NEW CLAUSE.—(Section 1 not to come into force until board and lodging provision available.)

HC Deb 09 May 1930 vol 238 cc1355-97

"Notwithstanding anything in this Act the provisions of section one (Provision as to children on canal boats) of this Act shall not come into force unless and until the Minister of Health has presented a certificate to Parliament that suitable provision for board and lodging for all children who will by that section be prevented from residing on a canal boat is available at a cost within the means of the parents of those children.—[Mr. Davies]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES

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

During the Committee stage upstairs we were constantly being confronted with allegations and counter-allegations. The promoters would make a certain statement without adducing any evidence in support of it, with the result that the Committee was left in a state of doubt as to the real facts of the case. In these circumstances, I regret that the House decided not to recommit the Bill, because its recommittal would have enabled the real facts to be put before the Committee in regard to those allegations. One essential point, when dealing with the removal of the children from the barges during school hours, is whether there is proper accommodation available for them. It is a well recognised fact that at the present time there is a great shortage of housing accommodation throughout the country, and this shortage is very acute in the case of houses for the working classes at low rents. The bargemen and the women employed on the barges work for low wages. They are not people of affluence, and they cannot afford to send their children any distance to school. The result of such a proposal would be that a majority of the children, after their removal from the canal boats would have to live in the slums.

The first point we make is that there is a great shortage of houses, and that argument is borne out by the returns of the Ministry of Health, and by the replies given to questions on this subject in this House relating to the lack of accommodation for the housing of the working classes. Those facts furnished us with sufficient evidence to prove that if the barge children were removed from the canal boats there is no available accommodation for them unless you send them into the slums, where they would help to overcrowd still more the already overcrowded areas. We object to that course from the point of view of health and morality, and the laceration and separation of the parents from their children. Having concluded that there was an insufficiency of housing accommodation, we then tried to find out how many children would be affected by the scheme under this Bill, and we found ourselves up against another difficulty, because no reliable statistics were available. The Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl)—whose zeal for the cause of these children is the admiration of all of us, but whose zeal we sometimes think outruns her discretion—volunteered the information that about 468 children would be affected.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I said 468 families.

Dr. DAVIES

On this point, the evidence which I depend upon is that furnished by the inspector of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, who prepared a census of the barge children in this country. We were not quite satisfied that this evidence was as official as it might have been, but we could not dispute the figures. During the Committee stage the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health if she could give the official figure, because the Ministry employed an inspector under the Canal Boats Act, whose duty it was to issue a report on the condition of those living on canal boats. The Parliamentary Secretary replied: There is no such figure … We have estimates; we have not registers. The consequence was that the Committee were left in the position that we did not know what accommodation was available for an unknown number of children because we had no official statistics, and that is the second reason why I regret that the House decided not to recommit this Bill. We were faced with another problem. The number of houses available was an unknown quantity and the number of children was also an unknown quantity. Consequently, we submitted for the approval of the promoters an Amendment to the effect that steps should be taken to ascertain what accommodation was available, and providing that the proposal that the children would have to leave the boats to go to school should not come into effect until it was proved that accommodation was available. To our great astonishment, we found that the promoters of the Bill objected to that. They would not go to the trouble of proving that this accommodation was available. The Noble Lady, speaking in Committee on 13th March, said: We all recognise that the housing accommodation for the children who have to be boarded out is a very important question. The promoters of the Bill are with us on that point. The question which then arises is whether suitable accommodation can be found on shore for these children, and we quite agree with the Noble Lady's remark that: It is a most important question which we are most anxious to get settled. The Noble Lady acknowledged that there was no definite distinction, and said that she was anxious that these children should be educated and that accommodation should be found for them. As the Noble Lady's views approximated so closely to ours, we thought that perhaps she would accept our Amendment, but her kindness did not extend as far as that. She said: It seems to me that, if it is once admitted that the children can be boarded out"— This brings a new phase into the question entirely. It is not a question of finding houses in which the parents can go and live with the children, but the children are going to be boarded out— and that it is not necessary for the mother to go on shore and take a house, because it is difficult to find a house"— I ask the House to note that point. The Noble Lady herself acknowledged in Committee that it is difficult to find a house— then this Amendment becomes quite unnecessary, because it is not conceivable that in that enormous tract of country, with tens of thousands of houses, it would not be possible to find boarding accommodation for the 1,700 children of school age who have been reported by the local authorities to the Board of Education. What does that mean? The Noble Lady visualises that, perhaps 20, 30, 40, 50 or 100 miles from the canal, there may be a small house that could take in a child to board, and evidently the idea is that we should scour the country—industrial districts and rural districts, even up to the Highlands of Scotland—to find if there is some woman, man, or household willing to board these children within some reasonable distance of a school. That is a tremendous undertaking, and would entail a tremendous separation of children from parents, because, if the child is taken away to a place 40 or 50 or 100 miles from the parents, they can only see their children at holiday time, and not at weekends. Therefore, we say that, if this very difficult position arises, and these children are going to be spread all over the country, it should be proved, as was suggested in our Amendment, that there is accommodation available for them. The Noble Lady said: We are quite unable to accept this Amendment, because it is obvious that, if it were accepted, parents who are not as interested in the education of the children as I believe the great majority of the canal boat population are, might very well seize on this as a reason for not taking very much trouble to find accommodation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, (Standing Committee B), 13th March, 1930, cols. 99–103.] There you have the zealous educationist, who says, "Education at all costs! It does not matter whether the accommodation is there, whether it can be provided, whether it is within the means of the parents. Here is a child of school age living on a canal boat. We are going to have that child educated at whatever cost." [Interruption.] It is an extraordinary fact that the zeal and enthusiasm of the promoters of this Bill for the education of children has not extended to caravan children—the children of gypsies and other people in remote districts. The Noble Lady's enthusiasm and zeal at the present time are concentrated on these children in the canal boats, who, we maintain, are healthy, fine, upstanding children, and any Members of the House who saw the deputation at the beginning of this week will have been astonished, as I was, to see how healthy were the children who were there.

The promoters of the Bill absolutely refused to meet us in any way. They said it should be the duty of the parents to find that accommodation; that it did not matter whether the parents could afford it or not, that all that they were concerned with was that the children should be educated, and whatever handicaps, whatever hardships, whatever punishments, whatever difficulties were inflicted, they had nothing to do with them, but the children must be educated. Those who are opposing the Bill take what is, I would venture to say, a more reasonable view. We are not opposed to the education of the children; I would like the House to understand that definitely; but it seems to us that this method, instead of bringing Mahomet to the mountain, brings the mountain to Mahomet. The promoters of the Bill will not agree that these school children might get their education by an extension of the floating schools to which reference has been made, and in which they are already being educated very satisfactorily at an early stage, but say that the child must be taken to school.

We contend that educationists who are so keenly desirous that these children should be taken from their parents must take into account the economic conditions. We maintain that a bargeman does not get a sufficient wage to enable him to take a second house and keep up a second establishment, even if he could find the house, but, under the Bill as it stands, it does not matter whether the man can afford it or not; he has to send his child ashore, and, if he cannot get a house, he will have to board the child out, at a cost of 7s., 10s. or 15s. a week. It does not matter whether he can afford to do that; he has got to do it; and, if he fails to send his child to school, he can be prosecuted and fined for a first offence, while, if he does it a second time, he can be sent to prison. For the first time in the whole history of education in this country, the promoters of this Bill, who are so anxious for the health and education of the children of this country, have determined that, on a second offence, it should be possible to send the father of the children to gaol. Why do they not make that proposal for the industrial population? Why do they not propose an alteration of the Education Act so that any man who offends a second time shall go to gaol? Why keep it purely for the canal boat side? It is carrying zeal for education to fanaticism, a word which was used more than once in Committee upstairs, and which was ruled to be perfectly Parliamentary, so I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will accept it here.

It is proposed that, even where parents have no money or not sufficient, and where the housing accommodation is doubtful, the children shall be separated from their parents, perhaps for a whole term. What is the remedy that we proposed? There was only one remedy left, and that was that it should be the duty of the Minister of Health, before this section was brought into effect, to make inquiries and prove that there was accommodation available within the country for all these children, at a price which the parents could afford. That is a very important point. It would be the height of cruelty, it would be the height of Parliamentary interference, for this House to say to a man, "You have got to send your child to school, you have got to pay so much a week, and we do not care whether you can afford it or not. It is nothing to us what you or your wife have to go without in order to pay for your child to be boarded out; it is nothing to us even if you go bankrupt."

That is the attitude of the promoters of the Bill. They say that the child must be educated. We say that that is not fair, and that it should be the duty of the Minister of Health to report to this House, after having made inquiries, and to say definitely that he finds from his inquiries that accommodation is available, that it is within the means of the parents: and then, of course, Clause 1 would automatically come into effect. Suppose, however, that it happens that the Minister of Health reports that accommodation is not available except in slums; suppose that be reports that it is not within the financial means of the parents; what is the House going to do then? Would the House turn round and support the promoters of the Bill, and say, "Well, accommodation is available. It is beyond what your pocket can afford, but we are not concerned with that; send your child to school or go to gaol"? Does any Member of this honourable House think that any House of Commons would at any time come to such a decision? If that be the position, why cannot the promoters of the Bill accept our proposed new Clause? Why should these people, at terrific strain, be compelled to do this, with all the laceration of all paternal and maternal feelings that it entails, and to do it at their own expense? "But," says the right hon. Gentleman below me, "we will meet you that way. There is a Section in the Education Act which gives to local education authorities power, if they so desire, and if they obtain the approval of the Board of Education, to board out these children." I had the laudable curiosity to inquire from the Board of Education afterwards how often this permission had been applied for and granted for many years, and there were six education authorities in the country who had decided to ask for it.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones)

The answer was that the applications made and approved by the Board during the last eight years were six, six, nil, one, eleven, eight, seven and six, and that the arrangements usually remain in force for several years without further approval by the Board.

Dr. DAVIES

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I was speaking entirely from memory. But the figures are particularly small when you consider the number of education authorities. The point is that, first of all, they have to decide that they will do it, and they have to get the consent of the Board of Education. Is an education authority going to apply to the Board of Education for permission to board these children out at the expense of the rates? They will say, "Why should we bother? They are not our children." They will put it off as long as they can. That gracious concession from the promoters would really mean nothing at all unless the House made it compulsory that this boarding out should be applied. From all points of view, from the point of view of the health of the children and of the whole structure of the Bill, my Clause is vitally necessary, and I hope that the House will agree with me and will say that these children shall not be sent away unless accommodation is provided.

Earl WINTERTON

I beg to second the Motion.

I am glad to think that the Bill will be killed without my help. I hope the House will pause before they reject this Clause. It would be intolerable if the Bill passed without some such provision. I ask the supporters of the Bill, especially those on this side of the House, to consider what the Clause says. It does not affect the main principle. It does not affect the object so dear to the heart of the Noble Lady beside me that children should be separated from their parents.

Duchess of ATHOLL

No.

Viscountess ASTOR

Monstrous!

Earl WINTERTON

So dear to the hearts of the Noble Ladies besides me and behind me. It is monstrous. It does not affect the principle that children will be separated from their parents from five to 14 years of age while they are at school. All it says is that, before that principle is carried into operation, accommodation shall be found for the children on shore at a price that their parents can afford to pay. I ask supporters of the Bill, and I appeal to my friends on this side of the House, do they think it desirable that the Bill should pass without a provision in it making it obligatory upon the Ministry of Health to ascertain and certify whether or not accommodation is available? How can any reasonable person object to that being put into the Bill? The Noble Lady said on several occasions upstairs, but in rather vague terms, that she believed it would be possible to find accommodation. That opinion goes contrary to all the evidence we have from many sources as to the housing shortage, especially in the kind of industrial areas that are affected by the Bill and for the class of people who come under it.

Hon. Members opposite seem to think it is a point in their favour that these people receive comparatively low wages. On the contrary, it is a point directly opposed to the views they have put forward because, if they receive low wages, there is all the less reason for compelling them to keep two establishments. If your objection is to the low wages paid in the industry, you should not proceed to deal with it through this Bill but by some means of getting the wages raised. [Interruption.] I am well aware that the hon. Member, like so many of his party, is quite unable to listen to a reasonable argument from the other side without indulging in wholly irrelevant and impertinent observations. Let us consider what the situation will be. Take the district of Brentford, or Birmingham, where many canal boats are. I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to deny that there is shortage of accommodation.

Mr. PALIN

There is no shortage of children's homes in either case.

Earl WINTERTON

Is it contemplated that they are to be compelled to send their children to children's homes? That indeed is a Russian notion. I can now see clearly what is the object of some of the promoters, though the two Noble Ladies beside me and behind me attach so much importance in their speeches here and in the country to parents having the care of their own children.

Miss WILKINSON

What is Eton but a children's home?

Earl WINTERTON

If some hon. Members opposite had been at Eton, they would not have such childish views as they possess. [Interruption.] This is not a public meeting and I shall have to call the Speaker's attention if I am subjected to consistent irrelevant and impertinent interruptions. The Bill affects 400 families and something like 1,600 children. I ask the House again, where are these children to go? Is it contemplated, if the Clause is not passed, that they should sleep in the streets or the workhouses, failing other accommodation? Let the supporters of the Bill answer that question? [Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member means by "the stately homes of England." There is nothing stately about these barge people's homes, but they are their homes, and of that the House wants to deprive them. Think what the conditions will be if the Clause is not passed. Think of an intelligent child—and there are many intelligent children among the barges population—found in the street and someone asks, "Where is your home?" The child says, "We are homeless, not because we have not got homes but through an Act of Parliament, which forbids us to live in our own homes and refuses to provide us with alternative accommodation. It seems that the ladies and gentlemen in Parliament are more concerned that we should be educated than that we should have anywhere to live, eat and sleep." It will be monstrous if this Clause is not added to the Bill. I have a further observation to make. It is a sinister fact that in the general strike the only branch of the transport workers who did not come out on strike were the barge population. [Interruption.] I charge hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite that this is an effort to try to punish these people by punishing their children.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

I do not think that I ought to imitate the example of the Noble Lord, the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), in introducing into the discussion so much heat, but I should like to introduce some light. What is the history of this Bill? It is true that the Bill, when originally introduced into the House of Commons, was far more complicated in its character than it is now. In its passage through the Committee it had to undergo a considerable amount of discussion, and, as a consequence of that discussion, considerable Amendment. As a result, the Bill is now for all practical purposes an Education Bill. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Paddington or Marylebone will restrain himself for a moment.

Mr. BRACKEN

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I did not say anything, and if he had a little politeness he would not have referred to an hon. Member in this way.

Mr. JONES

The hon. Member does not know when he is saying anything.

Sir RENNELL RODD

The hon. Member for St. Marylebone has not made any observations.

Mr. JONES

I was saying that this is an education Bill, and, that being so, I do not understand why the Opposition wish to submit the proposition as to whether this Bill should come under the operation of the Ministry of Health in some way or another. It would be inappropriate and out of order to discuss a Motion which has not been called, and therefore will not be discussed to-day. We have the same element again in the Clause which is now before the House. The Minister of Health is to be vested with powers or to be endowed with certain responsibilities which may very easily jeopardise and nullify the whole of the Bill. How do I make out that proposition? If hon. Gentlemen will look at the Clause they will see that it reads as follows: Notwithstanding anything in this Act the provisions of Section one of this Act shall not come into force unless and until the Minister of Health has presented a certificate to Parliament that suitable provision for board and lodging for all children. It is important to emphasise the word "all" because the effect of the Clause is that if at any given moment the Minister of Health is not able to certify that provision has been made and is available for all the children—

Dr. DAVIES

If the hon. Gentleman will read further he will find that the provision refers only to school children.

Mr. JONES

I will concede even that point—it does not alter my argument at all—that provision is available for all school children.

Earl WINTERTON

Obviously the hon. Gentleman has not read the Clause. May I call his attention to the words at the top of page 1744 of the Amendment Paper? All children who will by that section be prevented from residing. It refers only to the children affected by the Act, and therefore the hon. Gentleman's reference to other children does not arise at all.

Mr. JONES

I hope that in future the Noble Lord will not accuse me of not having read the Clause. I read it with considerable care, and I repeat to the Noble Lord that I am entitled to apply my interpretation to it just as much as the Noble Lord. The point is, what is the effect of the introduction of the word "all"? I submit that if at any given moment it is possible to show that provision is not available for even one or two school children, then the Minister of Health cannot give a certificate. That is the first point. The other point I want to make is that under this Clause there is no power with which the Minister is endowed either to make or to secure such provision when it is not present. He is not endowed with that power at all.

Earl WINTERTON

We do not deny that.

Mr. JONES

I am merely making the point that as things are now under the law—and this does not correct the law—the Minister, even if he is aware that there is no such provision, cannot provide or secure that such provision is available. The next point is as to the effectiveness of the Measure if it becomes an Act. If this Clause is carried it will depend very largely upon the activity or inactivity of local authorities in the matter of the provision of housing accommodation. I want to put this question to hon. Members opposite. There is not the slightest reason why we should change the responsibility for providing accommodation for children in respect of canal boat people any more than in respect of other people. The primary responsibility for providing accommodation for these children naturally resolves itself into a responsibility of the parents.

Earl WINTERTON

When they are not with them?

Mr. JONES

Will the Noble Lord allow me to proceed?

Earl WINTERTON rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. JONES

I hope that the Noble Lord will extend the same courtesy to me as I extended to him.

Earl WINTERTON

What about your supporters? [Interruption.]

Mr. JONES

I do not think that my point will be controverted. The law, as I understand it, is that even now the responsibility for providing accommodation for the children rests mainly upon the parents of the children.

Mr. SKELTION rose—

Mr. JONES

It will be present to the minds of hon. Members opposite that the sentimental point is that there ought to be some provision available in cases where hardship would be involved upon the parent of the canal boat child. Where there is hardship, I submit to hon. Members opposite, as I did upstairs, provision is at present available in the Education Act, 1921, through the medium of Section 23. Generally speaking, the parent is responsible, but if there is hardship provision is available if Section 23 of the Education Act is applied. The argument has been advanced against us on the ground that because of the shortage of housing accommodation hardship will be involved upon the parents unless an adequate time limit is given. There is point in that; but I world remind the House that that was considered by the Chamberlain Committee and instead of suggesting the time limit that we are offering in the Bill, they suggested that a time limit of 12 months would be adequate. If this Bill passes into law there will be a time limit of at least 18 months, and I suggest that the Committee has been more generous in this matter than the Chamberlain Committee. For these reasons the Government would not feel disposed to accept the Amendment.

Miss RATHBONE

I do not like the wording of this Clause, and I do not suppose that anyone can take the wording very seriously, that suitable accommodation should be provided in accordance with the means of the parents. How does the Minister of Health know what are the means of the parents of the children? I am, however, much disappointed with the reply that we have had from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, because, whatever we think about the wording of it, the Clause does cover a point which is a subject of real anxiety to those Members of the House who are here not to talk out the Bill, if they cannot vote it out, but to see that the Bill passes in workable form. Many of us are convinced, I certainly am convinced, that in the interest of education, it is desirable that children of school age, during school hours, should have better opportunities of education than can possibly be given while they are on the barges. The difficulty is that if for the sake of the children we are going to ask the parents to make a considerable sacrifice, we ought to have more definite assurances than we have had.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education has said that in an ordinary case it would be the responsibility of the parent to provide accommodation, but there never was a case where the parents more clearly stood in need of considerable aid from the authorities than when you are disturbing the ordinary traditional course of their life, as will be done by this Bill. Many canal boat parents have not had educational advantages, many cannot read or write, and they are moving about all the time. How can they get suitable boarding accommodation for their children? That is a matter in which the Ministry of Health—or probably it is more the function of the Board of Education—could come to their assistance. They have inspectors and various kinds of homes and they are in touch with all the charitable homes. If the Minister would give us a definite assurance that they do not mean necessarily to force the parents to leave the barges and that they are willing definitely to take into consideration how the best possible provision can be made for the children, either through voluntary homes or provided homes, or possibly by making special grants, many of us who are hesitating about this Bill would have our doubts removed. We are entitled to more assurance than we have had. The hon. Member did not read Section 23 of the Education Act, 1921. I was not a Member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill and I do not know exactly what are the provisions of Section 23.

Dr. DAVIES

Would the hon. Lady like to have a copy of Section 23?

Miss RATHBONE

Yes.

Dr. DAVIES

Perhaps the hon. Member will read it.

1.0 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE

It is a long Section to read out, and I am not going to fall into the trap laid for me by the hon. Member. I am not out to waste time on this Bill. I want it to be as good a Measure as possible. It rests with the Minister to give us an assurance. Those of us who are honest doubters are not satisfied with the assurances that we have had. We want to know who is going to take it in charge as a definite business of the Ministry to see that proper accommodation is provided for these children. Is the Ministry really in earnest in wanting the parents to provide for their children ashore, without forcing the parents themselves to leave the barges, or do they put forward this proposal as an indirect means of putting pressure upon the parents to leave the barges? If they are in earnest in wanting to help the parents to make provision for their children, what machinery are they going to provide and what financial aid are they going to give?

Colonel WEDGWOOD

This Debate is becoming rather rough and tumble and, on the whole, it would be as well if one of us from this side spoke against the Bill and in favour of the Clause. My hon. Friends on this side of the House must realise that if the Education Acts in 1872 had involved taking the children away from their homes they would not have had the support of the working classes of this country. My complaint against this Bill is that it embodies in it a proposal to take the children away from their homes.

Mr. SEXTON

Do you call these places homes

Colonel WEDGWOOD

Where the father and mother are living, there is the home.

Mr. SEXTON

You go and live there!

Colonel WEDGWOOD

You go and live at St. Helens!

Mr. SPEAKER

I think we should get on better, and certainly in a more dignified manner, if we conducted the Debate a little quieter.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

The real difficulty is that this Bill involves taking the children away from their homes.

Mr. SEXTON

Homes! Prisons! Convict cells!

Colonel WEDGWOOD

My point is that under the Education Acts—

Mr. SEXTON

I am ashamed of you. I am going out of the House.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

That is an exposition of—

Mr. PALIN

We are all ashamed of you—albsolutely ashamed of you.

Mr. SPEAKER

Will hon. Members allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed?

Colonel WEDGWOOD

The real reason why the Education Acts went through was that the people of this country wanted their children educated, but not that they wanted them taken away from home. I would point out to hon. Members opposite who are supporting this Bill that in the better classes of society children are not sent away from home at the age of six to go to school. There is one thing certain about this Bill and that is that none of the parents want the Bill, and we have no evidence that the child wants the Bill. It is not supported by the working classes. There is almost unanimous opposition from the parents of the children affected by this Bill. It may be that the education of these children at the present time is bad, but at any rate they prefer it. Exactly similar arguments could be advanced and have been used in the past in favour of the compulsory education of the children of gipsies. The education of the gipsies is pretty bad.

We are not justified in putting the interests of society before the interests of the people for whom we are legislating. There is a passion nowadays for judging everything by one test; is it in the interests of the community that it should be done? This, no doubt, is in the interests of the community; but is that to be the test, and the only test, of legislation? Slavery has been defended as being in the interests of the community; uniformity in religion has been defended as in the interests of the community. Every reform has been opposed because it was contrary to the interests of society. Is that to be the test of the excellency or otherwise of any piece of legislation? In case of war you are bound to make sacrifices for the good of the community, or what is thought to be the good of the community, but in peace times ought we not to look at any legislative proposal which is brought forward as to whether it is enforcing the will of the majority upon the minority or whether it is at the desire of the minority that the legislation should be passed?

Because nine people out of ten think that a barge child ought to have a board school education it does not make it right. The fact that a majority is in favour of any measure does not make it right. What makes it right is whether it is just, and it does not seem just to force people who live in barges to send their children to school when it involves separating them from their parents. That is asking from this section of the population more than we should ask from ourselves or from any other section of the working-class population. However desirable it may be that everybody in this world should be able to read and write, we have no right in this House of Commons, if one man out of the 40 objects, to force it upon him. We have provided compulsory education in the ordinary course of events, and, although something may be said against that, we have done so because we consider that the interests of the majority outweigh the interests of the objectors. We provided compulsory military service because we considered that the interests of the majority outweighed the objections of the conscientious objector, but I do not see why we should go out of our way to do it here where the case is not nearly so strong.

I ask the House to say that the urgency in the case of these 400 families is not sufficient to overrule the principle that we should give liberty first and await the results of providing opportunity for their education before making it compulsory. It is a mistake to pass laws which are not carried out. Obviously, if we pass this Bill into law it will be very difficult to enforce it. The people of this country would not stand for sending these barge people to prison for not sending their children to school. To pass laws which are not carried out brings down the respect of people for the law. It also has the effect of making them think that if they can break one law they can break another.

Sir D. MACLEAN

The House has just listened to an admirable example of what is known to all artists as a specimen of the earlier manner. The speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is the type of speech to which I used to listen many years ago. It was a Second Reading speech, however inter- esting it may have been. During the debates on education during the last century it was said that the greater the need for education the greater objection there was to it. The point is this: what hardship, if any, and I agree there must be some, is there on the parents of these children if they are unable to find accommodation for them? Let me refer to what took place in the Committee upstairs. The matter was fully debated and some hon. Members at the conclusion of the discussion, in view of the Amendment which was made to the Bill, were good enough to say that they had been met handsomely. After all, it is a provision of real value. Let me tell the House in a few sentences what Section 23 of the Act of 1921 does. It provides that in the case of young children where owing to remoteness of their homes or the condition under which the children are living, or any other exceptional circumstances affecting the children, the local authority may—it is for them to exercise their discretion in the matter—with the approval of the Board of Education, make arrangements for their education, including the provision of board and lodging.

The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education shows that wherever a case has been made out it has been fully met. What reason is there for assuming that the local education authority or the Board of Education are going to be more hard-hearted in the future than they have been in the past? There is no doubt that they will give swift and sympathetic consideration to any case that is obviously a hard case. The authority may make such arrangements, either of a permanent or temporary character, and including the provision of board and lodging, as they think best suited for the purpose of enabling those children to receive the benefit of efficient elementary education. That is sufficient answer to the hon. Lady who intervened in the Debate a little while ago. Her point has been substantially and fully met. I beg the House to come to an immediate conclusion.

Mr. SKELTON

What action does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate that the Board of Education will take under that Section—the provision of homes or of education?

Sir D. MACLEAN

The hon. Member has not listened or I have not been clear. Here is the case of children who are to be compelled by the Bill to go to school. If the parents say, "We have not any homes or anywhere else where we can send them," that is at once reported to the local education authority by the school attendance officer. The local education authority confers with the Board of Education, who are on the lookout for this kind of thing. Then the local education authority is empowered by the Board of Education to do what is necessary. It "may make such arrangements"—

HON. MEMBERS

"May."

Sir D. MACLEAN

Hon. Members must assume that these local authorities will act as they ought to act and as they have acted in the past. Is it likely that the local education authorities will suddenly change into irate, suspicious, unjust and selfish bodies? Not at all.

Miss RATHBONE

How often has that Section been put into effect?

Captain GUNSTON

Clause 3, Subsection (1) of the Bill says that a child who has no home other than a canal boat: shall, until he commences to attend a school within the area of another local education authority, be deemed to be resident in the area of that local education authority whose area includes the place to which the boat is registered as belonging. If the right hon. Gentleman will refresh his memory, he will find that these boats are registered where they are built. The Clause may force these children to go to some area a long distance away from the place where the canal boat is. We therefore cannot place much reliance on the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. I want to deal with the points raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. He said that under the present law it is the duty of parents to provide accommodation. I deny that. I say that it is the duty of parents to provide a home. What is the hon. Gentleman proposing to do in this Bill? He is proposing to say to parents: "You have to abide by your present obligation to provide a home and you have to provide alternative accommodation as well," and he is demanding that of people who have not the means of doing it. The new Clause will show what the promoters of the Bill really intend. The Parliamentary Secretary said to-day that this was an Education Bill. When it was introduced, we were told that it was introduced for health and other reasons. Those arguments have been shattered in Committee. We all admit the advantages of education, but it is criminal to say to a person, "You must be educated, but we pay no regard to the conditions of health and home life."

Once more we ask the promoters of the Bill whether they do not think that they ought to try to meet the very reasonable objections of the people on the canal boats? The hon. Lady who represents the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) showed sympathy and a realisation of the subject which we have not found in the Noble Lady (Duchess of Atholl). She suggested that though the wording of the new Clause may not be all that we would like, the promoters of the Bill should accept the principle of it. I appeal to the promoters to accept the principle, so that we may achieve the object at which we all aim, which is to provide education but not to deprive the children of the home influence which we all value so much.

Mr. FERGUS GRAHAM

I support the new Clause. This grandmotherly Bill is conceived in a narrow refusal to recognise that people are divided into sections, some of whom are rural, some urban, some sedentary and some active in their tastes; and some Tory and some Socialist. These divisions are being destroyed by education on the present lines. Everyone is being drawn towards the same rut, and everyone is in danger of becoming a member of the vast black-coated brigade which—

Duchess of ATHOLL

On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member speaking to the Amendment which is before the House?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young)

I was not engaged for the moment in following the speech of the hon. Member, and I must wait to see how it is related to the new Clause.

Mr. GRAHAM

This is yet another industry which will be in danger if children on these canal boats are withdrawn from their parents. We have lost numerous trades and industries in this country. We have lost blacksmiths to a great extent; we have lost thatchers; we have lost skilled manual tradesmen—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I have difficulty in following the hon. Member in relation to the new Clause, the heading of which is: Section one not to come into force until board and lodging provision available.

Mr. GRAHAM

The Parliamentary Secretary told us that this proposed new Clause would place a very heavy weight upon this Bill, and it was from that point of view, as well as from the point of view that it is essential to watch very carefully the hardships which this Bill may cause, that I thought I might be in order in indicating some of its general effects.

Mr. SEXTON

I should not have intervened in this Debate at all had it not been for the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I have sat here all the morning listening with what patience I could command to the enemies of this Bill on the opposite side of the House, but only a speech such as that of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman coming from this side of the House, which would cause me to take part in this discussion. We have had an unholy combination in connection with this Bill. We have had the representatives of "the stately homes of England" and the representatives of the law and then we have had the introduction of the Church, but I never expected an intervention such as that of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway. He talks about the parents making "homes" for the children, and about the health of the children. May I quote a report of the Medical Officer of Health for the Manchester district dated 28th January, 1925. I presume it will be in order as the new Clause I understand raises the question of a report on the health of the children on canal boats.

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD

On a point of Order. Is not the hon. Member referring to a different new Clause?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

He may be, but I must first hear what he has to say before I can decide.

Mr. SEXTON

I understand that what we are now dealing with is the question of a report on the health of these children.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

No, the hon. Member seems to be referring to another new Clause. The proposal now before us relates to the provision of board and lodging for the children.

Mr. SEXTON

In that case, I can save the House and myself a certain amount of time by not making the quotation which I had intended to make. I leave that matter there and return to the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway. I was astounded when I heard him speak in opposition to this Bill, and it occurred to me that it was a dirty bird which fouled its own nest. The only excuse that I can find for him is that he is an invader, a kind of political cuckoo on this particular question. He quoted poetry. May I also conclude with a poetic quotation. In the words of a poet who was at one time a Member of this House: Give me the avowed, the erect, the manly foe; Bold I can meet—perhaps may turn his blow; But of all plagues, good Heaven, thy wrath can send, Save, save, oh! save me from the candid friend.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

The last speaker gave us a very interesting insight into the psychology of many Members on the opposite side of the House. Of course, I know the feeling which exists among the comrades, and what goes on in trade union lodges. No independence is tolerated there. Things are cut and dried, and the man who attempts to oppose the mandarins is very liable to leave with an enlarged auricular organ. He does not get a chance to differ from them, but in the atmosphere of this House there is still some freedom left, although, if some hon. Gentlemen opposite had their way, there would not be even that. Any man may speak and vote as he chooses on a Bill of this kind which is, after all, a non-party Bill, and is not subject to the Government whips. When a Bill deserves the fullest condemnation, why should it not receive that condemnation from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood)? That right hon. Gentleman bears an honoured name and his forbears for centuries made great sacrifices for this country and its freedom, and why should he not express himself in favour of liberty? Is it to be written of the party opposite: "Abandon liberty all ye who enter here"? is it to be said that if a man goes into the Labour party he is to say nothing which differs from the desire of many Members of that party to put everybody into strait jackets? I quite agree that as the Government Front Bench is at present constituted, a large number of mental strait jackets are obviously needed there. But why should a member be attacked simply because he has expressed himself in favour of liberty?

What does this new Clause propose? It says in effect, "Here you have people engaged in an honourable occupation, and you are about to interfere with them in this way, and you must make suitable arrangements for these children." I regret very much that I was not present when these ladies and gentlemen of the barges came here to meet Members of the House of Commons, but I believe that a couple of the Members of the party opposite then behaved so badly, when urging their views, that the bargees were shocked. They had never seen such conduct even on the barges. These people thought that the House of Commons was a place where fair play and freedom of discussion obtained, but, apparently, the proceedings of some hon. Members on that occasion shocked those honoured citizens who were seeking protection for their homes and their children. There was a Mrs. Tolley there, I believe, a lady of a physique like that of the eminent golfer, who defied the supporters of this Bill. I do not know exactly how long it is since canals were first constructed, but at any rate for a couple of centuries these people have been carrying on their occupation in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Longer."] I believe that living on the water first began in the time of Noah, and if this Bill had been an Act then, I suppose he would not have been able to take his family on board the Ark, but would have had to leave them on the slopes of Mount Ararat, where there would have been no alternative accommodation for them. We hear talk about these homes not being sanitary, but the greatest authority on sanitation in the world, the statesman who framed a code of health for the guidance of the Chosen People was, himself, brought up on the water, and was found among the bulrushes.

These people, as I said, have been carrying on this occupation for many years. You are going to change their mode of life. You are going to take these children away from their parents, just at the time when the parents would have the best chance of moulding the character of the children. If I had a child, the last thing I would wish would be to see him under the care of, say, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education. I would rather that he should be illiterate than that he should be educated under such auspices. I have seen too many teachers, and I thank God that I never had to experience the stupefying effect of any school at this early stage of life. I think these schools are bad places in which to put little children.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. and learned Member is now making a Second Reading speech. I must ask him to confine himself to the Question before the House.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

I am pointing out that if you are going to take children away from their parents at this most critical period of their lives, and subject them to the stupefying influence of a prison—for that is what a school is to a child between five and ten—you must make the arrangements proposed in the New Clause. I hold that no child should go near a school until he is 10 years of age. They may be sent to school earlier in the towns in order to get them off the streets, but all that they learn between five years and ten years could be learned in six months after they have reached the age of 10 years.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The proposed New Clause is simply a modification of what will be Section I of the Act, and the hon. and learned Member must confine himself to the modification.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

The proposal is: Notwithstanding anything in this Act the provisions of Section one (Provision as to children on canal boats) of this Act shall not come into force unless and until the Minister of Health has presented a certificate to Parliament that suitable provision for board and lodging for all children who will by that section be prevented from residing on a canal boat is available at a cost within the means of the parents of those children.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is what the hon. and learned Member ought to apply himself to.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

I think I am applying myself to that point. If you are going to have these children forcibly excluded and evicted from their homes, more cruelly than the crofters were evicted from the Highlands—because there at least the parents and the families were kept together—if you are going to have children of tender years put into the hands of strangers, surely the least you can do is to see that careful inquiry is made and suitable arrangements provided for them elsewhere. If this outrageous interference with family life is to be permitted, surely we ought to say that the Minister of Health shall certify to the guilty parties, that is to Parliament in this case, that proper provision has been made for these children. I am not prepared to leave the matter to the local education authorities. They will deal with it in a skimpy fashion, and will be inclined to try to save the rates. The House ought to do as the right hon. and gallant Member said we ought to do. We are introducing a new principle. We are taking children compulsorily away from their parents, and the least we can do is to make sure that the minimum amount of hardship and evil is perpetrated. I think the State exists for the benefit of the individual, but hon. Members opposite think the individual exists for the benefit of the State. If you are going to make the fundamental change proposed in this Bill, to sacrifice these people and break up domestic life in this way, it is up to those who are responsible for doing it to see that the fullest possible provision is made for them.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I do not wish to deny that the Clause raises a question that is of importance, but I want to try to help the House to realise the practical step that has been taken in the Bill to meet the difficulty, and I also want the House to keep this question in its true proportions. I should like to say how very surprised I have been to find hon. Friends behind me apparently not ready to support the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education in his admirable statement as to the duty that rest on parents to find accommodation for their families. I should have thought that that was a responsibility which all Members would have accepted as being fundamental, but it has been left to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to state that principle, and it has not received as much endorsement by hon. Friends on the benches behind me as I am sure, on reflection, they would wish to give it. Undoubtedly, it seems to me, the Clause suggests a system under which a canal boat man could sit still and wait for a local education authority to find suitable accommodation.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—It would undoubtedly tend to diminish initiative, and that is the last thing that any Member of the Unionist party should wish to diminish.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT

Has the Noble Lady not mistaken the meaning of the Clause? It does not propose that the Minister of Health shall mike these arrangements. They are to be left to the parents, and all that the Amendment proposes is that the Minister of Health shall give a certificate that the accommodation exists and can be found.

Duchess of ATHOLL

Yes, but I submit that if any parent was not very anxious for his children to receive education—and we know that there is a certain number of that kind—it gives such a parent an opportunity to sit still and say, "Oh! well, I will wait and see what accommodation they find for me, and I can always say the accommodation is not there." It gives an opportunity to a lazy or a careless parent to get out of his responsibilities, whereas—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Will the Noble Lady please address the Chair?

Duchess of ATHOLL

I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am in the unfortun- ate position that those whom I have to convince are on the benches behind me, and not, as is usually the case, on the benches opposite. My second point is that I want the House to understand clearly that the great majority of the children of canal boat men in this country already are living on shore, with or without their mothers, and we have information, which has been very carefully compiled over a period of ten years, to show that of the canal boat men who still have their children on boats, the great majority have houses on shore, which they do not always use. The particulars that have been given to me by this investigator show a list of all the boats in the country that have been visited in the last ten years by a social worker who has worked, not just on a single canal or part of a canal, but over the whole of the canal system of England and Wales. I have here a list giving the names of all the boats visited in the course of ten years on which children of school age have been found, those who have houses, and those who have not. Those who have not houses number 468, and those who have houses number 1,730. What I have said shows that the majority of the canal boat people in the first instance have realised that their children are not going to get a fair chance in life unless they are educated elsewhere than on the boats.

Dr. DAVIES

Will the Noble Lady give the name of the party of whom she is speaking?

Duchess of ATHOLL

Certainly; the authority is the inspector of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, who for the past 10 years has been entrusted with the express duty of watching over the interests of these children. This gentleman is in a unique position in regard to this question, because he is the only person in the country, I believe, who has had the duty of investigating conditions among the whole of the canal boat children in this country. A social worker who came on the deputation representing the canal boat people on Monday last had worked on one canal only, and that deputation dealt largely with that part of the area in which that particular worker lived, but this man has got information covering the whole of the canal boat popula- tion, and that has not been given by anybody else. I have here a complete list of the names of the boats on which families have been found in the last 10 years, and I have seen the fuller list from which it has been compiled, showing the name of every master of every boat, the number and the age of the children, and which of the families have houses and which have not.

Therefore, this problem only refers to a minority of the families who still keep their children on the boats, and houses would not have to be found just in one place or in two or three places. I have a list of 28 different places, not all industrial centres, in which these canal boat people might suitably choose to look out for houses, because they are places at the terminals of the boat traffic. Therefore, there is no question of 468 families having to be dumped down in Brantford or Birmingham, as has been suggested. These families could very suitably look for accommodation over a great part of the centre of England, from Gloucester in the south-west to London in the south-east, and from Liverpool in the north-west to Hull in the north-east.

I would say further that in the case where the mother wishes to remain on the boat, it has been the custom among some canal boat people to board out their children. I quite agree in regretting very much that it should ever be necessary for a child so young as five or six years of age to have to leave its parents, even for a few days in the week, but I submit to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) that it is a custom that is by no means uncommon among his and my constituents. I know several families who live so far from school that when their children arrive at school age they recognise that it is inevitable that they should be boarded out with somebody in a village; or in the winter the mother will live in a house in a village in order to look after her children's education. It is unfortunately the only means by which it is possible to educate the children in some of the most distant parts of the Highlands of Scotland.

There is another point. Has it occurred to any hon. Member who opposes this Bill to think what a sword of Damocles hangs over every canal boat man who has no house, in the event of his losing his employment? If a man falls out with his employer, or loses his health, or is unable to continue his work for any other reason, think of his fate. It means not only loss of his employment, but loss of his home, and that is the fate which descended on no fewer than 129 families a few years ago, when a canal boat company dismissed all its workers. There had been some trouble with the men, and the result was that they were all dismissed. Some 129 families were affected, of whom 72 were without homes.

Then there is another point, to which attention has been called more than once by the right hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield), who has told us of the probability that before long proposals may be made for widening some of the canals, and that if they are widened, it will mean the introduction of quite a different type of boat, for which the child labour, which, it is admitted, is being used—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It was denied by the representative of the canal boat companies in 1921, but in the circular sent out by these companies to hon. Members before the Second Reading of this Bill it was admitted. But whether or not it is admitted by the canal companies, or whatever we think of the question of work by children, there is the possibility of widening the canals and the introduction of a bigger boat for which child labour would not be suitable; and that will mean the turning off of families wholesale from the canals. Imagine what the position will be. There will be the difficulty of finding houses from a certain date, and the throwing on to the labour market of a large number of young people who have received very little education. It seems to me that that particular fact that the widening of the canals which has been proposed—

Sir H. NIELD

What I said was that in regard to the particular canal from the Thames to Birmingham, an application was before the Lord Privy Seal to advance the money to enable the widening to be carried out for 100 ton barges.

Duchess of ATHOLL

The hon. and learned Gentleman is only substantiating what I said.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

There is no provision in this Bill which is going to pro- vide a single canal boat family with a house of its own.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I dealt with that at the beginning of my speech, when I said that hon. Members must admit that it is a responsibility of a parent to endeavour to find accommodation for his children. The promoters of the Bill, with the warm support of its opponents, have met that difficulty by the insertion of a Clause which, for the first time, brings canal boat children under Clause 23 of the Education Act, a Clause which enables local authorities to help with the provision of board and lodging where children's homes are at a distance from the boat, or where there are other exceptional circumstances. Hundreds of canal boat families have been boarding out their children without any such assistance. They have not had a penny of assistance from the authorities. Therefore, this Bill will definitely make a real contribution towards the expenses to which parents are necessarily put in the event of having to board out their children. I hope that I have said enough to show that what the Bill seeks to do is simply to give a minority of the canal boat children the benefit of residence on shore, which can alone ensure regular attendance at school, and which is already being enjoyed by the great majority of the boat children of this country; and that the Bill supplies a real and definite help towards making that residence on shore possible, even in the case of children of men whose wages are not very big.

2.0 p.m.

Commodore DOUGLAS KING

I was glad to hear an assurance from my Noble Friend that she is worried, and almost distressed, at the idea of children of five or six years of age being taken away from their parents. I have been rather surprised at the attitude which she has taken in some parts of this Bill, and I could not believe that her feelings would be otherwise, yet, in spite of her distress at the breaking up of family life, she considers that the education of the child at that age is so important that the separation should take place. I can only think that in this particular case she, departing from the usual characteristic attributed to her sex, is being governed by her head rather than by her heart. I regret that the elemental appeal to the heart of a woman is being subordinated to the head on this particular occasion. I intervene in the Debate because of the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, who strongly objected to the remarks of my Noble Friend who preceded him. He said that he was going to give us some light, and I listened attentively to his speech, but all that he dealt with was his objection to the provision of this Clause that the Minister of Health should certify. that suitable provision for board and lodging for all children who will by that section be prevented from residing on a canal boat ii available. We should not condemn children to be deprived of the homes which they have enjoyed so far, and to have their homes broken up unless some authority has gone into the matter and made full inquiries, and can assure the people of this country that, when they are so turned out by Act of Parliament, there is suitable accommodation available for them within the means of the parents. It seems the most reasonable request that, when you are going to break up homes, you should be able to assure the country that suitable accommodation within the means of the parents is available.

With regard to Section 3, it does not seem to be realised that it is an ordinary thing for barges to be registered in most cases at the places where they were built. Therefore, people working on barges in the London district, may be working on barges that were built and registered hundreds of miles away. It would be very little consolation to turn round to the parent who cannot see his way to provide a second home, or whose wife does not wish to leave the barge to start another home on shore, and tell him that if he applies to the authority where his barge is registered, some hundreds of miles away, they may make suitable provision for board, lodging and education. It is throwing rather a heavy burden on a man, to whom, it cannot be denied, you are doing an injury. Whatever you are doing to the child, you are without doubt doing an injury to the parents. You are placing this obligation on them to make arrangements for their children, either by providing another home on shore and doing away with their home on board the canal boat, or by making suitable provision for the children either directly or through the local authority. You are throwing a considerable obliga- tion upon the parents, and heavy penalties if they do not carry out the obligation. [Interruption.] What they want, and what every Englishman has a right to demand, is justice, and I want to see that justice is done to these people.

Mr. R. W. SMITH

And a home fit to be called a home.

Commodore KING

The hon. Member talks about homes that are fit to be called homes. That is what we want to ensure under this Clause. [interruption.] I know what the hon. Member is referring to. He is referring to what is their home now, the cabin of a canal boat.

Mr. SEXTON

A clog kennel!

Commodore KING

The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) always gets rather excited over these matters. He has known something of sea life—

Mr. SEXTON

And canal life, too.

Commodore KING

Then he knows perfectly well, as I do from having had five years' experience in a sailing ship, that cabin accommodation in any craft is very cramped. On board ship, where space is very valuable, you do not expect to get spacious accommodation; but it is not the size of a home which makes for comfort or for home life. Size is only a side matter. What makes the home and the family life is the way in which a home, whatever its size, is kept.

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON

What about public schools?

Commodore KING

I will deal with that point in a moment. Although hon. Members may criticise the size of the homes on these canal barges, I think very few who have ever seen them will say they have found an ill-kept or dirty home on a canal boat.

Mr. FRANK SMITH

Will you quote the dimensions?

Commodore KING

The hon. Member knows the dimensions. I am not disputing the size, but I say the size is not everything. Those cabins are the centre of the home life of the family, and I maintain that it is home life that is at the foundation of the British character. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member disputes that, we are even farther apart than I should have imagined.

Mr. SMITH

I do so.

Commodore KING

I am trying to speak from the humanitarian point of view and from the family point of view, and in doing so I am also speaking from the national point of view.

Mr. SMITH

The Tory point of view.

Commodore KING

If the hon. Member makes any relevant interjection I will try to deal with it, but I cannot hear mutterings sufficiently well to reply to them. I wish to point out the difficulty of throwing on barge people the responsibility of either providing another home, making provision for the boarding of their children, or applying to a local authority, which may be hundreds of miles away, to make the necessary provision. If they do not make provision they will be subject to a heavy penalty.

Mr. SEXTON

The State makes children live in industrial schools.

Commodore KING

I should hardly have thought those children would have been compared with the children with whom we are dealing at the present time. The children of barge dwellers are as fine a type as you could wish for, and I do not think the comparison with industrial school children will be welcomed.

Mr. C. DUNCAN

Oh, he did not do that? [Interruption.]

Commodore KING

He referred to industrial schools. It is extremely hard to go on. One meets with all sorts of interjections, and when a reply is made to them then a complaint is made that I am not dealing with the subject before us. Hon. Members opposite are continually interjecting and trying to make it impossible for anyone on this side to engage in a logical discussion, but they resent any reply which is given to them. I wish to say a few words about this Clause because the Noble Lady the Member for Perth (Duchess of Atholl) dealt with it as though it were a spoon-feeding proposal. She had a wrong impression of this Clause. I would stress the point that the Clause merely asks that the Minister of Health should satisfy himself that accommodation is available within the means of the parents. That is not spoon-feeding, it is only assuring the country, at a time when we are putting this new responsibility on barge dwellers, that accommodation elsewhere is available for their children. It will be for the parents to find the accommodation. But even if we did say that the parents should be allowed to sit down and wait until suitable alternative accommodation had been provided, would that be putting them in any different position from that of the people whom we have relieved of the necessity of showing that they are genuinely seeking work? Those people are allowed to sit down and wait until work is provided for them, and I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have agreed that these barge dwellers with whose life we are now proposing to interfere should have the right to sit down in their barges and say, "We are not going to make any move until you come along and tell us that other suitable accommodation exists." That would be quite a logical thing in view of the general trend of Socialist legislation.

As I represent what I may call the home port of barges in London, that is, Paddington Basin, I know a good deal about the problems which exist there. Further, in addition to a political connection with South Paddington extending over 10 years I have had some 20 years' experience of social work in the slum areas all round the canal district. I know something of the homes in which the poorer inhabitants of Paddington have to live, and whatever may be said about the size of barge cabins, I would sooner live with my family in a properly kept barge cabin than in some of the dreadful slums in which people have to exist in some parts of Paddington. If that is the kind of accommodation to which these barge families will have to go we shall be doing them a very grave injury indeed. A cabin may be restricted, but the greater part of the time the children are on the boat they are in the open air. They are getting the free, fresh air practically all the time; though they may sleep in a restricted air space, the effect is more than counterbalanced by the fresh air they get during the day.

Interjections have been thrown across the floor regarding Eton and the way in which the children of the rich are taken away from their homes and sent to school. There is, however, this distinction between that case and the compulsion which marks every single Measure of the Socialist Government. We do not mind such things happening when they are done voluntarily; but there is all the difference when you interfere with the liberties of the people and say to them: "You must do this, that or the other." There is no compulsion on the more wealthy section of the community to send their children to school. They can take advantage of the ordinary facilities of school life, which are quite close to them; and in any case there is no question of the children of wealthy parents being separated from them compulsorily at the age of five, six, seven or eight. That voluntary separation will not take place before the age of eight or nine; therefore the earlier years, the more receptive years of a child's life, are spent with the parents in the home. The doubtful advantages which a child may gain by being brought up at school and away from its parents cannot possibly outweigh the great loss which it suffers through missing the influence of home and family life in its early years. There is all the difference in the world between doing this voluntarily, and compulsorily taking away the children from their parents at a very early age. I maintain that it is not right to inflict such an injury on the life of the barge dwellers unless you at least satisfy this House and the country that there is accommodation available for the children who are going to be taken from their homes, and that accommodation is available at a cost which is within the means of the parents of those children.

Commander SOUTHBY

I am at a loss to understand why hon. Members opposite should be so antagonistic to this proposal. Surely if there is a good example of legislation directed against a particular class of the community it is the legislation contained in this Bill. We oppose this Bill because we believe that it is a wanton interference with the liberty of a deserving body of people, and we are trying to protect those who are likely to be injured by the operation of a Measure of this kind. The Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) said it was the duty of the parents to provide accommodation, but in this instance they have already done so, and therefore I cannot see why the taunt should be levelled at those parents that the accommodation which they have provided is bad and abominable, when, in point of fact, anyone who has visited a barge knows that these people are proud of their homes, and that the children are well cared for and healthy.

We object to this Bill because its provisions are directed against one particular section of the population. In no other instance do we say in our legislation that parents who have already provided accommodation for their families shall be forced to provide alternative accommodation. If you are going to make an exception in the case of the barge population and say that, in the interests of education and the development of home life, it is necessary to inflict a hardship on the parents by taking their children away from them, surely you are not entitled to inflict a still further hardship by compelling the parents to find alternative accommodation, or else be subjected to a fine or imprisonment for not sending their children to school. If the education authorities are going to force these children out of the barges, they should at least provide them with suitable accommodation within the means of the man whose child is taken away.

It is all very well to say that you are dealing only with a small number of people, and that it does not matter very much. This House stands for the protection of minorities, and it is because I believe that it is a gross infringement of the liberties of the minority who live in barges that I am supporting this Clause, which I believe will soften the blow which must come to the parents when the children are taken away. The Noble Lady said that these people would not have their children educated unless some such provision as is contained in this Bill is made for them. No evidence whatever has been produced either here or in Committee in support of the accusation that the barge dwellers do not educate their children, or that they are not just as keen about the education of their children as any other section of the community.

Mr. DUNCAN

The children do not get the education.

Commander SOUTHBY

I do not think the hon. Member for Claycross (Mr. Duncan) would like to go down to the Paddington basin and tell the bargemen there that their children are illiterate and uneducated. If he did I know where he would find himself. [Interruption.] The barge population is entitled to the protection of this House. I heard the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean), state that it was a new thing to suggest that you had to consider the feelings of a small minority in a matter of this kind. If that is so, a change has indeed now come over the functions of this House. The Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross, has again alluded to child labour, but you cannot have it both ways. Either this Bill is brought forward on educational grounds or on the grounds of the improper conditions under which the children live. It would be out of order for me to refer to the conditions of life in barges, but if you are going to contend that this Bill is in the interest of education, and if you are going to force these children to receive education, it is your duty to do it in such a way that it will not inflict hardship either on the children or on their parents.

The hon. Lady, the Member for the Combined Universities (Miss Rathbone), and the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), put the position very clearly when they said that it was the duty of hon. Members to do the best they could for the children in the barges and for their parents. Nobody who is not an educational fanatic—I do not use that word with any unpleasant meaning—could possibly deny the force of the points which were made by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, because what he stated was the real essence of the whole thing. You can buy education too dearly. When one hon. Member said that this is a case of education at all costs, hon. Members opposite cheered. But why? Why should you not say that while you agree that these children should get the best possible education, you are not in favour of destroying what, after all, is more important, that is home life and home influence. If in addition to this you are going to penalise the parents by asking them to do what you know is impossible, and you know very well that there is no suitable accommodation for the children, then you are inflicting upon them a still greater hardship. You are going to say to the parent, "Your child has got to go to school." And when the parent replies, "Where am I to send my children to live?" you wash your hands like Pilate and say, "That is no business of ours, but if you do not send your children to school, you will suffer penalties which are inflicted upon no other section of the community for such an offence."

By this Bill you are singling out bargemen for penalties which are vindictive in their character. You are asking these bargemen to do an impossible task and you say to them, "Although we know that it is impossible for you to find the necessary accommodation for your children, if you do not do so, we will send you to prison, although we do not act in this way in regard to any other section of the community." Would any hon. Member opposite who sits for an industrial constituency dare to go to his constituency and say to any of his supporters, "If your children do not go to school, I will send you to prison, with or without hard labour"? I venture to say that not a single Member opposite would dare to do so. [Interruption.] If any hon. Member would do it, I take off my hat to him for his courage. These people are few in number, and you say to them, "Because you are only barge dwellers, we make wild assertions that your life is abominable and that you are cruel to your children"? but not a single one of those assertions has ever been substantiated. The Noble Lady, in Committee, made reference to the number of cases reported by the inspector of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, but, when she was asked how many prosecutions or convictions there had been, she could not say. If these accusations are true, they will be proved true by prosecutions and convictions, and if you cannot show the prosecutions or convictions, I say that you have no right to make a wild assertion that the barge population are cruel to their children.

All that we ask is that the promoters of the Bill should accept this safeguard, which is in the interests of the parents, and I really cannot believe, unless they are actuated by the same ideas that actuated the Inquisitors in the Middle Ages, when men were sent to the stake for someone else's opinions, that they are going to punish these people because they desire that these children should be educated in their way and in no other way. If that be the view of the promoters of the Bill, by all means let them go ahead and drive the Bill through the House of Commons; but if they believe in a little personal liberty, if they believe a little in the sanctity of the home and in the right of a man to say what he wants done and to have it done in his own way, without putting an impossible task upon a hard-working and industrious population—if they are sincere, they will accept this Clause, which does not

seek to prevent the children being educated, as some hon. Members suggest, but only to make it possible for the parents to have their children educated, and to put the onus of making it possible upon the proper people to shoulder that burden, a burden which has never been sought by the barge population, that is to say, upon the authorities who order the children to leave their homes and go out to school in this way.

Sir D. MACLEAN

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 63.

Division No. 284.]	AYES.	[2.27 p.m.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Glassey, A. E.	MacNeill-Weir, L.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Gossling, A. G.	March, S.
Alpass, J. H.	Gould, F.	Marjoribanks, E. C.
Ammon, Charles George	Gray, Milner	Marley, J.
Arnott, John	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Mathers, George
Aske, Sir Robert	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)	Maxton, James
Astor, Viscountess	Groves, Thomas E.	Messer, Fred
Atholl, Duchess of	Grundy, Thomas W.	Mills, J. E.
Ayles, Walter	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Montague, Frederick
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)	Morley, Ralph
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Barr, James	Harris, Percy A.	Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Batey, Joseph	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Bellamy, Albert	Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Mort, D. L.
Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Haycock, A. W.	Muggeridge, H. T.
Benson, G.	Hayday, Arthur	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Bentham, Dr. Ethel	Hayes, John Henry	Oldfield, J. R.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Birkett, W. Norman	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	Palin, John Henry
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	Paling, Wilfrid
Brockway, A. Fenner	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Palmar, E. T.
Brothers, M.	Hollins, A.	Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)	Hopkin, Daniel	Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Horrabin, J. F.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Buchanan, G.	Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Phillips, Dr. Marion
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)	Hunter, Dr. Joseph	Picton-Tubervill, Edith
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Pole, Major D. G.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Price, M. P.
Charleton, H. C.	Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Chater, Daniel	Kennedy, Thomas	Rathbone, Eleanor
Church, Major A. G.	Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Cluse, W. S.	Kinley, J.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Knight, Holford	Romeril, H. G.
Cove, William G.	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)	Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Cowan, D. M.	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Rowson, Guy
Daggar, George	Law, Albert (Bolton)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Dallas, George	Law, A. (Rosendale)	Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Day, Harry	Lawrence, Susan	Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Lawson, John James	Sanders, W. S.
Dukes, C.	Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)	Sawyer, G. F.
Duncan, Charles	Leach, W.	Scrymgeour, E.
Edmunds, J. E.	Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Scurr, John
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Sexton, James
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)	Longbottom, A. W.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Foot, Isaac	Longden, F.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Forgan, Dr. Robert	Lovat-Fraser, J. A.	Sherwood, G. H.
Freeman, Peter	Lowth, Thomas	Shield, George William
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Shillaker, J. F.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)	McElwee, A.	Shinwell, E.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	McEntee, V. L.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Gillett, George M.	Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)	Tinker, John Joseph	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)	Vaughan, D. J.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)	Viant, S. P.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Snell, Harry	Walker, J.	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Sorensen, R.	Watkins, F. C.	Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)
Strauss, G. R.	Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Sutton, J. E.	West, F. R.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)	Westwood, Joseph	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)	Mr. Ede and Brigadier General Makins.
Thurtle, Ernest	Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Tillett, Ben	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
NOES.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Ramsbotham, H.
Balniel, Lord	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)	Ross, Major Ronald D.
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Salmon, Major I.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.	Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)	Simms, Major-General J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)
Butler, R. A.	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Skelton, A. N.
Colman, N. C. D.	King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Knox, Sir Alfred	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Cunliffe-Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Liewellin, Major J. J.	Todd, Capt. A. J.
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey	Lymington, viscount	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Davies, Dr. Vernon	Macquisten, F. A.	Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Duckworth, G. A. V.	Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Margesson, Captain H. D.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Ford, Sir P. J.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.	Morden, Col. W. Grant	Wayland, Sir William A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Mulrhead, A. J.	Wells, Sydney R.
Gower, Sir Robert	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Peake, Capt. Osbert	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Mr. Beaumont and Commander Southby.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 179.

Division No. 285.]	AYES.	[2.36 p.m.
Albery, Irving James	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Rathbone, Eleanor
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Balniel, Lord	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Ross, Major Ronald D.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Salmon, Major I.
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.	Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)	Simms, Major-General J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)
Butler, R. A.	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Skelton, A. N.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Colman, N. C. D.	Knox, Sir Alfred	Todd, Capt. A. J.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)	Llewellin, Major J. J.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Lymington, Viscount	Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey	Macquisten, F. A.	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Davies, Dr. Vernon	Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)	Warrender, Sir Victor
Duckworth, G. A. V.	Margesson, Captain H. D.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.	Wayland, Sir William A.
Ford, Sir P. J.	Morden, Col. W. Grant	Wells, Sydney R.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Muirhead, A. J.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Forgan, Dr. Robert	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Gower, Sir Robert	Peake, Capt. Osbert	Mr. Beaumont and Commander Southby.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Ramsbotham, H.
NOES.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Brothers, M.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Barr, James	Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Alpass, J. H.	Batey, Joseph	Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Ammon, Charles George	Bellamy, Albert	Buchanan, G.
Arnott, John	Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Burgess, F. G.
Aske, Sir Robert	Benson, G.	Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Astor, Viscountess	Bentham, Dr. Ethel	Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Atholl, Duchess of	Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Ayles, Walter	Birkett, W. Norman	Charleton, H. C.
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Chater, Daniel
Church, Major A. G.	Kinley, J.	Romeril, H. G.
Cluse, W. S.	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)	Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Cove, William G.	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Rowson, Guy
Cowan, D. M.	Law, Albert (Bolton)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Daggar, George	Law, A. (Rosendale)	Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Dallas, George	Lawrence, Susan	Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Day, Harry	Lawson, John James	Sanders, W. S.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)	Sawyer, G. F.
Dukes, C.	Leach, W.	Scrymgeour, E.
Duncan, Charles	Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Scurr, John
Edmunds, J. E.	Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Sexton, James
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Longbottom, A. W.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)	Longden, F.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Foot, Isaac	Lovat-Fraser, J. A.	Sherwood, G. H.
Freeman, Peter	Lowth, Thomas	Shield, George William
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Shillaker, J. F.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)	McElwee, A.	Shinwell, E.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	McEntee, V. L.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Gillett, George M.	Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Glassey, A. E.	MacNeill-Weir, L.	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Gossling, A. G.	March, S.	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Gould, F.	Marjorlbanks, E. C.	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Gray, Milner	Marley, J.	Snell, Harry
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Mathers, George	Sorensen, R.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)	Matters, L. W.	Strauss, G. R.
Groves, Thomas E.	Maxton, James	Sutton, J. E.
Grundy, Thomas W.	Messer, Fred	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Mills, J. E.	Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)	Morley, Ralph	Thurtle, Ernest
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)	Tillett, Ben
Harris, Percy A.	Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)	Tinker, John Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)	Vaughan, D. J.
Hastings, Dr. Somervill.	Mort, D. L.	Viant, S. P.
Haycock, A. W.	Muggeridge, H. T.	Walker, J.
Hayday, Arthur	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Watkins, F. C.
Hayes, John Henry	Oldfield, J. R.	Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)	West, F. R.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	Palin, John Henry	Westwood, Joseph
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	Paling, Wilfrid	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Palmer, E. T.	Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Hollins, A.	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Hopkin, Daniel	Peters, Dr. Sidney John	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Horrabin, J. F.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Phillips, Dr. Marion	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph	Picton-Turbervill, Edith	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Pole, Major D. G.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Price, M. P.	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Kennedy, Thomas	Reynolds, Col. Sir James	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Mr. Ede and Brigadier-General Makins.