in education will be co-opted. My view is that the number of people who will be experienced in education matters will be a diminishing quantity from the day that this Bill is placed on the Statute Book. From the moment you abolish all these education committees, you will abolish
1658
the training ground where you have been giving experience to those engaged in education work. We may take it that within a very few years after the passing of this Bill we shall only be permitted to look to the members of gas committees and electricity committees to find men experienced in education administration.
Even if we. accept the argument put forward by the Government that this Measure is necessary for Scotland on account of the de-rating proposals, will the representative of the Government who is going to reply to this Debate tell us how education will benefit by the proposals in this Bill or by de-rating? I think that is a very important question. If education is to be stripped of all its machinery in order to suit de-rating, I think we are entitled to know what financial sacrifice is being made in return to support education. What do we find in the Clause which we are discussing? We find that the Government contemplate a deficiency in the amount required to administer the education system of Scotland. In Sub-section (2) of this Clause, it says:
"ascertain the amount of the deficiency in the education fund of their area and such deficiency, so far as required to be defrayed out of rates."
This is an obligation put upon them by Act of Parliament and by the Government who are quite satisfied that there will be deficiencies in the education funds throughout the area. If they did not contemplate that, there would be no need to put these obligations on the authorities. When these deficiencies are ascer-tanied, they are to be defrayed out of the rates. The original proposal was:
"Shall be deferred out of a rate leviable for the purpose."
There is an Amendment to strike out the words
"out of a rate leviable for the purpose,"
but the deficiency is to be defrayed so far as required out of the rates. Does that mean that we are going to have-additional financial assistance for the carrying on of education in Scotland? The rates will be levied on a lower rateable value, and the rates that will be raised will not be imposed on the large employers engaged in productive work who are being de rated. In other words, the shopkeepers and householders and all those engaged in work outside actual

1659
productive occupations will have to pay a higher rate than they would have had to pay but for the introduction of the De-rating Bill in order to meet any deficiency that takes place in the education fund. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will go to Scotland and make it perfectly clear that the common people of Scotland are required to pay more rates. I want to point out what is behind that proposal. The whole object of this set of schemes is to retard progress, and to make it more expensive for the people to have education or anything else. The Government are learning by experience in all their elections, Parliamentary and local, that it is unpopular directly to oppose the progress of schemes that are calculated to raise the standard of social comfort. Now they are putting the ratepayers into the firing line, into the very forefront of the battle, and they are hoping that, as a result of the imposition of the whole of the deficiency in the education rate on the lower rateable value which has to be borne by the poorer section of the community, that poorer section, out of sheer selfishness, will oppose progress in educational matters and give us a continuance of Tory rule. That is what is behind the scheme, and that is what is behind every scheme associated with the Measures that we have been discussing for the past two or three months.
I would like this point to be made perfectly clear again by the representative of the Government who speaks. It is a point that was raised in the discussion on the English Bill, and I do not think it was properly cleared up. Let me take the case of Glasgow, because I am one of its representatives. In estimating the loss of rates to the City of Glasgow due to the de-rating scheme, we may take it, I suppose, that the rate for education will be taken into account. Am I to assume that the Government have taken steps to guarantee that, when the general Exchequer grant is being distributed, the amount for education that will be refunded will be equal to the amount for educational purposes that is being taken away by their de-rating scheme? Even if that be so, I want to remind the Committee that during the five years, or at any rate during four of the five years following the coming
1660
into operation of the Bill, every improvement that takes place necessitating greater expenditure on the part of the city in the administration of education will have to come entirely from the rates, and entirely from the rates on the lower rateable value—from the pockets of the poor—in the hope that by robbing them in that way the poor will be a barrier to the progress of education.
One could find hundreds of arguments against this Bill, and hon. Members on the other side have the greatest possible difficulty in finding an argument in support of it. Will the representative of the Government tell us what is the estimated financial saving in Glasgow by the change? We hear about economy. What is to be the extent of the economy? How much is to be saved? Surely, before embarking on a Measure like this, the Government have gone carefully into the matter; or is it the case that even in this matter they have taken the scheme from Whitehall, without seriously examining it and without any authority from Scotland, imposing it on Scotland against the wishes of Scotland and against the wishes of the Scottish Members of the House of Commons. We are entitled to know, as one of my hon. Friends puts it, whether the saving is to be £l, or £l,000 or £10,000. In other words, what is the estimate in pounds, shillings and pence of the sacrifice that Scotland is being asked to make?
As I have said, the people of Scotland are having no voice in this at all. We claimed yesterday, and we repeat it to-day, that Scotland, through its representatives, would not accept this Measure from the House of Commons. If the Government wish to test that, it may be easily decided by leaving this question to the Scottish Members. We are told that Scottish affairs shall be controlled by Scottish sentiment, by the people who represent Scotland. Let the Government try it here. As I have said, there is nothing that is held more sacred in Scotland than this question of education. Members on these benches could thrill the House with admirable instances of boys and girls who in Scotland, under the most difficult conditions, from the slums, from the single-apartment houses of Lanarkshire, have climbed, under our education system right up to the universities. Are we to have any guaran-

1661
tee that in the future fees are not going to he charged in the secondary schools? Are they to be free in Scotland under the changed conditions? These are things that we are entitled to know. I am told that Glasgow is abolishing the fees; will the new authority have power to do that, and shall we have any guarantee that the goods which have been delivered by the ad hoc authorities will not be stolen by the authority that is now to control education. There are many questions like that on which I should like to have a guarantee.
There is another question which is agitating Scotland very much. We are told that this is going to clean and purify and give greater interest in our local elections. Will it? Is it not just as likely that the religious controversy which all right-minded people deplore in Scottish local elections is now going to be carried into all the councils and into all public questions? I should like the right hon. Gentleman to do what he can here—it is something, at least, that he can do—to protect us from that, because it would certainly be an evil of the first magnitude. I hope he will ensure that it will not grow up from the Measure which his magnificent English majority will enable him to press through the House. At the present moment I have two petitions from parish churches in my own constituency. They are anxious, like all the people in Scotland, to have guarantees for the contirruance of religious instruction in the schools. The right hon. Gentleman has met them as far as that part of their demand is concerned, but they also ask—and I, who am not a Protestant, think they are quite justified in asking—that, just as the other religious bodies, the Catholics and Episcopalians, are to have co-opted representation on the education committee, they should have representation also.
It is said that there is no need for representation in their case because they are in a majority now, and it is not necessary to protect the majority against a minority. If they are in a majority now, as they undoubtedly are, what possible harm could be done by giving to them an additional representative? A majority can never become more powerful by the addition of one member. The present Tory Government have not
1662
exhibited any strength because they have had a majority of 200. Every time an election is fought, they go out and put up a candidate to try to get one more. I submit, and I think it is proper that it should come from me, that the parish churches of Scotland are. as much entitled to representation as any other religious denomination, and I demand it on behalf of the parish church people in the constituency that I represent. I hope that the Secretary of State will accede to my request, and will not give it out that, under the provisions of his Bill, as far as co-option is concerned, no Protestant need apply.
I do not want to take up any more of the time of the Committee in discussing this question. As one who has some little knowledge of local administration, who has had experience in a county council and in a city council, who has been Minister of Health for England and Wales, I can scarcely retain my patience when I consider the futility of imposing on the nation that I represent a Bill such as we have before us to-day, something that tears up from their very roots the institutions of Scotland. There is a great deal in tradition. It may be said that the parish councils only go back to 1904, or whatever was the date when they were formed; but the parochial powers existed before that, and the parish has always been associated with education in Scotland. Education in Scotland is something that is too pure to be associated with sewers and gas committees and so on. Education is the food of the mind of the people; the Scottish character has been moulded by the educational system of Scotland. Scotland is proud of its education. I do not know how many will agree with me, but I claim that the general standard of education in the City of Glasgow, when due allowance is made for the poverty of the people, for the difficulties in their way, for the need for sending their boys and girls into factories and workshops at the very earliest age that the law will allow in order to assist in the maintenance of the families of which they are members—when all that is allowed for, the standard of education in the City of Glasgow will compare favourably with the standard of education in any part of Britain, or in any part of the world.

1663
I mean by education not merely the test that is applied in an elementary school. In Scotland, we take a wider range of education. Get the statistics from the Scottish libraries, and see how much is contributed there, through the books that are given out, to the education of Scotland. It is a marvellous tribute to the interest of the Scottish people in the betterment of their minds and in the training of their children. That will be seen in Glasgow, and, if an argument is wanted from the House of Commons as to the superiority of the education that prevails in the City of Glasgow, it will be found in the fact that it is the first great city to send a majority of Labour Members to the British House of Commons.
Mr. COWAN: I should have much preferred that this question of the local administration of education should have come before the Committee as a single issue, without being complicated by other matters, such as de-rating and the like. I confess that I have no love whatever for the Government's de-rating proposals, but, be that as it may, I find myself in hearty sympathy with the proposal contained in this Sub-section of Clause 3. In saying that, I am simply giving expression to opinions and conclusions at which I arrived many years ago, long before I was a Member of the House of Commons.
7.0 p.m.
If I may, as one who does not often trespass upon the time of the House, I would crave the indulgence of the Committee that I might give as briefly as possible some account of the reasons which led me to take up the attitude which I now do. Everyone acquainted with Scottish education knows that the Act of 1872 put local administration upon a parish basis, but that system had not been long in operation before its shortcomings were evident. The rising conceptions of education made it quite impossible for those small bodies to see them adequately fulfilled. Over a long series of years a number of proposed Amendments were put forward, and this House itself endeavoured on more than one occasion to rectify the state of matters that then prevailed, but nothing Was done until the time of the War.
In the middle of the War, there was set up a Cabinet Reconstruction Com-
1664
mittee, and it was asked that suggestions with a view to improving our education system should be submitted to that Reconstruction Committee. That being so, the three great professional organisa tions in Scotland appointed a representative joint committee to survey the whole field of education activity. It so happened that I had the honour of being appointed convener of the committee which dealt with local administration. We took a very broad view of our responsibilities, and we considered first of all what area of administration should be adopted. We considered, as was considered in the case of parish councils, whether the case could be met by a combination of counties or by a limited area of service. We found that neither of these would meet the necessities of the case, and we were driven finally to the conclusion that the only satisfactory area would be the county area, and that was adopted. Having decided what in our view was the proper area, we came to consider next what would be the nature of the authority that would administer education in that area, Everyone on that committee had a predisposition to favour what is known as an ad hoc committee. Many of them had worked under it for years, and we were satisfied that in many ways it could meet the necessities of the case. The committee then put forward a statement, which is to be found in their report, published in the year 1916, long before the Government had ever thought of putting forward proposals, that in their view the county ad hoc authority with largely increased powers would work fairly well. That was the policy adopted in the Bill which became the Act of 1918, and the expressions in that committee's report have been amply fulfilled.
The county education authorities, which have been in operation for the last nine years, have undoubtedly worked well on the whole. Some have worked more than well; they have worked admirably. On the other hand, there are, of course, a few which did not perhaps realise the full extent of their responsibilities.
While we recognised that such a system might be reasonably satisfactory, we came unanimously to the conclusion, having regard to the task which would be before the new authorities, that there was a better solution than that which I have just mentioned, not only a better

1665
one, but one which in the opinion of the committee was sooner or later inevitable. That solution, which we favoured then in 1916 and which we stated to be our opinion sooner or later inevitable, is the scheme that was put forward by Mr. Munro, then Secretary for Scotland, in the first draft of the Bill of 1919, and which is embodied in Section 3 of the Bill which we are now discussing.
What were the considerations which led us to make what was confessedly and recognisedly a very drastic departure from Scottish practice? The reason has been given in very admirable terms both by my hon. colleague in the representation of the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) and by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The overriding reason was the larger conception which was being given as time went on to what the term education connoted. The time has long gone by when education was regarded as merely a matter of book learning. We took it that education concerned the whole compendium of the child, that it had a physical, intellectual and moral side, and that all these needed recognition if the State was to have what it desired to produce—good citizens. We recognised that education was not so important that it required a specially elected body to look after itself, but that it was so important that it could not be left out of the great stream and tendency of social service. It was because the question of education was inseparably bound up with health and housing, medical inspection and treatment, recreation and life, it was because all those things came into our view that we came to the conclusion that the municipalising of education was not only desirable and necessary, but indeed inevitable. Those are the reasons which led us to that conclusion, and it was because we saw in the county council and the town council of the great cities the possibility of unifying all those social services that we came to the conclusion which I have stated and which is embodied in Section 3 of the Act now before us.
Reference has been made to the position taken up by the teachers in this matter. Until 1916, the teachers had uniformly declared in their congresses and other meetings for an ad hoc autho-
1666
rity, but, when this committee of which I speak put before them the reasoned conclusion at; which they had arrived, they discussed it at meetings all over the country, and they came to the conclusion in 1916 that in the proposal put forward by us was to be found the best solution available at; the time. As I have said, the case was so strong and things had altered so much since 1872, that in 1918 the then Liberal Secretary for Scotland put forward this particular scheme in the first draft of his Act. It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) has said, that he had then to depart from his intentions because of some opposition. No person would have been more astonished than I had the proposal which was contained in our Report been accepted at the very first sight. We knew that it would be a very considerable time before its merits would appeal to the people of Scotland. I naturally think that in this Bill we have a proposal which is on very sound lines. While saying that, I should like to say that I have great respect for those who hold a different opinion. I have listened with interest and pleasure to the many speeches which have been delivered in the defence of the existing authorities. I rejoice that there should be many who find that in their opinion, in their honest; convictions, the present authorities art: worthy of all praise and should be continued in office. That is a well-deserved tribute to the work which those authorities have done. I have worked with ad hoc authorities for many years and my relations with them, officially and personally, have been of the pleasantest type, but I cannot but see that, to me at any rate, there are weaknesses in their position.
There are several arguments which have been put forward as good reasons why we should continue in the present system of directly elected education authorities. A little learning is said to be a dangerous thing, and perhaps a little Latin is a dangerous thing, because the words ad hoc have added to them far more significance than they really would have in a literal translation. We hear people speak, for example, of the ad hoc principle. There is no such thing as an ad hoc principle. There is only an ad hoc method. There is only one principle at the root of all State activity in the

1667
matter of education, and that is that the State can only flourish if it has good citizens, and, if it is to have good citizens, then the children must be properly trained. I take exception to what is said by my hon. and gallant Friend just below me. He said that the people to be consulted were the parents. The parents are important, but they do not come first. The people to be consulted are the children and their interests. That must be the case in any system of education. Another argument put forward is that the present specially elected authority is in the direct tradition and line of Scottish policy. I listened with very great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) and, as a patriotic Scotsman, I was greatly delighted to hear him speak so strongly of Scottish tradition and the respect which ought to be paid to it. At the same time, it seemed to me that there was a little inconsistency in the attitude of my right hon. Friend, because while he was defending the traditions of a few centuries in the matter of parochial administration, he was at the same time denouncing the capitalist system which is perhaps the longest and strongest tradition that the world has ever seen.
Mr. HARDIE: Is the hon. Member not aware that before the capitalist system in Scotland, we had an educational system, a communal system?
Mr. COWAN: I was only having a jest with my right hon. Friend. After all, how old is the tradition of specially elected bodies to deal with education in Scotland? It dates only from 1872. There was burgh control of education, and there were private benefactions which led to the establishment of education institutions. Even then, we do not know that that tradition goes back to 1872, because from 1872 to 1918, one-seventh of the school population of Scotland were almost entirely outwith the national system. So that the tradition of popularly-elected bodies for the purpose of looking after the education of all the children goes back only to 1919. When one thinks of this argument of tradition, one is somewhat reminded of the American college where the sign went up, "Students are forbidden to play baseball
1668
between the hours of two and four in the afternoon. Note: This tradition will take effect from Monday next. I know I am at variance in opinion with a good many of my friends, politically and otherwise, but this question of having an ad hoc authority is one that cuts through all parties. It has supporters in every party, and we all have one object in common. I am convinced that education, in the mind of Scotland, will hold its own against any other service, and no authority, neither an education authority elected ad hoc nor a county or town council, will attempt to deprive the children of their due heritage. Otherwise, I would ask for the whole education system to be put under the State. I therefore feel that we can look forward to development in our education system, and that we shall not have it in a canal by itself, but that we shall have a flowing and running stream which will bring fresh light in the whole body politic.
Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: Some of the points which the hon. Member has made will not bear very close examination. He asked how long the elective system had been in operation. I do not think that is a question this House or the Scottish people have to answer. The question we have to answer is whether a system that has been in operation for nine years or the system proposed by the Government is the better. That leads me to ask the hon. Member a question. Is he in favour of co-option?
Mr. COWAN: It is sometimes said co-option is undemocratic. That, of course, is not the case. It is for the elected body to choose the best method it can of carrying out its policy.
Mr. ADAMSON: I take it, then, the hon. Member is in favour of the principle of co-option.
Mr. COWAN: Properly applied, yes.
Mr. ADAMSON: That is a wonderful confession coming from that part of the House. It illustrates very clearly the unity of the Liberal party. The hon. Member also said he had no sympathy with the de-rating proposals of the Government. Notwithstanding that, he was evidently not unwilling that this subject, which to him, as to most of us, is a sacred subject, should be linked up with proposals with which he has no sympathy. That is another wonderful statement. An

1669
hon. Member opposite who spoke earlier blamed my colleagues for pleading for the principle of an ad hoc authority. We are not pleading for a particular method. We are pleading for an arrangement which has proved very successful. Not only are Members on this side of the House unanimous in saying it has proved a great success. Even the hon. Member who has just spoken was very lavish in his praise, as Members of the Government have been. I am certain the Secretary of State must have felt his position rather keenly, sitting between the Lord Advocate and the Under-Secretary, with the Prime Minister not far distant, and remembering what these three Members of the Government have been saying. It is not only we, but Members in all parts of the House who say that the present system has been a great success, and naturally we are against scrapping it and taking on another system as to the results of which we are very doubtful. If an unbiassed person had been listening to the arguments for and against the Amendment, it cannot be denied that he would give judgment in favour of those who have been putting it forward. From no side has there been any weighty argument used in favour of the proposed change which will bear critical examination. One of the reasons given by the Secretary of State was that it would bring the service of education into line with the other services. One central unified authority, in his opinion, would stimulate interest in education. I think he forgot what was stated by the Lord Advocate last night when he described these proposals as a jigsaw puzzle. There are very many of our people who regard them as unintelligible gibberish which, if they were really understood by Members of the Government—
The CHAIRMAN: We are not discussing the transfer of education powers in the English Bill.
Mr. ADAMSON: I am attempting to use an illustration from what occurred when we were discussing the English proposals. I carry it no further than that. The Secretary of State said that the ordinary taxpayer would be very much better off if he had a consolidated budget presented to him annually. Even expert accountants who have been examining the proposals of the Government
1670
find the greatest difficulty in wading through the financial quagmire contained in the proposals. Therefore, I profoundly differ from the right hon. Gentleman when he states that it will be to the advantage of the ordinary taxpayer to have a consolidated -budget presented to him. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the problems of adult education could be best provided for under the Government's proposals, but he did not give us any proof, and I profoundly differ from him on that point. He further stated that not everybody in Scotland is against the Bill. He said that the teachers were in his favour, and that they were more intimately and more closely concerned with our educational problems than other sections of the community. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Cowan) has reminded the Secretary of State that there is another section of the community more closely concerned than the teachers, and that is the children. There is another section more intimately and closely concerned in our educational problems than the teachers, and that is the parents. Therefore, the teachers are only third so far as interests in our educational problems are concerned.
I would be prepared to put this issue to the parents in Scotland, and it would be found that the overwhelming majority of the Scottish people would be against the proposals that are being put forward. With the exception of the teachers, every-section of the community in Scotland is against the Government's proposals. I have a large bundle of communications from local authorities in Scotland, including education authorities, all of whom are against the proposals in the Bill for transferring the work of the education authorities to the burgh and county councils. Such a transfer is neither necessary nor expedient to enable the Government to carry through their de-rating proposals. The de-rating proposals should have been carried through without interfering in the slightest degree with the work of the educational authorities, unless this Bill is part of a policy which has some other object in view.
My fear is that the proposals of the Government simply mean the handing over of Scottish local government to one section of the community. If the Bill is to be placed upon the Statute Book it will mean that there is little prospect of

1671
the working classes being able to take the share in local government which they have done under the existing system. If the work of the parish councils and the education authorities and of the smaller burghs is to be handed over to the county councils and the large burghs, it will increase the work of those bodies which is already heavy enough in all conscience. I have here a list of the Acts of Parliament for which our town councils and county councils in Scotland are responsible. It is a list of between 50 and 60 Acts of Parliament, and to the authorities who are responsible for administering so many Acts of Parliament it is now proposed to transfer the educational work. It means that the members of the county councils and of the large burgh councils will have an almost continuous job.
The CHAIRMAN: I should like to see the light of the right hon. Gentleman's countenance.
Mr. ADAMSON: I thank you for that compliment. The county and large burgh councils, with their responsibilities largely increased, will be sitting almost continuously, and as no provision has been made for meeting the out-of-pocket expenses of the body whose field of responsibility is to be enlarged, it means shutting the door to working-class representation. The working-class have overcome a considerable amount of difficulty in order to take a share in that representation in the past, but if the work in the future is to carry additional responsibilities, and that will mean almost continuous service, they will be shut out, unless the Secretary of State is prepared to make the necessary provision for meeting their out-of-pocket expenses. In suggesting that, he should consider very favourably the making of that provision, I would remind him that in the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, such a provision was made, and it has enabled a considerable number of working-class representatives to take part in our educational service in Scotland. In transferring the education work to the county and large burgh councils, the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten to transfer from the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, the arrangement that was made for meeting out-of-pocket expenses. Unless be makes the provision which I suggest, I fear that the change will hand over local govern-
1672
ment to a section of the community who are able to meet considerable expense and who will be able to give time to the work, thereby taking out of the hands of the working-class and the middle-class a service in local government in which they have taken a pride. I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment, and I hope that it will be carried. If the Amendment were left to the Scottish representatives, it would be carried.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: We have heard a great deal in this Debate about the views of the education authorities. It is very natural and very human that they should object to a transference of their powers, but they are a very recent body. They have only been in existence for a decade, and I believe that when the original Bill under which they exercise their present powers was drafted it contained the proposal which is now made, and nobody knows very well why it was departed from. One would think, to hear this discussion, that it was the education authority which educated the children. We do not hear much about the teachers. It is the teachers who educate the children, not the education authority. Yet you would think that education was coming to a standstill because the powers of the ad hoc education authority are going to be transferred to these democratic county councils. The last speaker said that there was no allowance for expenses, but Clause 17 expressly provides that expenses can be granted. It states:
"It shall be lawful for a county council to incur expenditure in paying allowances at uniform rates to be prescribed by the Secretary of State in respect of travelling and other personal expenses necessarily incurred by members of the council or of any committee or sub-committee thereof in attending meetings of such council, committee or sub-committee."
Mr. W. ADAMSON: What I said was that there was no money provision made for paying out-of-pocket expenses, which does not only include travelling expenses. I am well aware that travelling expenses are provided for, but there is also loss of work, loss of time, which no workman can afford to lose, and, indeed, very few of the middle-class can afford to lose.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: I always understood that out-of-pocket expenses covered travelling and other personal expenses. I do not think they ought to include the money a man would earn; otherwise, a

1673
man who is earning large wages, or a professional man, would be entitled to a very large amount of remuneration. whereas another man earning a comparatively small wage would get very little. That is not a proposal which I at all events, would like to put before the taxpayers. Clause 17 is certainly going to make the county council more democratic. I believe that in the case of the county which I represent, the education authority found that it would cost something over £100 for every meeting they held, and they very wisely did not meet as often as the Statute enjoined, because it entailed too big a burden on the ratepayers, and I understand that in a recent Act they got power to hold fewer meetings.
Why are the teachers in favour of this proposal? After all, they are the people principally concerned. It is to them that the children are handed over to get their education, and I think they are wise in favouring this proposal, because they will then be dealing with a, body of men who are concerned with the general affairs of the community, and who are therefore much more likely to come to wise decisions. Any man who takes a wide and general view of things is likely to come to saner decisions than a. man appointed for a particular purpose who is apt to forget the other purposes of the community. Under this Bill, there is much less danger of the pure crank, who would be inclined to interfere with the teachers, being placed in a position of authority. One of the criticisms I have heard from an eminent teacher who used to work under the old regime was that when the School Boards came upon the scene a great deal of the liberty of the teacher was taken away, that he lost a great deal of the status he used to have, and was not able to devote his attention to particular scholars what used to be called the "lad o'pairts" who might have come from the poorest homes in the country. He was made to treat all alike. The most-unjust thing in the world is to treat people who are unlike as if they were all the same.
This Bill will restore the liberty of the teachers, because, if it is true that the county councils have so many Acts of Parliament to administer that they are very fully occupied, then they will get through with their education business,
1674
and will not go making work for themselves, and perhaps interfering too much with the teaching profession, which is one of the noblest and best professions. The right thing for an education authority to do is to get the best class of teachers that it can, and then to leave him to his job. We who are not education experts, and make no great profession of profound knowledge of these matters, ought to leave these things to the people directly concerned, and I think you will probably get from men elected for general purposes a wiser, saner, broader view of the education needs of the people than you will get from men elected ad hoc.
Mr. HARDIE: Will you apply that to the law?
Mr. MACQUISTEN: Certainly I apply it to the law. A man who has a good general knowledge of business is the only satisfactory legal adviser, and those of us who are successful in business know that it is as much due to our natural wisdom as to anything we learn from our legal textbooks. While I sympathise with the education authorities in their natural desire to keep their job, I do not believe that as a rule they represent the view of the mass of the people who are principally concerned. I know that the general view in the county which I represent is that the existence of two authorities, when one can perfectly well do all the business that is to be done, is not so likely to lead to economy or efficiency, as the existence of one authority for all purposes. I am perfectly sure that the teaching profession will be better satisfied in dealing with business men, because they are the class of men who should be in charge of education, as of everything else.
Mr. BENN: The hon. and learned Gentleman defends now the ad omnia system with as much zeal as he supported the ad hoc system in 1918, when it was proposed and carried in the Education Bill of that year.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: If I supported the ad hoc system in 1918, I shall be very much surprised. I was entirely opposed to the Act of 1918, because I thought it was rushed on the country, and the country was not prepared for it.
Mr. BENN: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will not deny that he was a faithful follower of the Government of that day, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) who sits next to him was a Minister of the Crown, and, as a Minister of the Crown, supported the ad hoc principle which now he thinks should be superseded.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: Excuse me, I have never been a Minister of the Crown.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) is in possession of the Committee.
Mr. BENN: As soon as I have completed a sentence with subject, predicate, and object, I shall be delighted to give way, but, first of all, I must be allowed to complete my sentence, and, if I have to select between the views of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Gentleman in 1918 and their views in 1929, I prefer to take 1918, and that is what I propose to do on this occasion.
Sir R. HORNE: The ad hoc principle was not in controversy in 1918. It is perfectly true that the original Bill was in favour of the ad omnia system, but that was given up and the ad hoc principle adopted.
Mr. BENN: I do not understand this principle of selective support. The right hon. Gentleman was himself a Member of the Government.
Sir R. HORNE: As I say, the question did not come up. The question was not in controversy at all. The hon. Member cannot say that I supported one principle or another unless he can produce evidence that I advocated one principle rather than another.
Mr. BENN: I am afraid that I am not at all clear on this. Was not the right hon. Gentleman a Member of the Government in 1918?
Sir R. HORNE: Yes.
Mr. FREDERICK THOMSON (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): After the Armistice.
Sir R. HORNE: I became a member of the Government in December, 1918. This
1676
was passed long before I was ever in the Government.
Mr. BENN: The Bill was passed before the right hon. Gentleman was in the Cabinet.
Sir R. HORNE: I was not even a Member of the House.
The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps it would be as well if this were put aside, and we could get on.
Mr. BENN: I am sorry. It is quite clear I owe the right hon. Gentleman an apology. He was not in the House when this principle was embodied in the Scottish Education Act. That is so, I think.
Sir R. HORNE: Absolutely. I became a Member of the House in November, 1918.
Mr. BENN: Then it is perfectly clear that I was in error, and I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I was under the impression that he was a Member of the House, as I was, during the whole of 1918, but, as it is clear that he was not, it is obvious that such support as he gave to the Government was given outside this House, and not specifically for this principle in the Education Bill of 1918.
Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Gentleman is determined to be unfair in this matter, and it is very unlike him. First of all, he accuses my hon. and learned Friend, and then me, of having adopted an attitude in favour of the ad hoc principle in 1918. When it appears that I was not in the House, he refers to previous support of this principle. He cannot find any speech of mine made on the education question in 1918, or any support given to any Government in this matter.
Mr. BENN: I do not want in the least to be unfair. I was in error in supposing the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Government or even of the House when this Act was passed. It is perfectly obvious therefore that no charge can lie of his being a Member of the Government at that time.
Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Gentleman describes me as a supporter of the Government. I was not a supporter of the Government except for the purpose of carrying on the War in 1918. It had nothing to do with education.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. BENN: I think the right hon. Gentleman is going a little beyond the necessities of the case. I made the amende honorable. I have withdrawn what I said, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman need go into the other question. The speech which the right hon. Gentleman made was, to speak quite plainly, a piece of special pleading. First of all, he charged Members of the Opposition with being imbued with the deepest instincts of Conservatism—
Mr. MACQUISTEN: That is not a charge; that is a compliment.
Mr. BENN: When he is making speeches in Scotland, he charges them with being in favour of every revolutionary purpose.
Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I never said that Members of the Opposition were imbued with any instinct of Conservatism. He is referring to the speech of the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan).
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for North Aberdeen must really deal with the Amendment before the Committee.
Mr. BENN: I think we are getting rather wide of the Amendment. I was endeavouring, however, to reply to the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made on the Amendment itself. His second point was that if there was no election it showed that the public had no interest in the question. He cited a case in Aberdeen, but as it was accompanied by such a pleasant compliment I shall not criticise it. If there is no election, he said, it shows that there is no public interest in the question, and if there is an election there is such a lot of turmoil that the really desirable people will not put up. I should put it the other way. If a body is returned without an election then those who do not like to face the turmoil are elected, but if there is an election and there is a great deal of turmoil, it shows that the public interest is justly and rightly aroused. The last thing which the right hon. Gentleman said that he selected as the test of the question was the opinion of the business interests of Scotland. Does he take the opinion of the Miners' Federation on the question of
1678
the mines? Do the Federation of British Industries go to the General Federation of the Trades Union Congress for their opinions?
Mr. MACOUISTEN: They should.
Mr. BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that? He is silent.
Sir R. HORNE: I really am not concerned with anything more that my hon. Friend is saying.
Mr. BENN: The right hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to retire from the contest if he feels that he is at a disadvantage. Most of the ground has been covered this afternoon, but I desire to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland one or two questions touching particularly the large and important city whose representation I share with the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. F. C. Thomson) who is sitting on the Government bench. For obvious reasons, the hon. Gentleman cannot make (he criticisms of the Government that are desired by the City of Aberdeen, and therefore I shall have to do it for him. There is one particular thing about the City of Aberdeen, and that is that the two badies concerned—I leave out the parish councils—in the city are both united on this question. It is true that the city council originally passed a resolution giving- a sort of tepid support to the scheme on certain conditions, none of which have been fulfilled; but when it came to the education question, it is equally true that the chairman of that body, Mr. George Duncan, whom the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, opposed the whole scheme on very valid grounds. What is true—and this is the material point—is that both the city council and the education authority are agreed upon a common policy. I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why he should go to the City of Aberdeen and impose upon it a system which is opposed by both the bodies concerned, from one of which he proposes to take these duties and on the other of which he proposes to thrust them? The education authority, in the first place, objected to the abolition of the elective system. All the criticisms that have been made about the common service, the general interest, and business men—I do not think much of the business man at any time, and least of all when he interferes in education—
Mr. MACQUISTEN: Because you have never been one.
Mr. BENN: The whole of those arguments may be good or bad. There may be something to be said for the brotherhood of service referred to by the Prime Minister at Glasgow, but not when you know perfectly well the ad omnia authority is going to be paralysed by being provided with a co-opt, a wooden leg instead of a properly selected growth. That is what condemned the whole speech of the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities. I would go a long way with him when he described the idea of a common service of citizens for all purposes, but I was amazed when he went on to say that he was in favour of a co-optive principle, because I have not found in any body in Scotland support for the co-optive principle either in the town councils, or the education authorities, or anywhere else. The first thing that Mr. Duncan and the education authority in Aberdeen said, was: "We do not want the scheme at all; we prefer to go on as we are." Then, finding he was defeated on that, and seeing it was obviously quite hopeless to secure any changes, the question was how far could they agree between themselves—the city council and the education authority.
Let us see exactly how far they have agreed. In the first place, they speak about the enormous new burden of work that is going to be thrown on the city council, and I will give one or two figures merely to prove arithmetically the statement that I have made. On the city council of 34 members you are going to inflict all the work of the 31 members of the parish council and of 20 members of the education committee. That is to say, the work of 51 members is going to be cast on the backs of the existing 34 members of the city council. To take it in another way. The members of the city council at present attend during the year 382 meetings. You are now going to ask them to attend the 210 additional meetings required by the education authority and the 195 meetings required by the parish council, to say nothing of the meetings of the district board of control. These figures were all prepared by the bodies concerned, and are official figures. To put it in still another way. The items with which the town council have had to deal up to the present are
1680
115 a year. Now they will have those of the education authority, which are 957, and of the parish council, 782. You cannot really say, in face of those figures, that these men are going to be able to do the work even with the assistance of less than half the number of co-opted members. What is going to happen? The work is going to fall on the officials. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State cannot possibly deny that. They are to exercise that general supervision which the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) recommends, instead of exercising that citizens' care of detail which is the pride of the administration of many of our local bodies to-day. The education council and the city council unite in asking: "If you must unite these bodies, what are you going to do about extending the membership of the city council?"
The city council asks that their members should be extended. One of the officers of the city council, I think it was the Treasurer, put forward the suggestion that they should have an additional member for every ward. I should like to ask the Lord Advocate if it is possible under this Bill for that to be done. I hesitate to ask for an answer, although I am asking for information; but I shall not get any other chance of asking this question because the Guillotine will fall. Is it possible under this Bill for the city council to make a scheme, and to get an additional member for every ward, or will they have to cope with this increased burden of work?
The Lord Advocate cannot answer. I am not complaining that he cannot, but I say that you are going to thrust on to the City of Aberdeen the expense of promoting a Provisional Order if they wish to enlarge their membership. Why should you do that? In the opinion of the members of the city council, these trusted city fathers, you must have an increased personnel to carry on the work. The Lord Advocate cannot tell us whether under the Bill that can be done, but I think there is no power. It looks very much to us, in the City of Aberdeen, as if the only way to get over the difficulty would be to promote the Provisional Order, with all the trouble and expense that that involves. It is quite unfair to put that upon that body.

1681
There is another point. The education authority and the city council take this view—the city council have taken it from the start: They say: "We do not want to be concerned with education." They accept the view of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire. They say: "We would like to have a general supervision of the finance, but we do not want, we have not the time, to do the educational work which is carried on so admirably by the education authority in the city." Therefore, they say: "If you will agree to submit the budget, we are satisfied." Why on earth should you not let them do it? Why should the Secretary of State step in when the town council does not Want the work?
The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): I can answer that. As the Bill is drawn, I do not think there is any power to extend the numbers of the town councils in the large towns. Of course, that could be very easily given if it was so desired by an additional Amendment to the Bill.
Mr. BENN: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Would it be too much to ask that the Government would give favourable consideration to that?
The LORD ADVOCATE: I will certainly consider it.
Mr. BENN: I have gained a point, for which I am grateful, if the Government will give consideration to making such an Amendment in the Bill as will enable the city council of Aberdeen to increase its membership to meet the increased burden of work. There is a second point. Supposing that the budget of the education authority were submitted, and the education authority went on with its work, why not be satisfied with that? Why insist that the educational work should be put on the city council with the co-opted members? Again, what about the arrangements for audit? In the matter of audit, I understand that at present local autonomy is greater in the case of the city council than in the case of the education committee. Are you going to introduce the same measure of Government interference for the new enlarged city council as you have for the other body, or are you going to give the
1682
greatest measure of freedom without any such control?
The LORD ADVOCATE: I should like to answer that question straight away. There are, at present, roughly speaking, three systems. There is the education system, which has a Departmental check; there is the county council system under the 1889 Act, the intermediate system; and there is the system which obtains in the larger burghs. What we propose is that the county council system shall be the uniform system in effect throughout the different bodies.
Mr. BENN: I think, if that be so, that that will be good news to those who put their point of view to me from the city of Aberdeen. I should like to ask another question. I have seen some of the auditors' reports on the education authority. Do I understand that when the city council undertakes the work of the authority that the system of audit will be the town council system, and that the educational system of audit, subject to the Education Department's control will give way to the town council system? Is that right?
The LORD ADVOCATE: No, so far as the education accounts, are concerned, they will still have Departmental supervision.
Mr. BENN: Then what on earth becomes of trusting local authorities. of setting up bodies which will deal with the brotherhood of service? You are going to throw on to the town treasurer, who already carries enormous financial responsibility in a city like Aberdeen. the same departmental interference which you have thought proper to apply to other authorities which were dealing with specialised work and had a special Department of the Government to look after them. It is not treating the financial department of these great cities with respect if you ask them to submit to this sort of detailed Departmental interference. for it is nothing less. Are the education accounts to be subject to the town council audit and the Departmental audit as well?
The LORD ADVOCATE: I am out of order in discussing the question in this way. There is a special reason for retaining a certain measure of supervision over any education authority and over

1683
education accounts. We can debate that matter fully when we come to it.
Mr. BENN: We may or may not be able to debate it fully. There is no guarantee that we shall reach that particular Clause before the Guillotine falls. Then I gather that even in such matters as travelling expenses the Secretary of State proposes to prescribe, not to approve, a scale. I understand that he is going to apply the audit to such a matter as the common good and the trading accounts of the city, which have never been subject to audit before. It is on all these points that the administrators desire information. I have no desire to prolong discussion. I thank the Lord Advocate for what he has told us, and I hope that he will find an opportunity to explain clearly to the Committee, first of all, what provision he is to make for enlarging the personnel of the city; secondly, how the new svstem of audit is going to differ from the old, and whether the plea for greater local autonomy is really going in effect to mean merely departmental interference; and, thirdly, regarding scales of expenses for deputations and so on. It seems superfluous for a Government Department to go to the City of Aberdeen and suggest measures of economy, in which matter the city fathers are acknowledged experts. Seeing that the city council does not want the work and the education authority is anxious to go on with the work, what objection can there be to permit the carrying on of the work by the elected education authority? I am certain that the citizens would be very much gratified if they could find any answer to some of these questions.
Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I should like to say that the Dundee Town Council is particularly strong on the point that the present town council audit should be maintained. With regard to the general Debate, the points that can be raised have been raised already. The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) spoke as if the scheme in the Bill was the proper scheme upon which to arrange all our local authorities, and he argued that we should obtain from it very much better results than from the present system. But this procedure
1684
of the Government is laying upon one centralised authority that which, according to abundant evidence, would mean overloading far beyond its capacity to undertake the work in anything like a satisfactory way. The right hon. Member for Hillhead also referred to the lessened interest in education and other matters. I think he was correct. Anything which involves serious consideration receives less attention from the general body of the people to-day than it received in years past. That is a state of things which unfortunately has existed, but it raises far bigger questions than those which lie behind this particular issue.
The right hon. Gentleman argued that the teachers, upon whose case so much stress has been laid, should be looked to, and he emphasised the fact that it is to them that we look as specially responsible for the education of the children. That is perfectly correct. But how about the children? Is the call for this change arising from the Government, or is it arising because of greater consideration for the child-en than for anything else? I submit that consideration of the children has been left out entirely. Both the Liberal and the Conservative representatives of the Scottish Universities have argued strongly in favour of the proposal in the Clause. It was that position which led me to put a question to one of them (Mr. Buchan) while he was addressing the Committee in the usual high educational tone which deeply impressed hon. Members. The question was: Does he not see that the Universities, in their own specialised position, are entirely free from any of the considerations involved in this Clause? The Universities have held aloof, and those who have been specially interested in them have made them conservative in the widest sense of the term. Nothing is allowed to interfere; they are kept sacred: it is a very difficult matter to reach them. So much so, that we here have emphasised the usual thing about the lad of parts having been at times successful in getting to the University. That has been merely a case of the exception proving the rule. In the worst sense of the term, conservatism has dominated the Universities.
Those connected with the Universities do not introduce anything like municipal

1685
issues in the handling of their institutons. They do not propose to put the Universities under the town council or anything of the kind. They would not mix up with University education such things as sanitation or town council administration. They regard such things as trivialities in comparison. Those who speak on behalf of the Universities know that University and higher education is safeguarded from being mixed up with any of these other matters.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): I wonder if the hon. Member realises that we entrust the appointment of professors in the Universities, holding most high and dignified offices, to the ad omnia Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. MAXTON: Is that quite candid? About two out of 200.
Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: It is something to be going on with at any rate. It is a little spark of illumination in the gloom which besets the Government, and no one can better introduce those sparks than the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary. But it does not affect my substantial point, that the Universities and the whole subject of special training in the higher sphere of education, are kept entirely apart from these other matters, and that they are not included in the argument which we have heard to-day about other forms of education. The education authorities have been put in the dock. What are the charges against them? Instead of any charge being made against them, testimony has been given to their excellent work by the University representatives on both sides of the House. The teachers, of course, because they have said something in favour of the Government go to the top of the class and take first prize. Those who have managed education affairs get the second prize. Hon. Members opposite can say nothing against them, but are going to dispense with them, nevertheless.
The Government are going to bring in this grand plan of co-option. Anybody who knows anything about our municipal representation knows that co-option provides a sort of consolation prize for those who cannot stand that turmoil about which we have heard so much from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
1686
Hillhead who seems, himself, able to stand it very well. We know the type of business man who does not want to come down to the standard of the ordinary Parliamentary or municipal election. He wants to be able to meet two or three others who have been co-opted like himself and arrange everything before the meeting begins and then announce what has been settled. For the Government to put forward co-option as the ideal system is to bear out the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson). He said that the special point behind the whole scheme was to bring in the type of men who would not need to trouble about the electorate. Such a proposal means blocking the path of progress in regard to democratic representation. Working class representation throughout the years has been taking a stronger hold on our parish councils, education authorities, and municipal bodies. It has filled these Parliamentary beaches where we are now sitting. Its onward march is giving serious anxiety to the Government, and during the present Parliament, with their strong forces, they have tried every scheme to make its further progress as difficult as possible. They have tried in subtle fashion to check that advance. [Interruption.] Yes, they would like to try to deal with the House of Lords, but they have not managed to arrange that. You have co-option of a kind there. We want to get rid of it there, and we do not want any more of it in local bodies.
As I say, we have heard on all sides to-day tributes to Scottish education, not merely as it was before the ad hoc system or as it has been since the ad hoc system, but as it has been all the time. There is a long train of unquestionable evidence, calling forth tributes not only from our own country and England, but from various parts of the Continent, to Scottish education. Yet the Government, without a scrap of evidence, attack the authorities who have handled that matter so effectively. They have sailed in upon the situation and created such difficulties that, when the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) put a question about an important detail, he could not get a full answer straight away. That particular difficulty arises, because, although town councils are well

1687
qualified to take full control of these matters, yet on the question of audit the Government say to them: "You will have to take the county council system of audit." It is worth while for town councils—including Dundee—which have given some evidence of favouring the scheme, to take note of the fact that the Government, as a measure of their appreciation say: "We have you in our grip, and we shall grip you tighter still." The defects of the scheme are plain, notwithstanding the pathetic efforts of those on the other side to dress it up. It is a case now of "all dressed up, and nowhere to go," but at the next General Election this will be one of the strong grounds in Scotland for attacking the Government and doing our best to defeat them thoroughly.
Mr. SULLIVAN: I wish to put in a few words in connection with the taking away of the ad hoc authorities in Scottish education. I have been following this discussion closely, and I have heard Scottish education described by a number of people. I can assure the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) that I know from experience the system of education which prevails. At one time, the parish church or the kirk session was responsible for the appointment of the teacher and the control of the school. I attended such a school, and I suppose I was fairly good at taking up what I was taught, but, in after life, when I engaged in public work, I had the pleasure of trying to teach a certain amount to the man who, earlier, had taught me. He was there to give education, and when it came to the rough and tumble of life it turned out that he was not qualified himself, and he was trying to teach others. I do not want to condemn that system. It produced results, perhaps one in a thousand, and the master for the time being took a special interest in the lad of parts.
I worked under the school boards, and I must say that education was closer to the people under the old school boards. I am not going to condemn the action of the Coalition Government in passing the Education Act of 1918, because education in Scotland is a very touchy question, and I do not think it is possible for any
1688
one political party to deal with it. It is only possible to a coalition of all parties or a Coalition Government, and I hope the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire and the right hon. Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Home) will think that over. There were two questions that the Coalition dealt with. The first was Home Rule for Ireland, and the other was education. When the 1918 Act was passed, people began to think that they were going to make an advance in education, and I must say that after they got into their stride, they did very well. What happened prior to that was this, that in populous centres they made proper provision for education, but in the outlying and rural districts there was practically no provision made for secondary education.
When the 1918 Act was passed and education came under an ad hoc authority, the standard of education all over was raised, and the school accommodation was improved. They accomplished miracles in the way of raising the standard and improving the school accommodation and the position of the teacher. In doing that, they had to meet a great amount of public condemnation, because undoubtedly they did increase the rates. They do not always get full credit for their work, but they always get full credit for raising the rates, for which they are not really responsible. The Government gave them a scale of teachers' salaries, and they had to operate that scale whether they liked it or not. The authority of which I was a member are still operating the Government scale, and when they are condemned for raising the rates, it is the Government behind them that gave, them the scale. They have done a great amount of good, because there are more children getting secondary education in Scotland to-day than ever before in the history of the country, and there are better facilities and a certain amount of help is given to the people, of which they are taking advantage.
Education work is very difficult, and on the education authority of the county of Lanark it takes two days a week. There is no need for anybody to attempt to deny that. It takes two days per week, without school visitation. I say so, because I have had the experience. The talk about central meetings is sometimes misunderstood. The education authority meets once a month, but it is not the

1689
education authority as such that does the work, but members of the committee, and when the authority meets once a month they approve or otherwise of the committee reports. The committees have to meet, as I have said, probably twice a week; and in addition to that, if they take any interest in their work, they must visit and keep in touch with the various schools of which they are put in charge, and they must also take some interest in the continuation classes. Unfortunately, I think less interest is being taken to-day than under the old school boards, but, at any rate, the education authorities are doing good work.
Now that they have served for about ten years and overcome most of the difficulties, and now that they have reached the stage of getting the benefit of the interest which they do not have to pay on the loans which they took over from the old school boards, the Government step in and say "You have done very well, but we are going to give you the sack." I wonder what is behind it. They have done very well, and there is no condemnation whatever from any quarter of this House, although there is some condemnation in the country. The country people believe that they were responsible for raising the rates, when, as a matter of fact, it was the Government which was responsible, as I have said, and in another way that I do not want to mention. You get some feeling against the authorities in the country, but not amongst the people who believe in education. I do not know why the Government have touched this thing. The present system is doing well, and I believe it was going to be of great advantage to the people, but then the Government step in and want to scrap it and to hand it over to another public authority.
In the division that I represent, the public authority is to be the county council. The Secretary of State for Scotland, I understand, knows something about county administration. On the middle ward of the Lanarkshire County Council, I had to give from two to five days a week in order to do the work and keep in touch with it. It is true that some members do not attend so well, but a county council, like all other bodies, is run by a handful of members who take an interest in the
1690
work and try to keep in touch with it. Their duties are obvious. They have a great county to govern. Even the Government recognie that and have divided the county into three wards, upper, lower and middle, for its proper administration. They have to attend to everything in connection with those areas. Every function of human life is going to be attended to—food inspection, sanitation, the police, and everything—and their work is very difficult just now, as the hon. Member for North Lanark (Sir A. Sprot) can testify. In my own case, I had paid £19 6s. each year for a season ticket to attend to county council work, in addition to which there are omnibus fares, and I reckon that in travelling expenses alone I spent fully £30 a year in doing county council work.
The chairman of the Middle Ward of Lanark, who is a supporter of the present Government, said to me, "You are going to give us more work." I said: "The Government are going to give you more work." He then said: "They will have to give us a salary for doing that work." I have done more work on the county council for nothing than I am doing here for £400, and it was harder work because of the nature of the duties. The county council have to take part in so many things. We control eight or nine large hospitals and sanatoria, and we have to take an interest in them, because, if we do not, we are not serving the people who elected us. All this is to be mixed up with education. It will do a big disservice to the county councils who do not want it, and it will do a hurt to education. Moreover, it will renew something of the old strife. With regard to co-option, I do not believe in it. I have sat with co-opted members, and they grumble that they do not have enough power. I do not object to co-opted members on any body, but I object to co-opted members spending money and not having, as I have to do as an elected member, to justify it before the ratepayers. They have no real power, and it is not intended that they should have any real power, and I appeal to the Government, even at this late stage, to think over this matter.
Education has done fairly well and done much better than the county councils. Up to a short time ago the county councils were very backward, and it was only

1691
pressure put upon them by the Board of Health that compelled them to do their work. They have more work than any authority of which I know, and yet they are to be asked to take up as a sideline the work of education. I have attended nine committee meetings in one day in Glasgow, and the suggestion is that, after I have done all those meetings, I must start on the work of education which is very important. Somebody said that it was the teacher who taught the child, but I can assure the committer that it is the education committee that chooses the teacher, and it is a very important duty. Teachers are very good, and I have a great respect for them as a profession, but, after all, the most ignorant people I have met have been those educated in a rut and teachers, like others, must travel and be well read. The education committee have to be careful to make the proper selection because everything depends on that selection. Yet it is said that you can leave the job to the teacher. Suppose we made the same suggestion in connection with the police force and the miners. I do not know any body of teachers or any schools in any area where they would be able to agree for any length of time and carry on the work.
I have always advocated religious instruction in the schools, and I have taken part in the work of the examinations. I regret to say that some people who ought to have done the work have not been as keen in doing the work as in talking. The complaint has been made from time to time that in the transferred schools they have a guarantee under the 1918 Act which is not given in connection with the public schools. I believe that at that time the Government never believed that it was necessary to put it in the Bill; I do not think that it is necessary yet, but there is no reason why it should not be inserted in the Bill, always provided that. if a parent does not want any form of religious instruction for his child, he should be able to say so. You must give that liberty, and you must give the same right in the public schools as in the transferred schools.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member think that he can get this in this Amendment?
Mr. SULLIVAN: It is a question that people have been talking about, and it is one of the reasons why the Government think that they will have a certain amount of support in touching up education again. It would be much better if they allowed it to rest, always keeping in mind that they ought to put in that Amendment with regard to religious instruction. This is a bigger question than the Government have ever realised. County authorities are going to have more control of the work in connection with the county, and they are now to have education. Members have already been provided with travelling expenses, but not with payment for lost time, and there is some difficulty in knowing what that should be. In the case of work under the Minister of Pensions, a certain amount is fixed for members who lose a day's pay. and members of the legal profession have to take the same amount. No distinction is made. One member does not get three guineas and another 7s. (6d. A sum is fixed which is approved by the Department. The members get third-class railway fare and 3s. 4d. if they attend a meeting which requires spending less than eight hours from home, and 6s. 8d. if it is more than eight hours, and, in addition, if they lose wages, they get expenses on a certain scale.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: These expenses are not given under this Subsection.
Mr. SULLIVAN: This has been the turn that the discussion has taken, but I do not wish to go against your Ruling. The question was addressed from the other side by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire, and it is only right that it should be answered. No provision is made in this Bill for loss of time, and yet it is going to be a full-time job for any man who does it. Instead of saving money by this alteration, the Government will increase expenditure. I hope that all the things that we hear in connection with the teachers and other bodies is not in the mind of the Government. I understand that the teaching profession is agreed that they should go under the town councils and the county councils. It is news to me. Is it in the minds of these teachers that they are going to get the status of civil servants, and that the people responsible for paying them are

1693
to have no say? I do not know whether the Government will care to answer that, but the teaching profession has made a mistake. It would be much better if we carried on the present system for a reasonable time, because 10 years is not a long period. The system has been working well, and in the course of time would be improved. It is difficult to believe that the House will reject this Measure, but there is no doubt that it would be rejected if it were left to the Scottish Members, or if it were submitted to the Scottish people. No public authorities want it and no education authorities want it, and that being so it would be much better if the Government withdrew this proposal.
Mr. W MWATSON: I cannot understand why the Government persist in their proposal to abolish the education authorities. The challenge has been made from this side, and no evidence has been brought against the work of the education authorities. As a matter of fact, we have had testimony from the other side that the education authorities have done their work exceedingly well, and why they should not be allowed to continue is a matter for surprise. The people of Scotland recognise that the education authorities have been doing good work, and it is no idle phrase when we say that they are against the proposed change. Not only are the majority of Scottish Members in this House against it, but if the question were put to the people of Scotland there would be no doubt as to what their view would be. As has already been said, the financial arrangements could be carried through without scrapping the education authorities. They could still carry on their work, allowing the county councils to have control of their finances. I believe the education authorities would agree to that if the system we have had for the past 10 years were allowed to continue. It is a system which has given satisfaction, because not only is there fair representation on the education authorities as between district and district, but even minority opinion finds expression. By the system of proportional representation under which education authorities are elected in Scotland, minorities are given their say, and I believe it is due to that fact that the education system has worked so well.
1694
9.0 p.m.
It is proposed that these education authorities should be scrapped and their functions transferred to the county councils. But what county councils? Not the present county councils, because in order to meet some opposition which has been met with, the Secretary of State is bringing forward a proposal to change the composition of the county councils. The landward areas will have to sacrifice some of their representation in order that the burghs, which have been giving the Government some trouble in regard to other matters, may have a greater say in county council administra tion. I prophesy to-night that within the next few weeks the Government will be faced with a new trouble. this time from the county councils. They have been able to point to the fact that the county councils have rather welcomed these educational proposals, but by the time the county councils have examined the change which is to be made in representation on the county councils we shall have complaints from them, and the Secretary of State will be having his attention drawn to certain anomalies in connection with his proposed scheme. I would like to show how the new county councils are to be composed. In the county to which I belong. the county of Fife. we have at present. 47 landward members on the county council, but than number is to be reduced to 34 in order to allow the burghs—
The DEPUTY-CHAIFIMAN: Does not that point arise under another Clause of the Bill We cannot consider the constitution of the county councils under this Clause.
Mr. WATSON: I am prepared to bow to your Ruling.
Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Would it not be in order to discuss this to enable us to show how difficult it will be to get sufficient men and women with educational knowledge on to the county councils?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is some limit to what can be discussed on this particular Clause, and the hon. Member knows that he will have full opportunity. if circumstances allow. of discussing the reconstitution of the county councils on another Clause.
Mr. WESTWOOD: Arising out of vour guidance in connection with this matter, is it not the fact that under Clause 2 the whole work of the administration of education in the counties has to be handed over to these reconstituted county councils and are we not entitled to discuss the impossibility of their doing the work?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not quite right. The recon-stitution of the county councils comes under an entirely different Clause and cannot be discussed here.
Mr. HARDIE: On the margin of the Clause. these words appear:
"Transfer of functions of education authorities."
When we are following up the charge by which the functions of one body are handed on to another body, I would like you to explain how the hon. Member's observations come to be out of order.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I do not understand the hon. Member. His point is not quite clear to me. but what is clear to me is that if he wishes to be guided by the marginal notes and will turn to Clause 8 he will see that that provides the occasion for discussing the constitution and reconstitu-tion of the county councils.
Mr. HARDIE: May I put it that we are not discussing the constitution?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is in accordance with my ruling. The hon. Member apparently agrees with me.
Mr. HARDIE: We are discussing the functions.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Then the hon. Member will perhaps allow the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) to go on.
Mr. WATSON: I was lead into that phase of the discussion by the answer which the Lord Advocate gave to the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn). He was asked whether it would be possible under this Bill to extend the numbers on town councils, and he indicated that an Amendment could be moved to the Bill to give town councils the power to increase their numbers, and what I was intending to do was to draw attention to the fact that we are going
1696
to have what is recognised as the purely county representation, that is, the representation from the landward areas, reduced and representation from the burghs increased. But you rule that that phase of the matter cannot be discussed at present, and so I will not pursue it, but reserve my remarks for a future occasion.
On the broad general question, I hope that the Government are going to give a great deal more consideration to the undoubted expression of opinion of the people of Scotland on the question of education and the control of education than they have done up to now. It is very extraordinary, after the experience which the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate and his assistants have had at their meetings with the education authorities in Scotland, that they should have persisted in proposing this change. We could have understood their action if they had done something to meet the position of the parish councils who put up such a good case against being wiped out of existence. Since the Bill was introduced, we have found that the Government have introduced a change whereby district councils are to take the place of parish councils. We might as well continue the old education authority system rather than have this new system of district councils under the county councils. There is no difference in that change so far as I can see, and the Government would be well advised if they were to drop their proposals wiping out the parish councils and centralising everything in the hands of the county council.
If the work of administering the Poor Law and education is going to be undertaken by the county council, then the office of a county councillor will have to be a whole-time job. It will mean that a county councillor will have to attend council meetings in addition to numerous committee meetings, and he will have to devote his whole time to public work. In the end, that will mean the payment of the members of county councils in addition to their expenses, and consequently there will be no economy under this Bill. Instead of economy, we shall have greater expenditure in connection with public administration than we have had under the old system, which had the advantage of a large amount of voluntary work. Under the new system, we are going to have greater centralisation, but there

1697
will be a considerable amount of increased expenditure, and I do not think the new system will be as economical or more democratic than the old system. I am going to oppose the change proposed under this Bill, and within a very short time I am sure you will hear loud complaints from the county councils about the changes which have been proposed in their constitution.
Mr. E. BROWN: The case against the Government has been very admirably put from this side of the House, and I am sure the Government will agree that their case could not have been stated better than it was stated by the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Cowan). Yesterday we were considering the abolition of a body which had to deal with the health services of the country, and I was surprised that the Under-Secretary did not state the case of the Health Department in relation to the co-ordination of the health services. Surely within the framework of the Government scheme there is not the slightest connection between doing away with the education authorities and the desires of the Government in relation to the general propositions of this Bill. No case has been made out for enlarging the areas, and there will still remain 33 counties and four large burghs. There is no change in regard to finance, because the block grant system does not affect educational finance except that it may re-act in areas where the increase of educational expenditure is adversely affected by the lower yield of a penny rate. No case has been made out on the ground of the inefficiency of the old system either during the discussion in the country or on the Floor of this House.
There is only one argument in favour of this scheme, and it is that it deals with overlapping. That argument takes two forms. The first one relates to school medical service, and the second to the feeding and clothing of school children. It is interesting to those who have taken an interest in both Bills to find that the very interesting Onslow Report which has been so largely incorporated in Part IV of the English Bill on this very point of school medical services expressly turns down the Government proposal, because the Onslow Committee, when discussing the unification of the
1698
health services, lays down that the school medical services should remain in charge of the education authority. Surely there could be no case for overturning the whole structure of the education system in Scotland.
I was very interested to hear the admirable speech made by the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities who paid a high tribute to the present authorities, but he hoped to get a better scheme under this Bill. That statement reminded me of a great Debate on another subject in pre-war days when a change was advocated by Lord Balfour, because he said it had hope and the promise of employment in its favour. That policy gave us dear bread and cheap hope. We are all meeting with difficulty, because this question has not been before the Scottish electorate within the last nine years. However active hon. Members have been in canvassing their constituents, we do not know what the bulk of the electors will say about this Measure. I have done my best to ascertain public opinion on it and there seems to me to be three bodies of opinion. I am rather inclined to contest the view which has been expressed by the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Cowan) and I do not think he is right in saying that the teachers of Scotland are unanimously in favour of this Measure.
Mr. COWAN: I did not say anything as to whether any number of teachers were in favour of this Bill or not.
Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member gave that impression.
Mr. COWAN: I did not say that the teachers were unanimous, but I did say that they supported the policy which I put forward in 1916. I pointed out that I was not supporting this policy because the teachers supported it, but I said that it was a policy for which I was responsible in 1916, and that the teachers adopted that policy without opposition in 1916.
Mr. BROWN: I am very glad that I raised this point, because what I have stated was the impression given to the Committee by the hon. Member's remarks. If that is not so, then we are on common ground. I know more than one teacher in my constituency who is not in favour of the change. No one,

1699
as I say, is entitled to speak either for a constituency, or for the whole body of teachers, or for any other body except those which have expressly met to discuss the matter, like the corporations of the large burghs and county councils and the education authorities, as to what their precise view is. What we are entitled to do is to take the opinion of representative bodies, and I would call the attention of the Committee to one very important body in my own constituency, which cannot be called a biased body, namely, the Port of Leith Association. That is an entirely non-party body, consisting of representatives of all sections of the community. It was called into being after the amalgamation with Edinburgh, in order to keep alive the spirit of old Leith. I have received no communication on this question of education from any teacher in my Division; the only communications that I have had have been by conversations with individual teachers during my visits to the constitueney; but the Port of Leith Association, a non-party body of citizens, has sent me this letter as an ex-pression of the ordinary public opinion which has been voiced so frequently on the other side of the Committee to-day:
"Dear Mr. BROWN,—The executive council of this association has had under consideration, the intention of the Government, in their proposals to reform local government in Scotland, to dispense with education authorities in their ad hoc administrative capacity. I am to convey the unanimous opinion of the council that, under any scheme of reform, the retention of education authorities ad hoc is an essential pre-requisite in connection with the maintenance of education in Scotland, as presently administered by elected representatives who find it necessary to exclude themselves from other public administrative duties in order to specialise in the work of conserving to the people those educational facilities which have made Scotland the envy of the world. The view of the council is that education in Scotland would be very adversely affected by the introduction of an ad omnia administrative system.
Yours sincerely,
ARCH. CARSWELL,
Hon. Secretary."
Our objection is the one alluded to by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. W. M. Watson), namely, the objection to a new authority undefined in numbers. We want to know what the new authorities will be in the counties. We know what
1700
the county councils will be, but we art not sure as to the other part. We do know what is going to happen in Edinburgh. In Edinburgh there are 100 elementary schools, of which 14 are in my constituency. At present, there are 34 members of the Edinburgh Education Authority, elected on purpose for this work, including seven from Leith. There are only 71 members of the Edinburgh Corporation, and this Committee is throwing over to those 71 members—and no process of re-constitution is proposed there under the Bill—the administration of the whole of the health services except National Health Insurance, the school medical service, and all the Poor Law services. Now we are to have an education authority composed of two elements. One will consist of certain of the 71 members of the Corporation. who will be set apart for educational work if the view which I think ought to prevail does prevail in subsequent discussions, namely, that, if an education committee is set up, it ought to be for that purpose only; and the other element will consist of co-opted members. There are these 103 schools in the city, there are continuation schools, there is the interest of 57,000 elementary scholars and 22,000 continuation scholars, and there is the question of the management of the schools, which are now staffed in one way or another by nearly 3,000 persons in Edinburgh. That is all to be thrown over to members of this body plus co-opted persons. How is it possible for the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) to say that he hopes to get more efficient education administration from such a body as is proposed in the Bill than can be got from the 34 people who are directly elected, and who give almost the whole of their public time to this service?
Whatever ideals may be behind the minds of the Scottish Board of Health and the English Ministry of Health in asking for the unification of the whole of the health services of the kingdom in their battle with what Bunyan once called the Captain of the Men of Death, I am certain that, in order to get control of the school medical service, or such co-operation with the counties on the one hand and the large burghs on the other, it was not necessary to take this dubious step of undoing the good work which, as is admitted on all

1701
hands, has been done by the present education authorities, and giving their duties over to bodies which are already overburdened. If the Under-Secretary stresses once more the question of overlapping, I would ask him, as the special representative of the Scottish Board of Health, whether, in the discharge of his duties in that capacity, he has never known overlapping to exist between committees of a corporation? Has he never known of three or four committees wanting the roads done up at times most inconvenient to the citizens, without coordination or consultation or understanding? This plea of overlapping in regard to the school medical service may have a plausible surface, but it affords no adequate foundation for such a drastic change in this most vital of all services, the release of the creative ability of the children in these schools.
Mr. MAXTON: I was somewhat annoyed, Mr. Herbert, when you called on the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) on the last occasion when I rose to speak, but now I thank you for postponing my intervention, because I am able to speak after having heard the three Liberal policies on the question of Scottish education. As I listened to the third one, which was my favourite, it reminded me of a friend of mine who went to Paisley races. in the good old days when Paisley races were held. Immediately he arrived on the field, he backed a particular horse. Then he met someone who had better information about another horse, and he thought he had better go and back that one also. Then he got a third opinion, and so he put a bet on the third horse as well. He had, therefore, three bets. There were only four horses, and the fourth one won. [Interruption.] I think that there is a true policy, but it is not either of those of the Liberal party. It is extraordinary and somewhat humbling to think that, although we have been boasting about our Scottish education, the only Scottish Liberal who understands Scottish de-rating and the proposed changes in local administration is an Englishman who obviously was educated in this country.
There is, in my view, in all quarters of the Committee, a tendency to over-idealise the Scottish education of the past. I have had Scottish education all round about me since I was an infant.
1702
I was born in the home of an underpaid Scottish schoolmaster, and i know the seamy side of Scottish education from the schoolmasters point of view. I can remember when my father died after having had charge for many years of a school which did all that work that has been boasted about. It actually took the youngster from five years of age, kept him at school, and sent him to Glasgow University. It gave him the complete training from start to finish. The scavenger's son, the merchant's son, the banker' son were all educated side by side in the same class. When he died, I remember the highest wage he was earning at that time was something like £3 10s. a week for that very great service which has been so lauded here by all sections of the House. I can remember how proud and pleased he was when, after years of work on a teachers' committee, he was able to come home in triumph and tell my mother that they had at last extracted she concession that they were to be superannuated with a sum which amounted to £40 a year. So I am not quite so enthusiastic about the good old days of Scottish education.
Nor am I so enthusiastic about the present days. When I qualified and started to teach under the Glasgow Education Authority, I was a graduate in arts of Glasgow University, not the most learned of my contemporaries, but in my view a fairly capable representative. I was paid 36s. a week and, if I had continued in that profession and things had remained absolutely the same, I would, provided I had been of absolutely good conduct and blameless character, which seems to me a very difficult thing to achieve, have attained to the princely sum of about £3 a week as an assistant teacher. I started my own elementary school education in a school which, strangely enough, is situated in the constituency represented by the Secretary of State for Scotland. It was badly conceived and built, and it was one of those good old parochial schools that dated away back before 1872, so far back that in the front of it there is still the Latin inscription of its name "Academia parochialis de Pollok." That dated away back long before the School Board. It lived through the parochial system, it lived through the ad hoc school board system, it has lived

1703
through 10 years of the education authority system, and it is still the same badly conceived, equally ill-constructed, unhygienic, dirty building that it was in the beginning. It certainly did conform to that ideal of Scottish education that did pervade our school system and our university system. There was the conception of hard work, simple life, lofty ideals. I do not know about the lofty ideals, but there certainly was the hard work and the simplicity of life, both for the teacher and for the youngster, in the Scottish elementary schools.
We are doing a most important thing here to-day. I am not against it. It has been referred to by the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) when he alluded to the sectarian aspect. The traditions of Scottish education do not merely go back to John Knox, but they go away back into pre-Reformation days. Scottish education owes its origin and its inspiration to Roman Catholicism. John Knox took it over and developed the system under Protestantism. Right up until to-day Scottish education has always been intended to subserve the religious end. To-day under a Tory Government we are making the change. It has been stated by more than one hon. Member that we now cease to try to subserve the ends of religion, the ideals, the ethical ends, the ends of human perfection, and we now start to try in our education service to subserve the ends of the market place. That has been stated by speakers on the other side, as being the one strong argument for this change, that we are taking away our education from the specialised control of the education authorities.
There can be no argument against the education authority on the ground that it is not the place of the common man, because it is a publicly elected body on which a common man may sit if he so desires and the community so desires. Scotland generally however has decided that that education authority for the most part shall not be composed of the merchant, or shopkeeper, or even the artisan. Scotland has decided, when it had the opportunities under the old School Board system and when it had the opportunities under the education
1704
authority system, that the men who-should sit in control of Scottish education or who invariably should form a large proportion of the members should be the clergymen, either of the Protestant Presbyterian denomination or of the Roman Catholic so that the whole inspiration and drive of Scottish education should be a religious one.
I personally am not going to stand here as the defender of official orthodox religion in Scotland. I would personally be very glad to see every professional clergyman of whatever denomination swept off the control of education in Scotland. In my own little way in electioneering for education authorities, I did my very best to do it, and very unsuccessfully, so strong was Scottish opinion on the subject. While I could sweep Members of Parliament out of Glasgow very easily, I could not sweep clergymen out of the education authority, so strong was Scottish public opinion on this question. Hon. Members on the other side who come from Scotland know that this is the case. I am not saying that the Government are not on sound lines in attempting to get away from this specialised control. I am not going to stand as the defender of one form of sectarian religion or another. I do not want to stand here as the defender of the view that the purpose of education is not to subserve the ends of the market place or the factory, but that it should be directed towards the end of achieving human perfection as nearly as we can get to it. It is, in my view. a retrograde step, when we tend to bring the whole thing down to the level of mere utilitarianism.
On the practical side of the problem, I have seen, in my own experience, great improvements taking place in Scottish education administration. When I started as a pupil in school, there were youngsters of nine permitted to go to work half time in the mills. Anyone could leave school at 11 or 12 years of age on attaining to a very meagre standard of general knowledge. I have seen the school age raised to 14. I have seen the half-time system absolutely abolished. I have seen quite a number of good new schools erected, and during all that time I have seen a tremendous improvement in the training and the general education of the teachers who are taking charge

1705
of the children. I have seen also a considerable improvement in the financial status of the teachers enaged in the work. But every single one of these changes came from here and not from the local governing body at all. The raising of the school age, the raising of teachers' salaries, the insistence on proper school buildings, any reduction in the size of classes that has taken place has come from here.
While the two hon. Members for the Scottish Universities were speaking in support of the Bill, I only wished the right hon. Baronet (Sir H. Craik), who used to represent the Scottish Universities, had been present. I should have liked to hear his voice on this matter, because he was one of the few Conservatives I have seen who was not afraid to voice his own principles even when they were disagreeable to his Front Bench. He had an unrivalled experience of Scottish education, and the man who holds that key position of Secretary to the Scottish Education Department is the greatest factor in Scottish educational life. He tells the Government what to do and, when the Government have got it through the House, he tells the authorities that they have to do what the Government tell them. I want to congratulate the gentleman who has just taken over that position in recent months. When I heard of his appointment, knowing of his work in education circles, I was very much rejoiced that the Secretary of State had seen fit to place him in that post.
When one remembers the great services performed by the late Sir Henry Craik and by his successor, Sir John Struthers, and the gentleman who has just left, one must remember that always when these men wanted to stimulate progress—and they did stimulate progress—every one of them in turn in some way or another stimulated education progress; even under reactionary Governments they did what they could—they had to go direct, either in person or through their inspectors, to the local people who were engaged in education. They could maintain contact with the school board members, the clerks of school boards, the directors of education, headmasters of schools, and representative members of the teaching profession. Now, under this scheme, a representative of the Depart-
1706
ment, to stimulate something new, has to penetrate to the town clerk, from the town clerk to the appropriate committee, from the appropriate committee back to the particular clerk who is in charge of education, and through half-a-dozen channels before he can get to the point where the stimulus that he wants to apply can begin to prove effective.
I am certain that Scottish public opinion is absolutely against this Measure. I am not prepared to say that on occasion the Government should not quite courageously come forward and say to public opinion: "We, who are in charge of affairs, have not to follow you but to lead you. We have to get you to see that this is absolutely necessary for the improvement of the service." That is the real work of government. It is not to follow, but to lead. But before a Government does it it must be tremendously sure that what it is going to do is in line with the best ideals of the nation that it is governing, and that it must, in addition, be productive of fruitful results in the very near future. I do not often speak as being a very special expert on anything, but I can claim to have a knowledge on this subject which is not shared by many. I have been a pupil, I have: been a teacher, I have been secretary of a teachers' organisation, and I have been an administrator of Scottish education, and I am satisfied that to-day, for a very cheap reason. merely for the desire to fit it harmoniously into the de-ratine scheme, which again I believe to be very ill-considered—merely to achieve that very trivial end—the Scottish Members of the Government are doing something which is not for the good of Scotland and which will be whole-heartedly resented by the Scottish people.
Major ELLIOT: A speech from the hon. Member who has just spoken must always be regarded as equivalent to a Front Bench speech. He is a spiritual Front Bencher, even if the has never found his place on that august seat. It is quite possible that he never will find his place upon it. It may be that a seat on a revolutionary tribunal is more to his liking, and that he will never be satisfied until and unless he finds himself in that honourable but perilous position. The hon. Member has put a case before the Committee which demands an answer

1707
as soon as it may be practicable to give it. I cannot pretend that I shall be capable of giving it, because I have not that close and special knowledge of the subject which adds the accuracy of fact which he does not always possess to that play of phantasy which the whole Committee will agree he can summon whenever it pleases him to do so. He pointed out, and I think with truth, though stressing it may be a little, the super-omnipotence of the bureaucrat, as one would expect from an hon. Member holding his particular views. He pointed out that, whatever might be done locally or in Parliament or elsewhere, the persons whose views he trusted were the permanent officials, the great Permanent Secretary. Sir Henry Craik, Sir John Struthers, Sir George Macdonald, and he paid a gracious tribute to the new recruit who has come in to fill the shoes of these great readers. He said that those were the persons whose views he desired to have. Those were the persons whose views he would follow, and by whom he would be guided.
Mr. MAXTON: I did not say that.
Major ELLIOT: The views which he desired to consult. Naturally, he would take to himself the final privilege of judgment, but of all the views to which he would defer, he said that the views of these great permanent civil servants were the views which he would most praise and honour. He made, then, a somewhat rash statement, because he said that merely to fit into a de-rating scheme, merely to fit into some purely material idea, this Bill and this particular Clause are being brought forward. It must be within the knowledge of many hon. Members and the Secretary of State himself has pointed out that he took part in the Debates 10 years ago when, after a long period of slack water, the tide again began to rise, it was determined to reconsider and revise the whole range of Scottish education. When, after the great War, we sat down to frame a scheme which would be the most fitting scheme for the education of the generations which were to come. It was then, that with full knowledge and responsibility of the great civil servants of Scotland to whom the hon. Member himself would appeal, laid down a scheme which was not a scheme for an ad hoc authority
1708
but an ad omnia authority such as we are proposing in this Bill. The scheme was proposed at that time, not to fit in with any petty idea, such as the hon. Member speaks of; it was not proposed at that time to fit into some scheme produced by a Brummagem Minister and put forward by a subservient schoolboy of a Secretary of State. In those days. we were discussing the matter with full and untrammelled consideration, quite apart from any suggestion of rating. within a department, with the full weight of departmental investigation and authority behind it. Then it was said that the day of the ad hoc adminis tration is past and the day of the ad omnia administration has come.
The hon. Member has appealed to Caesar. By Caesar he must be judged. He brought forward an interesting contention of great historical power and great present force, when he pointed out that education must not subserve the ideals of the market place. That is true. He said that the ideals of Scotland, the educational ideals of Scotland had been religious in character, and he held that up to high praise. Yes, but he said that the ideal which we must subserve is the ideal of human perfection. True, but in recent years we are beginning to realise, what Scottish education has too often neglected in the past, that human perfection is not merely a matter of the cultivated mind, but is also a matter of the sound physical body. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] Quite so. Then let us pursue that line of policy.
Mr. JAMES BROWN: To the exclusion of the other?
Major ELLIOT: Not to the exclusion of the other. Mens sana in corpore sano does not mean a sound mind only. One of the things which may be said of the Scottish educational system is that in the past it has, perhaps, concentrated its attention too exclusively upon mens sana, forgetting that corpus sanum comes before that, and that unless you have a sound body it is utterly impossible to have a sound mind. I put against the ecclesiastical ideal and tradition the ideals and principles which my late profession, the medical profession, not less honourable and ancient than the hon. Member's late profession, is bringing forward. In the profession of medicine

1709
we say, assuredly, that unless you bring in all the factors to the sum of human perfection, you will not succeed in producing the fully educated school children which we all desire to produce.
Mr. MAXTON: That was what I was endeavouring to say. When I spoke of human perfection as an ideal I was, naturally, assuming bodily and mental perfection. An ecclesiastical view of spiritual perfection as apart from body and mind is one that is imcomprehensible to me.
Major ELLIOT: Then the hon. Member and myself are in agreement on the point. It may be that I was led away by his aesthetic and ecclesiastical appearance, in contrast with the somewhat vulgar robustness which characterises myself. If he is pursuing the ideal of physical as well as intellectual perfection, may I be allowed to say that he has, perhaps, fallen rather shorter of the one ideal than of the other. He will see, however, that we are agreed upon this point. What is the relation of this argument to the Bill Surely it is this, that not one but many authorities have laid it down as fundamental—this will interest the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown)—that the school medical service must be under the control of the local authority which runs the health services for that area. The hon. Member for Leith asked me why we did not adopt the suggestion of the Onslow Commission. I will not insult him by asking him if he has read the Report by the Munro Committee on this very question.
Mr. E. BROWN: Did you take it for the English Bill?
Major ELLIOT: I will not for a moment admit the contention of my hon. Friend that any English Commission's Report is to be held, necessarily, as applicable to a Scottish subject. The Munro Report specifically examined this question, and I am astonished that the hon. Member should suggest that the step which we propose is inadvisable, especially as it is a step recommended and signed by most respectable and dignified members of his own party. It is a suggestion signed by a gentleman who is an eminent county councillor besides having been previously a member of this House—Mr. Joseph Johnstone, Member for Renfrew, who sees no difficulty in taking over these
1710
services. It is signed by my predecessor in office, the Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. Stewart), the hon. Member who was responsible for the health of Scotland. It is also signed by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan), who spoke on the subject a short time ago. All these gentlemen signed a recommendation that this fundamental activity of the education authority should be withdrawn from them and handed over to the local authority, the city council or the town council. That is our answer to those who say, "Why make any change? Why not leave things in Scotland as they are?"
Mr. E. BROWN: I thought I made it perfectly plain that that could be done without this change.
Major ELLIOT: Surely the point the hon. Member put strongly was that the Onslow Commission said that this should not be done, and that therefore it should not be done.
Mr. BROWN: Oh. no.
10.0 p.m.
Major ELLIOT: Then he was advancing two different policies which were moving in two different directons. We are all agreed, first of all, that the great Civil Servants have recommended this change, the change from an ad hoc authority to an ad omnia authority. We are all agreed that important lay committees have recommended one of the main changes introduced by this Bill, the transfer of the health services from the ad hoc. to the ad omnia authority, and I do say that when the case is so clear that the Committee almost unanimously recommended—certainly all the gentlemen to whom I have referred recommend—this great and important change, then half the case for the ad hoc authority has gone by the board already. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour), who was afflicted with a strange access of pessimism, which made him complain that all forms of higher thinking and higher activity are under an eclipse and under a blight just now -a poor outlook for the success of his party at the next Election, according to his own ideals, if that be so—brings forward as his main difficulty that we are making this change so as to fit in with an English idea and an English ideal. We have now, I think, conelu-

1711
sively disproved that. I have quoted the view, to carry it no further, of our great Scots Civil Servants, and that is buttressed in an important respect, that of health services, by the report of one of the most representative Committees that ever sat in Scotland considering this very point. This matter of the education of the people of Scotland is, perhaps, one of the most important things with which we shall have to deal under this Bill and undoubtedly, although it is a change for which this Bill offers facilities, unless the change can be justified in itself, it would be quite unwarranted for us to bring it forward and to submit it to the verdict of this House of Commons. The change, no doubt, involves difficulties. It takes us along the thorny path which lies before anyone who enters upon the task of trying to improve the education of the people of Scotland, but we thought it our duty to enter upon that task, to make that change, and to bring forward now for the consideration of Parliament the change that was pressed upon Scotland by its responsible advisers in 1918, and turned down then, not on its merits, but because the then Secretary for Scotland thought that the opposition at that time was too strong. [An HON MEMBER: "It is strong to-day."] Strong it may be, but it is not impossible that the Secretary of State for Scotland to-day is stronger than the Secretary for Scotland was on that occasion.
The general case has been most effectively put by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities, and I do not think one could do better than to leave him to answer his hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). But there are one or two points which these two hon. Members perhaps have not considered, to which I might now ask them to devote their attention. We hear eloquent praises of the Scottish educational system, and the hon. Member for Caithness went so far as to say that Caithness led the educational system of Scotland, and that Thurso led the educational system of Caithness. How did the hon. Baronet react to that verdict? I was looking up the educational record of the hon.
1712
Baronet to see what was the educational institution and the educational system from which he derived his eloquence. Was it some great Scottish school, or a great Scottish University to which he passed when he left that school? I find the answer in a little book, with which we are all Lamiliar. I find that Eton is his school and Sandhurst is his college. I examine the educational record of my Friend the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, and I find the clue of his attachment to the educational system which he praises. His school is St. Paul's and his college is Trinity Hall, Cambridge. The hon. Baronet spoke at length upon the necessity of parents having close and immediate contact with the education of their children. Well, let us take one of these parents, who, I think the hon. Baronet will agree, is of great importance in the life of the child. Let us take the mother. Let us take the women of the country. I wonder whether he can answer me. How many women are on the education authority of Caithness? How many women are on the education authority of Sutherland?
Sir A. SINCLAIR: I can answer that—if it were an element in my argument—there are none. My argument was not that the women had to serve on this authority, but that they had to choose what members should represent their wishes on the authority.
Major ELLIOT: The hon. Baronet admits that on this supreme authority there is no woman. Perhaps the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland knows how many women there are on the education authority of Orkney?
Sir R. HAMILTON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give me notice of that question?
Major ELLIOT: How many are there on the education authority of Shetland? The hon. Gentleman seems to have taken to the defence of these institutions without, perhaps, fully acquainting himself with the shortcomings of the institutions as compared with the manifest advantages of the change which we are proposing. I can tell him that there is no woman at all on one of these authorities, and only one woman on the other.
Sir A. SINCLAIR: They are responsible to the women.
Major ELLIOT: Does the hon. Baronet, in these days, pretend that he can escape the dilemma by saying that of course there is no woman there, but that the women have a chance to choose their representatives? I say that under the proposals of this Clause and of our Bill a woman must be on the education committee. I ask the Committee, with confidence, to follow us into the Lobby in favour of a provision which makes it compulsory for a woman to be on the education authority which is to guide the education of children. I have every confidence that that is a provision which will commend itself both to the Committee now and to the electorate at a later stage.
Mr. WESTWOOD: What guarantee is. there under the scheme which the Government are suggesting should take the place of the existing system of organisation that any woman will have the right of having control of any kind of the expenditure in connection with education?
Major ELLIOT: We were talking of the administration, which, as everybody agrees, is a thing of primary importance. The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Westwood) would be the first to attack me if I were to suggest that there were to be co-opted members upon an authority responsible for the finances. The hon. Member, in his speech, was making the case most strongly that co-opted members should not be on the central financial authority. I am pointing out that on the body which is to deal with the administration of the schools, our Bill, for the first time, makes it obligatory that some woman's voice should be heard.
Mr. WESTWOOD: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain how it is possible to give the control that he suggests under the scheme, when he says that the whole power of dealing with the staff and primarily with bursars must remain in the hands of the elected body?
Major ELLIOT: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we discussed this matter on the Second Beading, and I was able to point out to him that his apprehension as to the removal of power was unfounded.
Mr. STEPHEN: How much is the parish council allowing?
Major ELLIOT: The parish councils are not under consideration at the moment. I do not wish to trespass too long on the time of the Committee—
Mr. WESTWOOD: It is interesting.
Major ELLIOT: I admit that it is interesting, but there are other interesting points too, and there are many other Members who desire to speak.
Sir A. SINCLAIR: Hear, hear!
Major ELLIOT: The hon. Baronet did not stint himself.
Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am encouraging the hon. and gallant Member; I want him to go on.
Major ELLIOT: We have the general position that the education authority of Scotland has been deemed by more than one authority, on more than one occasion, to be ripe for reform, that the method which we are bringing forward is a method which was not suggested by anyone else, but by our own responsible authorities, the great civil servants, who have to render to us their advice. Nobody denies that, not even the hon. Member for Dundee. The question is: Is it worth while to make this great change for the sake of the benefits which we expect to derive from it? It is, and deeply worth while. At this moment, a recasting of local government is taking place in Scotland, and we hope and expect an extension and enlargement of the powers of the central bodies—the county councils and the town councils—that will raise them to a position of prestige and dignity which they have never enjoyed before. Their hands are being freed by a new grant, to a very large extent, from many of the niggling controls which it was necessary to place on them when the system of the percentage grant was introduced.
Furthermore, we are in our health Clauses on the Paper making it possible to alter the health system of Scotland along the lines which the health reformers have been demanding for many-years past. When all these great changes are taking place it would be folly, and criminal, to leave out of account the 800.000 schoolchildren who are truly the flower of Scotland, and who are the people on whom we rely for the whole national life of Scotland

1715
in the years to come. The time has gone past when it is possible to treat the mind of the child apart from the body of the child. To do that we must have the close and intimate connection of the great new authority which is responsible, not ad hoc for health, but ad omnia. As health is one of the major functions, if health is not too important a subject to put into the hands of this great new authority, then education is not too important, either. If we can entrust this new authority with the terrible and powerful responsibility of the tender years of the child life of Scotland from one to five, and with the life of the adults of Scotland from school age to death, with the bodies of Scotsmen and Scotswomen, it would be going back on all that we are bringing forward, and on the whole theory of health as one of the most important of modern functions, to say that the body is a secondary thing, that an ad omnia authority can take charge of the bodies of the people of Scotland, but that in respect of this question of book learning there is something so sacred that it has got to be removed entirely from the ambit of that authority and to be put under different control.
Our theory and conviction is that the body is as sacred as the mind, and that if we can make a strong, fit, and burly generation of young Scots, then we shall have done something to which the making of the mind of the Scotsman and Scotswoman is not a secondary thing. That is our contention, and it is the contention of the great medical school. Call it. if you will, a materialistic ideal: we do not regard it as such. We say that the formation of the fit citizen cannot be carried out unless the continuous super vision of the citizen all the way through is entrusted to one responsible authority-and we say that the authority that is carrying through that great supervision should be and can be made an authority of sufficient power and sufficient idealism in outlook to warrant it being entrusted with the great task of the formation of the mind as well as the formation of the body.
Mr. STEPHEN: We have listened to the Under-Secretary of State with a great deal of interest. I am greatly surprised to hear that it is the material welfare of
1716
these boys and girls in Scotland that is of so much importance to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his chiefs. I want to make one comment and one comment only on his speech. Those Gentlemen who are so concerned about the sound bodies of the children of Scotland will allow the parish council to pay only 2s. a week as an allowance for these children. The Secretary of State will not allow the parish council to pay as much as the Employment Exchange pay on behalf of the children. For the hon. and gallant Gentleman to stand at that box and talk, as he has done to-night, about the health of the children of Scotland, when he and his chief are responsible for the starvation of these children—
The CHAIRMAN: This seems hardly relevant to ad hoc and ad omnia.
Mr. STEPHEN: I think it is very relevant, because the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made the plea that in this change they are concerned for the health of the children of Scotland. I do not believe it. I do not think there are many hon. Members on this side who believe that it is the health of the children with which the Government are concerned in the changes that they are proposing. It is all a nice bit of special pleading, but there has been no real argument adduced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman for doing away with these education authorities. The hon. and gallant Gentleman tried to get behind some of the things that were said by ray hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) in order to make out a case, but the answer is in the allowances that the Government are prepared to make for the children. I believe that the people in Scotland will judge the Government. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that my hon. Friend had appealed to Caesar, and to Caesar he would go. He meant Caesar as the permanent chiefs at the Education Department. Yes, but there is the other Caesar outside. I simply remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Ides of March are not yet come.
Mr. HARDIE: The arguments put forward by the Government have not been convincing. The Government, for instance, in dealing with safeguarding, put upon industry the obligation of proving whether safeguarding was needed or not. But in this case there

1717
has been no investigation; no consultation has taken place with the public of Scotland. If safeguarding, so email in itself, demands that proof shall be given, why is it that in education consideration is not given to some public representative method of knowing whether this change is demanded or not? The Secretary of State for Scotland knows that this Measure is not demanded in Scotland. But the worst thing of all is that by this Measure we are wiping out direct democratic control over these
matters in Scotland. It does not matter how many or how few vote at the elections. What we protest against is taking away the democratic right to vote in connection with any public body in Scotland.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'burgh,' in line 24, stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 114.

Division No. 164.]

AYES.

[10.20 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Fade, Sir Bertram G.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

Fielden, E. B.

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

Ford, Sir P. J.

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T, C. R. (Ayr)

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Fraser, Captain Ian

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Apsley, Lord

Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Gates, Percy

Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Nelson, Sir Frank

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Neville, Sir Reginald J.

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Gower, Sir Robert

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter).

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Grant, Sir J. A.

Nuttall, Ellis

Berry, Sir George

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Oakley, T.

Betterton, Henry B

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Bevan, S. J.

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'W, E)

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Perring, Sir William George

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Hacking, Douglas H.

Pitcher, G.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Hall, Capt. w. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Power, Sir John Cecil

Briggs, J. Harold

Hanbury, C.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Briscoe, Richard George

Harland, A.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Brown, Col. D. C (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Hills, Major John Waller

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

Brown, Brig -Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

Hilton, Cecil

Ropner, Major L.

Buchan, John

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k. Nun.)

Ross, R. D.

Carver, Major W. H.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Cautley, Sir Henry s.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Rye, F. G.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Salmon, Major I.

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Howard-Bury, Colonel C K.

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Chapman, Sir S.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Sassoon, sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Savery, S. S.

Clayton, G. C.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Shepperson, E. W.

Cochrane, Commander Ho*. A. D.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Skelton, A. N.

Cooper, A. Duff

Kindersley, Major Guy M.

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C)

Couper, J. B.

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Smithers, Waldron

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lamb, J. Q.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Cowan, Sir WM Henry (Islington, N.)

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Livingstone, A. M.

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Long, Major Eric

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Looker, Herbert William

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsay, Gainsbro)

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. M.

Dalkeith, Earl of

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Stuart, Hon J. (Moray and Nairn)

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

McLean, Major A.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Dawson, Sir Phillip

Macmillan, Captain H.

Sugden, sir Wilfrid

Dixey, A. C.

Macquisten, F. A.

Tasker, R. Inigo.

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

Mac Robert, Alexander M.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Tinne, J. A.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Manningham-Buller, sir Mervyn

Titchfield, Major the Marquees of

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Margesson, Captain D.

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Ellis, R. G.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Ward, Lt.-Col, A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Meller, R. J.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Fairfax, Captain Q.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley).

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Watts, Sir Thomas

Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

Well, S. R.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Withers, John James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Wolmer, Viscount

Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Womersley, W. J.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)

Groves, T.,

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Grundy, T. W.

Ritson, J.

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

Ammon, Charles George

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hamiton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hardie, George D.

Scrymgeour, E.

Barnes, A.

Harris, Percy A.

Scurr, John

Barr, J.

Hayday, Arthur

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Bellamy, A.

Hirst, G. H.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Benn, Wedgwood

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Shinwell, E.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hollins, A.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Bromfield, William

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Smillie, Robert

Buchanan, G.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Cape, Thomas

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Stamford, T. W.

Charleton, H. C.

Kelly, W. T.

Stephen, Campbell

Clark, A. B.

Kennedy, T.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Cluse, W. S.

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Sullivan, Joseph

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Kirkwood, D.

Sutton, J. E.

Compton, Joseph

Lansbury, George

Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

Cove, W. G.

Lawson, John James

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Dennison, R.

Lee, F.

Tomlinson, R. P.

Duncan, C.

Longbottom, A. W.

Townend, A. E.

Dunnico, H.

Lowth T

Viant, S. P.

Edge, Sir William

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Watson, W. M. ( Dunfermline)

Edwards C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Mackinder, W.

Wellock, Wilfred

England, Colonel A.

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Welsh, J. C.

Fenby, T. D.

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Westwood, J.

Forrest, W.

Maxton, James

Wheatley. Rt. Hon. J.

Gardner, J. P.

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Wiggins, William Martin

Gibbins, Joseph

Morris, R. H.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Gillett, George M.

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Mosley, Sir Oswald

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Murnin, H.

Windsor, Walter

Greenall, T.

Oliver, George Harold

Wright, W.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Col)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Griffith. F. Kingsley

Potts, John S.

Sir Robert Hutchison and Mr. Ernest Brown.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out from the word "burgh" in line 24, to the end of the Subsection.
I move this so that we can have a Division on retaining to the education authorities in the county the right to carry on.
It being half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the
Order of the House of 12th December, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 117.

Division No. 165.]

AYES.

[10.30 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

Albery, Irving James

Blundell, F. N.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l)

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Chapman, Sir S

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Briggs, J. Harold

Clayton, G. C.

Apsley, Lord

Briscoe, Richard George

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Ashley, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Cooper, A. Duff

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Couper, J. B.

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Brown, Maj. D.C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.

Buchan, John

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Berry, Sir George

Bullock, Captain M.

Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

Betterton, Henry B.

Carver, Major W. H.

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Bevan, S. J.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Crooksbank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (stoke New'gton)

Rye, F. G.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Salmon, Major I.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Davies, Dr. Vernon

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Davison, Sir W. H (Kensington, S.)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Knox, Sir Alfred

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Dixey, A. C.

Lamb, J. Q.

Savery, S. S.

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

Lister, Cunliffe., Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)

Eden, Captain Anthony

Long, Major Eric

Shepperson, E. W.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Looker, Herbert William

Skelton, A. N.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C)

Ellis, R. G.

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Smithers, Waldron

Everard, W. Lindsay

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

McLean, Major A.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Macmillan, Captain H.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Fanshawe, Captain G. D,

Macquisten, F. A.

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Fielden, E. B.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Ford, Sir P. J.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Fraser, Captain Ian

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Margesson, Capt. D.

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Gates, Percy

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Gault, Lieut. Col. Andrew Hamilton

Meller, R. J.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Gower, Sir Robert

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden.)

Tasker, R. Inigo.

Grant, Sir J. A.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Tinne, J. A.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R, (Ayr)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'ths'W, E)

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Vaughan, Morgan, Col. K. P.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

Hacking, Douglas H.

Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Nelson, Sir Frank

Warrender, Sir victor

Hanbury, C.

Neville, Sir Reginald J.

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Harland, A.

Nuttall, Ellis

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Oakley, T.

Watts, Sir Thomas

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Walls, S. R.

Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

William, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Perring, sir William George

Williams, Com. C. (Devon. Torquay)

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Hills, Major John Waller

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Wilson, Sir C H. (Leeds, Central)

Hilton, Cecil

Pilcher, G.

Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Power, Sir John Cecil

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Price, Major C. W. M.

Withers, John James

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Raine, Sir Walter

Wolmer, Viscount

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Womersley, W. J.

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Roberts, E. H G. (Flint)

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

Hume, Sir G. H.

Robinson, Sir T. (Lane, Stretford)

Hunter-Weston. Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Ropner, Major L.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Ross, R. D.

Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny.

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)

England, Colonel A.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Kelly, W. T.

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Fenby, T. D.

Kennedy, T.

Ammon, Charles George

Forrest, W.

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Gardner, J. P.

Kirkwood, D.

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Gibbins, Joseph

Lansbury, George

Barnes, A.

Gillett, George M.

Lawson, John James

Barr, J

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Lee, F.

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Bellamy, A.

Greenall, T.

Longbottom, A. W.

Benn, Wedgwood

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

Lowth, T.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Bromfield, William

Griffith, F. Kingsley

Mackinder, W.

Bromley, J.

Groves, T.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Grundy, T. W.

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Maxton, James

Buchanan, G.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Cape, Thomas

Hamiton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Morris, R. H.

Charleton, H. C.

Hardie, George D.

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham. N.)

Clark, A. B.

Harris, Percy A.

Mosley Sir Oswald

Cluse, W. S.

Hayday, Arthur

Murnin, H.

Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

Hirst, G. H.

Oliver, George Harold

Compton, Joseph

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Cove, W. G.

Hollins, A.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Dennison, R.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Potts, John S.

Duncan, C.

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Dunnico, H.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Ritson, J.

Edge, Sir William

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

1722

1723

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Stamford, T. W.

Westwood, J.

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Stephen, Campbell

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Scrymgeour, E.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Wiggins, William Martin

Scurr, John

Sullivan, J.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Sutton, J. E.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Thomas, Rt. Hon. Jamas H. (Derby)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Windsor, Walter

Shinwell, E.

Tomilnson, R. P.

Wright, W.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Townend, A. E.

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Viant, S. P.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Sitch, Charles H.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.

Smillie, Robert

Wellock, Wilfred

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Welsh, J. C.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's Sitting.
Amendment made:
In page 3, line 38, leave out the words "leviable for the purpose," and insert
instead thereof the words:
"to be levied for the purpose in accordance with the provisions of this Act."—[Stir J. Gilmour.]
Amendment proposed:
In page 3, line 39, leave out Subsection (3), and insert instead thereof the words:
"(3) Section 78 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892 (which relates to the
appointment of a chief constable and of constables), shall not apply except to—

(a) a large burgh which at the date of the passing of this Act maintains a separate police force; or

(b) a burgh with respect to which it shall at any time be proved in accordance with the said Section that it has a population of not less than 50,000, and every burgh other than as aforesaid shall be supplied with constables by the county in which it is situate under the provisions of the Act of 1889 and shall cease to maintain or to be entitled to maintain a separate police force: Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply as regards any county or any burgh situate therein so long as the Police (Scotland) Act, 185" does not apply to that county."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 212; Noes. 112.

Division No. 166.]

AYES.

[10.40 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Clayton, G. C.

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Albery, Irving James

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Gower, Sir Robert

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Grant, Sir J. A.

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

Cooper, A. Duff

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Couper, J. B.

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's w, E)

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Hacking, Douglas H.

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Hanbury, C.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Harland, A.

Berry, Sir George

Dalkeith, Earl of

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Betterton, Henry B.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Bevan, S. J.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henlsy)

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W )

Dawson, Sir Philip

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Blundell, F. N.

Dixey, A. C.

Hills, Major John Waller

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

Hilton, Cecil

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Eden, Captain Anthony

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Briggs, J. Harold

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Briscoe, Richard George

Elliot, Major Waiter E.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Ellis, R. G.

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

England, Colonel A

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N)

Buchan, John

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Bullock, Captain M.

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

Hunter Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Carver, Major W. H.

Fielden, E. B.

Hurd, Percy A.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Ford, Sir P. J.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Forrest, W.

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

Fraser, Captain Ian

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Ganzoni Sir John

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Chapman, Sir S.

Gates, Percy

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Knox, Sir Alfred

Perring, Sir William George

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Lamb, J Q.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Streatfeild. Captain S. R.

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Looker, Herbert William

Pilcher, G.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Power, Sir John Cecil

Sueter, Roar-Admiral Murray Fraser

Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen

Price, Major C. W. M.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Raine, Sir Walter

Tasker, R. Inigo.

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Thomson, F.C. (Aberdeen, South)

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

McLean, Major A.

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Tinne, J. A.

Macmillan, Captain H.

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Macquisten, F. A.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Mac Robert, Alexander M.

Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Ropner, Major L.

Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Ross, R. D.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Margesson, Captain D.

Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth)

Warrender, Sir Victor

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Rye, F. G.

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Salmon, Major I.

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Meller, R. J.

Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Watts, Sir Thomas

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Wells, S. R.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Mitchell, Sir W Lane (Streatham)

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave G.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Savery, S. S.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)

Wilson, Sir c. H. (Leeds, Central)

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Shepperson, E. W.

Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Skelton, A. N

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

withers, John James

Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Wolmer, Viscount

Nelson, Sir Frank

Smithers, Waldron

Womersley, W J.

Neville, Sir Reginald J.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Newman, Sir R. H. S.D. L. (Exeter)

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Nuttall, Ellis

Spencer-Clay, Colonel H.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

Oakley, T.

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife. West)

Groves, T.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Grundy, T. W.

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield. Hillsbro')

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Scrymgeour, E.

Ammon, Charles George

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Scurr, John

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hamiton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hardie, George D.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Barnes, A.

Harris, Percy A.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Barr, J.

Hayday, Arthur

Shinwell, E.

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Hirst, G. H.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Bellamy, A.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, south)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Benn, Wedgwood

Hollins, A.

Sitch, Charles H.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Smillie, Robert

Bromfield, William

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Bromley, J.

John, William (Rhondda. West)

Stamford, T. W.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Stephen, Campbell

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Buchanan, G.

Kelly, W. T.

Sullivan, J.

Cape, Thomas

Kennedy, T.

Sutton, J. E.

Charleton, H. C.

Kirkwood, D

Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

Clark, A. B.

Lansbury, George

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Cluse, W. S.

Lawson, John James

Tomlinson, R P.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Lee, F

Townend, A. E.

Compton, Joseph

Livingstone, A. M.

Viant, S. P.

Cove, W. G.

Longbottom, A. W.

Watson, W. M. Dunfermline)

Dennison, R.

Lowth, T.

Wellock, Wilfred

Duncan, C.

Mackinder, W

Welsh, J. C.

Dunnico, H.

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Westwood, J.

Edge, Sir William

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer)

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Wiggins, William Martin

Fenby, T. D.

Morris, R. H.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Gardner, J. P.

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Gibbins, Joseph

Mosley, Sir Oswald

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Gillett, George M.

Murnin, H.

Windsor, Walter

Graham, D. M (Lanark, Hamilton)

Oliver, George Harold

Wright W.

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Greenall, T.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

Potts, John S.

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Ritson, J.

Griffith, F. Kingsley

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 110.

Division No. 167.]

AYES.

[10 49 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Ganzoni, Sir John

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Albery, Irving James

Gates, Percy

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Perring, Sir William George

Alexander, Sir Win, (Glasgow, Cent'l)

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

Gower, Sir Robert

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Grant, Sir J. A.

Plicher, G.

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Balowin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Price, Major C. W. M.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)

Raine, Sir Walter

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Hacking, Douglas H.

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Berry, Sir George

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Betterton, Henry B.

Hanbury, c.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Bevan, S. J.

Harland, A.

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Ropner, Major L.

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Ross, R. D.

Blundell, F. N.

Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Rye, F. G.

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Salmon, Major I.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Hills, Major John Waller

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Briggs, J. Harold

Hilton, Cecil

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Briscoe, Richard George

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Savery, S. S.

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Sha, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Messley)

Shepperson, E. W.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. ( Berks, Newb'y)

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Skelton, A. N.

Buchan, John

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Bullock, Captain M.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

Smith-Carington Neville W.

Carver, Major W. H.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Smithers, Waldron

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Hurst, Gerald B.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Chapman, Sir S.

Kindersley, Major Guy M.

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Clayton, G. C.

Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Knox, Sir Alfred

Stuart, Crlchton-, Lord C.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Lamb, J. Q.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Cooper, A. Duff

Looker, Herbert William

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Couper, J. B.

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Tasker, R. Inigo

Courtauld, Major J. S.

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Tinne, J. A.

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

McLean, Major A.

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Crookshank. Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Macmillan, Captain H.

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Macquisten, F. A.

Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Margesson, Captain D.

Watts, Sir Thomas

Dixey, A. C.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Wells, S. R.

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Eden, Captain Anthony

Meller, R. J.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

Ellis, R. G.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)

England, Colonel A.

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Withers, John James

Everard, W. Lindsay

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Wolmer, Viscount

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Womersley, W. J.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Fielden, E. B.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

Ford, Sir P. J.

Neville, Sir Reginald J.

Forrest, W.

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Fraser, Captain Ian

Nuttall, Ellis

Mr. Penny and Sir Victor Warrender.

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Oakley, T.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Bellamy, A.

Buchanan, G.

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Benn, Wedgwood

Cape, Thomas

Ammon, Charles George

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Charleton, H. C.

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Bromfield, William

Clark, A. B.

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Bromley, J.

Cluse, W. S.

Barr, J.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

1728

1729

Compton, Joseph

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Shiels Dr. Drummond

Cove, W. G.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Shinwell, E.

Dennison, R.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Duncan, C.

Kelly, W. T.

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Dunnico, H.

Kennedy, T.

Sitch, Charles H.

Edge, Sir William

Kirkwood, D.

Smillie, Robert

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Lansbury, George

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Weish Univer.)

Lawson, John James

Stamford, T. W.

Fenby, T. D.

Lee, F.

Stephen, Campbell

Gardner, J. P.

Longbottom, A. W.

Stewart, J. (St. Rolfox)

Gibbins, Joseph

Lowth, T.

Sullivan, Joseph

Gillett, George M.

Mackinder, W.

Sutton, J. E.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Tomlinson, R. P.

Greenall, T.

Maxton, James

Townend, A. E.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Viant, S. P.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Morris, R. H.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Griffith, F. Kingsley

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Wellock, Wilfred

Groves, T.

Mosley, Sir Oswald

Welsh, J. C.

Grundy, T. W.

Murnin, H.

Westwood, J

Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

Oliver, George Harold

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Wiggins, William Martin

Hamiton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Potts, John S.

Williams, Dr J. H. (Llanelly)

Hardie, George D.

Ritson, J.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Harris, Percy A.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Hayday, Arthur

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Windsor, Walter

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Sakiatvala, Shapurji

Wright, W.

Hirst, G. H.

Scrymgeour, E.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Scurr, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hollins, A.

Shaw, Rt. Hon, Thomas (Preston)

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A. Barnes.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions relating to or consequential on transfers of functions).
Amendments made:
In page 5, line 5, after the word "shall," insert the words:
"so far only as necessary for the purpose of such transfer."
In line 7, at the end, insert the words:
"(2) Any reference to the chairman or other member of a parish council in the constitution of any trust (except where the trust relates to a function transferred by this Act to a district council) shall be construed as a reference to a member appointed by the county council or the town council of the large burgh to which func-
tions of the parish council are transferred by this Act, and where functions of a parish council are transferred to two or more such councils then any such reference to the chairman or other member of the parish council shall be construed as a reference to a member appointee by such of the councils concerned as the councils may agree or failing agreement, as the Department of Health may determine. In the case of any trust relating to a function transferred to a district council the foregoing provisions shall apply with the substitution of district councils for county councils and other necessary modifications"
In line 13, after the word "effect," insert the words:
"except in so far as the provisions regulating the election of parish councils are by this Act applied to district councils."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
Question put. "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 110.

Division No. 168.]

AYES.

[10.59 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Blundell, F. N.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Albery, Irving James

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Chapman, Sir S.

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

Briggs, J. Harold

Clayton, G. C.

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Briscoe, Richard George

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Ashley, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Cooper, A. Dun

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Couper, J. B.

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Buchan, John

Cowan, Sir Wm- Henry (Islington, N.)

Berry, Sir George

Bullock, Captain M.

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Betterton, Henry B.

Carver, Major W. H.

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Bevan, S. J.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Rye, F. G.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Salmon, Major I.

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Knox, Sir Alfred

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Dixey, A. C.

Lamb, J. Q.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Looker, Herbert William

Savery, S. S.

Edge, Sir William

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen

Shepperson, E. W.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Skelton, A. N.

Ellis, R. G.

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

England, Colonel A.

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

McLean, Major A.

Smithers, Waldron

Everard, W. Lindsay

Macmillan, Captain H.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Macquisten, F. A.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Mac Robert, Alexander M.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Fleiden, E. B.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Ford, Sir P. J.

Margesson, Captain D.

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Forrest, W.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Fraser, Captain Ian

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Meller, R. J.

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Gates, Percy

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Tasker, R. Inlgo.

Gower, Sir Robert

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Grant, Sir J. A.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Tinne, J. A.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Titchfleld, Major the Marquess of

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)

Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Nelson, Sir Frank

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Neville, Sir Reginald J.

Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

Hacking, Douglas H.

Newman. Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Nuttall, Ellis

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Hanbury, C.

Oakley, T.

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Harland, A.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Watts, Sir Thomas

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Wells, S. R.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Perring, Sir William George

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Williams, Herbert G. (Heading)

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Pitcher, G.

Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

Hills, Major John Waller

Power, Sir John Cecil

Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)

Hilton, Cecil

Price, Major C. W. M.

Windsor, Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Radford, E. A.

Withers, John James

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Raine, Sir Walter

Wolmer, Viscount

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Womersley, W. J.

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Richardson, Sir p. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Roberts, E. H. G (Flint)

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

Hume, Sir G. H.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Ropner, Major L.

Mr. Penny and Sir Victor Warrender.

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

Ross, R. D.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Dunnico, H.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Amnion, Charles George

Fenby, T. D.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Gardner, J. P.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Gibbins, Joseph

Kelly, W. T.

Barr, J.

Gillett, George M.

Kennedy, T.

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Kirkwood, D

Bellamy, A.

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Lansbury, George

Benn, Wedgwood

Greenall, T.

Lawson, John James

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles w.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Lee, F.

Bromfield, William

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Livingstone, A. M.

Bromley, J.

Griffith, F. Kingsley

Longbottom, A. W.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Groves, T.

Lowth, T.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Grundy, T. W.

Mackinder, W.

Buchanan, G.

Hail, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Cape, Thomas

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Charleton, H. C.

Hamiton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Clark, A. B.

Hardle, George D.

Morris, R. H.

Cluse, W S

Harris, Percy A.

Morrison, R. C (Tottenham, N.)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Hayday, Arthur

Mosley, Sir Oswald

Compton, Joseph

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Murnin, H.

Cove, W. G.

Hirst, G. H.

Oliver, George Harold

Dennison, R.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Duncan, C.

Hollins, A.

Potts, John S.

1732

1733

Ritson, J.

Smillie, Robert

Welsh, J. C.

Roberta, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Westwood, J.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Stamford, T. W.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Stephen, Campbell

Wiggins, William Martin

Scrymgeour, E.

Stewart, J. (St. Rolfox)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Scurr, John

Sullivan, J.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Sutton, J. E.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Windsor, Walter

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Tomilnson, R. P.

Wright, W.

Shinwell, E.

Townend, A. E.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Viant, S. P.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr A. Barnes.

Sitch, Charles H.

Wellock, Wilfred

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Transfer of property and liabilities of transferor authorities.)
Amendments made:
In page 6, line 22, after the word "authority," insert the words "(not being a district council)."
Consequential Amendment made.
Further Amendments made:
In page 7, leave out from the word "save," in line 17, to the word "held," in line 20, and insert instead thereof the words:
"in the case of a trust constituted by deed or other writing, any property or liabilities relating to a function transferred by or under this Act shall be."
In line 22, at the end, insert the words:
"Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall affect the provisions of the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1882, and the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1928, as respects any trust to which those Acts apply.
(3) Where in accordance with the provisions of the Roads and Streets in Police Burghs (Scotland) Act, 1925, the town council of a small burgh has paid to a county council a sum in redemption of their liability to make annual payments in respect of highways within the burgh, the county council shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, repay to the town council the said sum, subject to a deduction there from in respect of every complete year which has elapsed since the date at which the said sum was payable by the town council of a sum equal to one-tenth or one-fifteenth of the said sum according as the said highways were transferred prior to the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, or after that date."
In line 24, leave out the words "not relating solely," and insert instead thereof the word"relating."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 7.—(Transfer of officers and superannuation funds.)
Amendment made:
In page 8, line 6, after the word "every," insert the words:
1734
"person who at the commencement of this Act is employed as a teacher by an education authority;
(ii) every other."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
Amendment proposed:
In page 8, line 41, as the end, to insert the words:
"(f) The provisions of paragraph 2 of the said Schedule shall apply only in the case of a person who was, at the passing of this Act, in the full-time employment of a local authority or who, at that time, held two or more offices under two or more local authorities and devoted the whole of his time to the duties of such offices;
(g) In computing the service of any officer for the purpose of an award of compensation account shall he taken only of the service of that officer under any local authority after he attained the age of 18 years, and where the officer held two or more offices and the claim to compensation is based on a loss of one or some only of those offices account shall not be taken of service in an office which the officer continues to hold;
(h) Where a person who, both at the passing and at the commencement of this Act, is in the full-time employment of an officer of a transferor or transferee authority (other than an officer holding a temporary appointment) and is engaged solely on the work of the authority, suffers direct pecuniary loss by termination of his employment in consequence of his employer, if an officer of a transferor authority, not becoming an officer of the transferee authority or if an officer of a transferee authority ceasing to be an officer of that authority or otherwise in consequence of anything done under, or in pursuance of, or in consequence of this Act, the transferee authority may in their discretion pay to such person by way of compensation such sum as they think proper not exceeding the compensation which would have been payable to him had he, while employed and engaged as aforesaid, been in the full-time employment of the authority of which his employer was an officer:
For the purposes of this Sub-section a district council shall be deemed not to be a transferee authority.—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
Question put, "Thai the Amendment be made."
The Committee proceeded to a Division.
Mr. ERSKINE(seated and covered): On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Hope, whether it would be in order to move that the further proceedings be postponed until the Government have come to a decision on the question of safeguarding iron and steel?
HON. MEMBERS: Order! order!
Mr. ERSKINE: On that point of Order. May I have a reply to my question, Mr. Hope, or did you not hear me?
The CHAIRMAN: It is one to which I think it is unnecessary to reply.
The Committee divided: Ayes. 205; Noes, 110.

Division No. 169.]

AYES.

[11.10 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Gates, Percy

Plicher, G.

Albery, Irving James

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Power, Sir John Cecil

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Price, Major C. W. M.

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

Gower, Sir Robert

Radford, E. A.

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

Grant, Sir J. A.

Raine, Sir Walter

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Hacking, Douglas H.

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Hanbury, C.

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

Berry, Sir George

Harland, A.

Ropner, Major L.

Betterton, Henry B.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Ross, R. D.

Bevan, S. J.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Birchali, Major J. Dearman

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Rye, F. G.

Biundell, F. N.

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Salmon, Major I.

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Hills, Major John Waller

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Hilton, Cecil

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Briggs, J. Harold

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Briscoe, Richard George

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Savory, S. S.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Shepperson, E. W.

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Skelton, A. N.

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

Hume, Sir G. H.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Buchan, John

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Smithers, Waldron

Bullock, Captain M.

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Carver, Major W. H.

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Kindersley. Major Guy M.

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Knox, Sir Alfred

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Chapman, Sir S.

Lamb, J. Q.

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Clayton, G. C.

Looker, Herbert William

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

MacAndrew Major Charles Glen

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Tasker, R. Inlgo.

Cooper, A. Duff

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Couper, J. B.

McLean, Major A.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Macmillan, Captain H.

Tinne, J. A.

Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)

Macquisten, F. A.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

MacRobert Alexander M.

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L (Kingston-on-Hull)

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Landsey, Gainsbro)

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Meller, R. J.

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Watts, Sir Thomas

Dawson, Sir Philip

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Wells, S. R.

Dixey, A. C.

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Eden, Captain Anthony

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Wilson, Sir C. H (Leeds, Central)

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)

Ellis, R. G.

Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Nelson, Sir Frank

Withers, John James

Everard, W. Lindsay

Neville, Sir Reginald J.

Wolmer, Viscount

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Womersley, W. J.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Nuttall, Ellis

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

Oakley, T.

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Fielden, E. B.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

Ford, Sir P. J.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Forrest, W.

Penny, Frederick George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Fraser, Captain Ian

Perring, Sir William George

Major Sir George Hennessy and

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Captain Bowyer.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Griffith, F. Kingsley

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Groves, T.

Runciman, Rt Hon. Walter

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Grundy, T. W.

Sakiatvala, Shapurji

Ammon, Charles George

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Scrymgeour, E.

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hail, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Scurr, John

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Barnes, A.

Hardle, George D.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Barr, J.

Harris, Percy A.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Hayday, Arthur

Shinwell, E.

Bellamy, A.

Hirst, G. H.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Benn, Wedgwood

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hollins, A.

Sitch, Charles H.

Bromfield, William

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Smillie, Robert

Bromley, J.

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Stamford, T. W.

Brown, James (Ayr and Butt)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Stephen, Campbell

Buchanan, G.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Cape, Thomas

Kelly, W. T.

Sullivan, J.

Charleton, H. C.

Kennedy, T.

Sutton, J. E.

Clark, A. B.

Kirkwood, D

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Cluse, W. S.

Lansbury, George

Tomlinson, R. P.

Compton, Joseph

Lawson, John James

Townend, A. E.

Cove, W. G.

Livingstone, A. M.

Viant, S. P.

Dennison, R.

Longbottom, A. W.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Duncan, C.

Lowth, T.

Wellock, Wilfred

Dunnico, H.

Macdonald. Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Welsh, J. C.

Edge, Sir William

Mackinder, W.

Westwood, J.

England, Colonel A.

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Wiggins, William Martin

Fenby, T. D.

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Williams, Dr. J. H (Llanelly)

Gardner, J. p.

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Gibbins, Joseph

Mosley, Sir Oswald

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Gillett, George M.

Murnin, H.

Windsor, Walter

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Oliver, George Harold

Wright, W

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Greenall, T.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

Potts, John S.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Ritson, J.

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Further Amendment made:
In page 9, line 17, leave out the words "frame a scheme providing," and insert instead thereof the words "by scheme provide."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
It being after Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House,
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

CLAUSE 7.—(Transfer of officers and superannuation funds.)

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.