EDUCATION BILL.

HL Deb 01 August 1918 vol 31 cc250-368

House again in Committee (according to Order).

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 6:

Provisions as to co-operation and combination.

6.—(l) For the purpose of performing any duty or exercising any power under the Education Acts, a council having powers under those Acts may enter into such arrangements as they think proper for the co-operation or combination with any other council or councils having those powers, and any such arrangement may provide for appointment of a joint committee or a joint body of managers, for the delegation to that committee or body of managers of any powers or duties of the councils (other than the power of raising a rate or borrowing money), for the proportion of contributions to be paid by each council, and for any other matters which appear necessary for carrying out the arrangement.

(2) The Board of Education may, on the application of two or more councils having powers under the Education Acts, by scheme provide for the establishment and (if thought fit) the in-corporation of a federation for such purposes of any such arrangements as aforesaid as may be specified in the scheme as being purposes relating to matters of common interest concerning education which it is necessary or convenient to consider in relation to areas larger than those of individual education authorities, and the powers conferred on councils by this section shall include power to arrange for the performance of any educational or administrative functions by such a federation as if it wore a joint committee or a joint body of managers.

(3) A scheme made by the Board of Education constituting a federation, and an arrangement establishing a joint committee or a joint body of managers, shall provide for the appointment of at least two-thirds of the members by councils having powers under the Education Acts, and may provide either directly or by co-optation for the inclusion of teachers or other persons of experience in education and of representatives of universities or other bodies.

(4) A scheme constituting a federation may on the application of one or more of the councils concerned be modified or repealed by a further scheme, and, where a scheme provides for the discontinuance of a federation, provision may be made for dealing with any property or liabilities of the federation.

(5) Where any arrangement under this section provides for the payment of an annual contribution by one council to another, the contribution shall, for the purposes of section nineteen of the Education Act, 1902, form part of the security on which money may be borrowed under that section.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The first Amendment, which stands in my name, is a purely drafting one.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 21, leave out ("those") and insert ("such").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STRACHIE moved to leave out subsection (2) and to insert the following new subsection: "The Board of Education may, on the application of the councils concerned, confer upon any joint committee or joint body of managers appointed under the provisions of the foregoing subsection, corporate powers for the purpose of enabling them to hold land or enter into contract."

The noble Lord said: Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say that had it not been for the unfortunate accident which happened to one of the members of your Lordships' House, who was so very much respected, and who was the mouthpiece of the County Councils Association—I refer to the noble Earl, Lord Lichfield—whose accident, unhappily, was fatal, it would have been the noble Earl's duty on behalf of the County Councils Association to move the Amendments standing in my name. Therefore, I hope that any inadequacy on my part will be pardoned by your Lordships.

The Amendment which I first propose is to leave out subsection (2), and I should like to state generally the reason why I move it. I have to call your attention to what happened last session to show what I cannot help thinking, and what the County Councils Association think, is behind this subsection. Unless we have some explanation from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that it does not mean what we think it means, we are anxious that it should be omitted. In the previous Education Bill there was a Clause 5 dealing with provincial associations, and I am afraid I must trouble your Lordships with reading the beginning of that clause— With a view to the better co-ordination of education and the provision of advice and assistance for the Board of Education and local education authorities, particularly in respect of Matters of common interest concerning education which it is necessary or convenient to consider in relation to areas larger than those of individual education authorities— This is the whole point— the Board of Education may provide a scheme for the establishment and incorporation of provincial associations, as the Board may direct. That was the intention of the Government which was defeated in the House of Com- mons. It was to have power themselves to set up in these areas for educational purposes these great corporations which would be entirely under the control of the Board of Education and would be removed entirely from the control of Parliament or the local authorities in the different counties. It was a system of federation of large areas without any control at all either by Parliament or the local authorities. It was setting up what the Government is very fond of—a large system of bureaucracy. This Government, as we all know, by the enormous number of officials which they have created, simply love the idea of Government from Whitehall and centralisation of enormous expenditure. Apparently, that is the great object of the Government. They can only carry it out because they are a Coalition Government and always appeal to that fact for support. Their object seems to be the abolition of smaller local education authorities entirely, such as municipal boroughs that are not county boroughs and urban authorities with populations of under 20,000, because I notice that the very gifted President of the Board of Education, during the debates this Session on the Bill, complained of having 319 local authorities for education.

No doubt it is simpler, if you have this bureaucracy and government from Whitehall, to deal with a smaller number of associations than 319, which are able to put political pressure upon the Government. I see that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, laughs. No doubt he laughs because he never sat in another place. Had he done so he would be aware of the great pressure which is put by municipal associations on Members of Parliament continually on all questions affecting education in their areas. I can realise and understand why the Board of Education would be only too glad to withdraw from the purview of Parliament and from interference by local representatives all these educational matters. Turning to the Bill itself it is undoubtedly less drastic than the Bill which I am glad to say the House of Commons refused to have last Session; but behind it there is a good deal of ambiguity. Although it is less drastic, still to my mind it interferes unduly with the rights of local self-government.

I am speaking entirely on behalf of the County Councils Association. Very naturally they think that local self-government ought not to be unduly interfered with. Schemes are made by the Board of Education under this Bill, and I should remind the House that that is a different procedure from what we have known up to now. It has been the duty of the local authority and the county council hitherto to submit a scheme to the Board of Education for approval or disapproval. That has been entirely changed. No longer has the local authority the right to make a scheme itself; the scheme is going to be made by the Board of Education. I should like to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether a county council, after seeing the scheme which has been proposed by the Board of Education, would be allowed to withdraw and say they do not approve of the scheme. I am speaking now about federation with which this clause deals.

When the county council have once made application with other education authorities for a scheme of federation can they withdraw if they do not like the scheme made by the Board of Education? Also, I should like to ask whether a scheme, once made, can be altered, except by the consent of the Board of Education? That is to say, will the local authority, when once it has agreed to a scheme, be compelled to abide by that scheme unless the Board of Education is good enough to say "We will have it modified?" The noble Earl may say to me "Oh, but the county council have entered into this engagement. Therefore, why should they have any objection to our refusing to alter it in the future?" I would point out to the noble Earl that, like the House of Commons, county councils are elected by and are dependent upon the votes of their constituents, and it may be that one county council which approved of a particular scheme may be succeeded by another county council which entirely disapproved of it and wishes to withdraw from it.

I am not one of those at all hostile to the idea of federation; nor is the County Councils Association; in fact, they welcome it, and think it may be very useful indeed in a very large number of cases. But, while they are anxious for co-operation, they do not want the kind of combination that will set up a semi-independent body which simply owes its existence to the Board of Education, and which to all intents and purposes is controlled by them, and is not answerable to Parliament or the ratepayers.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 29, leave out subsection (2) and insert the following new subsection:

"(2) The Board of Education may, on the application of the councils concerned, confer upon any joint committee or joint body of managers appointed under the provisions of the foregoing subsection, corporate powers for the purpose of enabling them to hold land or enter into contracts."—(Lord Strachie.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I am sorry if when I smiled just now I appeared to be at all discourteous to the noble Lord. I did so because it seemed to me that the general remarks in which he was indulging with regard to the bureaucracy of the Board of Education and the interference with the rights of self-government, with which we are getting familiar on this Bill, appeared to me to have no reference whatever to the subject under discussion. This sub-section is one which makes arrangements for the combination of two or more local authorities for certain purposes which cannot be undertaken by any single authority. I need not emphasise the extreme need for powers of this kind, because it must be obvious that in the provision of such matters as scholarship schemes, or central training schools for teachers, or even for the more common purpose of a school for defective children, some system of combination is absolutely necessary.

So far as I can gather from the noble Lord, he has two fears in his mind. In the first place he appears to think that, instead of being left free to submit schemes themselves, the local authorities will have to submit to schemes thrust on them by the Board of Education. That is not the reading of the clause at all. There is nothing in this clause which prevents two or more local authorities who join together for the purpose of federation submitting any scheme on which they are agreed. The words, "the Board of Education may on the application of two or more councils, etc.," are only put in to enable the Board of Education to give advice to such authorities as ask for it in the formation of these federations. I can assure the noble Lord that the clause in no way provides that these local authorities shall be forced, against their will, to accept any scheme of which they do not approve at the dictation of the Board of Education. The second fear of the noble Lord is that if two councils agree to combine together for sonic central purpose a third local authority may be forced against its will to come into the federation. There again I would like to give him an absolute assurance that there is no compulsion of any kind in this clause.

Lastly, he asks whether, when a scheme has been formed, any authority shall be deprived of its power to withdraw at any time from the federation. On this point I would like to explain what the purpose of the Bill is. I think your Lordships will understand that local authorities would naturally be reluctant to come into a federation if they felt that, having done so, and having provided a scheme and funds for setting up some central school, it would be within the power of any one of the parties afterwards to withdraw, and leave the financial obligation for the agreed scheme upon the one or two remaining authorities. That is, if county councils A, B, and C agree to come together and form a federation to set up a central school for defectives and provide the necessary funds for it, it would be impossible, after having done that, for county council C to withdraw, and leave upon A and B the obligation of maintaining the cost of the building, which would be too much for their own areas. Therefore it is the intention of the Bill that, first of all, no authority shall be compelled to come into the federation against its will.

LORD STRACHIE

May it withdraw if it does not like the scheme when submitted?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I am coming to that. I hope the noble Lord will understand clearly that no authority is to be compelled to come into the federation against its will and, secondly, that any authority is free to withdraw from a federation upon any scheme to which it has not given its assent; but that once it has given its assent to a scheme it will not be within its power to withdraw, unless special provision has been made in the scheme for that purpose. I am unable to accept the Amendment because if I did it would sanction the very contingency which it is necessary to prevent. If he thinks there is ambiguity in the Bill I am perfectly willing to submit to him words which will make it perfectly clear that no authority shall come in without its consent, and that no council shall be obliged to remain in the federation except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme which it has approved. So far I am willing to meet the noble Lord, but beyond that I am unable to go for the reasons I have explained. I hope your Lordships will understand that in the preparation of a scheme the two or three councils forming the federation will be at perfect liberty to make their own arrangements for the duration of the scheme, or the conditions under which one or more of the parties may be allowed to withdraw.

LORD SHEFFIELD

I agree in substance with the explanation of the noble Earl, but in subsection (1) the word is "council." In the case of Part III authorities this would mean the local education authority, but I would like to ask if a council means a county or county borough authority and also a Part III authority? I think if he would substitute instead of the word "council" the words "education authority" that would cover both types of combination, as schools for defective children and such matters are pre-eminently schemes which fall within the purview of Part III. It is clear, if you want a combination for defective children, or blind children, in small counties such as North Wales, it is very important that the whole of the counties in North Wales should combine in one large area, and you will want an area which is larger than the county. There are, as a matter of fact, no Part III authorities in North Wales except Wrexham, but in Lancashire and Yorkshire there are many Part III authorities who ought to be able to join.

I do not press anything in this nature now, but I hope the noble Lord will look into it by Report and see whether the words I have suggested are not more suitable. The Act of 1902 gave powers for voluntary combination, and I am very glad this Bill has kept combination voluntary. In the Bill of last year the element of compulsion which was introduced was undesirable. It is quite obvious that if you enter into a voluntary combination to maintain some building or other, and pledge yourself to a permanent expenditure, you must require the combining authorities to carry it out. It cannot be broken if it has been started. As the noble Earl said it would be quite within the power of any local authority to withhold its assent to any part of the scheme to which it has not assented to before, and there will be power also, where money is not pledged, to arrange for some convenient means of withdrawal. Otherwise, I think it is very desirable, and quite right, that the Board of Education should assist and guide by its advice. The Board of Education looks over the whole country and their advice would be very helpful to smaller areas who are not so familiar with the problem. Quite apart from the parliamentary powers of the Board of Education they would be able to secure combination by making their grants conditional upon efficiency, which can only be carried out by combination.

I may remind the noble Earl that as long ago as the 'sixties, when local government was being developed in this country, the Local Government Board offered I think to bear a half or two-thirds of the whole salary of the health officer if several unions would combine to appoint one who should give his whole time. That was found very effective. There is nothing so attractive as a good subvention, for a good subvention will often grease the wheels and bring about combination when circulars and advice will not do it.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

With regard to what has been said by my noble friend, the expression in Clause 1 would secure his councils having power under the Education Acts, and I should think that a non-county borough council would have those powers also; and therefore I apprehend that the answer of the noble Earl would be that the noble Lord's attitude is not well founded.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I am advised that the word "council" covers all cases.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

So I should have thought. The answer which the noble Earl has made gets rid of the difficulty which my noble friend Lord Strachie felt, but it does not wholly get rid of another point on which I am not going to move any Amendment, but I am one of those people who deplore the fact that Clause 6 is cut down from the scope which Clause 5 in the Bill, as originally introduced in the other House, occupied. I do not know whether members of the House realise that there are still an enormous lot of powers vested in the Board of Education which do not come under the scope which is attributed by legislation to the county authorities. Not only does the question of scholarships present difficulties which have to be dealt with by a higher authority than the local education authority, but there are the training of teachers, training col- leges, and half a dozen other things. We had a debate in this House about a year ago in which this broad question of principle was raised and the view some of us then took was this, that the Board of Education has to administer things for the whole of the country under a set of cast-iron regulations which apply to Durham in the same way as they do to Cornwall. That cannot be right. There are very great variations according to the interests of different parts of the country.

Some of us then thought that it would be well, when the Education Bill was introduced, that there should be at least the power on the part of the Board of Education to delegate not to isolated local education authorities but to groups of those authorities, associated as this Bill proposes to associate them, with representatives of the Universities and time higher teachers and all the people concerned with higher education. Unfortunately the expression in Clause 6 as it now stands is "powers under the Education Act." That does not include all the powers of which I am speaking, and it may be that hereafter it will prove that this clause, so far from being too wide, has been too narrow. When that time comes we must deal with the question. I was not prepared to put down an Amendment upon this subject, because I know the misunderstanding that there has been about it—a misunderstanding which I think was evident in the attitude taken up by my noble friend Lord Strachie, but the Amendment which the noble Earl suggests gets rid of that. I only wish to put in this word of warning that there is a larger problem left which the Bill in its original form was more calculated to deal with than is the Bill as it now reads.

LORD PARMOOR

May I suggest words that may meet the difficulty suggested by Lord Strachie? They would be these—"The Board of Education may, on the application and with the consent of two or more councils." It is quite clear that there must be grouping; at the same time I think that the consent of the local authorities ought to be obtained.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I propose to offer the noble Lord words which will go even farther than those just suggested. If he will withdraw the Amendment he pro- poses, I am quite willing to insert at the end of line 40 a new proviso as follows— Provided that no council shall, without its consent, be included in a scheme establishing a federation, and no council shall be obliged to continue in a federation except in accordance with the provisions of a scheme to which it has consented.

NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear.

LORD STRACHIE

I desire to withdraw my Amendment, and I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for having met me so far. But I must ask him to reconsider his declaration regarding my Amendment on line 40, which I will move later.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Clause 6, page 4, line 40, at end, insert "provided that no council shall, without its consent, be included in a scheme establishing a federation, and no council shall be obliged to continue in a federation except in accordance with the provisions of a scheme to which it has consented."—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STRACHIE

I desire to move an addition which would be—"That no council shall be retained in any such federation without their consent, subject to their liability for any capital expenditure due from them under a scheme of federation." I quite appreciate all that the noble Earl has said as to the unfairness and injustice of a county council or any other local education authority being allowed to withdraw from a federation after that federation has entered into heavy financial liabilities which have not been liquidated. I therefore suggest that the noble Earl might be willing to allow a county council to retire from a federation subject to it being made quite clear that all its liabilities would be discharged. It seems to me—and this is what the county councils association feels very strongly—that it is not proper to force the county councils to remain in a federation after a lapse of perhaps five or even ten or twelve years, when the whole complexion of that county council may have been changed from what it was originally when it entered the federation. There should of course be good reasons given before any council should be allowed to withdraw. Let me give an instance of which the noble Earl has probably heard. I know two counties whose area is divided by the respective councils and who for the purposes of the training of miners and the development of the area which is in a great coalfield decided to federate. Later in the area of one of the county councils the coal was worked out, and not only did that county council lose an interest in mining but it also lost an important rateable area. Therefore it does not seem fair that in such circumstances a county council should be compelled to remain federated when it has no longer an interest in coal mining, and when its rates have been considerably increased owing to the loss in rateable value through its coal being worked out. I cannot see why the noble Earl should say that it would be unreasonable to refuse the request of such a county council to retire from a federation provided that it discharged its liabilities. The other county council would retain the benefit of the capital expenditure. I beg to move.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I am afraid that I cannot accept those words. I offered the alternative to the noble Lord on the understanding that it was to be a substitution for his Amendments. The words that he has read out—they are not on the Paper, and I have not seen them,—so far as I understand them, would provide for the liability for the capital expenditure of the withdrawing authority, but there would still be upon the remaining council all the costs of maintenance. That is something which I do not think any authority would be justified in doing, therefore I cannot accept the Amendment. But I want to point out that if any authority is under any apprehension that it may be unduly held by coming into a federation all the conditions to which the noble Lord has referred can be provided for in advance by the authorities themselves. All I say is that instead of imposing these upon them by Parliament, we should leave the authorities to provide for such matters in their own schemes.

LORD STRACHIE

Of course, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for the concessions he has made. They do not completely meet the wishes of the County Councils Association, but as apparently I have no support in this matter, and practically the whole of the House agrees that it is fair that a county council, though it receives no benefit from this institution should still have to go on paying for it, I withdraw my Amenment, though I think it is a great injustice.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I should be very sorry if my noble Friend thought that in the Amendment he has moved he has had no support, but we thought that the Government had made a very considerable concession to meet his view, and that he was very much to be congratulated on the success he had achieved. As regards this special point, as a member of the County Councils Association, I must say I feel that any representation from that very important body ought to be received, as it has been received by the Government, with great respect. But I should impress upon my noble friend that there was great force in the last remark of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that it is provided under the Bill that the federation can be brought to an end in certain contingencies. County councils are not children, they are well advised, by very competent advisers, and no doubt there will come to be a regular and normal form of agreement which will make provision for all kinds of contingencies. I should be very sorry if my noble friend did not think he had earned the gratitude of the House for having secured the concession he has.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD STRACHIE moved to omit from subsection (3) the words "at least two-thirds of." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see that on the Paper there is a series of Amendments following the Amendment which I now move. Of course, I have no intention of moving those Amendments, except as consequential Amendments if the noble Earl is willing to accept my first Amendment. I will read the clause as it would then appear after all my Amendments were made— (3) A scheme made by the Board of Education constituting a federation, and an arrangement establishing a joint committee or a joint body of managers, shall provide for the appointment of the members by councils having powers under the Education Acts, and may provide for the co-optation by the appointing councils, whether on nomination or otherwise, of not more than one-third of the members from teachers or other persons of experience in education and from representatives of universities or other bodies. This again is an Amendment of the County Councils Association. I expect the noble Earl will simply say it is a question of sentiment. I do not know whether the noble Earl is a member of a county council. If he is he will know that there is a good deal of sentiment in county councils as local Parliaments, just as there is sentiment in the House of Commons. What they feel is that they dislike a system differing from that under the previous Education Acts, by which two-thirds of the county councils—and in fact you may say the whole of the members of this federation area—are not to be appointed by the county councils themselves but are to be appointed, it may be by the Board of Education, or it may be by a University, or it may be by a number of unrepresentative bodies.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Not two-thirds.

LORD STRACHIE

No, the two-thirds of this federated body must be members of the county council. I quite agree with that, but I do not think the noble Earl will disagree when I say that the county council themselves have not the right of appointing those two-thirds. It is quite true that the qualification is that they should be county councillors, but in previous Education Acts the county councillors had the right to make these appointments themselves. Under the present Bill that right is taken away, and that is a matter of sentiment. It may in practice or it may not make a difference. It is quite conceivable that the Board of Education or some outside body may not have the same sympathies as the majority of the county council. You might, for instance, have a very Conservative county council and a very Radical Board of Education, Who might ignore the recommendations of the county council and appoint members of the county council who were more in a, minority on that body, but who were more in accord with the views of the then President of the Board of Education. All I am asking is that in all cases the county council should be the person to nominate and appoint, on the not unreasonable principle that they ought to be masters in their own house. They Will be the people who have to provide the money and everything under the scheme.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The Bill does provide that these two-thirds are to be nominated by the council.

LORD STRACHIE

Perhaps the noble Earl will tell me what is the clause which provides that.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The clause provides, at the top of page 5, for the appointment "of at least two-thirds of the members by councils having powers under the Education Acts." The whole object of those words is to secure that at least two-thirds of these bodies shall be appointed by bodies responsible to the ratepayers.

LORD PARMOOR

Is not the point this? Who is to be the co-opting body? Is the co-opting body to be the county council, or is it to be the new body, which is a different thing? I think that is the point which the noble Lord was endeavouring to raise. Two-thirds of the members are appointed by the councils themselves. Will the other third be co-opted by the councils, or not?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I was not dealing with the one-third, but merely with the point on which the noble Lord was speaking, the two-thirds.

LORD STRACHIE

If the noble Earl states that it is quite clear, I will at once accept what he says. As regards the one-third, does he not consider that the county councils ought to have the right of appointment? Apparently they may be appointed by any outside body, and perhaps people may be appointed against the wishes of the county council. My previous argument holds good that it is not right that the county council, which has to provide the money, or a large part of the money—because I know there will be a Government subsidy—should not have the power to appoint. The Board of Education says that, as they are going to provide a half, they claim the right of appointing the one-third of the members. Does the noble Earl say that he objects to the principle, which has always up to now held good, that the county council itself should be master in its own house and should appoint the whole of the members, whether from their own number or not? Of course, they would act upon the principle that they would naturally ask important bodies in their area whom they desire to nominate, but the county councils feel that they would desire themselves to have the right of appointment of the whole of the co-opted-members.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 1, leave out ("at least two-thirds of").—(Lord Strachie.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I do not propose to say any more about the two-thirds, as I think that is now clear. With regard to the remaining one-third, the position is that these bodies which come together in a federation are absolutely at liberty to make their scheme and either they shall themselves nominate the one-third, or accept a scheme and leave other bodies free to nominate their representatives. We think it is much better that they should be left free in making their schemes to deal with these matters.

I should like to refer to the point made by the noble Lord when he said that in the Act of 1902 arrangements were made by which the council was to co-opt other bodies. I would point out that here the situation is different. Under the Act of 1902 you were merely dealing with one council; here we are dealing with two, three, or it may be four, different bodies. If you restrict them in the Act to themselves co-opting the remaining one-third, you provide no machinery for those three or four different bodies to come together to agree; and as the joint body will be composed of three or more authorities, we say in the Bill—and this is, I think; really more in accordance with the spirit of the liberty of local self-gopernment than the course proposed by the noble Lord—that we leave them absolute freedom when they make their scheme to provide what they think is most convenient.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am a little puzzled by the last observations of my noble friend. I think I must have misunderstood him, but as it reached my ears he seemed to interpret the word "co-optation" as meaning nothing more than "nominated." I believe that co-optation means the appointment by an already existing body of other members to join it. That is, co-optation by the federated body; and I do not think it can mean anything else. If my noble friend behind me thinks it necessary to make it more abundantly clear he might say "co-optation by the federated body" or "upon the authority of the federated body," or some such phrase, But I did not understand the explanation of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. He seemed to take the whole meaning of co-optation out of the word—but no doubt I made a mistake in my understanding of it.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The words are "may either directly or by co-optation."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Provision as to amount of expenditure for education.

7. The limit under section two of the Education Act, 1902, on the amount to be raised by the council of a county out of rates for the purpose of education other than elementary shall cease to have effect.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN moved to leave out Clause 7. The noble Viscount said: I hope it will not be supposed from anything I may say in moving my Amendment that I am antagonistic to an improved system of education. On the contrary, there is a great deal which I think ought to be done in that direction. But my views would point, in the first, place at all events, to improvement in what the noble Earl described in the admirable speech with which he introduced this measure as utilitarian education rather than what he called "scientific education"—I think that was the expression that he used, I mean a means of giving a practical education especially to the people living in the country districts which might prove to be of real use and substantial benefit to them in the callings to which, I presume, they will most of them have to look for their livelihood in the future. Technical education is very much needed at the present time in the various branches of agriculture.

There is one thing however to which I take the greatest exception in this Bill, and that is on a question of principle—a matter which was contested over and over again in the House of Commons in days gone by, and which we fought under great difficulties for some years, but in regard to which we were ultimately successful—namely, that when any legislative proposals are made for a great national object and purpose the burden of making those changes should not fall upon only one kind of property. If I understand this Bill and the meaning of this clause correctly, so far as the continuation schools are concerned, an unfair burden will be thrown upon one particular class of property; because I see that in Clause 7 the limit which is now placed upon charges to be made upon the rates is to be abandoned altogether without any control, so far as I am able to understand, over the education authorities, who, it seems to me, are in a position, if this clause stands as it is, to do pretty much what they please in that particular direction. I understand that people up to eighteen or nineteen years of age are to continue to be educated. I have no objection to that if it is thought desirable, and if the burden is to be borne equally by all classes of property in the country. It is quite clear that the limit under Section 2 of the Education Act of 1902 on the amount to be raised by the council of a county out of rates for the purposes of education other than elementary shall cease to have effect. If I am under a wrong impression with regard to this, I trust that the noble Earl will remove it.

The contest with regard to this principle began as long ago as 1870, I think, when Sir Massey Lopes, after a great debate which lasted some days, defeated the then Prime Minister, Mr. Gladstone, on this matter; and for many years afterwards, if I remember rightly, measures containing any propositions of that kind were invariably rejected and disposed of, and that difficulty disappeared. In this particular case it seems to me—unless I am otherwise informed and convinced—that this burden will fall most unfairly on one kind of property only—namely, on houses and on land; and that it may be charged without limit so far as they are concerned, and without any control by the education authority, and without any control over them.

We know too well from past experience, what the utterly reckless expenditure has been on the part of education authorities, especially with regard to building. We see every day at the present time the reckless expenditure of some of the new Ministries which have quite recently been created, and to me it is a matter of constant amazement that the public, and especially Members of Parliament, seem to watch with a distressing degree of indifference this extravagance which I think is alarming in the best interests of the country. This multiplication of Ministries spending money in the way in which it is being spent is, as I have already taken occasion to point out in your Lordships' House, one of the most appalling incidents in the present situation. One difficulty we had in this respect is what was complained of by the noble Earl the Leader of the House only the other day, namely, that as regards the Press and the debates which occurred in your Lordships' House it is to a very large extent impossible to get a hearing of any sort or kind beyond these walls.

I do not suppose that I shall be able by anything I say to-day to influence the decision of this House with regard to the question that we are now discussing, but at all events, holding the views that I do and having this clause before me, I should consider that I had failed in my duty if I had not made these observations. We have been successful in the past in defeating proposals of this kind and I shall not abandon the hope that we may possibly be successful even yet in the future. I do not abandon hope for this reason. What is the moment that is selected to impose this further burden upon the land? We have had it crammed down our throats over and over again by the present Government and its leaders that the great need and necessity of the hour is the increased production of home-grown food. Is it the way to increase production by imposing still further burdens on the land, and at a moment like this?

I see some practical difficulties, moreover, in these proposals. Take the case of an ordinary labourer's family. What is going to be the position? Suppose he has sons who have not been called up, aged seventeen, eighteen and nineteen years, living at his expense and in his own house. What is he to think when he knows that under ordinary circumstances they would have been permitted to work and obtain a very good livelihood for themselves? Is he going to maintain them at his own cost I Probably he will not be able to do so. What is to become of them? By whom are they to be housed? Where are they to be taught? Where are they to undergo this continuation of education? That is one point. I am speaking now of the country districts, because I do not think you can apply the same system to every part of the country. You must be guided by the needs and necessities of the particular population, and it does seem to me that it is a question which we ought to consider for ourselves before we give our sanction to all these proposals which are going to cost an unlimited sum of money, as to which we have not the smallest information before us, and as to which we are further told that the Government themselves find it impossible at present to make any estimate whatever.

When these people have been educated as you desire in the higher education, what are they going to do afterwards? What is this education to enable them to do? Supposing a large part of the population are brought up in an arable educational district where as a general rule most of them would have been employed in the cultivation of land. If you are going to educate them in this particular way instead of, as I should desire, giving them an advantageous technical education, what is going to become of them? How are they going to obtain a livelihood in the future? What future is it you are looking forward to for them? I hope I have not intruded unduly upon your Lordships' time, and I know I may be stating this afternoon views which may not command your Lordships' support, and may be unpopular, but I have often had to make statements in days gone by which were not less unpopular, and I have not seldom found that in the long run many of those who opposed me at that time have come round to the views which I held then and which they hold now. I thank your Lordships for allowing me to make these few observations, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 7.—(Viscount Chaplin.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I do not propose to enter into a general discussion on this Amendment of the matters which we discussed yesterday, nor do I propose to follow the noble Viscount into the remarks which he made with regard to the incidence of taxation, because in effect his Amendment will not do anything to alter the present incidence of taxation. What we are concerned with here is the limit which at present exists upon education authorities for the provision of higher education out of the rates. Now, my Lords, as I said yesterday, I entirely agree with all noble Lords who desire that any expenditure which may be necessary should be as carefully scrutinised as possible; but, my Lords, I see in the reluctance of local authorities to provide for educational needs at the expense of the rates a far greater safeguard against extravagance than anything you can provide in this Bill or in any other way.

The difficulty in the past has not been the profligate extravagance of local authorities, but their extreme reluctance to make any adequate provision for higher education at the expense of the rates. When this Bill is passed I do not think we need look to a very great change in the attitude of these local authorities towards this matter, but I would point out to your Lordships that in spite of this reluctance a very large number of local authorities have found it impossible in the past to meet existing requirements with regard to higher education within the limits of the twopenny rate. Already twelve counties in England and five in Wales have, at one time or another, found it necessary to come to the Local Government Board and obtain permission to increase the twopenny rate, and I feel sure that, if it had not been for the set back occasioned by the war during the last four years, that number would have been greater still at the present time. In this Bill we are now definitely asking local authorities to make more adequate provision in the future for higher education. The effect of the Amendment of the noble Viscount would be this—that whilst, at one moment, we are asking the authorities to make more adequate provision, we should at the same time be refusing them the power to raise the funds with which to provide it.

All we ask in this clause is the removal of a limit imposed upon county authorities never to spend more than a twopenny rate without the consent of the Local Government Board. They already have the power to exceed twopence, but they have to go to the Local Government Board. There is really a very good case for getting rid of the present arrangement, because it has not been found to work well in the past. The Local Government Board naturally knows nothing about education; it does know about local government. If, for instance, the local authority finds it necessary to exceed the limit of a twopenny rate in order to provide, let us say, a secondary school and it goes to the Local Government Board and asks for permission to do so, the Local Government Board have not the means of knowing whether the secondary school in that area is necessary or not, and, consequently, in every single case the Local Government Board goes to the Board of Education. In all applications that have been made in the past, and whenever there has been any question of the educational necessity for the expenditure asked for, it has always been the Board of Education which has finally decided it.

There is one exception which I ought to mention. In some cases the Local Government Board have held—and this is a matter they are competent to consider—that the raising of a rate is not necessary, not because the provision of higher education is not required, but because they think it can be provided out of the balance in the accounts of the education authorities. Therefore, it has come to this—that the exercise of the powers which are now vested in the Local Government Board have, in practice, been narrowed down to the small point of the mere consideration of what balance the county council should keep for the provision of education. As to the necessity for making provision that is a matter upon which, in every case, they have to go to the Board of Education, and owing to the way in which this system has worked in the past, and in view of the new obligations which will be placed upon local authorities to make provision for higher education in the future, we feel that it is undesirable to retain this provision necessitating consultation with the Local Government Board. For that reason, the clause inserted in the Bill.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

I do not desire to add more than one word, but as I have an Amendment on the Paper perhaps I may be allowed to say that I do not think the argument of the noble Earl for taking away the particular control of the Local Government Board is a good argument for the abandonment of any control whatever. That question was decided by your Lordships last night, and after that discussion I will not press my Amendment, which is less drastic than that of the noble Viscount.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I must re-affirm the fact that all control whatever is not withdrawn. The Board of Education still has some control over the expenditure of local authorities, because it is up to the Board of Education to approve the expenditure, and the Board of Education grant is only made in respect of expenditure approved by the Board. Therefore, although you remove the Local Government Board, you do still retain the control of the Department which does, in fact, now exercise that control.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

The noble Earl will hardy maintain that the same authority which is bound to apply the stimulus is also the one to apply the check.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

While I am grateful to the noble Earl for the pains he has taken to reply, I must say that he has done practically nothing to remove the objection which I have on principle—namely, that where you are making proposals for a great national object, all classes of property ought to bear an equal and fair share of the burden.

LORD HARRIS

Before the Amendment is withdrawn I should like to bear witness, from my personal experience of the county council and education committee, to the fact advanced by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that local authorities have been very careful to keep within the confines of the twopenny rate. Indeed, the higher education committees have often had a long and severe struggle before they could get anywhere near the twopence. I think it is a pity that some limit has not been put in, although I think that the present county councils are very likely to be careful in formulating their schemes. We were warned by one noble Lord that local authorities are agitating violently for very large expenditure on continuation school education, and we know from the speech of Lord Morris that there are some amongst us who are regardless of how much is spent so long as their objects are attained. The limit of twopence is going to be removed and no limit at all imposed. If the idea is correct, that county councils, as the opportunity of elections occurs, are going to adopt a very much more liberal attitude as regards expenditure on higher education, either the bar has got to come from the Treasury or from the Education Department, or there would be no bar at all. I must say that, although I should have been unable to support my noble friend opposite if he had gone to a Division, I do regret that no maximum has been fixed.

LORD GAINFORD

May I point out how difficult it is to fix a maximum in connection with a matter of this kind? In actual practice it has been found that the assessments in our various county council areas differ enormously one from the other. You may have residential places, such as Bournemouth, where, perhaps, the demands are not very great from a very large section of the population for a technical school, and you have a rate there which is very easily raised because the assessments are high; a penny in the £ may be quite enough to meet the requirements of a residential neighbourhood. You have another area where there is an industrial population of comparatively poor people, who require con- tinuous education but cannot afford it except at the public expense, and if you are going to do that which the noble Viscount suggests, teach technical instruction to the sons of agricultural labourers so that they would produce the best out of the land, there are poor areas where a 1d. rate in the £ produces comparatively little, and you would want much more than a 1d., 2d., or even 3d. in the £. Therefore it is very difficult to put in any particular sum because of the great variation in the valuation of the various areas throughout the country.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8:

Provisions as to compulsory attendance at elementary schools.

8.—(1) Subject as provided in this Act, no exemption from attendance at school shall be granted to any child between the ages of five and fourteen years, and any enactment giving a power, or imposing a duty, to provide for any such exemption, and any provision of a byelaw providing for any such exemption, shall cease to have effect, without prejudice to any exemptions already granted. Any byelaw which names a lower age than fourteen as the ago up to which a parent shall cause his child to attend school shall have effect as if the age of fourteen were substituted for the lower age.

(2) In section seventy-four of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, as amended by section six of the Elementary Act, 1900, fifteen years shall be substituted for fourteen years as the maximum age up to which byelaws relating to school attendance may require parents to cause their children to attend school, and any such byelaw requiring attendance at school of children between the ages of fourteen and fifteen may apply either generally to all such children, or to children other than those employed in any specified occupations:

Provided that it shall be lawful for a local education authority to grant exemption from the obligation to attend school to individual children between the ages of fourteen and fifteen for such time and upon such conditions as the authority think fit in any case where after due inquiry the circumstances seem to justify such an exemption.

(3) It shall not be a defence to proceedings relating to school attendance under the Education Acts or any byelaws made thereunder that a child is attending a school or institution providing efficient elementary instruction unless the school or institution is open to inspection either by the local education authority or by the Board of Education, and unless satisfactory registers are kept of the attendance of the scholars thereat.

(4) A local education authority may with the approval of the Board of Education make a byelaw under section seventy-four of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, providing that parents shall not be required to cause their children to attend school or to receive efficient elementary instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic before the age of six years:

Provided that in considering any such byelaw the Board shall have regard to the adequacy of the provision of nursery schools for the areas to which the byelaw relates, and shall, if requested by any ten parents of children attending public elementary schools for that area, hold a public inquiry for the purpose of determining whether the byelaw should be approved.

(5) Notwithstanding anything in the Education Acts the Board of Education may, on the application of the local education authority, authorise the instruction of children in public elementary schools till the end of the school term in which they reach the age of sixteen or (in special circumstances) such later age as appears to the Board desirable:

Provided that, in considering such application, the Board shall have regard to the adequacy and suitability of the arrangements made by the authority under section two of this Act and to the effective development and organisation of all forms of education in the area.

(6) The power of a local education authority under section seven of the Education Act, 1902, to give directions as to secular instruction shall include the power to direct that any child in attendance at a public elementary school shall attend during such hours as may be directed by the authority at any class, whether conducted on the school promises or not, for the purpose of practical or special instruction or demonstration, and attendance at such a class shall, where the local education authority so direct, be deemed for the purpose of any enactment or byelaw relating to school attendance to be attendance at a public elementary school:

Provided that, if by reason of any such direction a child is prevented on any day from receiving religious instruction in the school in the ordinary time mentioned in the time table, reasonable facilities shall be afforded subject to the provisions of section seven of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, for enabling such child to receive such religious instruction in the school at some other time.

(7) In section eleven of the. Elementary Education Act, 1876 (which relates to school attendance) for the words "there is not within two miles" there shall be substituted the words "there is not within such distance as may be prescribed by the byelaws."

(8) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act, 1893, or the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Acts, 1899 to 1914, relating to the attendance at school of the children to whom those Acts apply.

LORD SYDENHAM moved the deletion from subsection (4) of the word "efficient." The noble Lord said: I venture to think the word "efficient" is not very happily chosen here, and I doubt if it means what it is intended to mean in this subsection. The words of the clause are, "parents shall not be required to cause their children to attend school, or to receive efficient elementary instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic, before the age of six years." I should say that would mean that they might be required to receive thoroughly bad instruction in these things, and bad instruction in a matter like writing may, I think, do harm to a young child of five or six. I suggest the word "efficient" should disappear altogether, and that it might be replaced by "regular," or "systematic," which, I think, is more the meaning the subsection is intended to convey.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 18, leave out ("efficient").—(Lord Sydenham.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I do not think the noble Lord realises that this word is not introduced for the first time in this Bill. It merely refers to what is the existing legal obligation of every parent. By the Act of 1876 every parent is under a legal obligation to provide efficient elementary instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic, for every child after the age of five years. All that this clause says is, that in certain circumstances, this legal obligation shall not come into effect until the age of six years.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SHEFFIELD moved the insertion of words at the end of subsection (4). The noble Lord said: I think, if you are going to extend the age of nursery schools, as contrasted with the public elementary schools, up to the age of six, you are entitled to demand some security for those parents who would otherwise be deprived of their statutory right to public elementary education in a public elementary school. The principal points are—the right of the parent to demand free education without fees; the right to demand the withdrawal of his child from any religious instruction or observance; and in the towns and the crowded towns (and particularly in the poor districts of the town) the right that the Board of Education should see that these nursery schools are easily accessible, without dangerous thoroughfares for the children to cross, and that they are sufficiently near to a public elementary school so that they can be escorted to and from school by their elder brothers and sisters who are attending the public elementary school. The Amendment is pretty clear.

Amendment moved— Page 6, after line 25, insert ("And in determining on the adequacy of the provision of such nursery schools the Board of Education shall have regard to the freedom from the payment of fees, and to the right of the parent to withdraw his child from any religious instruction or observance, and to the proximity of any such school to the home of the child and its accessibility without having to cross any crowded or dangerous thoroughfare, and to the convenience of the parent in securing to the child its conduct to and from the nursery school of elder children attending a public elementary school and to the obligation of the managers of such nursery school to receive any child from two to six, whom a parent may desire to send to it").—(Lord Sheffield.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I do not propose to argue with the noble Lord the virtue of these matters set forth in his Amendment. It is obvious that they are all matters which must be considered when you are providing nursery schools for children. May I say that our desire, in this provision of nursery schools, is that pre-eminently the wishes of parents should be considered, and we go so far as to give power to any ten parents in a district to request a public inquiry, in order to take into consideration all matters connected with the provision of nursery schools and the desirability of making this by-law. I submit all these are matters which parents of the children involved would necessarily bring forward at an inquiry, and I think, therefore, it would be better to leave them to be raised on that occasion than to insert them in the Bill.

LORD SHEFFIELD

My experience is that the poor parents in the crowded towns never take the initiative. They have not such knowledge of these affairs, nor the energy, and unless you make it the duty of the local authority, or the Board of Education, to see that these securities are provided they will often be neglected.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in subsection (5), after "authority" to insert "or in the case of a non-provided school, of the managers of such school." The noble Marquess said: This is a very interesting subsection of the clause which permits full time education up to the age of sixteen years in certain cases. The subsection is wholly voluntary in its character, and no local education authority, or any other body, is compelled to provide this education, and no child is compelled to avail itself of it. It is an oasis in the dreary waste of compulsion. I am not saying that education ought not to be compulsory, but it is very delightful to get back to a voluntary state of things.

This is a valuable provision, and I believe it is valuable in the case of every type of school; not merely schools provided by the local education authority itself. I am quite aware that, in the terms of the clause, the continuation of this full-time education up to the age of sixteen years might be permitted by a local education authority in the case of a non-provided school. But it might not, and that is the point I desire to press on the noble Earl. I said yesterday that there were local education authorities and local education authorities. Most of them, like nearly all English organisations, are thoroughly tolerant bodies; yet there are some which are not tolerant, and there are a few which are quite content to use their position in order to further their own sectarian or non-sectarian ends. We want to protect the children against a misuse of such intolerant power. It is quite possible that in cases where the non provided schools furnish education to a particular class of children, either on religious ground or other grounds, they might be restrained from availing themselves of this voluntary power—desired by the managers and by the children—by the intolerant behaviour of the local education authority.

I do not want to exaggerate my case. I believe it is quite possible, and, unless the noble Earl wishes me, I do not want to give the name of any intolerant local education authority. That would be invidious, and not a very useful proceeding on my part. The Amendment, therefore, suggests that the application to be allowed this full-time education should not lie only with the local education authority, but should also be in the hands of managers of non-provided schools. I cannot conceive of any objection that there can be to it. It appears to be not only reasonable, but very much called for by all the special circumstances which might arise.

What we are really frightened of in respect of this great Education Bill is the fixing upon the necks of the people of this country of a too professional and bureaucratic type of education. That is what is dangerous. What you want is to avoid any narrowness in education, any dropping into grooves. Such a thing, as I ventured to say yesterday, may lead to the most terrible results, and has done so in Germany, and, may I add, in Ireland. A large part of the difficulty in Ireland is the misuse of educational opportunities amongst the children of that country which has, as it were, poisoned the whole body politic. That might happen in a less degree of course in England, or it might happen in any country, and the great thing, therefore, is to maintain if you possibly can every conceivable type of education so long as it is good and efficient education. By that means you save the children from being ground into one shape which the professional teacher and educationist always wishes to do, and you also establish a spirit of competition and prevent schools from all becoming of one mould. You want to bring about a condition of things which makes it possible to preserve in every respect difference of type throughout the educational system. This is a small contribution, but still a contribution, to the maintenance of difference of type, and upon that ground, and also upon its essential reasonableness, I commend the Amendment to the consideration and I hope the support of His Majesty's Government.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 28, after ("authority") insert ("or in the case of a non-provided school of the managers of such school").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LORD GAINFORD

May I ask the noble Earl, before he replies, whether he will answer this question. I am all for latitude in connection with the exercise of this power. I would point out to the noble Earl that there is a danger in some of our industrial towns, if all the children leave school at the end of a particular term and go into the labour market together, of their not being able to find occupation at once. I want this point made clear, whether it is possible for the local education authorities to apply to the Board of Education for the children to be retained in some of the schools to the end of the school term, and others to be allowed to go out, or whether it is necessary for an education authority to apply to the Board of Education for a rigid arrangement in the case of all the schools within their area.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I think that I can reply to the last point by saying that subsection (5) which we are considering is really intended for certain special cases. At present, under the wording of the Act of 1902, not all children may remain at school until the end of the year in which their sixteenth birthday occurs. The effect of that Act is that certain children may be kept longer than others, and, according to the period in the year when their birthday falls, some have to leave earlier and some may remain later. An exemption from attending continuation schools is given under this Bill to all the young persons who have full time education up to the age of sixteen. The existing words of the Act of 1902 would, in fact, deprive a certain number of children from claiming that exemption from continuation schools. These words are put in to ensure that notwithstanding the words which govern school attendance in the Act of 1902 any young person may remain up to the age of sixteen, and thereby get the benefit, which is given to children and young persons in secondary schools, of exemption from continuation schools. That is the first and main purpose. It is true also that provision is made for continuation till a later age, and that really is only intended for some quite exceptional cases of children who develop late, and whom it is really better to educate in the higher classes of an elementary school than to pass them on to a secondary school. But it is intended to meet particular cases, and therefore each authority has the power to make this by-law apply to such cases, and will not be obliged to make a rigid application of it to the whole of the children in its neighbourhood. I think that answers the question.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I think that there are some branches of engineering in some localities which would find the power useful.

LORD SHEFFIELD

This clause has nothing whatever to do with by-laws; it is for children who wish to remain at school.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not think the noble Earl has finished his speech.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

May I deal now with the point of the noble Marquess. It is quite true that this is a voluntary arrangement. It is also true that in this world there are unreasonable and intolerant persons, and it is very difficult to provide by Act of Parliament against the exercise of intolerant qualities where they exist. I am not prepared to say that it would be impossible for any thoroughly intolerant and unreasonable local education authority to use this power in the way that the noble Marquess suggests, but I think myself that it is not only extremely unlikely, but that it is a contingency which we need not consider, because we are dealing here with purely secular matters. In order to prevent the possibility of anything of that kind occurring, the noble Marquess wishes to give to the managers a similar power of saying whether children shall remain after the age of sixteen.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

May remain. You cannot force them to remain.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Quite so. The noble Marquess wishes to give powers to managers to say whether children who have passed the age of fifteen may remain. There is an objection to doing that which I think would produce a greater danger of trouble and friction hereafter than that which the noble Marquess anticipates under the clause as it stands, and it is this. You would in that way be giving the managers of unprovided schools powers of dictating to and interfering with the local education authority in matters connected with the provision of secular education which are beyond their province.

What are the matters which an authority has to consider in applying this subsection? They have to consider whether it is desirable first of all in the interests of the children, in order to enable them to derive the full benefit of the education which they are obtaining in the school, and also to see whether this arrangement is possible without upsetting the organisation of secular education in the neighbourhood. These are essential functions of a local education authority, and if you were to give this power to the managers you would in fact extend the functions which the managers at present have. That would be resented by the local education authority, and would, I think, be much more likely to provoke an exercise of unreasonable and intolerant qualities than the present position. For those reasons I think there is a very real objection to accepting the Amendment of the noble Marquess, and I am afraid that I am unable to do so.

LORD SHEFFIELD

I think the noble Marquess is under an entirely visionary apprehension. I criticise the clause from another point of view. I think legally it is inadequate. I think the right of getting the benefit of elementary education under the age of sixteen ought to be a right of any parent on behalf of his child, and it ought not to depend on the willingness or unwillingness of a local education authority to apply. That is my criticism. It ought to be an obligation. But, at the same time, as the Act imposes an obligation on the local authority to give advanced education beyond the age of fourteen, practically the local education authority will find it very difficult not to take steps to provide this instruction.

But I am sorry to say I am afraid from my experience of England that it will be many years before you will have any large number of children whose parents will wish to keep them at school up to sixteen. You will not have as large a percentage as you have in Scotland. These schools will be very much what is known in Scotland as higher grade schools. In Scotland nobody supposes that every school can be made a higher grade school. You select schools which by their premises, or their geographical position, or the type of children, are fit for that purpose. I do not suppose that in Liverpool or Manchester you could hope to have more than ten or fifteen of these schools keeping the children up to sixteen. I should like to think that fifteen years hence there may be more, but I am quite sure that the clientèle who would come to these schools now would be amply provided for by a few schools. These schools will require expensive equipment. No doubt the Board of Education will look for those things. They will look for a good centre for housewifery, a good centre for manual training and they would be very glad to see a laboratory. And, although I hope they will not be too exacting at first in what they require structurally, yet I hope they will require the best equipment that we have now in our most modern elementary schools.

I suppose what the noble Marquess meant by his Amendment was not only that the manager of the non-council schools should be able to make the demand that their children should have this advanced instruction, but I think what underlay his speech was that they should claim that that instruction should be given in the schools that the children were already at- tending. I should be very glad if the managers of provided schools could also have a claim, but it is one thing to say that any one may claim to go on to sixteen, and another to say what shall be the schools in which this instruction shall be given. At most you will probably only have one-tenth of your schools suitable in equipment or capable of being made suitable. As a rule provided schools are better suited structurally for the purpose. They have more spacious playgrounds, and would be more easily adapted to advanced instruction. But I feel pretty sure that if non-provided schools were suitable, by their position and by their equipment, they would be fairly considered with the others.

The difficulty arises when you come to the rural districts. The population is sparse. I do not suppose the noble Marquess would think that a village can claim that it should have one of these schools It would be very difficult for a county authority to select schools, and it will be long before they can do it adequately. I think this is one of those matters that should be left to practical administration, owing to these facts, that these schools will be quite few and that they will have to be selected mainly because they are geographically and structurally suitable; and any idea that the managers of any one school could demand that their school should be picked out would be quite hopeless.

LORD PARMOOR

I regret very much that the noble Earl could not accept the Amendment. I very much hope that the noble Marquess will carry his Amendment to a division. One of the matters which has been very carefully regarded in this Bill—and I have myself been through the whole Bill from that point of view, and had an interview with the Education Department about it—is that we should not have the religious difficulty introduced in the discussions upon it. And it was said that, in order to prevent the religious difficulty coming into our discussions, you must provide that all schools should have equality of treatment, that is to say, that the non-provided schools should not in any respect be placed in a worse position than they are now as regards the provided schools. That has been laid down more than once, and I know it has been laid down by the Board of Education itself, as the fundamental principle on which this Bill is founded. Because it has been assumed that it has not been necessary to discuss the ordinary question as between denominational and undenominational education, as was said by the most rev. Primate on the Second Reading.

The object of the noble Marquess is to make sure that that equality is maintained. I think that is the whole object of his Amendment. It is necessary, having regard to the differences of human nature, that a provision of this kind should be inserted. I am not prepared myself to trust to what is called the reasonableness of mankind when questions involving religions teaching come to the front. Under subsection (5) as it stands the Board of Education have power on the application of the local education authority, to authorise the instruction of children in public elementary schools till the end of the school term in which they reach the age of sixteen. What the noble Marquess desires is to make quite sure that that privilege is accorded to non-provided schools as well as to provided schools, and that if, as we know in one or two cases, the local education authority is inclined to differentiate between provided and non-provided schools to the disadvantage of the non-provided schools, that should not be possible as regards a new power of this kind.

I assume that the noble Earl desires just as Lord Sheffield does that full advantage should be taken of this provision. It is a provision for the benefit of further education under certain specified conditions. If that is so, why should the manager of a non-provided school not have the possibility of bringing his case to the notice of the Board of Education—that is the whole question. I should not object to the managers of the provided schools having the same power. I do not know whether it has been asked for, but I am sure the noble Marquess would not have the slightest objection. The objection is not on that ground at all. The demand is that the managers of the non-provided schools should be put in a position of equality as regards a matter of this kind, because I am sure your Lordships will recognise that, directly you get inequality in any respect between a provided and a non-provided school to the disadvantage of the latter, that school must suffer. In fact, it ought to suffer; because it becomes less efficient as regards its machinery and outlook in respect of educational efficiency.

I sincerely hope that the noble Earl will see the importance of insuring absolute equality in a matter of this sort. If there is a Division on the Amendment I shall certainly support the views of the noble Marquess; because I think it is of the essence of this Bill, and of the progressive education which is suggested, that there should be no possibility of friction upon a point of this kind.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

There is no question here about equality or inequality as between provided schools and non-provided schools.

LORD PARMOOR

Practically.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon. That is not the point at issue. The point at issue is not between a provided school and a non-provided school, it is a question between managers and the local education authorities. There is nothing in this clause which says that a child shall remain beyond the age of fifteen in a provided school but not in a non-provided school. The only point we are discussing is whether you should give to the managers as well as to the local education authority a voice in the management which is not at the present moment within the sphere of the managers' functions.

I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord that the whole understanding upon which this Bill has been introduced is that we should not in any way prejudice the settlement of the Act of 1902 which affects denominational matters. This clause does nothing to upset that arrangement; but if the Amendment of the noble Marquess were carried it would be a direct infringement of the existing state of affairs on that matter; because under the act of 1902 it is the local education authority, and the local education authority alone, who can apply for an extension of school age; and that is what we are considering at this moment. That is not a matter which in any way comes within the functions of a manager to a school, whether provided or non-provided. If you are going to depart from that arrangement and to say that the managers shall have a right to interfere in a matter which, under the Act of 1902, is exclusively reserved to the local education authority, you will be upsetting the compromise under that Act; and I think it will be a very evil day for those who wish to keep religious controversy out of this Bill and educational matters if this bone of contention is introduced, and if an Amendment were carried which would really upset the existing arrangements as between managers and local authorities.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If I may say so with respect, I think the analogy made by my noble friend is deceptive. It may be very likely—although I have not refreshed my memory—upon the general question of what the school leaving age should be in a particular area, that the local education authority under the Act of 1902 is the authority which has to decide it. That may or may not be so. I will not go into the question, or into the merits of the question. But this is not that point. It is not a question of the school leaving age of the children of an area, but a question of the school leaving age of special children who go to a particular school—a totally different matter.

The noble Earl said in his first speech on this Amendment that it was not intended to apply universally to any area but to particular schools to which it might be suitable. He will see that the analogy entirely breaks down. It is not an act of general administration applicable alike to the whole area, but singling out a particular class for particular treatment, and, it may be, for particular favour. That is the point. I will give my noble friend a concrete instance. There might be in an area a local education authority hostile to a certain class of opinion. There are such cases. There might be energetic managers, full of educational zeal, who have certain schools in their care, and who are anxious not only that the children belonging, let us say, to their faith should have an ordinary elementary education, but that in certain cases with regard to a particular department or school it should be allowed to be prolonged up to the age of sixteen. Why should they be at the mercy of the hostile local education authority? That is what they would be if this clause passes without the Amendment.

I need not tell your Lordships that I do not want to speak in an aggressive manner; and I think that you will do me the justice of acknowledging that in the first speech I made I was scrupulously anxious to avoid anything of a polemical nature on the religious controversy. But the religious controversy always lies behind, and for a good reason—namely, that it is by far the most important part of education fundamentally, when all is said and done. The only safe road for the State is to avoid any chance of the exercise of intolerance by misguided people. Provided only that we see that efficient secular education is given, we ought to deal out scrupulous fairness and justice as between the provided and the non-provided schools. Therefore in the cases which I contemplate of a hostile local education authority, it is only fair that the non-provided managers should have access to the Board of Education, and that their particular interests should be considered. It is in the interests of education and of religious peace that I shall ask your Lordships to support me in this Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I sincerely hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will not be affected by the arguments we have just heard from the noble Marquess behind me. He has instanced a possible case of what he describes as a hostile local authority so intolerant that, even where it is to the educational advantage of children that, in a certain school which happens to be non-provided, arrangements should be made for the retention of some to the age of sixteen or even over, the local authority in its hostility to religious teaching would refuse to set the claims of certain schools before the Board of Education. I leave out the possibility of the managers of such a maltreated school bringing by some indirect means their grievances before the Board of Education, though as a matter of fact, that would undoubtedly happen.

But I would ask your Lordships to consider the converse case. What would be regarded as a breach of the truce on the denominational question, which this Bill desires to maintain, would be the retention, at the instance of the managers of a school, for this purpose of advanced elementary education, not on educational grounds but on religious grounds, it being desired to keep a certain number of boys and girls—very laudably no doubt—under particular religious influences. That would be, a departure from the rule, which goes back, as my noble friend has pointed out, to 1902, that the continuation of education on educational grounds is a matter for the local authority. The Amendment of the noble Marquess would introduce an entirely new principle into the working of the Education Acts as they are. I trust, therefore, that the noble Earl will continue to oppose it.

LORD MORRIS

I rise merely for the purpose of entirely supporting the Amendment introduced by the noble Marquess. In the first place, I cannot for the life of me understand how it can be a violation in any way of any arrangement made in 1902, or at any other time. If your Lordships will read the words of the Amendment into the section it does not affirm any new principle or amend in any way the Bill that we are considering. The section which it proposes to amend at present reads— Notwithstanding anything in the Education Acts the Board of Education may, on the application of the local education authority, authorise the instruction of children— The noble Marquess proposes that, in addition, in the case of non-provided schools the managers of such schools may also bring this matter to the notice of the education authorities. The Amendment does not say that they have got to do it, or that if they do it anything will follow, but it merely authorises them to do something—in other words an act of courtesy, really, if that courtesy is invoked, and nothing more. Now I have no idea what class of schools—or where they are situate—is in the mind of the noble Marquess, but merely looking at it as an ordinary outsider and with the same desire as he has of reserving complete toleration in dealing with a subject like this, I wish to give his Amendment my heartiest support.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

I gather from the speech of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, though it does not appear on the face of the clause, that it will be possible for the local education authority to make this application and in this way move the Board of Education in respect of particular schools in its area, and leave out of the application other schools in the area.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I dealt with particular children and not with particular schools.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

That is even less apparent on the face of the clause, and therefore it seems to me that whereas on the one hand it is open to any noble Lord to accuse the noble Marquess of having supposed that the local education authority was was either so supine that it would never make any application at all, or so malevolent that it would make application in respect of some schools and some children and malevolently leave others out, that supposition is not a bit more extreme than the contrary supposition made by Lord Crewe that the managers of non-provided schools would never make application except for the insincere purpose of keeping children under certain kinds of denominational education.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I never said anything of the kind. The noble Lord has misrepresented what I said. What I said was that very naturally, and if you like laudably, the managers of certain non-provided schools would desire to keep their children at school as long as possible, giving them no doubt a good education, but keeping them under particular influences. I certainly never said that that was the only purpose in their mind.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

It would be a case in which the supposition would no doubt be made that religious motives prevailed over educational motives, and it seems to me that the true remedy is to give this power of initiation to the managers in all cases. That was the proposal of Lord Sheffield, whose speech was really a speech in favour of this Amendment.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

I hope the noble Earl will reconsider what he has said on this matter. I was unfortunately detained elsewhere when he spoke first, but as far as I understand this Amendment has been objected to on the ground that it is the business entirely of the local education authority to arrange for the instruction of children in the area, and that the managers of individual schools must not interfere with that discretion on the part of the local education authority. I entirely separate myself from any wish to distinguish in this matter between provided and non-provided schools, but I contend that the managers of any school ought to have a right to approach the Education Board in London to secure that children in their schools shall not-withstanding some obstruction on the part of the local education authority be allowed to remain there longer. I do not think the denominational question need come in at all, because I draw no distinction between the two classes of schools. What I am quite clear about is that there are schools in which the desire of the mangers is keen for the continuance for particular children, of an education which the local education authority may not be willing to provide, and we want some authority beyond the local education authority which shall justify the managers.

LORD SHEFFIELD

May I say a word in continuation? There are two entirely different things, there is the right of any child in a school district to ask for the opportunity for further education up to the age of sixteen. I think that right ought not to depend upon the good-will of the local authority. Of course if you enable the managers of any school to initiate a demand for that right, so far I think it is a good thing and not a bad thing, but the managers should not apply only for the children of their own schools. It would be a ridiculous thing if there was only advanced education for particular children in a particular school in the district, and I should like to amend the Bill so that it should read:— Notwithstanding anything in the Education Acts, the Board of Education shall authorise the instruction of children in public elementary schools. If, as my noble friend on the left interpreted it, this is merely the initiation of a demand for advanced education for the entire pupils, that would be all right, but it is quite another thing to say, which I think the noble Marquess really implies, that it is to be the right of the managers of particular schools to demand for pupils in their schools this advanced education up to sixteen in their schools. There must be a grouping in centres. Scotland, which is more advanced than we are, has found the absolute necessity of grouping. To impose upon the local authority the duty of providing teachers and organising classes for mere handfuls of children in particular schools which were quite inadequate would be asking for what would not improve but hamper education.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

The observations of the most rev. Primate extend the importance of this matter very far indeed. Lord Salisbury only suggests that this innovation should take place in respect of non-provided schools. The Lord Archbishop—true, without moving an Amendment—very clearly indicated that he wishes the right to extend it to all managers of schools, whether provided or non-provided. That widens the issue very much indeed. At least I see one advantage in the most rev. Primate's proposal which does not lie in that of my noble friend opposite. The most rev. Primate puts all managers on terms of equality one with another.

But we must take the Amendment as we find it. I must say that I regret what I am afraid is the general view of your Lordships—that this Amendment should be inserted. Managers have certain well-defined functions—the provision of schools, a certain control over teachers, and other duties with which we are familiar—but this duty does not happen to come within their functions. Lord Salisbury is proposing that those who are managers of non-provided schools shall enjoy privileges, or I will say should exercise duties, which are not to be exercised by managers of the other schools. At the present moment such applications only pass through the local education authority for everybody. The noble Marquess says that these schools are at the mercy of the local education authority, and that this is going to raise religious difficulties. Of course, this is only dealing with secular matters, and I really fail to see why religious difficulties should arise at all, unless in a very oblique and paradoxical way. No question of religious instruction could, or in point of fact does, arise here.

If Lord Salisbury is successful in allowing the manager of the non-provided school to appeal, not, like the managers of the provided school round the corner, through the local education authority, but direct to the central authority in London, can anything be more likely to provoke conflict between that local education authority and that group of managers? Lord Salisbury asks us that, in a secular matter of this kind, the managers shall be entitled to ignore the existence of the local education authority. These managers are not prevented from making representations, but in the ordinary procedure they pass through the local education authority.

Now he says they are entitled to ignore the local education authority and take their case direct to London. I do not suppose that London wants to deal with these individual cases, which may only refer to a very small fraction of scholars, perhaps in very small schools. These are things which, if possible, should be kept out of the area of Whitehall. I am much more con- cerned with the ultimate results of putting in an Amendment of this kind than with the palpable inconvenience that will arise under the Amendment itself. Will anybody say it is going to contribute to educational and to religious peace that the managers of non-provided schools shall be placed at an advantage and in superiority over managers of other schools, and that they shall have direct access to London to put their local cases?

Again, supposing it were passed, and these managers took their cases to London and established that their cases were good, and that the local education authority was wrong, that is going to create considerable difficulty and confusion in the authority exercised by the local body over all these questions of secular education. But what is really serious is that you are conferring, or trying to confer, rights upon managers of non-provided schools which are going to add a new element to the dangers of friction which already exist. I should regret the establishment of this new right. If relations between these managers and the local education authority are already strained, they will be still more embittered if you pass the Amendment, and in the interests of the non-provided schools I shall certainly vote against my noble friend's Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

So far as I am concerned I shall have no objection to extending the right to other managers, either at this time or at a subsequent stage of the Bill, if the Government wish it. Although I say that quite frankly, I ought to say also that everybody knows that the managers of non-provided schools are not in the same position as managers of provided schools, who are the mere nominees of the local education authority. Although I should be very glad that they should have the power if the, Government wish it, that is not the same thing. The managers of non-provided schools represent, to a large extent, a difference of view and aspect to that of the local education authority.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I did not commend the suggestion made by the most rev. Primate. I merely pointed out that it had a symmetrical value which that of my noble friend had not. I do not mean to convey that we can accept either the Amendment of the noble Marquess or that of the most rev. Primate.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

If this question came up again at a subsequent stage with the right extended to managers of all schools do the Government now say that it must definitely be opposed, or are they prepared to consider it at a later stage?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I do not think the most rev. Primate was here when the subject was first raised, and I want the House to consider out of what this has arisen. The clause, as it stands, is merely a modification of Clause 22 of the Education Act of 1902. That clause says that the power to provide instruction under the Elementary Education Acts shall be limited to the provision in a public elementary school of instruction given under the Regulations of the Board of Education to scholars who, at the close of the school year, will not be more than sixteen years of age. As I pointed out the effect of the clause is that some young persons are unable to remain at an elementary school till they are actually sixteen. They will, therefore, be debarred from obtaining the right of exemption from a continuation school, and it was considered that it was really unfair that a young person at an elementary school, who is obliged to leave just before he is sixteen, should not get that exemption which a young person in a secondary school, who does remain till he is sixteen, would get.

It was simply for that purpose, that, either in Committee or on Report in the House of Commons, this clause was introduced into the Bill. The noble Marquess has asked your Lordships to take this subsection, which is introduced for that small purpose, and to graft upon it an Amendment which would give the managers of schools, both provided and non-provided, powers to inter-

fere in a matter in which they have at present no locus standi at all. That would be to challenge controversy. That would be to raise immediately the position of all local education authorities, and if it were used in an unreasonable way—we must remember that there are unreasonable and intolerant people amongst school managers as well as local education authorities—it might paralyse the whole provision for education which the local authority has to make, You would be giving, by the Amendment, the right to go to the Board of Education and make representations to them on matters which solely concern the education authority That is a very big change you are proposing to make in place of the small change which the Bill deals with.

LORD PHILLIMORE

I would venture to suggest that there is a natural preference on the part of the local educational authority for its own provided school, and that there are cases in which there is the danger of the non-provided school not getting fair attention. On the other hand one cannot but appreciate that to give power to all managers to go behind the local education authority, and apply to the Board of Education, would be both somewhat unseemly and inconvenient. I venture to suggest that if some words were put into this clause upon Report binding the local education authority to give fair attention to the claims of the managers of the non-provided schools it would meet the case.

On Question, whether the words proposed to be inserted shall stand part of the clause:—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 46.

CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Abp.	Chaplin, V.	Lambourne, L.
	Churchill, V.	Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Argyll, D.		Morris, L.
Newcastle, D.	Atkinson, L.	Parmoor, L. [Teller.]
Salisbury, M. [Teller.]	Balfour, L.	Phillimore, L.
	Beresford of Metemmeh, L.	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Halsbury, E.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)	Stuart of Wortley, L.
Jersey, E.	Burnham, L.	Sumner, L.
Nelson, E.	Colchester, L.	Sydenham, L.
Selborne, E.	Harris, L.	Willoughby de Broke, L.
Verulam, E.	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
NOT-CONTENTS.
Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Haldane, V.	Hylton, L.
Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.)	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Inchcape, L.
		Islington, L.
	Peel, V.	Kenyon, L.
Crewe, M.	St. Davids, V.	Pontypridd, L.
Lansdowne, M.		Queenborough, L.
	Annesley, L.	Ranksborough, L.
Chesterfield, E.	Avebury, L.	Rotherham, L.
Eldon, E.	Braye, L.	Rothschild, L.
Howe, E.	Carmichael, L.	Sanderson, L.
Lucan, E.	Cawley, L.	Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Lytton, E.	Clinton, L.	Stanley of Alderley, (L. Sheffield.)
Stanhope, E.	Colebrooke, L.
Strafford, E.	Elphinstone, L.	Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
	Emmott, L.	Strachie, L.
Farquhar, V.(L. Steward.)	Faringdon, L.	Sudeley, L.
Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)	Gainford, L.	Tenterdon, L.
	Gorell, L.	Wittenham, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHEFFIELD moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "children," and to insert "pupils." The noble Lord said: The noble Earl in charge of the Bill will recollect that I called his attention to what I thought was a contradiction between the intentions of the Government and the words of the clause, which defines a child as "a person under a legal obligation to attend school"; and I move the insertion of the word "pupils" instead of the word "children." I may say that I do not think this is the best place to put it in, and the noble Earl will see that I have a similar Amendment lower down. I understand that the Board of Education have been looking into the point, and if the noble Earl tells me that I have discovered a mare's nest I stall be very glad.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 28, leave out ("children") and inert ("pupils").—(Lord Sheffield.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I can give the noble Lord the assurance that he ticked for. Although the word "pupil" might have the same Meaning and get rid of the difficulty presented by the noble Lord, I am told that there is a disadvantage in introducing in one particular place in an Act of Parliament a word which does not occur in other Acts. Perhaps this would be a convenient moment to point out to the noble Lord why the confusion which he mentioned on the Second Reading does not arise. The reason will be found in the definition clause at the end of the Bill—Clause 47. That clause has these words unless the context otherwise requires." Those words govern all the definitions which follow.

LORD SHEFFIELD

Then I withdraw my Amendment, and will not raise the other one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The next Amendment is due to the insertion in Clause 2 of a new paragraph. It is an arrangement to which the Board are to have regard under a proviso in subsection (5) of Clause 8.

Amendment moved— Page 6 line 34, after ("under") insert ("paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection (1) of").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

LORD SHEFFIELD moved to insert, at the end of subsection (7), the words and such by-laws may prescribe different distances for children and for young persons of various ages." The noble Lord said: I do not know whether the noble Earl had ever thought of this. It is an Amendment which I think it would be very convenient to have, but if the Government do not wish to accept it I shall not press it. It is quite obvious, especially in rural districts where you would have to have central schools, that this would be quite reasonable. It seems to me reasonable to determine both in rural districts and in towns the different distances for older and for younger children.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 18, at end insert ("and such by-laws may prescribe different distances for children and for young persons of various ages").—(Lord Sheffield.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I agree with the noble Lord; but I am told that under the Act of 1870, Section 74, full power is given to prescribe for any class of child, or for a child of any age, what is the maximum distance that it should be required to go to school, and in fact in the county of Hampshire different limits are now imposed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SHEFFIELD moved to insert at the end of subsection (8) the words "Provided that in the case of deaf children the obligation to attend school shall, as in the case of blind children, commence at five years of age." The noble Lord said: This is a different point altogether. It is generally agreed—I think the Government are agreed—that it is very important that these deaf children should be contributed for by guardians and by councils, and be able to attend at five years of age. I will not repeat the arguments that I urged on the Second Reading, but move my Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 23, at end insert ("provided that in the case of deaf children the obligation to attend school shall as in the case of blind children commence at five years of age").—(Lord Sheffield.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I listened with great interest to the remarks which the noble Lord made on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I very much hoped that it might have been possible for me to put down the words to which he referred. I have, however, discussed the matter with the authorities of the Board of Education, and I am told there are difficulties in the way of doing what the noble Lord wishes. Perhaps I may be allowed to state them shortly. In the first place, to change the age at which deaf children are to attend school would impose a new obligation upon the persons who are responsible for providing the education. With regard to all other provisions of this Bill, ample opportunity has been afforded to bring them to the notice of all persons who may be affected by them, and it is felt that this is a late stage in the Bill to place a new obligation upon these authorities without further opportunity of giving publicity to the matter.

Again, I am told that it is extremely doubtful whether if this Amendment were adopted the limit of age at five could, in fact, be enforced. At the present moment there are 3,500 children at the schools for the deaf, and statistics show that the existing attendance of deaf children is different from the existing legal limit. I mean the present law of attendance at seven years is not observed. Though the age at present is fixed at seven, many of these deaf children do not in fact attend the schools provided for them until they are nine. This may be explained by the extreme reluctance of the parents of these children to part with them at an early age. The majority of the deaf children have to be educated at boarding schools and parents are reluctant to send their children who are suffering from this affliction through the streets to day schools or to part with them altogether at so early an age as even seven years. Therefore those who have advised me at the Board of Education feel that it would be much better to get a better observance of the existing law before we change it and reduce the age of attendance from seven to five.

The Board of Education entirely agree with the noble Lord as to the advantage to be derived by the children in beginning their education at the earliest possible age, and they assure me that they will do everything in their power to educate public opinion up to that point. At present they do make grants to deaf children in the schools from the age of five years, and they are even prepared to consider making grants for children at a still earlier age. They hope to exercise their influence to bring public opinion up to the point advocated by the noble Lord, but in view of the non-observance of the existing law at seven, and the great reluctance of parents to have the age still further reduced, they feel that it would be a mistake at this moment to make an alteration.

LORD SHEFFIELD

May I say that I think the state of things to which the noble Earl has referred is very largely owing to the non-activity, to use a mild word, of the local authorities in rural districts who, for every deaf child that they send to a residential school, have to pay about £30 a year. Therefore these local authorities very often evade their obligation unless they are practically, compelled to fulfil it. But there are authorities which are now voluntarily paying for children at five. I am connected with the Old Trafford school near Manchester—one of the largest schools in the country—which has an admirable infant school to which the parents are willing to send their children with the greatest advantage to the children themselves. It is much better to have these children to teach at an early age for then they are most impressionable, and can be taught things which it is difficult for them to learn afterwards. I think the burden upon any particular authority by reducing the age from seven to five would be trifling, and I do not think that the Board of Education need be timid about consenting to it. I sent a memorandum to the Board of Education which no doubt the noble Earl has seen. I think also that the medical officer of the Board of Education himself two or three years ago made a strong recommendation in the direction which I now advocate. I am sorry if I cannot get any help from the Board and from the Government. I shall not take the trouble of dividing, but shall be content to have my Amendment negatived.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Provisions for avoidance of broken school terms.

9.—(1) If a child who is attending or is about to attend a public elementary school or a school certified by the Board of Education under the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Acts, 1893, or the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Acts, 1899 to 1914, attains any year of ago dining the school term, the child shall not, for the purpose of any enactment or by-law, whether made before or after the passing of this Act, relating to school attendance, be deemed to have attained that year of age until the end of the term.

(2) The local education authority for the purposes of Part III. of the Education Act, 1902, may make regulations with the approval of the Board of Education providing that a child may, in such cases as are prescribed by the regulations, be refused admission to a public elementary school or such certified school as aforesaid except at the commencement of a school term.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a school term shall be deemed to be the term as fixed by the local education authority.

THE EARL OF LYTTON moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to transfer the definition of "school term" from this clause to the general definition clause at the end of the Bill. The definition of school term was originally contained in Clause 9 because that was the only place in the Bill in which reference to school term occurred. But a reference to the school term has now been inserted in Clause 8, page 6, line 29, with the result that it is necessary to remove the definition from Clause 9 and make it a general definition in Clause 47. Your Lordships will observe that an Amendment is on the Paper to insert the definition at that place,

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 40, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Lytton.)

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10:

Compulsory attendance at continuation schools.

10.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, all young persons shall attend such continuation schools at such times, on such days, as the local education authority of the area in which they reside may require, for three hundred and twenty hours in each year, distributed as regards times and seasons as may best suit the circumstances of each locality, or, in the case of a period of less than a year, for such number of hours distributed as aforesaid as the local education authority, having regard to all the circumstances, consider reasonable:

Provided that—

1. (a) the obligation to attend continuation schools shall not within a period of seven years from the appointed day on which the provisions of this section come into force, apply to young persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, nor after that period to any young person who has attained the age of sixteen before the expiration of that period and
2. (b) during the like period, if the local education authority so resolve, the number of hours for which a young person may be required to attend continuation schools in any year shall be two hundred and eighty instead of three hundred and twenty.

(2) Any young person—

1. (i) who is above the age of fourteen years on the appointed day, or
2. (ii) who has satisfactorily completed a course of training for, and is engaged in, the sea service, in accordance with the provisions of any national scheme which may hereafter be established, by Order in Council or otherwise, with the object of maintaining an adequate supply of well-trained British seamen, and, pending the establishment of such scheme, in accordance with the provisions of any interim scheme approved by the Board of Education, or
3. (iii) who is above the age of sixteen years and either—
1. (a) has passed the matriculation examination of a university of the United Kingdom or an examination recognised by the Board of Education for the purposes of this section as equivalent thereto, or
299
2. (b) is shown to the satisfaction of the local education authority to have been up to the age of sixteen under full-time instruction in a school recognised by the Board of Education as efficient or under suitable and efficient full-time instruction in some other manner,

shall be exempt from the obligation to attend continuation schools under this Act unless he has informed the authority in writing of his desire to attend such schools and the authority have prescribed what school he shall attend.

(3) The obligation to attend continuation schools under this Act shall not apply to any young person—

1. (i) who is shown to the satisfaction of the local education authority to be under full-time instruction in a school recognised by the Board of Education as efficient or to be under suitable and efficient full-time instruction in some other manner, or
2. (ii) who is shown to the satisfaction of the local education authority to be under suitable and efficient part-time instruction in some other manner for a number of hours in the year (being hours during which if not exempted he might be required to attend continuation schools) equal to the number of hours during which a young person is required under this Act to attend a continuation school.

(4) Where a school supplying secondary education is inspected by a British university, or in Wales or Monmouthshire by the Central Welsh Board, under regulations made by the inspecting body after consultation with the Board of Education, and the inspecting body reports to the Board of Education that the school makes satisfactory provision for the education of the scholars, a young person who is attending, or has attended, such a school shall for the purposes of this section be treated as if he were attending, or had attended, a school recognised by the Board of Education as efficient.

(5) If a young person who is or has been in any school or educational institution, or the parent of any such young person, represents to the Board that the young person is entitled to exemption under the provisions of this section, or that the obligation imposed by this section does not apply to him, by reason that he is or has been under suitable and efficient instruction, but that, the local education authority have unreasonably refused to accept the instruction as satisfactory, the Board of Education shall consider the representation, and, if satisfied that the representation is well founded, shall make an order declaring that the young person is exempt from the obligation to attend a continuation school under this Act for such period and subject to such conditions as may be named in the order:

Provided that the Board of Education may refuse to consider any such representation unless the local education authority or the Board of Education are enabled to inspect the school or educational institution in which the instruction is or has been given.

(6) The local education authority may require in the case of any young person who is under an obligation to attend a continuation school that his employment shall be suspended on any day when his attendance is required, not only during the period for which he is required to attend the school, but also for such other specified part of the day, not exceeding two hours, as the authority consider necessary in order to secure that he may be in a fit mental and bodily condition to receive full benefit from attendance at the school: Provided that, if any question arises between the heal education authority and the employer of a young person whether a requirement made under this subsection is reasonable for the purposes aforesaid, that question shad be determined by the Board of Education, and, if the Board of Education determine that the requirement is unreasonable, they may substitute such other requirement as they think reasonable.

(7) The local education authority shall not require any young person to attend a continuation school on a Sunday, or on any day or part of a day exclusively sot apart for religious observance by the religious body to which he belongs, or during any holiday or half-holiday to which by any enactment regulating his employment or by agreement he is entitled, nor so far as practicable during any holiday or half-holiday which in his employment he is accustomed to enjoy, nor between the hours of seven in the evening and eight in the morning: Provided that the local education authority may, with the approval of the Board, vary those hours in the case of young persons employed at night or otherwise employed at abnormal times.

(8) A local education authority shall not, without the consent of a young person, require him to attend any continuation school held at or in connection with the place of his employment. The consent given by a young person for the purpose of this provision may be withdrawn by one month's notice in writing sent to the employer and to the local education authority.

Any school attended by a young person at or in connection with the place of his employment shall be open to inspection either by the local education authority or by the Board of Education at the option of the person or persons responsible for the management of the school.

(9)In considering what continuation school a young person shall be required to attend a local education authority shall have regard, as far as practicable, to any preference which a young person or the parent of a young person under the age of sixteen may express, and if a young person or the parent of a young person under the age of sixteen represents in writing to the local education authority that he objects to any part of the instruction given in the continuation school which the young person is required to attend, on the ground that it is contrary or offensive to his religious belief, the obligation under this Act to attend that school for the purpose of such instruction shall not apply to him, and the local education authority shall, if practicable, arrange for him to attend some other instruction in lieu thereof or some other school.

LORD SHEFFIELD moved, at the end of sub-section (1) (b), to insert "The cost of the provision and maintenance of continuation schools shall be borne by the local education authority having the control and management of them." The noble Lord said; As your Lordships may remember, on the Second Reading I mentioned the hardship of putting these continuation schools under the authority of the whole county (because it does not apply to boroughs) whereas they are so much more closely connected with the immediate education of those who have previously been under compulsion. I think it is very important that if these schools are treated as part of secondary education and the whole control of them rests in the secondary authority the cost should be borne by the people who have the management. Therefore I think it is very undesirable and very inconvenient that the county should have the power to define for each separate area where there are continuation schools that it will make a local rate for that area for the erection of any buildings required for the continuation schools. I think it would also be very hard to make a district rate because these things are for the county as a whole, and they ought not to be borne by the secondary authorities, but by the whole area.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 24, at end insert ("The cost of the provision and maintenance of continuation schools shall be borne by the local education authority having the control and management of them").—(Lord Sheffield.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I think this Amendment is really out of place at this point, because Clause 10 deals with compulsory continuation schools.

LORD SHEFFIELD

Will you tell me where it will come in, and we might anticipate the discussion now?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The effect of this Amendment would be to rule out altogether the provision of continuation schools by a voluntary body. It is certainly contemplated in this Bill that continuation schools should be provided by voluntary bodies—

LORD SHEFFIELD

At their own expense?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

—and that, provided they meet the conditions laid down in the Bill, and the local education authority is willing, they should be maintained by the authority. But if we were to insert the words of the noble Lord we should prevent the establishment of a voluntary continuation school by insisting that the whole cost should be paid by the local education authority. That would be directly contrary to the policy of the Bill, which is to encourage the provision or, at any rate, to allow the provision of continuation schools by a voluntary body. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD SHEFFIELD

Of course, that objection could be easily met by modifying the Amendment, and saying, "The cost of the provision and maintenance of such schools provided by the local authority shall," etc. The whole point is, Shall the burden be borne by the county as a whole or by various sub-areas?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

In any case, it would be using words which are not the words of the Bill. The noble Lord would be talking of "control and management," and the words of the Bill are "under their direction." However, I am unable to realise exactly what the effect of that would be, and I will consider it between now and Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The next amendment is merely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 34, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

LORD SYDENHAM

I have an Amendment down which is intended to make perfectly clear the question of sexes. The cleause begins "Subject as hereinafter provided, all young persons." Does "all young persons" mean male and female persons, or does it not? It it does mean both, I do not understand why in subsection (8) we come across the word "him" and "his." There is some little ambiguity.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I think the words of the noble Lord's Amendment are unnecessary, because by the interpretation Act of 1899, unless a contrary intention appears, words importing the masculine gender include the female.

LORD SHEFFIELD moved in subsection (9), after "to any preference which a young person," to insert "if over the age of sixteen." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. I believe I am bringing out the intention of the Government. It is quite clear that what was intended was that when the young person is over sixteen the young person himself should have the right to express the preference and that if he is under sixteen the parent should have the right. It is really a matter of grammer.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 17, after the first ("person") insert ("if over the age of sixteen").—(Lord Sheffield.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

No, it is not a question of drafting. There is a change of substance. As the Bill stands the permission to express preference is given to the young person whether above or below the age of sixteen. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be that a young person above sixteen would be allowed to express his preference, but if he was below the age of sixteen he would not have that power. I am in the hands of the House, about this matter. It is not one of great substance, but I would desire to preserve for the young person under sixteen, even though you do give to his parents an equal right to make representations, the power to make himself heard. Of course, it is clearly right in the case of a young person under sixteen that the parent's wishes with regard to his further education should be expressed. But there may be cases in which a parent may desire that his child's further education should be of a distinctly vocational character, and the young person himself might desire that his education should be different. It is for the Board to decide, but I do think it is desirable to retain the right of the young person to make representation, even though you do give a similar right to the parents.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11:

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I have a drafting Amendment to insert in this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 41, after ("another") insert ("young").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13:

Amendment of 3 Edw. 7. c. 45. & 4 Edw. 7. c. 15.

13.—(1) The Employment of Children Act, 1903, so far as it relates to England and Wales, shall be amended as follows:—

(i) For subsection (1) of section three the following subsection shall be substituted:— A child under the age of twelve shall not be employed; and a child of the age of twelve or upwards shall not be employed on any day on which he is required to attend school before the close of school hours on that day, nor on any day before six o'clock in the morning or after eight o'clock in the evening: Provided that a local authority may make a bye-law permitting, with respect to such occupations as may be specified, and subject to such conditions as may be necessary to safeguard the interests of the children, the employment of children by their parents, but so that any such employment on a school day before nine in the morning shall be limited to one hour, and that if a child is so employed before nine in the morning he shall not be employed for more than one hour in the afternoon.

(ii) In subsection (2) of section three, which prohibits the employment of a child under the ago of eleven years in street trailing, the words "under the age of eleven years" shall be repealed:

(iii) For section twelve the following section shall be substituted:— Except as regards the City of London, the powers and duties of a local authority under this Act shall be deemed to be powers and duties under Part III of the Education Act, 1902, and the provisions of the Education Acts for the time being in force with regard to those powers and duties and as to the manner in which the expenses of an authority under that Part of that Act shall be paid shall apply accordingly:

(iv)For the definition of the expression "local authority" there shall be substituted the following definition:— The expression "local authority" means in the case of the City of London the mayor, aldermen, and commons of that city in common council assembled and elsewhere the local education authority for the purposes of Part III of the Education Act, 1902.

(2) The Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904, so far as it relates to England and Wales, shall be amended as follows:—

1. (i) In paragraph (b) of section two, which restricts the employment of boys under the age of fourteen years and of girls under the age of sixteen years for the purpose of singing, playing or performing, or being exhibited for profit, or offering anything for sale, 305 between nine p.m. and six a.m., "eight p.m." shall be substituted for "nine p.m." so far as relates to children under fourteen years of age:
2. (ii) In paragraph (c) of section two, which restricts the employment of children under eleven years for the purpose of singing, playing or performing, or being exhibited for profit, or offering anything for sale, twelve years shall be substituted for eleven years:
3. (iii) In section three, which relates to licences for the employment of children exceeding ten years of age, the age of twelve years shall be substituted for the ago of ten years:
4. (iv) A licence under section three to take part in any entertainment or series of entertainments, instead of being granted, varied, added to, or rescinded as provided by that section, shall be granted by the local education authority for the purposes of Part III of the Education Act, 1902, of the area in which the child resides, subject to such restrictions and conditions as are proscribed by rules made by the Board of Education, and may be rescinded by the authority of any area in which it takes effect or it about to take effect if the restrictions and conditions of the licence are not observed, and, subject as aforesaid, may be varied or added to by that authority at the request of the holder of the licence:
5. (v) The holder of a licence shall at least seven days before a child takes part in any entertainment or series of entertainments furnish the local education authority of the area in which the entertainment is to take place with particulars of the licence and such other information as the Board of Education may by rules prescribe, and if he fails to furnish such particulars and information as aforesaid he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds:
6. (vi) Subsections (3) and (4) of section three shall cease to apply with respect to licences to take part in an entertainment or series of entertainments:
7. (vii) If the applicant for a licence or a person to whom a licence has been granted feels aggrieved by any decision of a local education authority he may appeal to the Board of Education, who may thereupon exercise any of the powers conferred on a local education authority by this section:
8. (viii) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any licence in force on the appointed day:
9. (ix) References to the Employment of Children Act, 1903, shall be construed as references to that Act as amended by this Act.

LORD GAINFORD moved in sub-section (1) (i), after "employed" ["shall not be employed on any day"], to insert "on any Sunday or". The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment of some substance, but I hope it is one that the Government may be able to accept, because I understand that in another place the Government were prepared to accept it, had the forms of the House permitted. I think an overwhelming case can be made for the abolition of Sunday labour in the case of children. It may be asserted that it can already be done by by-laws. As a matter of fact there are only three boroughs in the whole country which have passed a by-law prohibiting Sunday labour—Chesterfield, Chester, and Oldham. It is also suggested that possibly, if by-laws were to be put into force by the education authority, more progress might be made in that direction, and it is proposed in the Bill that instead of the present authority having the power to put the by-laws into operation it should be transferred to the local education authority.

My argument would be that it is far better that we should have a uniform practice throughout the whole country with regard to the prohibition of Sunday labour in connection with elementary school children. It is absurd to suggest that where you have two great towns or cities contiguous, say like Plymouth and Devonport, Newcastle and Gateshead, or Manchester and Salford you should have one practice in one town and another practice in another in regard to the employment of children. It must be obvious that it would be far better to have a uniform practice throughout the country. It has also been suggested that it might be hard in the case of Jews, and of course an Amendment like this might prevent the employment, of choristers; but it will be very easy to introduce words to safeguard both the Jews and those employed in connection with any religious service.

The time seems to me specially opportune when we can call upon parents to forego any little help which they may obtain by the employment of their children on Sunday. First of all, wages are very good, and all parents can afford to do without these insignificant earnings which do so much to damage the child and are to the detriment of his moral character if he is employed on Sundays. I think we shall all agree that it is advisable that children should not be employed for fourteen hours on Sundays, which is possible at the present time under the existing law. I do not suggest that anybody is employing any child for fourteen hours, but we know that children are employed, not only on every day of the week, and that they have to go to school for five days in the week, but that they are also employed on Sundays. Nobody has been able to get any statistics during the last three or four years, but we are aware that there has been an increased relaxation in connection with the employment of children, and that children's labour has been exploited during the war to a greater extent than immediately before the war.

The importance from a religious point of view is, I think, considerable. If children are employed on Sunday it is almost impossible for them to be expected to attend Sunday-school regularly, and I think we must all agree that Sunday-schools are one of those admirable institutions in this country in which the children can be taught by the denomination to which they belong in connection with religion. It is also, from an educational point of view, advisable that the children should be given that knowledge of the Bible which I think they can obtain on Sundays perhaps even better than they can in the secular schools of this country. It is also important that they should attend Sunday-schools with a view to the development of their character. From the point of view of health it is important that children should be regularly fed on Sunday, but also that they should be brought up to realise that on Sunday there should be some change of thought as well as of occupation. In Birmingham, in 1913, a census was taken of the children then employed. 9,131 children were employed who were of school age, exclusive of 1,500 children who were licensed for street trading. There were 1,725 children who were employed for 30 hours in the seven days. There were 455 children who were employed between 40 and 50 hours. 58 children between 50 and 60 hours, nine children between 60 and 70 hours, and one child was actually employed for 70 hours in the week, and expected to go to school. I could give statistics in connection with other places in regard to the employment of children. Birmingham, which has always been rather a pioneer in educational affairs, has urged through the education authority that Sunday labour should be entirely abolished by Statute, and I hope, from the very fact that public opinion is in support of a proposal of this kind, which the Government were not pre- pared to accept in another place, that we may now insert it in the Bill.

Amendment moved. Page 12, line 21, after ("employed") insert ("on any Sunday or").—(Lord Gainford.)

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. The noble Lord has stated the case so clearly that I need not enlarge upon it. I would only ask that it should be taken in connection with an Amendment, which I shall move later on in the middle of the other part of the clause, which specifies exactly what the nature of the by-law is which the local authority may pass. The evidence which has come to me since these Amendments were put on the Paper, and before, from all parts of the country shows how widespread is the feeling in this matter, and I am quite sure it would be running counter to the best popular opinion, both from the religious and the health side of it, if the change that is here suggested were not made in the Bill. It is entirely in accord with the general purport and tone of the rest of the Bill, and it seems to have been by a kind of exception that it has not already found a place in the Bill.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

Before the Government answer I hope it will be made clear what this Amendment really means, because I am not quite clear about it. First of all, it applies to boys of the age of twelve or upwards who are required to attend school. That might be up to fifteen certainly. Does it include continuation schools, because if so that is up to eighteen? What would happen in the country if it were proposed to get a telegraph boy to take letters from a post office? What would happen if you did want boys of the age of fifteen or sixteen to take messages?

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

On a Sunday?

VISCOUNT HALDANE

On a Sunday. Somebody must take telegraph messages.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

They could make bylaws to safeguard that.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

If that is clear, it makes it better; but let us be quite distinct about that. The Government will, no doubt, tell us what their view is, but I want to see quite clearly what we are doing.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

If I may be allowed I will make the position clear. In answer to the point raised by the noble and learned Viscount, I would point out that this Amendment will apply in the case of a child of the age of twelve or upwards. The word "child" defines persons to whom it should apply. That is to say, persons between the age of twelve or fourteen. The word "child" is defined in the Bill—

VISCOUNT HALDANE

It may be up to the age of fifteen.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Yes; it may be up to the age of fifteen, but not up to the age of eighteen. It will only apply to a child as defined in the Bill. Then, I wish it to be understood that, in accepting this Amendment, which I am prepared to do on behalf of the Government, it is on the understanding that another Amendment is moved presently, which now stands in the name of the most rev. Primate—namely, to permit employment on Sundays by by-laws. As I said on the Second Reading of the Bill, the cumulative effect of the restrictions upon child labour which are introduced by this Bill during week-days might have the effect of greatly increasing the employment of children on Sundays; and, although an Education Bill does not set out to deal with labour conditions generally, if that were the consequence, it might have a serious effect upon the efficiency of the children attending school at the beginning of the week. For that reason I think the proposal now made by Lord Gainford and also the proposal standing in the name of the right rev. Primate to restrict the employment of children on Sundays, is in accordance with the scheme of this Bill, and will, la fact, improve its provisions. For that reason the Government are prepared to accept it, on the understanding that the proviso is moved presently.

LORD SHEFFIELD

Before the Amendment is accepted, may I say a word? I do not say that the regulation of Sunday hi hour comes very naturally in a, Bill for promoting education, but I should like to ask whether, if this amendment is accepted, it would be an offence for a farmer to employ his boy or girl in milking cows?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

If employed for gain, it would.

LORD SHEFFIELD

It is, of course, for the gain of the farmer. He does not the cows for pleasure.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Then it would become an offence.

LORD RIBBLESDALE

He has to keep his contract going; and if we are told that it is important for the population to have milk, you cannot really say it is for gain. All milk in the North of England is supplied on contract, and the milk has to be got off at a certain time by a certain train.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY

I can endorse that. I know of many farmers who could not do without this labour.

LORD PHILLIMORE

Surely the noble Earl contemplates that by-laws will be made authorising milking up to fourteen. If you prohibit that on Sundays you would destroy the farming industry. Besides, cows must be milked on Sundays us well as on week-days.

LORD SHEFFIELD

Can. I move an Amendment to the Amendment? I wish to add, "Other than for the necessary operations of husbandry."

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

Has the noble Lord really considered what comes in the next clause? By-laws are to be passed to deal with the whole matter.

LORD SHEFFIELD

But if they do not choose to make a by-law the prohibition will be absolute. I think it is very serious to say that the farmers shall not use their own families in order to get milk on Sundays.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY

No by-laws that you could make afterwards would alter the law. If you make it illegal to emply a child under fourteen, and the farmer is employing his own child to milk the cows, it is, according to the noble Earl, for gain; therefore it comes under the law, whatever by-laws may be made.

THE EARL LYTTON

I think the noble Marquess is under a misapprehension. If the local authority passes a by-law that would meet any specific case.

LORD SHEFFIELD

But if they do not it will be an offence.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Does the noble Lord move?

LORD SHEFFIELD

Yes.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

What does the noble Lord desire to insert?

LORD SHEFFIELD

I want it to read, "the employment of children on Sunday except for the necessary operations of husbandry."

Amendment moved to the Amendment— Page 12, line 21, after ("on Sunday") insert ("except for the necessary operations of husbandry").—(Lord Sheffield.)

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I think there is great force in what my noble friend states, although I confess that personally I would be content to leave the point of necessary agricultural arrangements to bylaws; because I feel certain that the education authorities would make them in cases where they are required. But I rise rather to suggest whether this particular point might not stand over until the Report stage. I think it would be unfortunate if we divided upon it, if the noble Earl desires to resist my noble friend's Amendment.

LORD PARMOOR

I think it is very important to note that, whether occupations of this kind are sanctioned by by-law or not, it is merely a matter for the option or discretion of the local authority. I think a matter of this kind ought to be outside an option or discretion of that kind; therefore I think the noble Lord has proposed what is necessary as a reasonable safeguard. The only other alternative would be that you should pass a law, and, if there were no by-law in connection with it, it would be certainly disregarded. It must be disregarded in fact as a matter of necessity, which I think is a mistake.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

It is obvious that this is a complicated matter. My noble friend Lord Crewe has made the suggestion that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill should consider this matter between now and Report, and come to a conclusion as to what safeguards should be inserted. I think it would be better to do that than to take this discussion in a hurry.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Although this matter may stand over until Report, I must make it clear that we should not be willing to consider the exception of one particular trade. If we once make a general law, and then at a moment's notice except a particular occupation in which your Lordships are interested, that would lead to pressure from other trades that they should also receive exemption. I am willing to accept the inclusion in the Bill of an Amendment which will exclude Sunday labour, but I consent to that only on the understanding that it is to be general; and if there are any exceptions they are to be made only by by-laws passed by the local authority. If you are not willing to accept the Amendment in that form, then I am afraid I cannot accept it in any other form. I would suggest that the matter should be withdrawn at this moment, and, as suggested by the noble Marquess, that we should consider it again on Report.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I do not think that my noble friends behind me will say that I am unmindful of the farmer's position, but I think they have not sufficiently considered the extraordinary difficulty in which they would place the Government if this Amendment is pressed. I do not see how it is possible for the Government to accept the exclusion of one particular trade. It seems to me very important, for the general reasons which have been given, to have this Amendment put in not allowing children to be improperly worked on Sunday; but I should have thought that the case was met by the local by-law. I do not say that there may not be cases where my noble friend behind me might not think that the local authority ought to have made provision and will not make provision; but you cannot possibly in an Act of Parliament fill up all the gaps and prevent exceptional cases. I think it would be a great misfortune if this Amendment were lost, but I see the difficulty of the Government. All kinds of other trades would at once put in a claim for a corresponding exemption. I see no answer to that contention; and, therefore, if this matter is taken to a Division, I should certainly support the Government.

LORD SHEFFIELD

Although I agree with what the noble Earl said, he mentioned that it would be a pity not to legislate against improper labour on Sunday. If you said "not more than four hours," or any moderate number of hours, it would do; but you are proposing to prohibit all labour on Sunday.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Except what is authorised by by-law.

LORD SHEFFIELD

Yes. But in the first place the by-laws are in the discretion of each district to pass or not to pass as they please, and to frame how they please. I suggest that, if it is to stand over until Report, the principal Amendment should also stand over. Let them both come up afresh, and any suggestion modifying it by by-laws. After all, this was not in the Government Bill. The Government seem to attach great importance to it now, but it is an afterthought with them. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill said, "Why do it at a moment's notice?"; but it is at a moment's notice that the Government have changed their attitude about Sunday labour.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I think that my noble friend is willing to fall in with the proposal made by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, and to give further consideration to the matter. But I very much deprecate inserting any terms in the clause for the exclusion of one particular industry. It is not only agriculture which is interested. There are many other trades, notably those dealing with perishable articles, such as the landing of fish and the movement of other articles of food. Those are all eases which might be closely concerned. There are also mining or colliery emergencies, and certain processes in the steel trade.

LORD SHEFFIELD

They do not employ children.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

In certain processes in the steel trade it is common to employ boys after fifteen, and there are telegraph boys and messengers, and I do not know who else. The noble Lord was speaking about agriculture and he forgot Grimsby, and it may be necessary to give exemption for the landing or moving of fish arriving at Grimsby. It is the function of the local education authority to do that and in consenting to look into the matter the Government must not be taken to pledge themselves to the insertion of any particular words.

LORD SHEFFIELD

if the whole thing stands over till Report I shall be satisfied.

LORD GAINFORD

I am in the hands of the House, but I think there is a strong feeling in favour of something being done, and my Amendment being accepted. My suggestion is that, without feeling that we have finally dealt with this subject, my Amendment might be accepted. It will be competent to the noble Lord to raise the matter again on Report.

LORD SHEFFIELD

I shall not raise it again.

LORD BURNHAM

The Amendment which I beg to move is on page 12, line 22, to leave out "before" and insert "for more than one hour before the opening and one hour after." I venture to think this is an Amendment which is required by the considerations of common sense and equity between trades, and it is in no sense a reactionary measure, because it extends the Bill for the benefit of children both in regard to the prohibition of labour and the protection of health. It may be said by the malicious that this is a newsvendor's Amendment. I am egotistical enough to hope that it is not the worse on that account; but it is to an extent to the interest of those engaged in that trade. According to the Bill as it stands children may work after the close of school for a large number of hours, but before the opening of school they are not allowed even to work for the hour generally which a local authority may authorise them to be so employed, if it choose, in certain specified occupations. I am the last person not to wish to increase the provisions in this Bill for improving the health of children and rendering their instruction in the schools more profitable, and I quite feel the force of what was said in the last report by the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education that A very large number of children are being prematurely employed …. The physical injury which manifests itself is insidious and inconspicuous, but far-reaching. The Bill allows employment of an exhausting character after the close of school but arbitrarily interferes with certain trades which are relatively harmless before the opening of school. Of course there may be a question of employment being injurious. If your Lordships will have regard to Clause 15 you will see that the local education authority will have power to restrict and condition the employment of children "if they are satisfied…that any child is being employed in such a manner as to be prejudicial to his health or physical development, or to render him unfit to obtain the proper benefit from his education at school. "Therefore I think that it will be more rational as well as more equitable if what in the proviso may be done were made to apply equally to all the school areas in the country.

It is contended by those engaged in the newsvending trade that this employment for one hour will certainly not damage the health of the children but will often prevent them before school from passing their time in loafing about close to the school or near the house. Whether that be so or not it is evidently contemplated in the proviso that where the local authority so wills it an hour shall be allowed for the employment of a child who is habitually engaged in this sort of occupation. Under the Bill there is a great danger of overworking children after school hours. I do not think that an education authority would hold that to work children in the evening for a large number of hours will do less harm than working them for one hour before school time. It seems to me on the contrary that children of this age are likely to suffer graver injury and to be made less susceptible to the benefits of education by over-work after school hours, and yet that is provided in the Bill and allowed to stand. I believe the Government are prepared in regard to the second amendment I have had on the paper to make certain provisions to render the Bill more elastic, but I much prefer that they should accept words which would make the application general throughout the country. I have no distrust of local authorities, but I foresee a great sense of grievance as between localities where conditions are different, not for the benefit of the child but because of arbitrary views as to the exact results of the particular licence and privilege allowed. One hour before and one hour afterwards is, the alternative which I propose, rather than a practically unlimited number of hours after school closes and none before.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 22, leave out ("before") and insert ("for more than one hour before the opening and one hour after").—(Lord Burnham.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I am unable to accept the noble Lord's Amendment in the form in which he moves it. I would ask your Lordships to realise what the effect of the Amendment is. As the Bill stands, a child may not be employed before school, and a child between the ages of twelve and fourteen may only be employed after school up to the hour of eight. The noble Lord said the employment was unlimited, but it is by no means unlimited. The limit is eight o'clock in the evening, and therefore there are only four hours after school closes in which a child may now be employed. If I were to accept the Amendment the effect would be still further to diminish the amount of employment which is possible under the Bill. That might suit the interests of the newspaper trade, but it might be far otherwise in regard to other trades.

I want to emphasize to your Lordships the two essential principles of this clause, to which we desire to Adhere at all posts. There are two principles involved. The first is that there shall be no employment of children under the age of twelve, and the second is that there shall be no exception made in respect of any particular trade except at the discretion of the local authority to whom all the conditions are known. I quite realise that it may be not only not harmful, but quite desirable, that children in the country should be able to deliver newspapers on their way to school. If, however, I were to say that, in the interests of the newspaper trade, any child might be employed for one hour in the morning, not only in that trade but in any other trade, a very serious evil might arise. Children might be employed at five o'clock in the morning, and after working for an hour from five to six, they might be kept waiting about until the school opens at nine o'clock; and that might be very deleterious to their health. I do make a strong appeal to your Lordships to support the Government in these two principles—that there shall be no employment of children under twelve, and, if any exceptions are made for children over twelve, they shall be made only by the by-laws of local authorities.

In order to meet the noble Lord I would suggest to him certain other words which, if he cares to move them, I should not oppose—in Clause 13, page 12, line 30, after the second "children"—that is to say, "employment of children"—insert "of the age of twelve or upwards before school hours, and the employment of children". The words would then go on "by their parents." The effect would be this. Your Lordships will see that in this proviso we leave the employment of children by their parents to be sanctioned by by-law for one hour before nine o'clock in the morning, on the condition that those children shall not again be employed for more than one hour in the afternoon. I am prepared to extend that concession made to the employment of children by their parents to Other children above the age of twelve under similar conditions, always provided that that is made by by-law of the local authority.

I can quite understand the noble Lord's objection to proceeding by by-law. It is objectionable from the point of view of a particular trade. It is much more convenient for people engaged in trade to arrange their business according to a universal law; but what we are considering here are not the interests of particular trades but the interests of the children, and we say that, if any departure is to be made front the general law, it must only be made on the authority of persons who can look into the particular conditions and can ensure that the employment which is permitted shall be of a kind that will not prejudice the health of the children. Under those conditions, subject to by-law, and as applying only to children above the age of twelve, I am willing to meet the noble Lord by allowing employment in those special cases in exactly the same way as we now allow employment of children by their parents.

LORD BURNHAM

After what the noble Earl has said, I feel that I have not much chance of carrying the original Amendment. In the Committee of both Houses it is often a choice of disadvantages, but I think the greater disadvantage would be to refuse his offer. I would like to point out to him, however, that I never proposed to interfere with the labour of children under twelve. My first Amendment would not have done so, and I warn him that—whilst, as I say, rather than get nothing I will move the words that he suggests—I am quite certain, in the organisation of this great trade throughout the country, it will not only cause great inconvenience but genuine hardship. That is better, of course, than limiting it as in the Bill to the employment of children by their pare which is utterly illogical and quite unjustifiable front any view of the canons of legislation. But there will remain the inequality between two districts in which the local authorities take different views as to the expediency of allowing this form of labour. I still think that what I moved originally was really progressive in its effect and intention and would have advanced, rather than have retarded, the general purpose of the Bill. However, I will not weary your Lordships as I am not likely to carry the Amendment as it stood. When I am called upon I will move the second Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD GAINFORD

I am grateful to the noble Earl for having accepted the Amendment in connection with Sunday labour. I do not propose to move my next Amendment, which was to insert, after the word "evening" ["eight o'clock in the evening"] immediately preceding the proviso in paragraph (i) of subsection (1) the words:—"and shall not be employed and required to attend school for more than eight hours in any one day between the above-mentioned hours, nor in the aggregate be employed more than ten hours in any one week when required to attend school nor more than thirty hours in any one week during periods when attendance at school is not required." I understand that the Government are not prepared to accept it in this form. It expresses my own views, but I shall have to be content, for the moment, with Clause 15, which I believe will prevent excessive abuse in connection with the labour of children.

LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE moved to insert a new proviso in paragraph (i) of subsection (1) as follows:—

"Provided that this subsection shall not apply to children employed on the stage." The noble Lord said: Later on in this clause I have two other Amendments, but the same considerations animate them all, and perhaps it would save time, and be more convenient to your Lordships, if I briefly state the reasons why I am moving them. I believe your Lordships have—at any rate the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has—been circularised by those who are concerned in promoting this Amendment. They are the members of the Actors' Association, containing names which are well known to your Lordships and which carry the confidence of the public. We have just heard the noble Earl say that the immutable principle of the Bill is that no child under twelve shall be employed except under some Regulation or exception made by some authority.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

With no exception under twelve.

LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE

That brings me to the first consideration which the Actors' Association have put forward in asking to be exempted from this clause. The noble Earl knows quite well what it is, but, for those of your Lordships who have not read the circular, may I briefly say that in their view a child of twelve is much more suitable to be trained for the purpose of the stage than he or she is when the age of twelve is reached. I am fortified in saying this by a very great authority, in whom I am sure your Lordships will have confidence. I will only read a sentence or two from what Sir Johnston Forbes-Robertson says— There is all the difference in the world between the receptiveness of a child of ten and one of twelve. At the age of ten a child is more impressionable, more pliant, and, above all, loss self-conscious. Therefore, training for the stage is begun before self-consciousness sets in. That is to my mind an important point if artificiality is to be avoided. If this Amendment is passed—as I dare say it may not be—I wish to submit that it is in favour of the children of poor parents, because the children of parents who can afford to pay for their education can send them to such a school, and provide them with such environment as will give them the kind of education which is necessary for their training for the stage. Not only that, the earnings of children of this kind can be, and have been in a very great many cases, put to good use for the purposes of the children themselves. The Actor's Association, in asking your Lordships to pass, I hope, all these Amendments, certainly one of them—and I propose to ask your Lordships to give a definite decision on the alternative Amendment I have later on—have shown a very reasonable attitude towards the Board of Education.

I know it is said that no exception should be made in favour of a particular trade or occupation. That is quite intelligible, and no doubt it is quite just, if, when the exception is made, it withdraws the child from what is now popularly called education, but which, perhaps, we had better call instruction in school hours. The instructional part of the education will not be lost to the children if they are exempted from this clause, because they will have schools of their own; will be trained by governesses specially selected, and their instructional life will be under the control of the Board of Education, and under no other control. The Actors' Association are perfectly willing to submit to any regulations with regard to the life of these children, and they have already drawn up some which, I am informed, have been approved of by the Board of Education.

I sincerely hope the noble Earl, if he is going to be adamant about any child being employed before twelve years of age, license or no license, will, at least, direct his attention to the child of twelve years of age or upwards, who shall not be employed on any day on which he is required to attend school before the close of school hours on that day. If he insists upon that the practical effect will be that no child up to the age of fifteen will be capable of being employed while the school is on at any matinee performance at all, and will not be able to take part during the first act of any evening performance. That is a very considerable check upon children being employed on the stage. In the old days, no doubt, there was considerable abuse with regard to the employment of children in the theatre, but modern taste and feelings have altered all that to a very great extent, and if your Lordships were to inquire into the manner in which these children are treated, and the care that is taken of them, you will find that no privilege which the Minister of Education thinks fit to grant under this Act will be abused. I hope your Lordships will favourably consider the point of view of the Actors' Association and that we shall be able to gain some advantage from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. Later on there are two other Amendments on which I shall not detain your Lordships at any length. There is an alternative Amendment, and when that comes to be moved I will indicate the line I propose to take.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 25, at end insert:

"Provided that this subsection shall not apply to children employed on the stage; and—".—(Lord Willoughby de Broke.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I first of all desire to correct a misapprehension in the mind of the noble Lord as to the position of children over the age of twelve. He stated that up to the age of fifteen no children could he employed on the stage as they are now. I should like to call his attention to subsection (2), paragraph (iii), in which it is there stated that, in future, the provisions which relate to licenses for the employment of children exceeding ten years of age shall only apply to children over twelve years of age. It means to say, that for children over twelve the same conditions as to license will operate as at the present time. The licence will allow children to be employed under the conditions set forth in the licence. For children over twelve we are now making an exception which is not made in the case of any other children, and it is only made because we really get the same conditions as we do when we make exceptions under the by-laws. In the case of children over twelve years of age who are licensed to act, the conditions of the licence attached by the authority take into consideration all the requirements of the health and instruction of the child for whom the licence is granted.

The Amendment asks your Lordships to make an exception in one case, and one ease only, for the employment of children limier the age of twelve. I do not want to repeat what I said just now. It is the principle of the Bill that there should be no such exception, and I appeal to your Lordships to support the Government in saying that there shall be no exception for anybody in this matter of the employment of children under twelve. If there are to be exceptions I really do not think the particular profession on whose behalf the noble Lord is speaking is the one which has the strongest claim. I hope no one will consider I am lacking in sympathy with the dramatic profession. It is a profession for which I have the profoundest admiration and greatest sympathy, and I can appreciate the weight of the arguments they have put forward. It is undoubtedly true that children can be better trained at the age of ten than at the age of twelve. It is also the case that, for particular children who develop young a marked talent for the stage, it is desirable they should receive dramatic training at an early age, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent that. What is in the Bill is that a child shall not be employed on the stage for profit below the age of twelve.

I would ask your Lordships to consider what these conditions are. It is not a healthy employment; it is an employment late at night, and one which continues, generally, up till 11 o'clock. We have to consider not only the cases of certain privileged children who will be specially taken care of, but we have to consider the condition of children in employments which I venture to say have the maximum of evil for the health of the child. How is it possible when a child is travelling round the country in touring companies that adequate provision can be made for his or her education? Therefore, my Lords, if we were to make an exception I would say that far from being the first this would almost be the last matter which we should consider, for two reasons: First because the conditions of employment are particularly unhealthy for the child, and secondly because we are now making to this profession a concession with regard to children over the age of twelve. I feel that the profession ought to be satisfied with the fact that we do allow them now a somewhat privileged position in permitting children to be licensed over the age of twelve. I ask your Lordships to say that we shall not go further.

LORD HARRIS

I should like to ask the noble Earl, who has just referred to an occupation which he says is an unhealthy one, about another occupation. Does the Government prevent the occupation of any child up to the age of twelve in any way whatever?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Yes; except by the parents

LORD HARRIS

Is it possible for parents or guardians with whom the child may be living to be able to employ it in such an occupation as hop-picking? That is a very healthy occupation, and in times past a very large population used to go down from London into the hop garden district, and the parents used to take their children with them and the children helped to pick the hops. I desire to know whether there is a possibility of making an exception in such cases as those.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

There is nothing to prevent children picking hops with their parents, but children under twelve may not be employed for profit, whether it is in picking hops or in any other employment.

LORD HARRIS

The parents would be receiving the payment for such quantities of hops as were picked by their own children, and where there are three or four in family the parents would be helped considerably in the quantity of hops that they pick.

On question, Amendment negatived.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved in subsection (1), after "employment," to insert "all children of the age of twelve or upwards on Sundays and the employment." The most rev. Primate said: I hope that your Lordships will accept the Amendment that stands in my name. It is in slightly different terms from the one which appears on the Paper. The words ought to be "all children of the age of twelve or upwards on Sundays and the employment." I venture to think that it will simplify the situation if this Amendment were accepted now as part of what we agreed to, subject to the consideration which I understand the noble Earl intends to give to the whole subject before Report.

Amendment proposed— Page 12, line 30, after ("employment") insert ("all children of the age of twelve or upwards on Sundays and the employment").—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, draws my attention to the fact that he has words which will combine the two Amendments, that of the Lord Archbishop and the next one on the Paper in the name of Lord Burnham. If your Lordships would have no objection I would therefore put it in the following form.

Amendment moved— Clause 13, page 12, line 30, after the second ("children"), insert ("of the age of twelve or upwards before school hours or on Sundays, and the employment of children".—(The Earl of Lytton.)

LORD GAINFORD had an Amendment on the Paper to insert as a new paragraph: "A child of the age from twelve to fourteen shall not be employed to carry or deliver goods or commodities at any one time in loads exceeding twenty-five pounds each in weight in the case of boys, and fifteen pounds each in weight in the case of girls." The noble Lord said: I am informed that section (3), subsection (4), of the Employment of Children Act, 1903, provides that a child shall not be liable to lift, carry, or move anything that is likely to cause injury to the child, and in those circumstances I do not propose to move my Amendment.

LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE moved to insert the following new proviso at the end of Clause 13:—"Provided that the Board of Education, notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, shall have the power to grant licences to children of ten and upwards, to perform on the stage in any Christmas or holiday production of Shakespeare or fairy plays or other plays requiring child performers, for a period not exceeding ten weeks."

The noble said: When I moved the first section of this clause it did not appear to interest your Lordships very much, or at any rate I do not think it had the sympathy of the House; certainly the noble Lord in charge of the Bill was against it. Therefore I do not suppose that it is very much use my moving the first of the two Amendments in my name I will proceed therefore at once to the last ditch which is my alternative Amendment. In this I do not think that there is very much harm. The noble Earl, in accepting it, will not be giving away any principle, and I have reason to believe that it will cause great satisfaction to the profession if he gives way on this point. I hope that I shall be able to convince your Lordships that not very much harm could be done in accepting this Amendment.

The reason for this exception in the case of certain children is that. I am informed by those who train children for the stage that during the period of training, and before they actually go upon the stage, it is desirable that they should have opportunities of appearing from time to time in such productions as those which are indicated in my Amendment. I earnestly hope that the noble Lord will now show that sympathy with the profession, of which he spoke just now, in a practical form by giving way on this Amendment. I propose to invite your Lordships to come to a definite decision upon this, and I hope that the noble Earl will not put the House to the trouble of a Division.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 32, at end insert:

"Provided that the Board of Education, notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, shall have the power to grant licences to children of ten and upwards, to perform on the stage in any Christmas or holiday production of Shakespeare or fairy plays or other plays requiring child performers, for a period not exceeding ten weeks."—(Lord Willoughby de Broke.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The noble Lord already has a reputation for fighting, and if necessary dying, in the last ditch, and I very much regret that I shall be obliged to contribute to his death in that ditch on this occasion, by which I mean that I cannot accept his Amendment. If your Lordships will look at the Amendment I think that you will see, on examining its words, why I cannot accept it. First of all, there is nothing at present to prevent any child from acting on the stage at Christmas or at any other time, provided that it is not employed for profit, and that it is not employed beyond eight o'clock in the evening. Whether it be at Christmas time, or in the holidays, or at any other time it is undesirable for a child below the age of twelve to be employed upon the stage beyond eight o'clock at night. Really I cannot help thinking that this Amendment is rather disingenuous, because it brings in Christmas and Shakespeare and fairies and then adds the words "or other plays." In other words, there is really no point in the use of the words Christmas, Shakespeare, and fairies at all because in any plays requiring child performers the noble Lord for this exception to be made. I fancy that these words are a form of camouflage. And even if the words "or other plays" were struck out I would ask your Lordships to say that it is not desirable to make an exception in the case of a child's holidays.

LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE

I think this is rather too bad. The Actors' Association having stated their Amendment in their own disingenuous way, as the noble Earl calls it, but as I should term it in their own natural way; they have not gone and organised and lobbied and had a whole lot of lawyers, and they have written down a simple appeal straight to the heart of your Lordships, and I am sorry that the noble Earl calls it camouflage. The next time I go to the Beefsteak Club and that kind of resort I shall be very anxious to hear what they think of it. For all that, there is a serious side to this, and when the noble Earl in the Chair puts the Question I propose to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division. I am very sorry that I should have to do so.

LORD BURNHAM

The official answer to this Amendment was easy and logically convincing. I hardly think that in dealing with it justice has been done to the great efforts made by theatrical managers through out the country to add to the education of the children committed to their charge, and I think they have a much stronger case for exceptional treatment than has been admitted. It is no good living in an unreal world and imagining that these children who would be taken to the theatres for employment and educated there at the same time are living in ideal homes. We know nothing of the sort is the case. We know they are probably kept up long after they ought to be at rest, and they are very often living in surroundings of a degraded character in squalid slums. When they go to the theatres they are benefited morally and in many cases physically. The theatrical managers have done a very great deal to provide teaching of a sympathetic sort suited for time class of children.

If we could get away from an iron rule applicable to all sorts of children which is supposed to be necessarily the best I think some sort of compromise might have been arrived at. These iron rules are very well if the conditions of life are the same for all sorts of people. But they are not, and what you are doing now is really depriving children of a certain class of benefits which they had enjoyed without cost to the State, and I believe, on the whole, with great benefit to their future. They do not all become actors and actresses, far from it; but nobody can say that performing in Shakespeare's plays or in many of the fairy romances which have graced the stage in recent years can be degrading or anything else than beneficial to the children of London and the great cities. It comes a good deal from the superior air in which we live that we do not really recognise the conditions of life of the poor, and we are satisfied with a formula of this sort and think that everybody ought to be brought up, no matter how drastic the means, within its provisions. I do not say it is possible to accept the wording of the Amendment, which is open to the sarcastic reply of the noble Earl and does not perhaps commend itself to the parliamentary draftsman, but I think it is a great pity that the Bill has to be passed without any provision for keeping in existence the facilities for bringing up children under proper conditions in the theatre.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15:

Further restrictions on employment of children.

15.—(1) The local authority, if they are satisfied by a report of the school medical officer or otherwise that any child is being employed in such a manner as to be prejudicial to his health or physical development, or to render him unfit to obtain the proper benefit from his education at school, may either prohibit, or attach such conditions as they think fit to, his employment in that or any other manner, notwithstanding that the employment may be authorised under the other provisions of this Act or any other enactment.

(2) It shall be the duty of the employer and the parent of any child who is in employment, if required by the local education authority to furnish to the authority such information as to his employment as the authority may require, and, if the parent or employer fails to comply with any requirement of the local education authority or wilfully gives false information as to the employment, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings.

THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, in subsection (1), to omit the words "at school" ["or to render him unfit to obtain the proper benefit from his education at school"]. The noble Earl said: This clause enables a local authority to take action to restrain injurious employment, but as it is worded it only enables them to take such action when a child is at school. But I think it would be a disastrous thing if it was open to any person who was employing a child injuriously, to move a child from school, educate him at home, with the result that the employer would then be in a position to defy the local education authorities and employ the child in such a way as to prejudice his health or physical development. I think that whether children are being educated at home or at school the clause ought to apply.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 9, leave out ("at school").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17:

Power to promote social and physical training.

17. For the purpose of supplementing and reinforcing the instruction and social and physical training provided by the public system of education, and without prejudice to any other powers, a local education, authority for the purposes of Part III of the Education Act. 1902, as respects children attending public elementary schools, and a local education authority for the purposes of Part II of that Act as respects other children and young persons and persons over the age of eighteen attending educational institutions, may, with the approval of the Board of Education, make arrangements to supply or maintain or aid the supply or maintenance of—

1. (a) holiday or school camps, especially for young persons attending continuation schools:
2. (b) centres and equipment for physical training, playing fields (other than the ordinary playgrounds of public elementary schools not provided by the local education authority), school baths, school swimming baths;
3. (c) other facilities for social and physical training in the day or evening.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved in paragraph (b), after "for," to insert "military and." The noble Viscount said: I would ask the Government to consider, what seems at least a reasonable proposal, that among the many purposes for which public money may be used and training carried on we should distinctly include military training in schools. There has, of course, in times past been some con-controversy with regard to the desirability of general military training. Of course, your Lordships will see that whatever took place ten years ago, at the time of the introduction by the noble Viscount behind me of the Territorial measure, there was then, at all events, a scheme of that kind adumbrated, and for various reasons it was not proceeded with. Some of us thought that there could be no objection, and that there must be immense gain in the rudiments of military training being imparted to boys during the period of their school life, and all of us who have served in school corps at different times have learned how very much time was saved afterwards in the case of those who have taken up the military profession.

But, whatever objection there was ten years ago, I submit that the whole situation has now altered in regard to that objection. The Government have been forced for the purposes of this war, to adopt universal military service and although I hope, as much as any man here, that the terrible incubus, the demand made upon us, may in some way or other be abrogated after this war, and that we may find ourselves not forced to call upon the whole population for training as hitherto, yet I think there can be no doubt that all the nations, unless there is some general change in the dispositions of the people, must hold a certain force in readiness for the protection of their interests. I would suggest that all you can get over of training during the ordinary school period is, in itself, a great advantage and asset. How are we going to replace all the terrible losses of capital after the war? We are told universally that it will be by the superiority of our labour and by the fullest development of our commercial activity. Now, what could be more foolish than that, supposing it were necessary to train 100,000 men every year—I hope it will not be, but supposing it were—you should have to withdraw for military training, at the age of eighteen or nineteen, at the time when their labour is a national asset, a large number of young men who might have got over all the rudiments of military training during the period of their school time?

A NOBLE LORD

Hear, hear.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

Of course, nobody supposes that you can make a soldier, or that you can try to make a soldier. I think the experience of this war, military men would say if there were many present, has proved that, quite apart from drill and discipline, you must have an immense amount which must be taught under the new system of fighting, and which will take probably a longer time from those who have to undergo it than would have been the case five years ago. That seems to be an additional reason for getting over that portion of military training which is merely mechanical, drill and discipline, and which may be instilled with the greatest advantage to boys at an early age. Do what you will, in towns it is not very easy to find sufficient physical recreation for boys in the open air during the period which should, in each day, be given up to physical exercise, and I believe, solely from the point of view of the advantage to the boys themselves, that you cannot have anything more salutory than the half-hour or three-quarters of an hour which might be devoted to military drill and training during the period of school life in each day.

I do not want to make a prolonged appeal to the Government on this subject. I am quite aware that they have probably made up their minds on it one way or the other. But do think it is a most serious thing to lay down, that, while you are to endeavour by an enormous expenditure of money to gain for the nation as well as for the individual all that you can in preparation for the struggle of life, you should, by leaving out these words, leave it to be a mere chance in the physical training which may be adopted in different localities, or merely dependent on the will or views of the Minister who lays down what should be the nature of physical exercise, whether you are going to impart the other attributes with which you propose to provide the youth of this country at the end of their school age, and whether you are going to give them inestimable advantage of having learnt, during time which was not taken away from their labour, that which they may have afterwards to sacrifice a vast amount of labour to obtain.

Therefore from that point of view alone, from the point of view of the, benefit to the individual, from the point of view of the benefit to the country, from the point of view of making the best use of our resources, and of the highest degree of the development of the physical advantages of those concerned, I would urge the Government to take their courage in both hands, to realise that the situation has entirely changed since the criticism of the past, and to allow these words to be inserted.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 22, after ("for") insert ("military and").—(Viscount Midlelon.)

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I find myself in very close sympathy with most of the observations which were made just now by my noble friend opposite, and I am at any rate grateful to him for having raised this point, because it is one which I think requires to be cleared up.

Several NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

The Bill seems to be ambiguous on this point, and it is one of critical importance. The Bill, as I read it, although it does not provide for military training, does not exclude it, certainly not in terms; and there are things which are permitted by the Bill which seem to me to go very far indeed in the direction of military training. Physical exercises may easily take a shape which renders them very difficult to distinguish from military exercises. Then, camps are permitted under the Bill. I am quite unable to conceive of camps without organisation or without discipline. There is a bugle somewhere about in the camp. The whole atmosphere of a camp, whether you like it or not, will be more or less military.

The question that I think we have to clear up is whether we shall really strengthen the Bill by putting in, in terms, that military training is to be included. You certainly will arouse a good deal of suspicion by insisting on putting in these words, because one cannot disguise from oneself that the public mind is extraordinarily sensitive and timid upon this particular point. People cannot get out of their heads the vision of the drill sergeant, and it is always supposed that anything of this kind is a step in the direction of what is called militarism. On the other hand, I am most anxious to have it clearly understood that military instruction in the broader sense of the word is not to be taboo under this Bill. I hear it said that this is not a War Office Bill, that it is an Education Bill. This Bill is a Government Bill, and in my view it is the duty of the Government to look at this question in its broadest aspects, and to consider not only the strictly educational aspects of the matter but the national aspects of it.

Now, what are the objects of a Bill of this kind? I take it that they were sufficiently described in the words which my noble friend opposite, I think very properly, succeeded in expunging from one of the earlier clauses of the Bill. The Bill was framed with the idea of preparing the young people of this country for freedom and the responsibilties of adult life. In other words, preparing them to exercise the duties of citizenship. What do we mean when we talk of citizenship? If we desire to turn out a useful citizen, surely what we have to do is to provide him with a healthy and vigorous body, to provide him with a mind habituated to discipline, and, I should add, to equip him with a certain knowledge of the rudiments of the profession of arms. I think it correct to say that one of the inherent duties of citizenship is that the citizen should be ready, if his country is in peril, to bear an honourable part in defending it. I believe that training of this kind is admirable from the point of view of the lads who receive it. I believe it is popular with the lads who receive it; and I will go further and say that, from the point of view of the lads who receive it, the soupçon of militarism adds very greatly to the attractiveness of that particular type of education. I think that the more pronounced the military flavour the more popular it would be with the lads who receive it; and, of course, as my noble friend said just now, it would be of priceless value for the country that its boys should receive rudimentary instruction of this kind while they are quite young. What have we seen since this war began? We have seen an Army which now seems a mere handful expanded into a force which we count by millions. We have had to produce that Army by manufacturing raw material; and Who can say how much time and how much money have not been spent in making that raw material undergo stages of manufacture which might perfectly have been undergone while the boys were yet young and still at school. I recall very distinctly a conversation which I had many years ago with the late Lord Roberts, and I remember his saying—I forget what the precise fraction he gave was—that a boy who had been taught to shoot at a miniature rifle range and who knew his facings was, I think he said, a more than half-manufactured soldier,

As your Lordships know, I am in favour of national arrangements which will diminish the chance, I hope, of war in the future; but I cannot conceive of any future in which it will not be necessary that the people of this country should at any rate have a certain amount of military schooling; and from that point of view I am entirely in favour of whatever steps can be taken to accustom them to the idea of taking a part in the defence of the country. I hear it said that if arrangements of this kind are made they would be liable to abuse, and that you would turn our schoolboys into little Germans. I do not believe anything of the kind. I think it would be the very best form of education that you could give them; and, considering the comparatively narrow limits of time—the 320 hours which are conceded by this Bill—I altogether fail to see how it can be possible that the result of training of this kind should be to militarise the youth of this country.

Whether I vote for my noble friend opposite or not will depend a good deal upon what I am told from the Front Bench on this side. I believe that military training is in the Bill, and that if the Board of Education and the War Office co-operate, as they ought to co-operate in this matter, we shall get all the military training that my noble friend wants. The Army Council is, I know, at this moment warmly supporting the movement for cadet corps. But the cadet corps is based upon a system under which an effort will be made to attract the boys into such corps at the time when they are leaving school. You want the two departments, the civil and the military, to work together; and I believe they are ready to do so at the present time. The cadet corps have been put, as noble Lords know, under the Territorial Force Associations, and it is the business of those associations to keep in close touch with the civilian educational authorities throughout the country. My noble friend Lord Lytton said the other day that the results of this Bill will largely depend upon the spirit in which it is worked. I believe that if this Bill as it stands is worked—as I should like to see it worked—in co-operation between all the Departments of the Government, it will work perfectly well, and that we shall get the kind of position given to military instruction which my noble friend is so anxious to secure for it.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

Before the noble Earl says anything I wish to add a few words, and to express my entire agreement with what has fallen from the noble Marquess. Indeed, I am in agreement with the noble Viscount, too. But I share the shadow of misgiving which the noble Marquess has about the value of putting in the words. I think military training is in this Bill if the spirit is there. But I believe it is very important that the Government should make it clear that they really mean this to be open; and, speaking for myself, I should have no objection at all to having the words in. My reason is this. I had a good deal to do with this matter at one time, when I was at the War Office, when we saw very clearly that the training for the Territorial Army would be made much more effective if those who came into it had gone through previous course of cadet training. But cadet training to be useful must be, of course, something more than mere walking about; it must be formations; and I think, too, that if you are to make it interesting to the boys you must give a certain military flavour to it. It made all the difference if miniature rifles or small carbines were lent; and in my time the Adjutant-General arranged to supply the Boys' Brigade with miniature rifles. I remember undertaking the negotiations to see if this were possible, and, if I may say so, I received great assistance from the right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of London, with whom I talked it over at the time.

I come now to the doubt of the noble Marquess. We had made all these arrangements in those days with the Boys Brigades. With the Church Lads Brigade it went through with, I am afraid, a great deal of difficulty. With the Boys Brigade, which had its headquarters at Glasgow and whose head the late Sir William Smith was entirely in agreement with the authorities, there came about a conference, and I think both sets of Boys Brigades were represented at the Conference at Brighton. There was a tremendous fight against what we proposed to do. It came from outside people who were filled with just the kind of prejudice of which the noble Marquess was thinking, and in those years to put in the word "military" would have been fraught with a great deal of difficulty. A great deal of water has flowed under the bridge since then, and I think people understand more now what the value of a citizen army may be, and understand what a great deal may be done by early training of the proper kind in the school to make the training for that citizen army effective. I should be glad not only in the public interest but in the interest of the boys themselves to see real military cadet training given in the continuation schools. It would make the annual camps three times as interesting. It is the military side of the annual camps that the boys care about. They like to have the military people there and in the second place it enables the co-operation of the county associations with the cadet corps, and enables them to supply a lot of tents and so forth which cannot otherwise be got. In the third place it gives reality to this kind of education.

I think it is and will be in the future, under any conditions, part of our business to see that at any rate the needs of the nation in self-defence are not left unprovided for, and whatever may be the future, and however hopeful we may be, I think it would be better that at least we should provide, now that we have the opportunity, that full advantage may be taken of the new means put in the hands of the public authority. I do not know what the Government are going to say but I can only make one observation in conclusion. I am quite certain that to-day the apparent opposition to these things is much greater than the real opposition, and that if you go behind the kind of thing that is said you will find that it is said by very few people. I never really believe in the great conference at Brighton, which gave a very decisive vote against what I was very anxious to get the Boys Brigade to assent to; but I am sure that whatever opposition there existed then has nearly disappeared now. I believe that the people really wish for this and think it will supply a useful and necessary thing, and if the Government care to run the racket of this I have very little doubt they will find not only a large majority in this House but in the other House for the word "military."

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I think I may say truthfully that I agree with everything that has been said by the noble Marquess who spoke below the gangway just now, and indeed by the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment; but. I hold, my Lords, that all they wish to accomplish by this Amendment is capable of accomplishment under the Bill as it stands. I realize fully the great handicap which we were under when we came to the training of our new Army for this war. Our real difficulty was that most of the young men whom we took were physically so deficient that they were unable immediately to profit from the exclusively military part of the training given to them. The first thing necessary to accomplish in their training was to give them the necessary physique which would enable them to benefit from military training. I feel certain that if this Bill had been in operation for say ten years, and its provisions had been used in the spirit to which the noble Marquess referred, all this difficulty would have disappeared, or at any rate to a very great extent.

What were the arguments adduced by the noble Viscount and by the noble Marquess in favour of this Amendment? It was that institutions giving military train- ing did help to improve the physique of young persons. Now, my Lords, I am unable to accept the Amendment for the reasons which I will state, namely, that it would add very considerably to the difficulties which the Government would have in connection with this Bill in another place. We have been pressed, as your Lordships know, in two directions with regard to this clause. We have been pressed on the one hand to say that the physical training shall exclude all possibility of being of a military character. On the other hand we have been asked to insert an Amendment on the same lines as that which is before your Lordships. We have taken this line throughout these discussions that we desire such physical training to be provided or subsidised, as provided for in this clause, as will fulfil the purposes which really belong to an education authority. I maintain that it is the business of an education authority to provide for the healthy, physical training of its scholars, and that it is not its business to apply to that physical training a specifically military character.

I think it will be laid down even by the War Office that if you want the best soldiers at the age of eighteen the best way to secure them is to produce at that age young persons whose physique has been studied and made perfect throughout the previous years. In other words the War Office would say to-day "Give us the best physical material at the age of eighteen and we will turn it into soldiers in the quickest possible time." It is only because I hold that it is not the business of the education authority either to provide or subsidise exclusively military training that I deprecate the insertion of this Amendment. I would point out to the noble Marquess however that there is nothing in the Bill as it now stands to prevent an education authority either from providing camps or making provisions for physical training which would also include training of a military character; in other words they are not prohibited from assisting a movement which they consider will have great educational value and greatly assist the physique of young persons in their charge, merely because that institution or its form of training is of a military character.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Would that apply to cadet companies?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

Yes, it would apply to any; but what we want to insist upon is that the education authority shall not provide or pay far the military side of it. Under this clause the education authorities will encourage and give an educational bias to institutions which at this moment are excluisvely military, but we wish it to be clearly understood that it is only in proportion as those objects are for filling an educational purpose, and can really help on the physical training of the young persons for whom the education authority is responsible, that they shall be empowered to assist them. I may be asked, if that is so, why not insert these words. My reason is this, that I do not want to depart in this House from the attitude taken up by the Government in the House of Commons. We have been pressed from two quarters. We have refused to say that this education shall not be military; and, on the of her hand, We have refused to insert the words now proposed because we want to emphasise the fact that the purely military features of any such institutions as are referred to in this clause are not the concern of an educational body. If these words are accepted we should be accused of haying departed from the line we took in the House of Commons, and we should have very great difficulty in carrying them there. For these reasons I hope your Lordships will not insert these words, although I will conclude by assuring the noble Marquess that nothing which he recommended in his speech, and nothing which was referred to by the noble Viscount, is incapable of attainment under the clause as it stands.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If it is capable of attainment there can be nothing very wrong in it, even from the rigid educational point of view which the noble Earl has put forward, and if there is nothing wrong in it from an educational point of view, so that the Government would permit an education authority to do the very thing which my noble friend desires they should do, what is the objection to saying so on the face of the Bill? I want to impress upon the Government what the effect will be to-morrow morning when it is seen that, at this time, after all the experience we have had, the Government of this country have refused to include these kinds of military training in the Bill. It would be a most disastrous effect. I am sure the Government are wrong. After all, one of the main functions of legislation is to nurture a. good and sound public opinion. That public opinion already exists, and it is very much stronger really than the Government have any idea of.

Several NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It only wants to be encouraged to bear abundant proof. But if the Government in your Lordships' House reject such an Amendment—an Amendment which, I suspect, the noble Earl in his heart entirely approves of—just conceive what a dose of cold water that would be on the best elements of public opinion which are anxious to assert this obligation of the citizen to learn how to defend his country. The noble Earl said and really I fancy it was the only important part of his speech; I am not referring to the ingenious arguments which he always produces—that this will produce difficulties in another place. That was the whole argument. There was nothing else. It was quite clear that my noble friend was in sympathy with Lord Midleton and Lord Lansdowne. He said it would produce difficulties in another place.

We venture to say, after listening to the debate and to the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Haldane, who certainly represents a considerable body of opinion in another place, that the Government are probably wrong in their estimate of the opinion of another place. Will they not give the other place an opportunity of judging? Why not? Why not put the Amendment into the Bill? After all, it is a very modest request. It would be very difficult for the House of Commons, in their present convictions and frame of mind, to throw out an Amendment which merely says that it is the duty of a citizen to learn how to defend his country. That is really the only point. By their convictions, and by their experience in the present war, and by the sort of arguments which were used by the noble Marquess and the noble Earl himself, they are almost compelled to support the Amendment, and I earnestly suggest to the Government that they should allow the words to go in.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I rather regret that the noble Marquess did not recommend his friends to accept the suggestion that the Amendment should be withdrawn. Your Lordships will no doubt put the Amendment into the Bill—so I gather. I want at least, If I may, to use a word of caution in this matter. The obligation of a citizen to defend his country! Lord Salisbury rather thought that if one opposed this Amendment one did not accept that obligation. Far from it. I accept with anybody the full and complete obligation of every citizen to defend his country, but, from my knowledge of the drill sergeant, I think he would much rather have a fine healthy fellow of eighteen to make into a soldier than a youth who had enjoyed some casual drilling with the Boy Scouts or something of that kind, which is no help to the sergeant. What he wants is the good raw material. This Bill is going to provide the good raw material. That is the first thing I wish to point out. Those who deprecate the insertion of these words yield to none in their desire that the obligations of citizenship to defend our country should be most fully recognised. Lord Salisbury said, "Why do you not give the House of Commons a chance to put it in?" They have had the chance, and they refused to put it in.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

To keep it in.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

They refused to put it in. Lord Salisbury forgets what happened. This is not the first occasion on which it has been debated, and the House of Commons, I gather, refused to put it in. They did not wish to put it in; otherwise it would be in the Bill now. I am not quite clear that what we think in this House or what the House of Commons think is all that matters. There is a third body of opinion that must be consulted, and is entitled to be consulted. The clause says that you can have holiday camps, school camps, physical training, and then, in subsection (c), it actually repeats the words "other facilities for physical training." If you put in the words "military and" all these things become military training at once, and exhypothesi. Is it wise to put that in? That is the point for your Lordships. So far as making soldiers is concerned I am perfectly content with the camps—the holiday camps and the school camps—the centres, and the equipment and other facilities for physical training that are mentioned in the Bill. I like these things as they are. These are the things which will give us good soldiers. I hope your Lordships will make quite sure whether we shall strengthen these admirable things by saying they are put there for military purposes.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I cannot agree with my noble friend when he says that the words "military and" would exclude any other form of exercise than military.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Oh, no.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I understood him to say that.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

No.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

What did you say?

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I used rather guarded words, to tell the truth. I wish we were talking in Secret Session. What I said was that where you have got camps—school camps, holiday camps—physical training, and so on, if you put in the word "military" anywhere you colour the whole of these obligations by that word "military." I think this would be unfortunate.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

That is a matter of opinion If Lord Lytton is right some of these camps will already be regulated by the military idea, as he says they can be under the Bill. If the Amendment is accepted it is just as likely some of the camps will not be regulated by the military idea. The point I want to make is, that it is not only a question of the physical education of the child to make him better material, in case of emergency, as one of the defenders of this country. This Bill is to train the child in citizenship. We say, and ninety-nine people out of every hundred in the whole nation now says, that it is an elementary part of citizenship that a child should be able afterwards to defend his country, and that the elements of military training—simple drill, miniature rifle shooting, and so on—ought to be part of the education of the child. It is a separate thing to his physical development. Before the war there was a great difference of opinion on this subject. How much difference is there now? I do not say there is no difference, but those who object are an infinitesimal part of the population. I have not followed the debate on this Question in the House of Commons and I do not know whether it was ever put to them as a direct vote, as it will be in this House to-night, but I shall be very surprised if the House of Commons throws it out if this House puts it in.

LORD BERESFORD

The Government appear to be very timid about something. Is it about votes? They are going to do something they say, they are going to have this military training; why not, then, say so in the Bill? It would be of enormous importance if the schools could have this military training, and if you intend to have it, why not put the words in the Bill?

THE EARL OF VERULAM

May I suggest that you should put in the words "elementary military training."

LORD SOUTHWARK

I shall support the view taken by the Government, although I am sorry I have not been in the House through the whole of the debate. My first observations in this House on a Motion of the late Lord Roberts were in support of cadet corps, and there is no stronger supporter of cadet corps than I am. I have also worked with Lord Grenfell and Lord Methuen in the same direction, but I have always been alarmed of the effect on the minds of the population of putting in such a word as is suggested. There is no desire in the country to be thoroughly military. My experience in connection with the Duke of York's school is that cadet corps are of the greatest possible advantage to the boys of the school. I quite agree they should have the training; and I understand they are going to have some training under the Bill as it stands. You could have municipal cadet corps where it would be a voluntary act on the part of the boys to join. In the meantime they will have had the preliminary training under the Bill. What you do not want to do is, to alarm the public mind and bring about an opposition which is entirely unnecessary. There is no more useful school, educationally, and for

military purposes, than the Duke of York's School, and I would advocate an increase in the number of such schools all over the country, so that under some governing body you would have in the country young men who would voluntarily go into the Army and turn out, like those from the present Duke of York's School, the best men in the regiment as non-commissioned officers, and so on. I should not like to give a vote in support of the view taken by the Government without saying that there is no stronger supporter of cadet corps and training in the schools than I, but I should not like to make it compulsory and thus bring about an opposition which will damage the Bill when it gets back to the House of Commons.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

After the discussion which has taken place, I am in somewhat a difficult position. We have reached an hour of the evening when a number of members of your Lordships' House are not present, and the Government can command a number of votes, if they desire to use their power and not leave the question to the decision of the House. I must honestly say, after the support which has been given from such varied quarters to the principle of the Amendment, and after the confession of the noble Earl that an immense gain would have accrued to the country had such a system been in progress at the time war broke out, I really think I am bound to ask your Lordships to go to a Division.

On Question, whether the words proposed to be inserted shall stand part of the clause?—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 23.

CONTENTS.
Salisbury, M.	London, L. Bp.	Harris, L. [Teller.]
		Rotherham, L.
Selborne, E.	Beresford of Metemmeh, L.	Strachie, L.
Verulam, E.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) [Teller.]	Stuart of Wortley, L.
Haldane, V.		Sydenham, L.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Faringdon, L.	Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)	Kenyon, L.
Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.)		Newton, L.
	Peel, V.	Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)
Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.)		Phillimore, L.
	Annesley, L.	Somerleyton, L.[Teller.]
Lansdowne, M.	Braye, L.	Southwark, L.
	Clinton, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L (L. Sheffield.)
Chesterfield, E.	Colebrooke, L.
Lytton, E.	Gainford, L.	Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
Nelson, E.	Hylton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 17 agreed to.

[The sitting was suspended at twenty minutes past eight, and resumed at half-past nine o'clock.]

Clause 18:

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 28, leave out ("purpose") and insert ("purposes").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 30, leave out ("powers and duties") and insert ("duties and powers").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved—

Page 16a, line 13, leave out from ("and") to ("as") in line l4, and insert ("may exercise the like powers")

Page 16a, leave out lines 18 to 23 inclusive.—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Clause 20:

THE EARL OF LYTTON

My Lords, Clause 20 was inserted in the Bill at a late stage in the House of Commons, and was drafted somewhat hurriedly. It imposes a duty to educate physically defective and epileptic children. It is, of course, essential that an authority should ascertain what children in their area are physically defective and epileptic, but the clause did not fully achieve this object, and in order to put the matter beyond doubt words are to be added providing that an authority shall take steps to ascertain what children are defective.

Amendment moved— Page 16b, line 10, at beginning insert ("A local education authority shall make arrangements under the Elementary Education (Defective soul Epileptic Children) Acts, 1899 to 1914, for ascertaining what children in their area are physically defective or epileptic within the meaning of those Acts, and").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 21 to 24 agreed to.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I have already explained the new clause after Clause 24 which I now move.

Amendment moved—

Insert as a new clause:

"Provisions as to medical treatment.

". A local education authority shall not in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section thirteen of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, or by this Act, establish a general domiciliary service of treatment by medical practitioners for children or young persons, and in making arrangements for the treatment of children and young persons a local education authority shall consider how far they can avail themselves of the services of private medical practitioners."—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25:

Abolition of fees in public elementary schools.

25.—(1) No fees shall be charged or other charges of any kind made in any public elementary school, except as provided by the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 1906, and the Local Education Authorities (Medical Treatment) Act, 1909.

(2) During a period of five years from the appointed day the Board of Education shall in each year, out of moneys provided by Parliament, pay to the managers of a school maintained but not provided by a local education authority in which fees were charged immediately before the appointed day, the average yearly sum paid to the managers under section fourteen of the Education Act, 1902, during the five years immediately preceding the appointed day.

(3) Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of section nine of the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act, 1893, or of section eight of the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899.

LORD SYDENHAM moved to omit Clause 25. The noble Lord said: This Amendment was also put down by my noble friend Lord Parmoor, but he does not seem to be here to-night, and I am afraid that I must take his place. Clause 25 was very much debated in another place, and there was a very great difference of opinion in regard to it. It seems to me that this clause, abolishing the right of parents to pay fees in cases where they may wish to do so, should not be passed. It seems to me to be a levelling down, and not the levelling up that we wish to see in education as in everything else. It is also designed to destroy the last shred of responsibility of parents for the education of their children, and in some cases I think that it must inflict real hardship upon persons who for some special reason, pos- sibly for reasons of religious teaching, may wish to pay special fees for special schools.

Another reason given in another place was that some parents are anxious to avoid what are called verminous conditions in schools. It was stated in another place that verminous conditions have now ceased to exist. I am afraid that is not the case. I have seen the Reports of the Chief Medical Officer of the Nottinghamshire County Council, and I should be sorry to give the percentages of verminous conditions which were found after examining a large number of children. Those conditions wore found not only among the girls in the schools, numbering something like 20,700 who were examined, but they also extended, though in less degree, to the pupil teachers. I am quite certain that these conditions will disappear in the future, but they have not disappeared, and they probably will not disappear altogether until the parents have more medical knowledge than they now have. These schools, I understand, are few in number, but some of them are doing very good work, and if this clause is retained they will all disappear, as I read the clause, after a period of five years. In Scotland the schools are retained, and I cannot see any reason why they should not equally be retained in England and Wales. It looks to me very like another instance of that interference with personal liberty which so frequently characterises modern democracy.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 25.—(Lord Sydenham.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I appreciate the arguments in favour of this Amendment put forward from the point of view either of the individual school or the individual parents. I think it will be generally admitted that these fee-paying schools are now only a survival, that their continuation in our system of public education is really no longer defensible, and that they are, in fact, dying out by degrees. If there was nothing in this Bill which altered the present situation and necessitated a reconsideration of the position of these fee-paying schools, I think there would be a great deal to be said for leaving them to die a natural death by the exercise of the powers already possessed by the local education authorities. But the reason why we are obliged to resist this Amendment is that, first of all, there will no longer be, when this Bill is passed, a justification for their retention on the ground that they give special educational advantages and facilities which are not given in other schools.

It is one of the objects of this Bill, and we hope it will be one of its results, that the elementary education in all schools will be very materially improved. In fact, all that the very best of these fee-paying schools can claim to give we hope to achieve in all the elementary schools in the country. Secondly, by the abolition of the free grant and the substitution for that of what is known as the block grant in respect of all the requirements of an education authority, the only means which at present exist in the hands of the Board of checking an undue charge in the way of fees will be abolished. Therefore, quite apart from this clause, I hold that the operation of the Bill itself will remove both the justification for the retention of these fee-paying schools and the only means of checking them which at present exist.

Let me consider for a moment the arguments which have been put, forward in favour of retaining these schools. It has been urged that this clause of the Bill, Clause 25, which abolished fee-paying schools, is a departure from the educational settlement, of 1902, and that it imposes some kind of injustice upon the voluntary schools. Now, my answer to that is that none of the bodies who might be expected to voice an objection of that kind, none of the bodies who would speak on behalf of the voluntary schools, have put forward any such objection. Neither the County Councils Association, nor the Association of Municipal Corporations, nor the Association of Education Committees has made any comment, upon the proposal in this Bill to abolish fees. Generally speaking, local education authorities are in favour of the clause. Only five of them have expressed any kind of objection. Liverpool and Manchester, the two authorities which raise the largest amount of money by fees, have raised no objection, and the Director of Education for Liverpool has expressed his opinion that the continuance of fees is prejudicial to the organisation of advanced and elementary education. Then again, neither the National Society nor the Church Schools Emergency League has offered any objection, and I feel certain that if it could be urged that this Bill was in any I sense a breach of the educational settle- ment of 1902 we should have received some protest from these bodies.

Then it is urged that the retention of these fees is necessary for the maintenance of the voluntary schools. Here I would point out that there are only a very small number of these schools which charge fees at the present time. I think the total number of fee-paying schools is only 386, and the total receipts from fees are only £66,000, of which £40,000 is charged in voluntary schools. Of this £40,000 charged in respect of fees in voluntary schools only £14,000 is paid to the managers. This total is very small compared with the amount of money required for the upkeep and maintenance of voluntary schools generally. Therefore clearly the vast majority of the managers of elementary schools are able to maintain them without charging fees; and I would point out that even those schools which charge fees now, could well obtain the money necessary to maintain their buildings from the parents of children attending them in the form of subscriptions. That is the way in which the Roman Catholic schools are maintained. I think there are altogether only thirteen Roman Catholics schools, out of a total of 1,091, that charge any fees; they find it is easy and possible to maintain their schools out of the subscriptions given to them by parents of the children attending them.

Then it is urged that these fees should be continued because the schools charging fees are able to give some superior educational facilities. I am told that it has been found increasingly difficult in recent years to justify the retention of fees on the ground of the better education given in these schools; but, even if there has been some slight educational advantage in the past, for the reasons which I mentioned just now, I do not think that in the future there will be any distinction in respect of educational advantages between schools which charge fees and any other schools in the country. Therefore I think that the retention of fees can no longer be justified on the grounds that those schools give a better education; and if it were still true that those schools did give a better education, I do not think that would be consistent with the policy of a general national system of public education aimed at by this Bill. I do not think it would really be possible to say that, in a national system, certain special educational advantages should be available only to the children of those parents who are able to pay fees for them.

It is also argued, as Lord Sydenham argued just now, that some parents desire to keep in existence these fee-paying schools because, by virtue of charging fees, the schools are kept soeially select. I do not want to dwell upon the question of verminous children, because if there are still schools attended by verminous children there are ample powers possessed by the local education authorities for dealing with such cases under the existing law. But if there exists a desire for select schools, that really means that fees are defended because of the deterrent effect they have upon other people's children. That is to say, a certain parent asks that fees should be retained in a certain school not in order to give any better education to his own children, but merely in order to deter the children of somebody else, who may be considered of less social standing, from attending the school. Here, again, I think that is impossible to defend on educational grounds. It is impossible to say that in a national system you should retain a few selected schools, charging fees for the mere purpose of keeping them select.

One word now with regard to the arguments for this clause. I have already stated that these schools are now out of date; they are survivals of a time which has passed by; and the conditions which justified their existence no longer remain. Then, by the abolition of the fee grant, it is no longer possible for the Board of Education to maintain the control over the charging of fees which it possesses at the present time. On general educational grounds, therefore, we feel very strongly that there is no justification for retaining in a national system a few isolated schools in particular parts of the country to which this special privilege of charging fees shall be attached. We think that it cannot be defended upon educational grounds, and that the personal grounds urged for their maintenance ought not to prevail against the requirements of the general educational advantage of the country.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am not sure that my noble friend would be wise to press this Amendment, but I confess I am a little astonished at the attitude which the Government have adopted with respect to these fee-paying schools. One of the objects of a great educational measure such as we are passing into law is to make education as much appreciated by the people concerned as possibly can be the case. There is no advantage whatever to be gained by offending the wishes and susceptibilities of any section of the school-using population. The noble Earl spoke of educational efficiency, but I confess I thought that in that part of his observations he spoke with a great deal of reserve. He was not at all competent in his argument that this change would make for educational efficiency. He went so far as to admit that at the present time these schools did probably provide rather better educational facilities than other schools, but he said that owing to the changes made in the Bill that would no longer be the case. That is a little speculative, and I should have thought that if these schools do at present provide a better type of education, then from the educational point of view those who are axious for educational progress would wish to preserve them.

It is a pity, I think, to offend the susceptibilities of a certain number of people. The noble Earl took to his case the credit of the fact that there were relatively few of these schools. I should have thought that that was an argument the other way. If there had been a serious exception to the uniformity of the system which the noble Earl and his friends seem so anxious to produce, that might have been a good argument; but here we have a limited number of schools, really belonging to one or two counties only, where they are very popular, and they meet a want which is very much felt, and I should have said almost wantonly the Government have sought to destroy them. I cannot help thinking that it is in the interests of this love of uniformity which is the besetting sin of Government Departments that this is being done. As a matter of fact, efficiency lies in the other direction, for it is variety and contrast which make for the real life of a system. The moment you get uniformity, a system tends to become dead.

I recognise that the Government have tried to meet some of the difficulties which these fee-paying schools will be placed in by the second subsection, I believe it is, of the clause, and I think we ought to be grateful to the Government for that provision. Therefore I am not sure that my noble friend will do well to press his Amendment, but I believe the policy of the Government to be retrograde. They should have tried to preserve this variety, as palatable as possible to all sections of the population who are going to use the schools.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

I should be sorry if this question passed without a single word from the Bench on which I sit. It is a very difficult question indeed, and I am inclined to share the view of the noble Marquess who has just spoken that it is doubtful whether it is desirable that it should be pressed at this moment after the debates which took place in the House of Commons. At the same time, it is perfectly certain that there is a great deal to be said in a great many places in favour of the schools which have hitherto paid fees. I do not think it is quite fair to represent it as a desire on the part of the Government, or of Mr. Fisher at any rate, to secure uniformity.

Any one who will read the series of speeches which the President of the Board of Education made in the House of Commons on the subject will see that it is argued with perfect fairness all round, and he specially deprecated the desire to reduce to a rigid uniformity the kind of elementary school which is able to exist in different parts of the country. I entirely share the view expressed by the noble Marquess that variety in all directions is desirable, as regards our schools. I desire to see them various in their modes of management, and in their curriculum—as far as possible, even within one area, to have different curricula for different sets of scholars—and the question whether fees are paid or not is one as to which, on principle, I do not see any conflict as between the fee-paying and non-fee-paying schools.

The difficulties, I feel, are twofold. First there is no question that it is a decadent system, and not at this moment supported generally by the best educationists in the country. Neither the spokesmen of the best education authorities, nor those who, outside the education authorities, are the foremost spokesmen for progressive education, are desirous of this. Nor do the spokesmen of denominational schools regard this as something for which they, as denominationalists, should contend. I lost the first part of the noble Earl's speech but I have no doubt that the number of denominational schools has been referred to. The number of council school in which fees are paid is considerable, and the number of undenominational schools, which are not council schools, is not very small, nor is it large, but it is a fair number.

Where the denominationalists have had fee-paying schools they are on the decrease, and not on the increase. That is exactly what, I think, we should expect, when we look at the present trend of our education system in the direction of providing the simplest and readiest access to secondary schools of the less ambitious sort which correspond very much to what used to be the select schools for the better "tops," as they are called, of children in the higher standards of our elementary schools. The question of abolishing them now is obviously one upon which, in the places where they exist, there is a wide difference of opinion among educationists.

In my own diocese there is only one such school, I think, which is eagerly supported by the parents who pay the fees, and by the people at large, and entirely supported by the education authority. It is one of the extreme cases in favour of the system of maintaining such schools, and were that the condition of things in all parts where the schools exist I should feel that the case was an extremely strong one for retaining the system of fee paying schools. But it is not so. No one who will read the full debate in the House of Commons, where the matter was elucidated from many points of view can say that was the case. Emphasis was laid upon the fact that if this Amendment were passed fee-paying schools would cease to exist. They do go on now for five years; the sum of money will be payable for five years after, the edict has gone out that from that time they will cease to exist.

I regret the abolition of anything which causes variety of systems, and meets the wishes of certain people in different parts of the country, but I do not think I could honestly say I can press the Government as a matter of educational efficiency or fairness to individual places, to do more than they have done in saying that for five years this money shall be forthcoming. That seems to be a fair way of putting it. What I am very anxious to press is that this is not a denominational question; the schools are of all sorts and kinds—Church of England, Roman Catholic, Nonconformist, and undenominational—and while the best educational authorities are far from being agreed that the change would be of advantage, I do not think I could vote for the noble Lord's Amendment though I have great sympathy with a great deal that has been said on the subject.

LORD SYDENHAM

The noble Earl said that these unfortunate 368 schools are dying a natural death. Surely they might be allowed to die in peace. Nobody can say they are doing any harm at the present time, and I do not think the noble Earl has made out a strong case against them. But is it certain they are going to die? After the war we hope the wages of the manual workers will be higher than they used to be; that they will be more thrifty, and that some parents may wish to deny themselves a little in order to give more special advantages to their children. Why should not they be allowed to do that? Is it not a laudable ambition; and are we to destroy for ever the idea that a parent has any responsibility for the education of his children? If the noble Earl's argument is carried to its logical conclusion it would carry him very far. Why should not all fees in day schools he abolished everywhere, for everybody. That would be a national system, but the present Bill is not a national system. It is a class system, and if the argument was carried to its conclusion you would have abolition of fees for all classes, in all schools. I am afraid the noble Earl is not in a yielding mood, it is no use appealing to him further, and I had better withdraw my motion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 agreed to

Clauses 26 to 28 agreed to.

Clause 29:

Provisions as to closing of schools.

29.—(1) The managers of a public elementary school not provided by the local education authority, if they wish to close the school, shall give eighteen months' notice to the local education authority of their intention to close the school, and a notice under this provision shall not be withdrawn except with the consent of the local education authority.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to leave out, at the end of subsection (1), "local education authority" and to insert "Board of Education." The noble Marquess said: This is not a very important point, but I hope the Government will be able to meet us. It contemplates the case where the managers of a non-provided school are not able, or think themselves not able, to carry on the school. They give notice of that fact, and very properly they are required to give eighteen months' notice, because other arrangements have to be made in order to meet the deficiency of accommodation which might result. There is no desire to contest the justice of that, but it has happened occasionally that after this notice of closing has been given those who are interested in the non-provided school find, that they are better able to carry it on than they had thought. I do not think that any one has a right to throw stones at them for being capricious in a matter of this kind. Many of them have to make great sacrifices in order to carry on these schools at all. They do it for what they believe, to be a great object, and even for—if I may use such a word in your Lordships' House—a sacred object.

I am not speaking on behalf of any particular denomination. There are other denominations besides the one to which I belong who feel it even more acutely, and who make great sacrifices in order to carry on their schools. They only consent to close them under the greatest pressure of necessity. Then it happens that perhaps some rich man is moved to help them, or there is a movement in their locality by which others who are not very rich come together and obtain a little more money, and they are thus able to revise their decision to close the school. I think that everybody must sympathise with them. They are prepared to go on, with a struggle, maintaining the school, as they believe in the public interest, and at great sacrifice and under great difficulty. Then it is that the question raised by this Amendment arises. They may be refused any leave to withdraw from their decision by the local education authority as the clause stands.

I am not going to repeat what I said, I am afraid not very successfully, a little earlier this evening, except to state that some local education authorities would be much less willing than others to allow a place for repentance. It cannot be denied that some local education authorities are anxious to crush out these non- provided schools as being excrescences upon the symmetry of the system which they wish to see prevail in this country. I was told just now by a most rev. Prelate that the Government were not anxious for an absurd symmetry, but I am sure that some of these local education authorities have been in the past, and are now, anxious for such a symmetry, and they would be in a position to prevent this repentance, as it were, on the part of those patriotic persons—because they are patriotic in their own intention and belief. All that I seek to do in this Amendment is to give some power of appeal to the Board of Education against the decision of the local education authority.

In the Amendment that I have put down I substitute the Board of Education for the local education authority as the consenting body to this withdrawal, but I should be quite willing to accept the Amendment which stands next on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Verulam. It is a more moderate form of Amendment with the same object, giving an appeal against a decision of the local authority to the Board of Education. If the Government were willing to accept that Amendment instead of the one in my own name I need not say that I should be delighted. I think that the Government will see that there is substantial justice in the suggestion. May I say that they have not been in a very conceding mood since this Bill was introduced? Of course, they are quite right to fight their own Bill, but this is a very small point. I do not want to exaggerate its importance. It would be welcome, I believe, especially to the Roman Catholic body, and I hope the Government will be good enough to accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 20, leave out ("local education authority") and insert ("Board of Education").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I do not propose to follow the noble Marquess in the tribute which he paid to the public spirit of the various bodies throughout the country who provided these voluntary schools. He knows that I share to the full his appreciation of the service which these persons have rendered. I also quite understand the difficulties that they are in in maintaining the schools which they have provided under recent conditions. I hope, therefore, he will take that for granted. But what we are dealing with here is really a matter of contract between two parties. Under the law as it stands at the present moment there are two very serious inconveniences—inconveniences which have been found to be serious in practice, and they are these. In the first place, the managers of a voluntary school may at any moment give notice to the local education authority of their intention to close the school, and they have power to close the school immediately, and it will take at least eighteen months to provide any substitute. The action so taken by the managers would leave the locality unprovided for that period.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I admitted that.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

It is to meet that first inconvenience that we have inserted this clause. But there is a further inconvenience which takes place at the present time. The managers may give notice to an education authority of their intention of closing the school. Having received that notice it becomes the duty of the education authority to provide alternative accommodation, and it may happen—it has happened—that after there has been considerable expense, after they have secured a site, after they have perhaps started the work on the new building, the managers may say "After all we have changed our mind, we are not going to close the school," and the local authority is under a statutory obligation to continue to maintain the old school, and they also have to provide funds for a new one. It is for that reason that we have inserted this clause, which provides, first, that eighteen months' notice should be given, and that, once given, the notice should not be withdrawn without the consent of the other party to the contract. The noble Marquess desires to substitute for that other party the Board of Education, and the noble Earl, Lord Verulam, proposes, not to substitute the Board of Education, but at any rate to give an appeal to the Board of Education. I desire to point out that the Board of Education is no partner to the contract. It is not they who will have to provide the substituted building, it is not the Board of Education that will suffer the financial loss from the change of mind on the part of these authorities.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble Earl has, of course, put a case which he is entitled to put, that there would be a financial loss, and in that case I have no doubt the Board of Education would decide against the managers of non-provided schools, but it might be that they had incurred no money loss whatever. The change might take place before a halfpenny had been expended on behalf of the new school.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I am stating the extreme cases which have rendered this clause necessary. They have in fact happened in the past and it is to prevent them happening in the future that this clause has been inserted. It really is I think a very well recognised practice of English law. What would the noble Marquess's feelings be, if having received notice from one of his tenants to quit a certain farm it was suggested that that person should afterwards withdraw his notice with an appeal to the Board of Agriculture. The Board of Agriculture would have nothing to do with the contract. In this case the Board of Education has really no more to do with the contract between these two parties than the Board of Agriculture would have in the instance to which I have referred.

I very much regret to be in what the noble Marquess calls an unyielding mood, but I think that he will realise, if he considers it, that we are here dealing with a contract between two parties, and what he is saying is that having had plenty of time to consider the matter with no obligation on the managers to give their notice to close the school until they have looked around and assured themselves that they cannot carry on, they are not to be bound by the notice once given. And in a case where having given that decision, shortly afterwards, let us say, some generous benefactor is forthcoming who, in order to save the school, will produce funds, I feel certain that in almost every such instance the Local Education Authority would much prefer to go on and to continue the existing school than have to find the money to provide a new one. These cases would be dealt with, as they are now; but there does not seem to be any justification for bringing in another body which has nothing to do with the case.

LORD SHEFFIELD

The noble Marquess in this, as in several other questions he has raised, seems to be more sensitive and apprehensive of harsh action on the part of local authorities than he is acquainted with the practical difficulties of working elementary schools. In this case the difficulty is a very serious one, because these dying voluntary schools are continually in the hope of a possible resurrection, and they struggle and struggle, and the trouble is they often have a very sympathetic and friendly local authority who will give anything to keep the school alive. In my own personal experience I have come across three cases which show the great inconvenience of this shilly-shallying in making up their minds that the school should be closed.

In one case, when I was on the School Board for London, there was a Church School at Streatham. It was a very bad building, which was condemned, and the school collapsed. But there was a sanguine clergyman who had hopes from the National Society and the Diocesan Board, and various other things, and went round hopelessly begging for help. At last this clergyman had hopes, and he said he had the money and would rebuild the school. This lasted some time, with the usual shilly-shallying. I, being Chairman of the Committee, and responsible, said, "If you will inform us by a certain date that a contract is signed for the new school we will abandon our authority from the Board of Education to build a school in its place." When the time was almost up, we got an assurance from this clergyman that the contract was signed. That seemed good enough evidence. Some six months afterward I happened to go down there, in my wanderings about London, and I found that nothing whatever had been done. My suspicions were aroused, and I took steps to see the contract. I found it was quite true that a contract had been signed, but in the margin of the contract a paragraph had been inserted that it should not be operative until the managers chose to make it operative, which, I need hardly say, was a perfect fraud on us, on the children, and on the neighbourhood.

Then I had another experience when I was living near Malton, in Yorkshire. There was a school at Appleton-le-Street. The school was in a dying condition. The clergyman wanted aid and the farmers were not very willing to subscribe. Two or three times the clergyman gave notice to the Board of Education to close the school. At last, the Board of Education said the school was to be closed, and they issued notices for the formation of a School Board for the parish of Appleton-le-Street. The Board of Education wrote down, very properly, "It is a great pity that this school should be closed in the meantime and the children turned into the streets. Won't you take steps that the school shall be continued until the local authority is ready to provide a new school?" I do not want to boast of what I did, but I myself told the clergyman that I would guarantee the cost of running that school for him during the interval until the local authority could build a school. They had my money; and then either the Diocesan Association or some one else said, "Buck up; make an effort;" so he again set the school going in a precarious sort of way. It went on like this for two years more; but I got a letter from the clergyman afterwards saying that the crisis had come on again, that it had at last overcome him, that the school had been closed and a School Board formed; so the farmers, who before would not pay, now have to pay the rate, and all is well.

The third case concerns my neighbouring town of Macclesfield, which is a town that has not shown any great zeal for education. There is still in Macclesfield a school which has been condemned for ten years; it was so insanitary and dangerous that the borough surveyor ordered it to be closed. The clergyman was willing to throw up the sponge, but the Diocesan Association, with the help of a lethargic local authority, kept saying, "Give us a little longer and we will have another meeting," and so on; and for ten years this school has stood in the way. I do not mind very much the Amendment of the noble Marquess because I think that where you have these inefficient, cowardly, and economically parsimonious authorities, the Board of Education will act more peremptorily. Eighteen months is right; because when people cannot maintain a school themselves it is better for the local authority temporarily to take possession of it. If I have had these three cases in my own personal experience, do your Lordships not suppose that throughout the country there are many cases of people who cannot maintain the school themselves, but who, like dogs in the manger, prevent other people coming in?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clauses 30 to 32 agreed to.

Clause 33:

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The two Amendments standing in my name are merely drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 21, lines 14 and 15, leave out ("of the nature")

Page 21, line 24, at end insert ("but without prejudice to any powers conferred by any Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament before the appointed day").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34 agreed to.

Clause 35:

Amendment with respect to the allocation of expenses to particular areas.

35.—(1) It shall not be obligatory on a county council to charge on or raise within particular areas any portion of such expenses as are mentioned in paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) of sub section (1) of section eighteen of the Education Act, 1902, and accordingly each of those paragraphs shall have effect as if for the word "shall" there was substituted the word "may" and as if the words "less than one half or" were omitted therefrom; and, where before the passing of this Act any portion of such expenses has been charged on or allocated to any area, the county council may cancel or vary the charge or allocation.

(2) Before charging any expenses under section eighteen (1) (a) of the Education Act, 1902, on any area situate within a borough or urban district the council of which is an authority for the purpose of Part III of the Education Act, 1902, a county council shall consult the council of the borough or urban district concerned.

LORD GAINFORD

I move first to leave out at the beginning of subsection (1) the words "It shall not be obligatory on" and to insert the words "The powers of." I am sorry to say that Lord Huntly is unable to be present to move the Amendment standing in his name, but he has asked me to impress upon your Lordships the view he entertains in connection with it. He was, however, prepared to waive his Amendment in favour of mine, which he thought met this point rather better than did his own.

I feel somewhat strongly that my proposal to promote uniformity throughout the country in connection with the procedure under this clause is better than that of the Government. In the Bill which I was authorised to introduce in 1914—upon which this Bill was founded—it was made clear that the county council should take under its power all these small parishes; and in the event of any school in any parish being inadequate and unsatisfactory, that school would be built at the expense of the county, and not one half or three-quarters of the cost placed in the parish. In actual practice over the sixteen years that have elapsed since the passing of Mr. Balfour's Bill, we have found that a large number of parishes have been prejudiced by the fact that they had old and antiquated the buildings, and there was great pressure placed upon the county council to prevent these schools being up to the requisite standard, the reason being that if a new school was erected in that parish one-half to, three-quarters of the cost of that school would be placed upon that parish.

If the power is left to the county councils to decide whether the cost should be placed upon the whole county or whether it should be placed upon the parish there will be no uniform practice in the country. In the one county you will have a large number of schools built in regard to which all sorts of financial arrangements are made in connection with individual parishes. That will complicate enormously the accounts of the county and there will be no uniformity in the system. Again, if you have a parish on a county boundary you will have contributions from one county made towards a school in the neighbouring part of the parish based upon an entirely different proportion of expenditure to that in the neighbouring county, and it does seem to me desirable that this particular Section 18 of the Act 1902 should cease to have effect; that there should be a uniform system throughout the whole country; and that there should be spread over the whole county expenses connected with education. It seems to me that the whole principle of the Bill is to secure as far as we can a national system of education, and if we are going to prejudice individual parishes by placing great burdens upon them in the event of a school being built in a particular locality whether a central school or a very small school you will do a great deal to prevent that erection of the standard of education which we desire to see by the passage of this Bill. For that reason I beg to move my Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 32, leave out ("It shall not be obligatory on") and insert ("The powers of").—(Lord Gainford.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be no longer to leave any power to the Local education authority of charging upon a parish any part of the capital cost of the provision of a new school. I agree with him that if we were starting de novo and setting up for the first time a procedure which would govern these cases, there would be a great deal to be said for his Amendment—namely, for requiring that when a new school was provided the capital cost should be distributed over the whole county and not placed upon the parish alone. I would, however, ask the noble Lord to remember this, that we are not setting up a new procedure. We have to deal with the actual situation.

It is perfectly true that many parishes have in the past been deterred from providing new schools owing to their reluctance to incur a large financial burden; but, in spite of that, since 1902 a considerable number of new schools have been provided. Those parishes now have to bear the proportion from one-half to three-quarters of the capital cost of those new schools, and if the noble Lord's Amendment were carried they would in future have to contribute their quota to the cost of the schools which may hereafter be erected in more backward parishes. The effect of it, therefore, would be to place a heavy burden on those parishes that had come forward and been progressive in fulfilling their duty, and would work greatly to the advantage of parishes that had been backward and had failed in their duty. For this reason, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

The provision of the Bill is to convert what is now a duty of the local authority to divide the cost as between the parish and the county area into a power. It will no longer be the duty of the authority to charge not less than one-half nor more than three-quarters of the cost of a new school upon the parish. It will be open to them to distribute the cost as they think fit. This is an important point, because it will enable the Board in future to bring more pressure upon those authorities, and if they have to provide new schools the Board can now point out that they need not be deterred through the fear of putting an excessive charge on a small locality. Therefore, the clause as it stands will greatly help the Board of Education. If the noble Lord's Amendment were carried it might produce considerable injustice in many localities.

LORD SHEFFIELD

The objection which the noble Earl has raised could be met if the noble Lord below me would slightly alter his Amendment and make the paragraph cease at the words "omitted therefrom" and keep out of the Bill what the Government have there—"and where before the passing of this Act any portion of such expenses has been charged on or allocated to any area, the county council may cancel or vary the charge or allocation." That would relieve those parishes which are at present chargeable with part of the cost of putting up a new school from their out-standing liabilities. As money is borrowed for forty years or more, and these schools which have been built in the last ten years have not paid off a large part, they will be greatly relieved. The technical objection of the hardship of parishes which have built schools could thus be easily done away with.

I am sorry that the noble Earl has argued a great many things which, I am sure, are contrary to his own inmost convictions. It is the painful experience, which all people in official positions often have to undergo. I only wish to remind the noble Earl that in what my noble friend is proposing he is only proposing again what every Government Bill since 1906 has included, namely—the absolute abolition of this intolerable burden on the smaller districts. I am sure that many counties, if they had had the power to put the cost on the county as a whole, would have taken the whole of it. In one county with which I am connected, Anglesey, we did the most we could, and took one-half. I do not think the noble Earl dealt with the other point as to charging part of the cost of secondary education on a district. There, again, sensible counties have taken advantage of that. In another county with which I am connected—Cheshire—they said, "We will consider the county one area for secondary education." Therefore, all secondary schools have been built at the cost to the county as a whole. I do not think it would do the noble Earl any harm if my noble friend went to a Division. It would not prejudice the Bill, and it would put on record the fact that we are more consistent in our support of the policy which we have advocated for the last twelve years than the present Government and the noble Earl who, I am sorry to say, is forced to speak on their behalf.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

May I appeal to the noble Lord who has spoken not to force a division at this moment? I understand him to have made a suggestion whereby it would be possible to meet the noble Lord without imposing the hardships which I think would have been the result of the Amendment. I did not catch his words, but if the Amendment is withdrawn I will undertake to consider them before the Report stage, and, if it is found possible to meet the noble Lord, I should like to meet him as regards the principle of the Amendment, if that can be done without the objections to which I have referred.

LORD GAINFORD

I will accept the suggestion, and withdraw the Amendment with a view to its being considered before the Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdraw.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 4, leave out ("purpose") and insert ("purposes").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36 agreed to.

Clause 37.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 21, after ("and") insert ("the").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 38 agreed to.

Clause 39:

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 2, leave out the first ("the") and insert ("any"), and leave out from ("authority") to ("or") in line 4, and insert ("to whose administration the inquiry appears to the Board to be incidental").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 40 agreed to.

Clause 41:

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 16, after the first ("of") insert ("the").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 42 to 46 agreed to.

LORD STRACHIE

I move, after Clause 46, the new clause standing in my name. The object of it is to give Parliament some control over the action of the Board of Education, and make it necessary for them to submit their schemes to both rouses of Parliament, and if objection is taken and either House passes a Resolution asking His Majesty to withdraw his consent then the Order becomes null and void, without prejudice to the making of any future Order in the place of it. This question has been repeatedly discussed in this House and in another place. In another place it has been modified by the insertion of the word "may" instead of "shall," and in this House it is sometimes put into a Bill and sometimes left out. When I was in charge of the Milk Bill the agriculturists properly insisted that Regulations made under the Bill should be laid before Parliament, so that Parliament would have the last word in the matter and not a Department in Whitehall.

I am moving this particular Amendment as the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for the Central Chamber of Agriculture, who are anxious in all these matters, that some such clause should be inserted, especially where schemes are laid involving a large expenditure of money and any interference with local areas. In the second Schedule I notice there is a proposal to repeal the very innocuous power given by the Act of 1870, which provides that schemes have to be laid before both House of Parliament for thirty days. It merely says they are to be laid; that Parliament is to have an opportunity of knowing what the Board of Education are doing—it should not be done in a "hole and corner" manner—and also that the public may be aware of it.

But apparently the Department, or it may be the noble Earl himself, has so great an objection to publicity or to both Houses of Parliament knowing what these schemes are which are made by the Department he represents, that he proposes to withdraw even that small safeguard by repealing the section to which I have referred. The Amendment that I am now moving goes a great deal further, and proposes that either House of Parliament may, if they think fit, ask His Majesty to annul any scheme which is contrary to the public interest.

Amendment moved—

Insert as a new clause:

"Regulations, &c. to be laid before Parliament.

". Any regulations and rules made under this Act shall not be deemed to be in force until they have lain for not less than thirty days on the table of both Houses of Parliament, and, if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent thirty days on which that House has sat next after any such regulations or rules are laid before it praying that the regulations or rules may be annulled, His Majesty in Council shall annul them and they shall thenceforth be void."—(Lord Strachie.)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

The noble Lord proposes to insert a clause the effect of which would be to require that all Regulations made by the Board of Education should be laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament. The only Regulations, or almost the only Regulations, which the Board will make under this Bill are in respect of grants. This would give to your Lordships' House power to to hold up grants of money which have been voted by the House of Commons, and of putting a veto upon the whole application of these grants. These moneys can be spent only in accordance with Regulations issued by the Board of Education, and if there are no Regulations then the moneys cannot be spent. The new clause would therefore put into the power of your Lordships' House by a mere Address to hold up the whole system of public educational finance, and to annul not only the decision of the House of Commons but also the actual provisions of the present Bill, since the payment of the deficiency grant is necessarily dependent upon making Regulations for ascertaining its amount.

The clause of the noble Lord goes very much further than anything which is contained in the existing Acts. The Education Act of 1870 provides that Minutes of the Education Department shall not be deemed to be put into force until they have laid for not less than one month on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. But there is nothing in these Acts which enables the House of Lords or the House of Commons to render the Regulations null and void. The complaint that is made with regard to the existing system is not that there is no Parliamentary control, which, in fact, is complete, but that the local education authorities very often do not know the Regulations made by the Board of Education, and that is the reason for the clause in the Bill. That clause requires Regulations to be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and the effect of these words is automatically to incorporate the provisions of the Rules Publication Act of 1893 so as to apply to Rules which are required to be made. The effect is that the Regulations must be published forty days before they are issued. The local education authority or any public body interested in the matter is entitled to claim copies, and they can make representations to the Board of Education, who are bound to take those representations into consideration at the end of forty days. The Rules may either be confirmed in their original form or they may be modified as the result of the representations made, and when made the Rules must be laid before Parliament. It is clear, therefore, that this clause in the Bill does give what the local education authorities want. The Amendment proposed would go very much too far.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am not altogether in favour of the Amendment of the noble Lord, because it does not seem to me actually to "touch the spot" which it is most requisite to touch, but with its spirit and with a great deal of it I am in sympathy. It seems to me a most astonishing thing how this Government is so terribly afraid of the possibility of Parliamentary interference in what the Departments do. Why should they be afraid?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

They are not afraid.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Why then should you not give power to both Houses of Parliament to interfere?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

This clause actually extends their powers.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

What is the objection?

THE EARL OF LYTTON

There is no objection; the clause provides for it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

All the clause provides is that certain things should be laid on the Table. That does not go far enough, nor in my judgment does the Amendment of the noble Lord. What I want to get at is the real mentality of the Governments which are afraid to trust the House of Commons and the House of Lords to correct the mistakes that they make. Why should they be afraid? Is it not a democratic country? Is it so very wrong that the Houses of Parliament should be entrusted with this power? May I just say why I agree so entirely with my noble friend who sits behind me? I do not think his Amendment is drawn in the right form, because what we want to lay before Parliament is not only the Regulations and the Rules but the scheme. There ought of course to be a power in either House of Parliament to make objection if it thinks fit. I am not going to repeat the observations made by a great number of noble Lords earlier in the evening, but may I say that, although many of us are strongly in favour of this Bill, everybody recognises that it is a most far-reaching Bill, it is going to make immense changes, and is going to cost an enormous quantity of money. That is common ground, and yet the Government think that any power left to Parliament to make any kind of changes in connection with these scheme is altogether improper, and my noble friend holds up his hands in horror at the suggestion that in a great self-governing country either House of Parliament should have the power to check anything that is excessive in these vast schemes. I think that is a most undemocratic way of looking at this subject.

I have no authority to make an appeal to my noble friend, and I do not pretend to do so, but I hope he will not persist in his Amendment on the present occasion, because I do not think it is drafted correctly. But I do hope that on the next stage of the Bill he will really bring up an Amendment which will really touch the necessary point, that is to say, that it shall give both Houses of Parliament power over schemes and Regulations, and power to see that these vast, powers which are given to a Government Department may not be abused, and that true and proper democratic control may be retained over the hands of the executive Government.

LORD STRACHIE

Of course, I will at once accede to the suggestion of Lord Salisbury and ask leave to withdraw this Amendment in order to raise this question later on on the Report stage. But I may say that I think that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill is mistaken in thinking this will be objected to by another place, because a similar Amendment—that is why I put it down in this form—was really put down in the House of Commons, and as far as I know was moved, but the Parliamentary reports in the public Press are now so condensed that I have not been able to discover.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 47:

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I have already explained the object of inserting this definition here.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 4, at end insert ("The expression 'school term' means the term as fixed by the local education authority").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedules agreed to.