Lords Sitting of 15 December 1925

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

HORLEY AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Earl of Clarendon's Amendment to the Motion of the Viscount Peel (moved on Tuesday, December 8), That the Special Order which was presented on the 15th day of July last be approved—namely, to leave out all the words after "That" and to insert "having regard to the decision of a Select Committee of this House upon the Horley and District Gas Company (Electricity Supply) Bill [H.L.] the Special Order be not approved."
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, you will see on the Paper Notice of an Amendment to my noble friend's Motion in regard to the Special Order, in the following terms:—"That the debate be further adjourned until the Special Orders Committee have reported whether any further Parliamentary inquiry is desirable before the House proceeds to a decision on the Amendment, and, if so, what form that inquiry should take, and that the Order be recommitted to the Special Orders Committee for the purpose." Your Lordships will remember that we were in some difficulty about this Motion when it came to be debated, because there was considerable doubt in the minds of many noble Lords as to the exact position of the facts. There were, for example, two points upon which there was doubt. One was whether those who had been responsible for the promotion of the Bill, which was thrown out in the House of Commons, had had a full opportunity of stating their side of the case. The other was as to how far the Special Order now before your Lordships had upon the face of it an obligation to give the public a bulk supply.
Those two matters appeared to be in some doubt, and when your Lordships consulted the Report which had come from the Special Orders Committee there was no full guidance upon the face of it
1436
to show the House what course that Committee advised. Nothing was said except that there were special reasons why this body had not petitioned. That was noted; but the Committee did not go on to say what inference should be drawn from that omission, or what were the good reasons for it. When some of us—I was one—made ourselves responsible for recommending to the House the adoption of this new procedure of a Special Orders Committee, it was with the direct view of removing from the floor of the House the discussion of the propriety of proceeding upon the ordinary basis or taking special steps and confining it to a Select Committee. We thought that leaving matters to be discussed on the floor of the House led to various consequences which were not in the public interest. We therefore hoped that the Special Orders Committee would undertake all that work for the House, at any rate primarily, and would make a recommendation to the House so that we might have some guidance as to the course we ought to pursue.
I think it is in strict conformity with the principle which animated so many of us that we should ask the Special Orders Committee to reconsider this particular Special Order, in order that we may gain that guidance which in their Report seems to be lacking. I think they would be able to settle all those questions of fact. They might be able, perhaps, to put them right or, in the alternative, they might recommend some other course to the House. I have carefully abstained in everything I have said this afternoon from indicating in the least in which direction their decision should be. I think if we are to refer it to them we ought to keep our minds absolutely open as to whether the Special Order should be agreed to forthwith, or whether some other course ought to be taken. I believe—though, of course, he will have the opportunity of saying so—that the Lord Chairman agrees to the course which I am now recommending to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the debate be further adjourned until the Special Orders Committee have reported whether any further Parliamentary inquiry is desirable before the House proceeds to a decision on the Amendment, and, if so, what form that inquiry should take, and that the Order be recommitted to the Special

1437
Orders Committee for the purpose.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I do not rise to offer any opposition to what the noble Marquess has proposed, but I desire to point out this. The question is not one of detail; it is a great question of principle, a principle which has been laid down by the Government itself. That principle is that electricity is most cheaply and effectively given from a bulk supply proceeding from a great generating station. That is the principle on which the Electricity Commissioners have throughout proceeded and in proposing this Order they no doubt have had London, probably the Barking station, in their minds. We have the counter proposition that a small place with a gas supply should undertake the service of Horley. I should think that that was a question of principle for the Government to determine. I do not myself think that it is a question for a Select Committee, opening up again the policy which the Government have very distinctly laid down on a number of other occasions. However, as there is some feeling on the subject, and as the noble Marquess wishes that there should be a further Report from the Committee, good and well.
All I wish to say is that, speaking for myself, though not opposing that Motion, I am in no way going back on the principle which is the principle of the Government. If the Electricity Commissioners tell us: "Yes, we considered this; we want to give a bulk supply to Horley and to give it from London," then for one, think they are taking the course which is the only course that is in accordance with that principle. But as there is a desire that there should be some further opportunity given to the Electricity Commissioners to state what their reasons have been, I shall not offer any opposition to the proposition of the noble Marquess.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUOHMORE): My Lords, as regards the principle I do not believe there will be any difference between the noble and learned Viscount opposite and myself, but if I were now to pause to argue how far this principle is before the House or not, I am afraid I should be a great deal more controversial in repeating some of the statements that were made last week. I would prefer,
1438
therefore, for the moment, not to take the fly that has been, though perhaps not intentionally, thrown over me by the noble and learned Viscount. The Leader of the House has said that he understood that I agreed to the course that he has proposed. I not only agree but I cordially welcome it.
I think that this is a matter upon which the Special Orders Committee could greatly assist your Lordships. I do not think we could have done it before, because under the system that we are trying to work under the Standing Orders this Special Orders Committee have not a great deal to do when an Order is unopposed. This order practically was unopposed before us because the parties, as was explained last week, preferred to make their opposition here in the House to making it heard before the Committee No Petition was deposited that came before us when we considered it ill Committee. But I think, by the special reference which is given us in this Motion to-day, a gap is Riled in this particular case, and I think the Committee could very usefully do their best to go into the matter in that way. I am anxious that as little time as 'possible should be lost. It may be to the convenience of all if I say that, if your Lordships pass this Motion, I propose that the Committee should meet at eleven o'clock on Thursday next and that the parties shall, of course, be represented by their agents. I shall be very disappointed if we are not able to report to the House in the afternoon, or at any rate as soon as possible.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I merely rise to say that the electrical authority for whom I spoke last week take no exception at all to this procedure. Their only desire is to have it stated publicly that they take exactly the same view as the Gas Company, and that in the event of the Order not being passed by your Lordships this Session, if the matter is postponed to another Session, residents in the Horley district feel so strongly against the Gas Company having a monopoly that they will feel it incumbent upon them to do their utmost, not merely to prevent the Gas Company from passing an Order into law but to promote either a Bill or an Order to supply the electricity themselves.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

PRESTATYN ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
WOODBRIDGE AND DISTRICT ELEC TRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
BARNSLEY CORPORATION ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
PRESTON CORPORATION ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
CREDITON ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
MALDON AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
WHITCHURCH (HANTS) ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
BRIDGE OF ALLAN ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
ASHTON-IN-MAKERFIELD ELECTRI CITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
CLITHEROE AND DISTRICT ELECTRI CITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
CONWAY ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
SOUTHAMPTON ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
BLACKBURN, BURNLEY AND CLITHE ROE RURAL DISTRICTS ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
RENFREWSHIRE (WESTERN AREA) ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, Leg to move the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 16th day of November last be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 11.
Venue in indictable offences.
11.—(1) A person charged with any indictable offence may be proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished in any county or place in which he was apprehended, or is
1440
in custody on a charge for the offence, or has appeared in answer to a summons lawfully issued charging the offence, as if the offence had been committed in that county or place, and the offence shall, for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the, prosecution, trial or punishment thereof, be deemed to hare been committed in that county or place:
Provided that, if at any time it appears to any examining justices during the course of any proceedings taken against any person before them in pursuance of this subsection that the accused would suffer hardship if he were indicted and tried in the county or place aforesaid, the examining justices shall forthwith (but without prejudice to their powers under section twenty-two of the Indictable Offences Act, 1848), cease to proceed further in the matter under this subsection.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE) moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), to leave out "it appears to any examining justices." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment should be read in conjunction with the third Amendment on the Paper that stands in my name, to add to the proviso. It deals with a matter which I stated during the Committee stage that I would consider. I propose to accede to the view that was then put forward, but I have put down words other than those which were suggested when the matter was debated in Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, lines 9 and 10, leave out ("it appears to any examining justices").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, the Lord Chancellor has been good enough to take this matter into careful consideration, and I am very much indebted to him for it. I think my short Amendment—to insert after "justices," "or to a Judge of the High Court of Justice sitting in Chambers"—would have worked, but am prepared, in a matter of drafting, to yield to him. The substance has been obtained, and very handsomely obtained. I do not, therefore, propose to move my Amendment, but to accept those proposed by the Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), to leave out "them in pursuance of this subsection" and insert "any examining justices in

1441
pursuance of this subsection—(a) it appears to the examining justices." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("then in pursuance of this subsection") and insert ("any examining justices in pursuance of this subsection—(a) it appears to the examining justices").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL RUSSELL: Should not the word "that" after "subsection" disappear? The subsection will not read otherwise.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the word should remain, but I will examine it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had given Notice of his intention to move in the proviso in subsection (1), after "hardship," to insert "or be put, to additional expense." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this matter was discussed on Committee stage and I was satisfied with the answer which the Lord Chancellor then gave. o I therefore do not propose to move this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment standing in my name on this clause is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 17, after ("subsection") insert ("and
"(b)if the accused applies to the justices to discontinue further proceedings under this subsection on the ground that he will otherwise suffer hardship and the justices refuse to comply with the application, the accused may appeal to the High Court against the decision of the justices, and the justices shall, on being informed by the accused of his intention so to appeal, suspend further proceedings under this subsection pending the decision of the High Court.
"On an appeal to the High Court under the foregoing provision the High Court shall either direct the examining justices to cease proceedings under this subsection or shall disallow the appeal, as it thinks proper").(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12:
Provisions as to taking of depositions, and caution to and statement of accused on proceedings before examining justices.
If the accused answer to the question states that he desires to give evidence on his on behalf and to call witnesses, or to call witnesses only, the justices shall proceed to take either forthwith, or, if a speech is to be made by counsel or solicitor or behalf of the accused, after the conclusion that speech, the evidence of the accused, if he desires to give evidence himself, and of any witness called by him.
The evidence which may be given by the accused or his witnesses under this section shall be such evidence only as is material for the purpose of enabling the justices to determine whether the accused ought or ought not to be committed for trial, and, if so committed, for what offence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of the fourth paragraph of subsection (5), to insert "who knows anything relating to the facts and circumstances of the case or anything tending to prove the innocence of the accused." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is intended to meet an objection, made by Lord Parmoor who desires to strike out the fifth paragraph of subsection (5). I have considered the matter carefully and I think the object of the Bill would be met if those words are struck out and if we insert the words in the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 22, after ("him") insert ("who knows anything relating to the facts and circumstances of the case or anything tending to prove the innocence of the accused").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I thank the Lord Chancellor for the Amendment he is now proposing in accordance with the promise he gave in Committee that he would look into this matter. My fear was that the fifth paragraph of subsection (5), which he is proposing to leave out, might interfere with the full freedom of a person who is being charged with an offence, and who is innocent, bringing the whole of his defence to the charge to the notice of the first court before which the charge is heard. In the present Amendment the last words are "or anything tending to prove the innocence of the accused." So long as that is clearly understood I think the position of the accused person is sufficiently safeguarded.
On Question Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to omit the fifth paragraph of subsection (5).
Amendment moved—
Page 12, leave out lines 23 to 28.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Enforcement of recognisances to be of good behaviour]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The three Amendments which I have put on the Paper to this clause are all drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 24, line 32, leave out ("fresh recognisanees") and insert ("a fresh recognisance")
Page 24, line 35, leave("give out security") and insert "enter into a recognisance and find sureties")
Page 24, line 36, leave out ("may order that the") and insert ("shall in either case order that the first-mentioned").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 40:
Penalty for drunkenness while in charge of motor car and for reckless driving.
40. Any person who is drunk while in charge on any highway or other public place of any mechanically-propelled vehicle shall, on summary conviction, be liable in respect of each offence to imprisonment for a period not exceeding four months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:
"and shall be disqualified to hold a licence to drive for twelve months from the date of the conviction.
"Provided that a person who is disqualified to hold a licence to drive under this or any other Act may apply to the justices who made the order to reconsider their decision at the end of any period of not less than three months; or, with the leave of the court, after a shorter period."
The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will recollect that last year I moved an Amendment the effect of which was to provide that in cases of conviction for drunkenness while driving a motor car, the motorist should suffer, in addition to any penalty that might be imposed upon him, automatically a disqualification to hold a licence for twelve months. The Amendment commended itself to your Lordships and was inserted in the Bill. I hope the fact that noble Lords who
1444
supported me then are now on the other side of the House will make no difference whatever to their views in regard to this Amendment.
I think this is the most appropriate punishment for a drunken driver. He is a person whom you want to remove from the streets, and I am sorry to say that magistrates are somewhat too tender with him. I recognise very fully the Home Office point of view, that one ought not to interfere unnecessarily with the discretion of magistrates. I am very unwilling to interfere with the discretion of anybody who is exercising a judicial function, or to lay down any hard and fast rule which must be followed in passing, a sentence, but this matter of drunken drivers has become so prevalent and is so great a public danger that I think it would be a useful thing, at any rate for three years, to try the experiment of an automatic disqualification for twelve months, whatever view the magistrates might take.
Representations have been made to me regarding a possible improvement. If your Lordships will look at an Amendment which I am sorry was circulated only this afternoon in my name, you will see that I have there provided that the magistrates may reconsider their decision if there is reason for doing so. In ease some of your Lordships have not received the addition to my Amendment I will read it. It is to insert at the end of my proposed Amendment this proviso:
"Provided that a person who is disqualified to hold a licence to drive under this or any other Act"—
I desire to make this proviso apply to existing disqualifications—
"may apply to the justices who made the order to reconsider their decision at the end of any period of not less than three months; or, with the leave of the court, after a shorter period."
I will tell your Lordships the reason for that suggested proviso.
Suppose that a paid driver has been convicted of drunkenness and disqualified for twelve months; suppose that at the end of three months he is able to satisfy the justices that he has been a teetotaller during the whole of that period, that his livelihood is being endangered and that he is likely to come on the "dole"; and suppose that he asks if 'they will re-instate him. As the matter stands

1445
now, the justices have no sort of power to make any further order. They are functi officio and they cannot in any way restore him. In cases where it is thought by all concerned—not only by the defendant but by the justices and the Home Office itself—that this disqualification should he removed, even the Home Office has no means by which it can restore him, except by the full exercise of the prerogative of mercy, which, after all, is rather an unreasonable and serious constitutional way of remedying a small difficulty.
I think that this proviso, which would give a certain freedom to the same bench of magistrates, who presumably know the man and can hear how he has been going on, to review the matter in a shorter period, if they think fit, takes away a good deal of the harshness, as it might appear, of an absolute disqualification. I think, too, that it should apply not only to disqualifications under this Act but to disqualifications under the Motor Car Act, and that the justices should have Dower, every three months, to hear applications for re-instatement on the ground of good conduct or the absence of a likelihood of the offence being committed again. After all, if we have succeeded in turning a drunken driver into a sober driver, we have achieved the object which we really have at heart. That there should be an imperative disqualification in the first instance seems to me, I confess, hardly desirable, but I think that this Amendment meets the case and I hope that your Lordships will support it this year as you did last year. I propose to move both Amendments together, but the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack mad perhaps find it for the convenience of the House co put them separately, according to the turn that the discussion takes. I hope that your Lordships will not depart from the course that you took last year and will accept this Amendment, which does not interfere with the discretion of the justices. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord move the two Amendments together?
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, unless the noble and learned Viscount finds it for the convenience of the House to put them separately.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 34, at end insert ("and shall be disqualified to hold a licence to drive for twelve months from the date of the conviction.
("Provided that a person who is disqualified to hold a licence to drive under this or any other Act may apply to the justices who made the order to. reconsider their decision at the end of any period of not less than three months; or, with the leave of the court, after a shorter period."—(Earl Russell.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I do not wish any more than the noble Earl to use any words but those of disapprobation and detestation of the drunken driver, whom we all know to be a danger note only to himself, but to the general public. We desire to suppress him as far us possible. But I am very glad that the noble Earl has modified his original Amendment in the direction of giving tits justices some discretion. I suggest to the House that it really would be better to leave that discretion to the justices in some other form of words. The noble Earl might modify his Amendment by using some such words ass "shall suspend the licence for a period not exceeding twelve months." Then the bench could deal with every case on its merits and adjust the punishment thereto. After all, there are different degrees of drunkenness. There is a common saying, "sober as a judge" and there is also a common saying, "drunk as a Lord." There are intermediate stages between them. There may be noble Lords who are Judges as well, and what might be regarded as merely affability on the part of a noble Lord who is a Judge might be misinterpreted in the case of a motorist who was merely a noble Lord.
There is the further case of the man who is earning a livelihood by driving—the taxi-cab driver, and so on. The police may have declared him to be drunk, but the police definition of "drunkenness" has already excited a good deal of debate in this country from the purely physiological point of view. The point at which drunkenness is reached is still in debate amongst the most scientific people. Who can say exactly when a man is drunk and when he is sober? I suggest to the House that this is a question to which the bench might he allowed to apply its own discre-

1447
tion. After all, most of us in this House to-day are drivers, and those who are not drivers have a very large experience of the driving of other people, including their own chauffeurs. If a chauffeur were drunk nobody would keep him for a moment. I suggest that chairmen of benches of magistrates, who have had to deal, as I have, with this kind of case for many years past, should be allowed the discretion to impose a penalty up to a maximum of twelve months' deprivation of licence, and I should be wholeheartedly with the noble Earl if he suggested that course, but I think it is desirable that the magistrates should have discretion rather than that the law should lay down that the man must be deprived of his licence altogether and go back to have the question reconsidered.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, so far as I am concerned the only fault that I have to find with the Amendment is that I do not think that it goes nearly far enough. The speech to which we have just listened from my noble friend was really a criticism of the whole clause, because he said that it was difficult to define when I man is drunk in point of fact or in point of law, and that we ought, therefore, to accept a weak clause and to leave the magistrates discretion. I do not think that we have sufficiently realised the great danger that everybody is in from day to day, particularly with the greatly increased traffic in motor cars both in cities and in the country. I do not think that we have yet sufficiently realised what a terrible weapon a motor car on the highway becomes in the hands of a drunken man. No matter how carefully you drive, whether you drive yourself or have a chauffeur, or if you are a pedestrian, there is no way in which you can protect yourself against the drunken driver of a motor car.
I have watched from my own little house in the country the children going along the road to school and back, hugging the side of the road, and the motorists, and especially motor-cyclists, go by in the most dangerous possible way at a pace utterly indefensible. If any one of those men happened to be in a drunken condition or to have taken too much drink, which I think is really what it comes to, there is not a single one of these children whose life is not in danger
1448
on the way to school. What I should like to see in the Bill is a provision that anybody convicted of drunkenness while in charge of a motor car on the highway should have to go to gaol without any option of a fine whatsoever. What right have they to go out and threaten the lives of our subjects under present conditions? What right have they to indulge themselves in drink, if it is their business, as in the case of a taxi-cab driver, to drive motor cars on the highway, and thereby endanger not only their own lives but the lives of everybody else?
We have not yet had brought home to us, at all sufficiently, the necessity for new legislation in dealing with the new circumstances that have arisen in our streets under these conditions. We read almost daily in the newspapers of most terrible accidents occurring, and generally the foundation of them is—and I dare say it is so very much more often than we know—the fact that the driver is drunk, or has taken sufficient drink to prevent him from driving in safety amid congested traffic or even along the high roads, when they will go at the rate they do. I should have been glad if this clause had enacted that the magistrate had no option except to send a motorist found drunk while in charge of a motor to gaol, and I should have been glad if the noble Earl had simply put in "disqualified to hold a licence to drive," fixing no time at all. I do not see why a man who has forfeited his licence for dangerous driving while drunk on the highway should ever get his licence back again. If these people once grow to understand that travelling in a motor car is a serious matter, in which the law is going to protect those who have to walk and those who have to drive, I think we should have a very different state of affairs in our streets in a very short time. I hope that, at all events so far as we are concerned to-day, we shall certainly not weaken the proposal, which seems to me to be a most moderate and mild one, put forward by the noble Earl.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment evidently excites a good deal of sympathy because we are all desirous to do what we can to protect the public against those who drive cars while in a state of drunkenness. I have consulted, of course, the Home Office and

1449
the police authorities on this subject, and I am bound to give the House their view, which is that the adoption of this Amendment will not be in the public interest. I am not sure that all your Lordships know the law as it stands to-day. I say that because of some of the speeches that have been made. The purpose of this clause is greatly to increase the penalties for driving a car while in a state of drunkenness. The fine is increased from 40 s. to £50, and there are other changes, but under the law as it stands, which would not be affected by this clause, the magistrates, in addition to fine or imprisonment, have power to suspend the defendant's driving licence and to disqualify hire from obtaining a fresh licence for such further time, after the expiration of his licence, as they think fit. So that under that clause and the law as it stands the magistrates may to-day suspend the licence and disqualify the man from holding any licence for such time as they think fit.
The noble Earl proposes to take away all discretion, and to say that automatically a conviction shall involve a loss of the licence for twelve months. It is easy to make speeches in defence of very severe penalties of that kind, but I think I am right in saying that experience shows that that kind of thing often defeats itself. There may be the case of a man who has driven a car carefully for years, and against whom no offence of any kind has been charged, and who has no other means of living. He is convicted of this offence, and the proposal is that automatically, without discretion, he shall not be allowed to drive for twelve months. There is a fear lest the effect of that may be that convictions will not always take place. It has been found that automatic penalties, if so severe, are apt to prevent conviction. We had an instance of that only the other day brought to our notice on this Bill. Your Lordships who were present may remember that there is in the Theatres Act a provision that a theatrical manager convicted of a certain offence shall automatically forfeit his theatrical licence. That has been on the Statute Book for many years and has been found to have the very effect which I have described, so that the Lord Chamberlain came down here the other day and gave it as his experience that it was far better to repeal the existing law and put in its place a
1450
discretion of the magistrates. He said he had known cases where the prosecution failed because of that automatic penalty. The magistrates thought that the penalty was too severe for the particular offence) and therefore refused to convict.
Those noble Lords who are anxious, as I have no doubt we all are, to protect the public, ought to consider the matter front that point of view. The magistrates have full power to-day to impose not only the penalty which is proposed in this Amendment but even longer suspension, but you are going to 'out in place of that discretion an automatic suspension. With regard to the proviso to the Amendment I agree that it is an improvement so far as the main proposal of the Amendment is concerned, but I doubt whether it is wise to extend the proviso to all the cases in which licences have been suspended. Every driver who has been disqualified for driving will see a chance of getting his disqualification reversed and the magistrates may be flooded with applications of the kind. But this is a minor point. Upon the main question I have given my reasons for suggesting that the Amendment needs careful consideration.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, I may possibly be pardoned if I intervene, as one of those who have appeared in both the capacities mentioned by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, not that I have ever been in the condition which he imputes to Judges and Peers, with absolute impartiality. There can be no doubt whatever that the history of the administration of the law regarding crime in this country proves that when automatically the Judges had to pronounce a very severe sentence and the juries had to find people guilty of crimes of which undoubtedly they were guilty, both the Judges and the juries omitted to do their strict duty. When a great many offences were punishable with capital punishment. Judges found a great many reasons for evading the strictness of the law. That was the reason why indictments were drawn in such a way as to appear absurd to people who were not lawyers at all.
The history of it was that the lawyers themselves were shocked at the penalty which would follow, and provided the accused with a great many loopholes for escape, and the Judges summed up in a way to give the prisoner chances which

1451
he did not deserve. When capital punishment was abolished with regard to those offences, when discretion was given to the Judge as to what sentence he should pass, there were far more convictions, and to my mind real justice was done. I speak in the presence of lawyers much more learned than myself, but it seems to me that the great difference between our law and the penal codes of many other countries—take France, for example—is this, that far more liberty is allowed to those who are administering the law in this country than is customary among people who are governed by a strict code, where the point at issue is laid down, and where, once the verdict is given, the Judge has no discretion as to what penalty he will award. The genius of our law is totally against that.
I may give perhaps, an instance within my own knowledge. The law was altered, I think, while I was on the Bench, but certainly for a long time, when I was at the Bar in country places, there were often indictments against people for having committed a crime which was sufficiently described in the law books as a crime non inter Christianos nominari. The penalty, on a verdict of guilty, for that crime was ten years' penal servitude. The Judge had no option but to pass it. I have heard Judges pass it most unwillingly. And what was the consequence? In most cases while that was the penalty, the Judges and the juries alike did not give the verdict which strictly ought to have been given upon the evidence. They found a person guilty of an attempt and he received eighteen months' imprisonment. That was altered by law, proper verdicts were given, and the Judge in those cases now gives that punishment which all fair-minded people hearing the case would desire to be given. I think what would happen in the case which we are now considering would be that if you deprived the magistrates of any kind of discretion they would not find a man guilty in some instances where they ought to find him guilty, because they would shrink from imposing the punishment.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord must bear in mind the character of the punishments, which were so tremendously severe in old days that both Judges and juries connived at the evasion of their duty to find a particular person guilty. I can recollect very well
1452
hearing from my father that he was cognisant of one of the last cases in which a man was hung for stealing from his master. He happened to be a butler in the neighbourhood where my father lived when he was a young man. The crime he committed was to take a glass of wine out of a bottle, and for that he was hung. I think that abominable punishment, quite out of proportion to the offence committed, was brought to an end by that case.
I do not agree with what the noble and learned Lord has said about sentences. I think he instanced France, but, as a rule, I believe that sentences in this country are heavier than they are abroad. I have studied them in France, Italy and in Germany. But, of course, he is quite right in saying that if you are going to give a discretion there is not the same objection to a heavy punishment that there would be if you were obliged to give the actual punishment itself. I think the answer to what the noble and learned Lord has said is this. What is there either brutal or inconsistent with justice in disqualifying a man from driving for a space of twelve months because he has been convicted of drunkenness whilst in control of a motor car? It is a terrible thing that a man should be allowed to drive who has been convicted of such a crime. It seems to me a form of punishment, admirably suited to the offence. I recollect, in regard to the Traffic Bill, which I had the honour to introduce in this House, that fault was found with us for not putting in a heavier penalty on drunken drivers. The answer to that was that it was a matter which would be dealt with in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, and when the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill was brought forward this form of punishment was inserted in your Lordships' House—I will not say unanimously, but without any Division, I believe. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that this is a suitable punishment, and there is no harm in putting it in the compulsory form rather than giving a discretion to the magistrate in each case. I shall certainly support the noble Earl if he goes to a Division.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, my experience, of course, is not equal to the experience of Lord Darling, but I have been a magistrate for some years, and I am inclined to think that if

1453
we enact that if a man is found guilty of drunkenness when driving a motorcar there must be a penalty of twelve months' suspension of his licence, certain magistrates will say: "It is a very hard penalty. His livelihood is involved. I do not think that he really was drunk. There may have been a misunderstanding." There is a danger of that. But, we must remember that there is a proviso, which says that at the end of three months the magistrate may reconsider the question, and restore the man's licence. That being so, I think it would be advisable to pass the noble Earl's Amendment, because I do think we want to bring home to the magistrates that there is an enormous danger at present to life and limb from the driving of motor-cars by drunken or reckless people, and that they must give severe penalties in such cases.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I venture to suggest that there was a certain fallacy in the argument of Lord Darling. He gave instances of cases in former clays in which there were extravagantly severe sentences, and, not unnaturally, when a penalty bore no relation to the offence, Judges and juries were, very reluctant to convict. But can that be said in any sense whatever in the present day? It seems to me that the offence of driving a thing like a motor car when you are drunk is one of the gravest offences you can commit against the community. You are not only endangering your own life and the lives of those in the car, but you endanger the lives of others, as has been shown in numerous instances.
I entirely agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Carson, that not only is the penalty a moderate one for the offence, but an absolutely necessary one. My noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam says—though I think this is an answer rather to Lord Darling than to Lord Banbury—that if the penalty is too severe the magistrates will not convict. The same thing may be said of the penalty of sending a man to gaol, which is a severe penalty. My noble friend says it is not arbitrary, and I agree, but it might be said that they would not convict because there is this penalty hanging over the man. Be that as it may, I cannot see why it should be said that this is an un-
1454
reasonable penalty for the offence, and therefore, I shall vote for the Amendment.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, I came to the House intending to support the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but I am bound to say that the course of this debate has entirely changed my mind. The case you are considering now is a very mild case in which the justices might hesitate as to what to do. What we are agreed upon, I think, is that if a man is driving a motor car and his sobriety is subject to the slightest suspicion he ought to be considered as committing an offence which requires some punishment. It is said that the mildest case of intoxication when in charge of a motor car should be dealt with and the extreme case, of course, should be punished with great severity.
I ask your Lordships, many of whom are magistrates, to call to mind the character and disposition of your brother magistrates and the sort of individuals in your neighbourhood, old coachmen and such persons, who are now occupied as drivers of taxi-cabs and for the most part are really sober but are not altogether above temptation. Take the case of such a man who, when in charge of a motor car, was on the border-line between drunkenness and sobriety. He is brought before the magistrates and charged. Clearly the desire of the bench is that they should convict and should mark the offence in some way. But are we not perfectly certain from our knowledge of our own neighbours that in any number of such cases the justices will take a lenient view if they know that the result of a conviction would be that he may be sent to prison for three months?
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, in this case it is hardly a question of deciding whether a man is mildly intoxicated or not, or of whether we want to punish him for driving a motor car when in that condition. It is a case in which we want to prevent a man from driving a car when his faculties are not under control, whether he is mildly or considerably intoxicated. The object is to protect the public. It seems to me to be perfectly wholesome and desirable that it should be understood that any man who, in a state of intoxication, drives a motor car will be subject to this penalty, and that

1455
it will thereby be put out of his power to drive again for three months, so that the public may have even that respite.
In regard to what has been said about the magistrates, I have been for a short time a member of a bench of magistrates who are not at all disposed to favour their old coachmen and footmen. They live on a main road running through a large town, and there is a danger of offences of this sort, and I feel sure from my experience that they always give very proper and correct sentences, having regard to the merits of the case and the necessity of protecting the public. Therefore, on the ground that it is necessary to protect the public from this danger, I shall support the Amendment.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, as far as I have followed the discussion, I am certainly a supporter of those who desire to deal with these offences, and if I understood the noble and learned Lord aright the only issue is as to the best way of bringing that about. I did not intend to intervene in this debate at all but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, in commenting upon the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Darling, called attention to the atrocious sentences that were passed and the feeling against making them effective that arose in the minds of those on the bench. From my own recollection I can give your Lordships a case of a much milder character and that is really the reason for my remarks. When I occupied the position of Director of Public Prosecutions the Bankruptcy Act then in force made it a punishable offence fee a person to obtain credit without disclosing that he was an undischarged bankrupt and it was held that there was no necessity to prove any intent to defraud. I found that the effect of that was that the jury would acquit, in spite of direct evidence that the man charged had obtained credit without disclosing the fact that he was an undischarged bankrupt, his defence being that he thought there was no harm in it.
In the case we are considering the magistrates dealing with a man who has driven to the public danger, or recklessly, or whatever it may be, would be prepared to punish him for that offence. But where the issue of drunkenness was also raised and the marl was of good character there
1456
would be a tendeny for them to consider that they could punish him severely without taking drunkenness into consideration at all. And they would give him the benefit of any doubt there was and would not deal with the case of drunkenness.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, in saying a word in reply, I might deal first with what the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, said. If the case is, as he was pleased to say, a border-line case, a case in which there is a reasonable doubt, clearly it will be the duty of the justices to acquit. You do not convict a man of a criminal offence when there is any reasonable
doubt about it. I should be the last person to be in favour of a man being convicted of so serious and, as I think, so discreditable an offence as being drunk in charge of a motor car if there were any doubt about it. And I do not think that justices will be so weak-kneed as to be deterred from doing their duty by the fact that the man has to be punished.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Darling, made a speech with which I must say I almost entirely agree in its general principles, just as I agree with the noble Earl who has just sat down. It is the principle of our law, and a most excellent principle it is, to give the fullest possible discretion to magistrates. I need hardly tell your Lordships that I am very sorry to be departing from that principle in this instance. But this is an offence of a very serious character which has been growing and which, I think, requires to be checked by something rather exceptional. When the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack was calling attention to the penalties under this clause, he said that penalties were provided already and that this cause stiffened even them. Be it so. It does in fact happen now, and I am constantly seeing in the daily Press, that people are convicted of being drunk while in charge of a motor car and fined only 40 s. That seems to me in all the circumstances to be an inadequate penalty and I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, that nothing short of a sentence of imprisonment is really a proper penalty.
But when we come to the instances that Lord Darling gave of ferocious punishments, they surely do not apply to a

1457
thing of this sort. This is not a fine, it is not imprisonment, it is merely saying, in the interests of His Majesty's lieges who have not been drunk, but who have been imperilled by drunken drivers, that that menace shall be removed from the streets for a short period. Observe the proviso. Provided the man is of good conduct, and provided the magistrates are satisfied he is likely to drive carefully and soberly in the future, they can reinstate him after three months. I am sorry, indeed, to differ from the general view of the law with which I entirely agree, but in this instance I think we require to do something. The noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, spoke of a mild case of drunkenness. Well, even a mildly drunken person driving a car weighing nearly three tons at the rate of forty miles per hour is a grave public danger.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Ullswater, V.

Harries, L.

Hemphill, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Kilmaine, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Arnold, L.

Lamington, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Askwith, L.

Lawrence, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Atkinson, L.

Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.

Eldon, E.

Avebury, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Midleton, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Northbrook, E.

Biddulph, L.

Newton, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Carson, L.

Olivier, L.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Chaplin, V.

Parmoor, L.

Hadlane, V.

Clwyd, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Hood, V.

Danesfort, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Novar, V.

Erskine, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Gainford, L.

Stanmore, L.

Wargrave, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cave, C. (L. Chancellor.)

Stanhope, E.

Ernle, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Astor, V.

Jessel, L.

Devonport, V.

Merrivale, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Merthyr, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Sutherland, D.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Bledisloe, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Queensberry, M.

Charnwood, L.

Philimore, L.

Darling, L.

Raglan, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Somers, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Sumner, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Desborough, L.

Templemore, L.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Dynevor, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Selborne, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Wavertree, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Offences triable at Quarter Sessions.
4. Offences under sections fifty to fifty-six of the Past Office Act, 1908.
We are suffering from him. He causes very serious loss of life to people who are quite innocent, and we ought to protect those people. I think that by this we shall be doing something to protect them. Of course, there is the other view, that they may be better protected if we do not pass this. That aspect of the matter has been ably explained by the noble and learned Viscount in charge of the Bill. But we all have oar own views, and I still think that if we have this compulsory suspension for some years it may do good. I shall propose to take the opinion of your Lordships if the noble and learned Viscount does not see his way to accept it.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be inserted:—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 37.
7. Offences under the following provisions of the Larceny Act, 1916, that is to say, section twelve, section eighteen, paragraph (iv) of subsection (1) of section twenty, section twenty-four and subsection (2) of section thirty-three.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to leave out paragraph 4. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to

1459
put His Majesty's Government in the position of being defeated again this evening and I do not intend to press this Amendment. At the same time I trust the Lord Chancellor will see his way to accede to it. The object of the Amendment is to take out of the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions some offences which are very serious in the eye of the law and which may entail the punishment of penal servitude for life. There are one or two other offences which do not entail quite so serious a penalty but still very serious penalties, but the whole should stand together. They are what I call Post Office offences. The Lord Chancellor, on the last occasion, said that he believed there was some difference of opinion between different Government offices and I hope he will come down this evening on the side of the Government office which proposes to leave these matters to Assizes and not submit them to Quarter Sessions. I move the omission of this paragraph in order that they may remain as at present offences triable only at Assizes.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, lines 11 and 12, leave out paragraph 4.—(Lord Phillimore.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, since the last debate I have, as I promised, consulted those who are specially cognisant of this kind of offence and I have come to the conclusion that it is better not to adopt the Amendment. The proposal is that what the noble and learned Lord has called Post Office offences, offences small and great of the servants of the Post Office, public servants, should be all sent to Assizes. Our proposal is that magistrates shall have a discretion if they choose to send such offences for trial at Quarter Sessions. These offences differ very greatly in importance. Some of them are very serious, some are less serious, and on the whole I think it is best to leave justices with a discretion in this matter to commit either to Quarter Sessions or to the Assizes. Under this Bill some of these offences may be dealt with summarily at petty sessions, and it seems somewhat absurd if they can be dealt with by magistrates at petty sessions that they are not to be dealt with by Quarter Sessions. There is this further consideration, that it may mean a long delay if you insist on sending them to the Assizes. It may be that the
1460
Assizes will not be held for many months while Quarter Sessions may be coming on in a few weeks, and to insist on a man being kept until the Assizes may mean that he is kept for a long period without trial. I feel sure that the proposal in the Bill is right and I hope the noble and learned Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD PHILLIMORE: It is no good pressing the matter at all, and I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MINES (WORKING FACILITIES AND SUPPORT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Bill is intended to deal with some defects in the working of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923. Under that Act the Railway and Canal Commissioners can under certain circumstances order money to be paid into court. When they have made up their mind to grant facilities but have not ascertained the amount of compensation to be paid, they can order a sum of money to be paid into Court pending a decision. They cannot order payment of the money out of court. They have to go to the Court of Chancery and use the procedure of that Division. This is somewhat inconvenient and unworkable, and the whole purpose of this Bill is to enable the Commissioners to order payments into court in all proper cases and to make orders for payment of money out of court on which the Paymaster-General will act. The Bill is to obviate some defects in the machinery of the existing Act, and I hope that your Lordships will assent to it.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor for his explanation. I took a great interest in the original Act and I was not quite clear as to the necessity for this Bill, but I am glad to hear the explanation from the Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Order of the Day read for receiving the Report of Amendments.
Moved, That this Report be now received.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I have had an opportunity of communicating the question that I desire to ask the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe. If he will look at the definitions in Clause 24 he will see that
"The expression 'costs of collection' includes all costs and expenses incurred by a committee constituted for a collection area in the exercise of any of the powers (whether of collection or management) …"
I should like to hear what the noble Lord has to say upon that point, because I understood that the costs of collection and management were to be differentiated and that, although the cost of collection was to be a charge against the income of the tithe owner, the cost of management was to be found out of the special fund already in the hands of Queen Anne's Bounty.
I want to ask the noble Lord whether I am right or wrong. It appears to me that the real cost of management will be thrown, not on Queen Anne's Bounty, but on the income which would otherwise come to the tithe owner, if all the expenses of management as regards the committees constituted in these local areas are to be borne in the way which appears to be suggested in this case. In other words, does he mean that those costs are to fall upon the tithe owner or that they are to be costs borne by the general funds of Queen Anne's Bounty?
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE): My Lords, I think I can reassure my noble and learned friend on this point. If he will look carefully at this definition clause he will find that it refers only to the costs and expenses incurred by a local committee of collection. It does not refer to the costs of central administration which Queen Anne's Bounty have expressed their willingness to discharge out of their corporate fund. These are simply the costs of, and incidental to, the local collection by the local collection committee, which are not covered by the central cor-
1462
porate fund our, of which the central administrative expenses will come to be discharged.
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to make one comment upon that. It means that the real expenses will be thrown upon the tithe owner. However, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for the answer that he has given.
On Question, Motion agreed to and Amendments reported accordingly.
Clause 4 [Provisions for extinguishment of tithe rentcharge at expiration of eighty-five years.]:
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (4), after "As from the," to insert "day following the," and to leave out the first "of" and to insert "for." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this and the Amendment which follows in my name on the Paper are really drafting Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 3, line 31, after ("the") insert ("day following the"), and leave out the first ("of") and insert ("for").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

Clause 14 [Application to extraordinary tithe rentcharge, corn rents, etc.]:
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 23, leave out ("under") and insert ("of").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

PETROLEUM BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.
Provisions of Explosives Act, 1875, incorporated with Modifications.
1. The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the conveyance of petroleum spirit by road, and in particular for declaring or regulating any of the following matters; that is to say,—
(3) Fixing the places and times at which the petroleum spirit is to be loaded or unloaded, and the quantity to be loaded or unloaded or conveyed at one time or in one carriage; and
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in paragraph (3), to leave out from the first

1463
"the"to "conveyed," and to insert "quantity of petroleum spirit which may be". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this and two other small Amendments, which appear in my name, are intended to meet points raised by the London County Council, and the Home Office have no objection to them. So long as the Home Office can regulate quantity, they have no objection to the questions of time and place remaining in the care of the London County Council, who rather fear that the powers may possibly overlap. The Amendments which follow are also designed to meet objections raised by the London County Council on the question of fire arising from petroleum. They fear that without. the Amendment the jurisdiction may be rather wide and will not refer to petroleum spirit alone. Here, too, the Home Office have no objection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 5, leave out from the first ("the") to ("conveyed") in line 7 and insert ("quantity of petroleum spirit which may be").—(Lord Desborough.)

Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 37, after ("shall") insert ("if the explosion or fire involved petroleum spirit")
Page 6, line 46, after ("shall") insert ("if the explosion or fire involved petroleum spirit").—(Lord Desborough.)
Privilege Amendments made.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

SANDWICH PORT AND HAVEN BILL.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, as I have had an Amendment on the Paper for some considerable time, I think I ought to explain to your Lordships that it was removed because proposals were made by the Government to the Kent County Council that were entirely satisfactory to the latter.
On Question, Motion agreed to and Amendments reported accordingly.

ROADS AND STREETS IN POLICE BURGHS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

EDUCATION GRANT.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR rose to move to resolve, That this House, without raising the question of the principle of the block grant, deplores the proposals contained in Circular 1371, on the grounds that they will entail either a transfer of national burdens to the rates or the abandonment of these schemes of educational development which the Board itself had urged the local educational authorities to prepare.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot preface my remarks with the words that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore, used—namely, that he was unwilling to bring the Government face to face with a second defeat to-day. At the same time the Motion which stands in my name is inspired by no Party spirit. Indeed, even if the labour Party wished to make this a Party question, public opinion would not allow them to do so. It is fair to say that the whole thinking portion of the community is profoundly shocked by the provisions of the Circular which we have under discussion. Their reception in what we may call the more respectable Conservative Press has been no more warm than that meted out to it by the journals of the Opposition, while resolutions from all parts of the country, from bodies of all shades of political opinion and non-political opinion, have been pouring in. A resolution passed by the county education committee of which I am a member is only typical, and it condemns this Circular in no weak terms. I refer to that. only because, being a member of the committee myself, I know from personal experience that it is composed almost to a man of good, solid, sturdy Conservatives and, with the humble exception of myself, I do not think there is a single member who can be suspected of having received orders either from Moscow or from the more respectable neighbourhood of Eccleston Square.
The case can be put in very few words and I do not think that it is necessary to detain your Lordships very long. Early this year Circular 1358 was received by all local education authorities urging them to prepare schemes of development covering at least three years. In addition to this particular Circular there were many others sent round, which dealt with specific points upon which the Board desired to lay special stress, but the pressure to go ahead was not confined to these circulars. There were countless letters and personal interviews. Again I only speak for my own authority. Continued progress has been urged. In consequence of this pressure from the Board, committees and sub-committees, composed of busy and public-spirited nice, have been sitting for weeks on end preparing schemes which would both increase the efficiency of elementary education and provide for an enormous increase of secondary education.
Imagine, therefore, the horror with which we received Circular 1371, to the provisions of which I will refer in a-moment, and the irony of having to consider it at the meeting which was called in order to -approve for the Board the products of all our labours under Circular 1358. I ask your Lordships, has any Department ever perpetrated so cruel a joke upon those local authorities, with whom it professes to work in cooperation? Let, us look for a moment at the Circular itself. The first thing we notice about it is that it is most lamentably drawn up and capable of countless false interpretations; but through the fog of loose verbiage emerges three clear facts. In the first place, we are to return to the principle of a block grant. Secondly, these block grants are to be based on last year's grant, 1924-5, lens 1 per cent.; and thirdly, children under five are to be discouraged, or perhaps I should say that the local authorities are to be discouraged from taking children under five, while no provision is made for the extension- of nursery schools.
On the merits of the block grant your Lordships are not asked in my Motion to pass judgment, to-day. It raises such a vast number of technical complexities that I felt it was undesirable to allow the more important question to be sidetracked; but at the same time I hope that the wording of my Motion may not be taken as an acceptance of the principle.
It is quite true that since the issue of the Circular the Minister's statements have been inclined rather to modify its provisions, but he has not withdrawn them. In fact, it is fair to say that he has done very little more than open the door of escape by putting himself into a position to be able to buy off the more powerful and more aggressive authorities. More so far as they really only add to the confusion, by introducing fresh contradictions, we may well ask ourselves why, if the Minister did not mean what he said in the Circular, he ever issued this extraordinary document, and why we are twice told in the Circular that the Board has ever decided—"decided" is the word -he uses—to make these economies.
What exactly do these so-called economies mean? They mean that having driven the lo-cal authorities to prepare schemes of development, the Board now, by changing their basis of making grants, intend to disclaim all responsibility for the expense incurred under these schemes. The local authorities are left in the position of having to choose between paying for the increase them selves or abandoning the schemes. In both cases, the Board is clearly declining to fulfil its duties, in the one case at the expense of the ratepayer, and in the other case at the expense of the child. I assert that neither of these proposals constitutes economy at all. One is a mere transfer of expenditure to the rates, and the other is an example of short-sighted cheeseparing which will have to be paid for by future generations. If your Lordships will allow me I should like briefly to examine these two matters. The first raises financial issues which in a debate on education can only be glanced at. It means the transfer of the burdens of the Exchequer to local rates, and raises therefore precisely the same question as is raised by the projected raiding of the Road Fund—namely, how far shall the false budgeting of the Exchequer be slurred over by transferring expenditure to a sphere—the rates—which does not have to appear in the Budget; and secondly, how far will the country's finances be benefited by such a transfer?
The first question obviously requires no answer. The very suggestion of such a step is immoral. The second is of more importance, and was debated at considerable length in both House of Parlia-

1467
ment during the Budget discussion. The view was then expressed, and could not be seriously disputed, that while Income Tax is an appropriation of profits, rates are a standing charge. Irrespective of profit or loss they have to be paid, and therefore are a definite item in the cost of production. Therefore, while it is admitted by every body that all forms of taxation, both central and local, should be reduced, the method of assessing to local taxation renders it far the heavier burden on industry. The proposals of the Minister disregard this economic fact to an extent which the figures that I will venture to lay before your Lordships will demonstrate. In the West Riding of Yorkshire it has been calculated by the local authorities that this Circular will entail a decrease in grant varying from £100,000 next year to £246,000 in 1929. In London the cost to the rates will next year be £400,000, rising in 1927–8 to over 2500,000. In my own county—a rural county with a very much smaller rateable value—it will mean a total cost to us of something between £35,000 and £40,000, entailing, according to the figures with which the Board of Education have very kindly supplied me, an additional rate of 6¼d. over the whole county. Those of your Lordships who are county councillors, and who take part in local work, can, I know, give parallel cases for the bodies of which you are members. If this really is the Government's idea of how to make economies, I venture to suggest that the country, and, I think, your Lordships yourselves, will probably take a very different view.
But there is an alternative. It may be said that if the rate-payers are unable to raise money to pay for these schemes then let them abandon the schemes, or at any rate part of them. But, if this is the desire of the Government, why has the President of the Board of Education spent almost every day of this year in going about the country making speeches, urging local authorities to go on with their schemes, and impressing on the nation as a whole the importance of education. Why did the Prime Minister at the last General Election join with the other two Parties and give, to use the. words of The Times, "definite pledges that bind the present Administration?" Surely on this occasion, if ever, educationists had a right to think
1468
that the Ministers of the Crown were acting in good faith in making these speeches. I assert without fear of contradiction that it will take years to revive the feeling of confidence, which was only just recovering after the blow delivered by the Geddes "axe," because the course taken by the Government is not only an act of folly, but a deliberate breach of faith.
It is worse than that. It is not only arrangements for future developments that are in danger. Your Lordships are probably aware that it was only after long and protracted negotiation that it was possible to settle the difficulties about teachers' salaries. A settlement was come to, known as the Burnham settlement. That award was agreed to by local education authorities on condition that the existing basis of grants was maintained. That is quite clear, because I will react the clause:
"So far as the education authorities are concerned, any agreement arrived at shall continue to be operative only so long as the present grant system is not altered to their prejudice."
Sir George Lunn was then representing the local education authorities, and I think, therefore, it might interest your Lordships to know what Sir George Lunn is thinking to-day. He should be in a position to judge what is likely to be the effect of this Circular. Speaking at Newcastle, the other day, he said:
"I tell you deliberately, teachers' scales of salary are in jeopardy all over the country."
This point was put to the President of the Board of Education in another place in a Question, and in his answer he said that he would undertake to see that local education authorities did not break away from their contract. But what right has he to say that, when the whole trouble is caused by the fact that he himself broke his side of the contract? Moreover, those of your Lordships who are interested in education will find it very hard to believe in the real devotion of the President of the Board to the Burnham Award, after the manner in which he has just lately flouted it in Essex.
Surely all this is a policy of despair. Are we as a nation so poor in material wealth, so poor in imagination, that we cannot even afford recognition of the claims, economic and human, of educa-

1469
tion? Has our sense of values so far deteriorated that, while we can spend £20,000,000 or more on subsidies to the coal mines, while we can spend £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 or more on constructing a naval base at Singapore, while we can afford over £40,000,000 for the relief of Income Tax and Super-Tax payers, we cannot afford a small percentage of the total of these sums for the spreading of knowledge?
I prefer to take the point of view of the present Foreign Secretary—or at least his ideas as expressed in May of this year. He said:—
"If our commerce and our industry are to hold their own against a host of active rivals, if we are to succeed in making the life of our young people a fuller and richer thing, more open to the higher influences which dignify and lighten the burden of work, it must be by the grown of knowledge in all the various arts and sciences which underlie human progress."
It is to the practical application of those ideals that we must look for hope in the future, not to the confusion of cheese-paring extravagance. This Circular is the very antithesis of those ideas. It is a betrayal of every-one connected with the spread of knowledge. It is a betrayal of the local authorities, it is a betrayal of the teachers, it is a betrayal of the child, and, lastly, it is a betrayal (f the interests of the nation itself. Surely, my Lords, it is for you and me who have had all the benefits of education, who know what it means in our practical everyday lives, and in the mental and spiritual life that forms the background of our practical life, to be among the very first to utter our protest that those who are less fortunate than ourselves should be deprived of those benefits. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved to resolve, That this House, without raising the question of the principle of the block grant, deplores the proposals contained in Circular 1371, on the grounds that they will entail either a transfer of national burdens to the rates or the abandonment of these schemes of educational development which the Board itself had urged the Local Educational Authorities to prepare.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I should like to recall to the House the origin of this percentage block grant
1470
which has been assailed by the Circular just issued by the President of the Board of Education. In 1914 the irregularities in connection with the distribution of education grants were very apparent to every one in the country, and a great deal of trouble was taken by the officials at the Board of Education and those in the provinces to try to discover the best possible system of paying State grants to aid progressive education in the country. A Treasury Committee was appointed, upon which Sir George Murray and others sat. They came to the conclusion that it was desirable Do have a similar system to this percentage block grant, and the words they used when they reported were these:—
"We think it may be accepted that no reform of the present systems can attain to any degree of permanence which does not tend to reduce substantially the existing inequalities of rate and at the same time provide for an automatic expansion of the Government Grant concurrently with an increase in the local expenditure which it is intended to aid."
I want your Lordships to realise that this Treasury Committee recognised that there should be an expansion of the Government grant concurrently with an increase in local expenditure.
It has always been the policy of the Board of Education that when progressive education was being considered by local authorities their scheme should be approved before the State contribution was forthcoming. In 1914 I prepared a Bill carrying out this policy, and, subsequently, when Mr. Bonar Law was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the second Coalition Government, he approved, on behalf of the Conservative Party of that day, Mr. Fisher's proposals carrying out exactly this principle. From that day to the present that principle of a percentage block grant has obtained in our educational system. It was successively approved by Mr. Baldwin when he was at the Treasury, by Sir Austen Chamberlain when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by Sir Robert Horne when he was at the Treasury. It was also approved by Mr. Neville Chamberlain and, subsequently, by Mr. Snowden.
Now there is to be an alteration, apparently, which entirely sweeps away the principle upon which that permanency was expected. Ender Mr. Churchill's pressure a Circular has been issued which

1471
is entirely in opposition to the system which has been established, which, on the whole, has worked very well, and under which progressive education has been placed before local authorities in a way which has been to the general advantage of the community. I part company at once with those, among whom are members of your Lordships' House, who object to public expenditure on education and are even opposed to progressive education supported out of the public purse. I am convinced that the action of the President. of the Board of Education is unworthy of him.
First of all, he is discouraging infant children being allowed to go to school in the infant schools of the country. am one of those who believe that a good home is the best place for the majority of young children up to the age of five; but I recognise that there are slum areas and that if children in those areas are to have a fair opportunity of education it is absolutely essential that they should be under discipline in an infant school, where they can be properly looked after, instead of being left in the gutter, which is their only alternative when the schools are closed. With one sweep, without considering what is the view of the education authorities, without even asking them to meet him, Lord Eustace Percy has reduced the block grant for the infant children from 36 s. per head to 6s. per head. What can be expected of the local education authorities when, having made all their arrangements in regard to their expenditure in the future in regard to these infant schools, they are suddenly told that five-sixths of the grant in connection with those infant schools is to be removed at one fell swoop without any consideration whatsoever for the infant children themselves?
Then, there is the point, which was very-well taken by the noble Earl who preceded me, that only in March last the Government pursued an absolutely different policy to that indicated by the Circular under discussion. They issued a Circular calling upon all education authorities to plan schemes ahead for three years and to place before the Board of Education practical proposals for securing progressive education throughout the country. Those proposals would have had to be fairly considered on their merits, but whilst education authorities
1472
are considering their proposals and their schemes with a view of putting them before the Government, there comes suddenly a suggestion that no contribution whatsoever will henceforth be forthcoming in connection with progressive education because the block grant is really to be a block grant and no longer a percentage block grant.
There are, of course, other points in the Circular which are really retrogressive but upon which I do not wish to dwell. There have been two occasions on which education money in this country has been saved. One was when Sir Eric Geddes was called upon to recommend reductions of expenditure in all Government Departments. Opinion differs, of course, as to whether a reduction in education is really of advantage to the State or not; but even if it is an advantage in certain emergencies to reduce expenditure on education, it ought not to be done in the way in which the present Government are doing it. Sir Eric Geddes reported that the system was a money-spending device. It is very easy to make a statement of that kind, because if money is expended in encouraging any progressive work it is undoubtedly a money-spending device to allow what is practically a pound for a pound to be spent upon education as between the State and the local authorities.
Sir Eric Geddes, however, had no suggestion to make in connection with this system of percentage block grant, but he did ask that an inquiry should be made into this question so as to see whether a better system could be suggested. Lord Meston was appointed Chairman of a Committee which was set up in 1922. For all I know that Committee has not sat for the last two years. It has never reported, and I have been informed by a member of it that 80 per cent. of the arguments that were placed before it went to show that the percentage block grant was the best system that could be devised, and that, therefore. they have not reported. I should like to ask the Government to state, when they reply, when that Committee last sat, and when they expect it is going to report. I can understand the Government at the present time saying that another period has arrived when it is necessary for us to reduce expenditure, and we must have

1473
some halt in connection with the expenditure that we are incurring for education. If that is their view, they ought surely to have invited the local education authorities to meet them, and to have taken them into consultation before suddenly telling them that one per cent. less than they had hitherto received in connection with their grants will in future be paid to them by the State.
At the present moment education in elementary schools gets about a 56 per cent. grant from the Government of its total expenditure; higher education gets 50 per cent.; and the average is something like 55½ per cent. Now that is going to drop by 1 per cent., and all the progressive schemes are going to be discouraged at one fell blow by this Circular which is a sort of axe coming clown upon the expenditure of local authorities. I have received letters from a good number of education authorities already on this question. I am not going to trouble your Lordships' House with them, but one authority tells me that they have been obliged to take in a certain area outside their own district, and therefore there is an immigration, as it were, into the area over which they have control. They find the schools are inadequate, and they have laid out their plans to increase the accommodation. They have also proposed to establish a school clinic and to increase the technical instruction given in their schools. Instead of being supported any longer in those things by the State, they are to be thrown entirely upon the generosity of the ratepayers, who feel that they are already overburdened with rates.
There are three ways by which economies can be secured. One would be by teachers' salaries. But there is no possibility of economy in that way owing to the guarantee the teachers have under the Burnham scale. There are two other ways in which local education authorities might economise. One is in what are called administrative services. Last year these administrative services cost in this country £2,500,000. These services include inspectors and clerks and individuals who are absolutely necessary to see that the children attend the schools regularly. I am informed, speaking generally of the country—I am not alluding to London—that these offices are understaffed, and that if the nation is to
1474
get full value for its money the administrative staff ought to be strengthened rather than weakened. Therefore there is no possibility of economy in that direction at the present time.
Then there are miscellaneous items which come to about £7,500,000 a year. What are those items upon which the educational authorities could save? They are items such as rent. You cannot reduce the rent that you have arranged to pay for your schools. Then there is fuel. You cannot reduce your fuel bills unless you are to freeze the children it the schools. Next there are the rates that education authorities have to pay on many of their buildings. There is, further, the lighting of the schools, the cleaning of the schools, the caretakers' remuneration, the repairs, the books and the stationery. These miscellaneous items amount to a very substantial sum. Repairs, of course, amount to a large sum it is well known to every member of your Lordships' House that if repairs are required to a school building and you put off carrying out those repairs, eventually much more money will have to be spent than if the repairs were carried out at once. In this matter of repairs "a stitch in time saves nine." As to books and stationery, during the War the expenditure on these things fell sadly in arrear, and the arrears have never been made good. If the children are to be properly taught, and justice done to the educational system, instead of less money being spent upon books and stationery than is expended at the present time, rather more ought to be spent. When you analyse these items for local education you will find that there is no opportunity for the authorities to reduce their expenditure.
It is suggested that local elementary education should he reduced with a view to helping higher education. That is suggested in the Circular. But what a fallacy that is. Unless you have a sound ground work provided by elementary education you cannot build up your higher education. You must have elementary education first of all, and you cannot skimp it if you are to secure efficient higher education. The attitude that I think the Government ought to have taken on this matter was not to have issued a circular like this, but to have invited the local education authori-

1475
ties to come to them. The Government could then have said that they thought it was necessary to go somewhat more slowly with the progressive schemes. They should have discussed those schemes with local education authorities, and should not have issued an upsetting circular like this, which has created a spirit, of hopelessness on the part of all those engaged in the educational work of this country. It has done a great deal to set back the programmes for progressive education that the authorities were contemplating, which would have been of practical value to the community. This Circular is one of the clumsiest things that I have ever seen sent out by a Government Department. It is not worthy of such a man as Lord Eustace Percy, to whom I give credit for desiring to secure a good education for the country, and also to see the money well spent.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government for information concerning the change in policy indicted by Circular 1371 recently issued by the Ministry of Education. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as I have a Question down on the Paper dealing with the policy of the Government and this Circular, it might help my noble friend who is to reply for the Government presently if I were to make my observations at this stage. The noble Earl who opened this discussion indicated quite clearly that the nation as a whole has taken this Circular as indicating a reversal of the policy that has existed during the past few years—namely, the policy of a gradual expansion of the educational services. This Circular contemplates a reduction of expenditure upon those services and means the closing down of a deliberate policy of expansion with a natural increase of expenditure on education.
I agree entirely with the noble Earl that such a policy as that of this Circular is contrary to the national interest. The noble Lord who has just spoken referred to another point that is contained in the Circular, the substitution of a block grant for the principle of the percentage grant-in-aid. As the Circular states, quite rightly, this is a change of a far reaching character. As the noble Lord who has just sat down reminded us, between 1914 and 1018 successive Ministers
1476
of Education contemplated a reversal of the then existing policy of block grant. This policy of block grant is no new policy. In 1914, apparently, the Minister of Education decided to abandon it. In 1918 Mr. Fisher, then President of the Board of Education, did abandon the block grant system. This was done quite deliberately, and as the result of the experience of ten years of administration. The Government found that they were not getting that expansion in our educational services and system which most people thought we ought to have in the national interest, and they adopted the principle of the grant-in-aid on a percentage basis, because they were able to watch the development of other services based on that policy.
As your Lordships probably know, the school medical services have been gradually built up on the grant-in-aid percentage principle, and during the past generation there has been a great expansion in maternity and child welfare services. That has all been done on the percentage basis, and as the result of that expansion the chief medical officer was able, in one of his recent reports, to say that in the year 1924 39,000 infants were alive who would have been dead if the average mortality for the ten years at the beginning of this century had been maintained. That saving of life has been due entirely to the development of the infant welfare and maternity services, and it has been done on a percentage basis not on a block grant. Of course, it has cost money. Any attack on ignorance or thoughtlessness costs money, and I hope that these services are going to be continued, that more money is going to be spent on them, because if more money is spent on them judiciously, wisely and economically, we can save a great many more lives
In 1918 the abandonment of the block grant system was not done precipitously and without thought, or without a comparison of that system with the alternative which the country has had ever since. When Mr. Fisher passed his Bill and gave to the country that policy which we have had for the last six years, the percentage system, the grant-in-aid system, was an essential part of his policy. It was not a detail, it was an essential part of the policy under which our educational system has been expanded ever since. Now, as I understand, it is

1477
proposed to reverse that policy and go back to the block grant system which we had tried and abandoned. I say frankly that I consider this is a victory for reaction. The whole of this Circular contemplates the cutting down of the expenditure on education. If the Minister had said that in the development of new services the Government, owing to the need for economy, did not see their way to give fifty per cent. of the cost and that they must reduce their assistance to forty per cent. there would have been, I think, some justification for such a policy. But I see no justification for a reversal of the policy based on a deliberate desire to cut down the expenditure on education.
Up to now our policy has been a partnership as between the central education authority and the local education authority, and for that is now being substituted the policy of the dictatorship of the Treasury. I say that education is going to suffer by such substitution. What we have to consider is the future policy of this country, ten years hence, fifteen years hence, and twenty years hence. We are faced with world competition on a scale, unknown before the War, and the ability of this country to maintain its position among the leading nations of the world is going to depend very largely on the equipment which we give to our children to-day. The greatest asset which any nation can have is its children. We are sometimes told that local authorities are extravagant. I confess that I have never seen any burning desire on the part of the majority of local authorities to throw money away recklessly on education. After all, the Central Government is not paying the whole cost of the services. Fifty per cent. of the cost of education still comes out of the rates. The education rate is high, and most authorities think well and deeply before increasing the education rate.
The noble Lord who spoke last has also indicated another change of policy—namely, the diminution of control and supervision. The amount of economy which will be effected by this policy is, as far as I can make out, infinitesimal. It will mean less careful scrutiny of the use which is made of the taxpayers' money. I myself have had at different times to deal with local authorities. It was my great pleasure to be the Chairman of a Committee which recommended
1478
a policy to be adapted in connection with the fight against tuberculosis, and I also had something to do with recommending a policy for stamping out venereal disease. In every case we adopted the principle of the percentage grant-in-aid because we realised that that was the way in which to stimulate local authorities. That policy encouraged initiative, stimulated progress, and helped expansion, and at the same time enabled the Central Department to exercise careful supervision on the spending of the taxpayers' money given to local authorities.
The policy of the block grant was recommended by the Geddes Committee. That Committee consisted of able men, men of great business capacity and experience. I looked through their names again the other day and I cannot honestly say as I read through them that I found them to be the names of public men who have been intimately concerned with local government, with the administration of public health or of education, or with any of those services which bring Whitehall into contact with local authorities. On education the Geddes Committee said that the policy should be an increase in the size of the classes. That alone, to my mind, rules them cut and diminishes their qualifications for recommending any basis for our educational system. Their sole consideration—one does not blame them—was cash; to cut down the national expenditure on education. They made other recommendations. They made a recommendation in connection with national defence, and certainly the Chairman of the Committee was eminently qualified to make a recommendation on this matter as he had been First Lord of the Admiralty. They recommended that there should be a Ministry of Defence. They said it would prevent overlapping, duplication and extravagance, and that they "attached great importance to this in the interests of economy." If the Government want to economise, why do they not adopt this recommendation for the creation of a Ministry of Defence rather than cut down on the children?
We hear talk about the growth of class consciousness, class feeling. The Socialists are accused of increasing class consciousness. I have had many talks with people who belong to what are called the working classes. These men and women as they have grown up have

1479
realised that in their youth they were not given something which our children get to-day. As they put it: "You, the ruling classes, are keeping away from the poor, from our children, that which you provide for your own children." I know nothing which is so calculated to create bitterness or class feeling. Education removes the barriers which are associated with birth and rank; educated minds meet together on a common ground. I see great risk in adopting a policy of cutting down on education. We have given a gigantic power to millions of people. The destiny of our nation is in their hands. We are wondering how they are going to use this power. The use they make of the power we have given them depends on their intelligence, on the training we give them, upon their power to detect the fallacies which are periodically put before them by politicians, upon their power of reasoning, and, in short, upon the measure and the nature of the education that we give them when they are young and when they are reaching maturity.
It is the policy of this country to reduce the working hours of its citizens. The margins available for leisure are increasing. It is not when people are working that they get into trouble, but during their leisure moments. We are increasing the amount of leisure time available for the people, and the use which the citizens of this country are going to make of their leisure depends entirely upon our development of those latent possibilities which most people possess. The chief hope of maintaining our position in the world, the chief safeguard against what is generally known as Bolshevism, depends, as I see it, upon our bringing suitable and adequate education to our children. It is because, as I see the matter, the policy which is enunciated in this Circular means the checking of the growth of our educational system, because it is intended to check the expansion of those services through an increase of expenditure, and because it means the reduction of the control of the Ministry of Education over local authorities, that I for one deplore the policy and hope that the noble Lord who will reply for the Government may be able to announce that the impression which has been created in the country has been a wrong impression.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just sat down
1480
expressed in the last words of his speech a hope which I trust may be fulfilled. The House none the less owes a good deal to my noble friend Lord De La Warr for having brought forward this subject in the form of an impeachment and for having taken it in detail. I myself still share the hope which the noble Viscount uttered. The present President of the Board of Education is respected by those who know him. We like him, we feel that he has a genuine interest in his subject and we know that before he entered upon office he did very good work in connection with the campaign for higher education. I cannot help feeling, looking back on my experience of Governments, that he has yielded a little too soon in this matter. I have no doubt that he was moved by the desire to be loyal to his colleagues. That in itself is a very praiseworthy principle in a statesman and we ought not to undervalue it, but at the same time I wonder whether, if he had persisted, if he had said that he must have sufficient money to encourage the local authorities, his colleagues would have interfered with him.
I remember very well a speech made by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to his constituents about six months ago. I read it in The Times. He laid down that there must be economy, but not in education. He said that this nation could not afford economies in education, that the Government had no intention of economising in education. There is testimony indeed, and I think the present President of the Board of Education might well, upon that, have held the Chancellor of the Exchequer to his utterance. I am not sure that, if he had done so, he would not have found the great majority of his colleagues behind him. We have the utterances of the present Prime Minister and of other members of the Cabinet which have been referred to to-day, and beyond them there is the great general consideration.
This nation is going through a very trying period. We can keep the place which we won by the exertions of our forefathers only if we prepare ourselves. There is no business in our days that stands still. Every business has to develop new ideas and to make progressive advances if it is to hold its awn against its competitors. I am putting the case merely on its materialistic side when

1481
I say that, if it were for that alone, you would require education in the elementary schools and secondary schools of as high an order as it is in your power to give, not for the purpose of adding to your expenditure, but for the purpose of saving your expenditure. The most expensive thing we can do is to go down in the scale, and I regard expenditure upon education just as I regard expenditure upon finance, upon the police and upon other necessary things which we cannot avoid. You have to go on developing up to the point which is required if you are to hold your own in the world. To do anything of the kind that is now proposed is, to my mind, very mischievous from the point of view of economy and ought to have been ruled altogether out of the purview of the Geddes Committee, whose members, in spite of their excellence in regard to matters financial, were not, so far as I know, people who have allowed their minds to dwell upon education.
But we have to consider more than the material side of these things. The more you give people chances the more you get that contentment of which the noble Viscount has spoken and the more you prepare them to take such chances as they have—and they are now numerous—of going on to yet higher forms of education. That is the way to make the working classes feel that they have no longer a great grievance to face. This unfortunate Circular has produced a great deal of commotion. I do not think it is final, and my best wish for the Board of Education is that they should not treat it as final or conclusive. I think that the volume of protest which has arisen in the country and, indeed, the support which this Motion seems to be likely to have in this House, are enough to indicate that behind the objection to the principle of the Circular is something very real.
I feel sure that the Government will do wisely to take time to consider this situation further and I am not asking them to commit themselves. I know that the noble Lord who is going to reply cannot commit himself without much consultation. It will be sufficient if the Government will say that they are still prepared to take time to consider this matter when they have heard the local authorities. No doubt the President of the Board of Education will hear a great deal about this point in the other House,
1482
where a debate is to take place on Thursday, but it is a point for us to make here. Take time, review this matter, look at it from that larger point of view from which money spent on education is not merely increased expenditure but is even a method of saving; and then, having looked at it in the light of all that immense body of testimony which is coming forward now from the local authorities and from other sources, let the Government see what they can do to maintain a principle to which we have grown accustomed and on which the well-being, not only of the children but of the teachers and of those who are interested in the system, rests at the present time.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I will, if I may, take the speeches of noble Lords more or less in the order in which they were delivered. I am afraid I cannot hope to compete with my noble friend opposite in the more or less fiery oratory which he gave your Lordships on this subject, for I must stick to facts and I cannot permit myself to express any opinions which are not exactly based on facts. I think the noble Lord who asked me this Question is jumping to a great many conclusions from his reading of the Circular—conclusions which, I think, are quite unjustified. It is true that the block grant is being substituted for the 1918 system, and is being substituted deliberately and not in a hurry. I think I may say, with perfect truth, that the President has considered the block grant as being far more suitable than the percentage grant for some considerable time, and the only thing about the block grant system which may be objected to is that it may be said it has suddenly been sprung upon the local education authorities. It is, however, quite a deliberate policy, and has been decided upon, certainly in the mind of the President of the Board, for a considerable time.
I may say that the system of the block grant and in fact the whole policy of the Circular were originally considerel suitable from the point of view of education, and not from the point of view of economy. It is the deliberate idea of the Government, and it was put forward at the last General Election by the Conservative Party, that the higher education of clever children is really of more value to the State than a great deal of increased

1483
expenditure upon elementary education. But, as your Lordships will see quite clearly from the Circular, the obvious economies which are contemplated make it, I may say, imperative that the scheme should be brought into being as soon as possible. I do not think I need go very much into the present system as compared with the block grant system which will take its place, but the point of view of the Government is that it is a most unbusinesslike proceeding to ask for any particular sum of money, the amount of which is based entirely upon guess-work and is generally very much overestimated.
May I give your Lordships the figures for 1922–23? The forecast made by the local education authorities is asked for in November, it is estimated by the Board in December, and the actual expense does not become apparent until very much later. In 1923–4 the November forecast of the local education authorities was £78,837,837. The real expenditure was £70,078,433, and therefore the figure was over-estimated by the local authorities to the amount of £8,759,404. That does not appear to the Government to be a very business-like proceeding. The same thing occurred in 1923–4. The forecast of the local education authorities was £74,841,245, and the actual expenditure £67,584,660, and there again you have an over-estimate by the local education authorities of £7,256,585. The President of the Board does not like this system. He does not know where he is and also does not know what actual sum he is justified in asking for other educational purposes, and partly for that reason he wishes, and in fact has decided, to introduce the block grant system, where the liability will be defined. I do not think I need labour that point and I think it is quite clear. Indeed, upon that point I do not think there is a great deal of opposition.
The other point is the basis on which the block grant is to be fixed, and there is a good deal of opposition. The block grant has to be fixed upon a certain figure, and the only figure that was at all available was the figure of the last completed year. There has been a great deal of criticism of this. It is said that expenditure has gone up a good deal since then, and that if you take the expenditure of that particular year you
1484
are going to take away from the local education authorities a great deal of money which they were certainly budgeting on and which in all fairness is due to them. Now in the Circular 1358, referred to by the noble Earl, the local education authorities were asked to draw up programmes of their expenditure year by year for a period of four or five years from April, 1927.
I would like to say here, if your Lordships recollect what I said in my earlier remarks, that this system, which is set forth in Circular 1371, has been put forward before it was originally intended to be put forward, for obvious reasons. If the Circular had been published, say, in a year's time, the basis on which the block grant was to be fixed would have been on the programmes and the estimates produced by the local education authorities. But those programmes are not available at the present time. They will not be available—they have not been demanded—until Easter next year, and the consequence of that was that there were no figures or estimates available on which to base the block grant except the last completed year. I think I shall be perfectly right in saying that the policy of the block grant is the policy of His Majesty's Government. They think that it is a sounder and better proposition altogether and that it means that they can ask for a definite sum in their estimates. The rest of the Circular deals more or less with details, and these details are not fixed.
I must point out very carefully that the grant is a minimum grant. There is no question of a maximum grant. The noble Earl who made this Motion suggested that the figure of the grant, as set forth in the Circular, was the maximum grant that could possibly be received under almost any conditions, and that any other form of expansion which was proposed in his particular locality would have to be met by local rates. That is quite unfounded. The President has asked local authorities to meet him, and to discuss the details of this Circular and of the policy contained therein, and there is no hard and fast rule. The amount that any particular local education authority will receive under this Circular is not cut and dried in any way. They will receive a minimum based on the expenditure of 1924–25. Each authority will have to make out its own case, and

1485
will receive the fullest consideration of the President, with a desire to help them in any expenditure to which they are already committed with the approval of the Board, and also to deal with the special conditions of special localities. The President of the Board reserves to himself the full right to discuss these matters and to adjust the grant to what he considers, after such discussion with the local education authorities, to be a suitable figure for their localities. I do not think anything can be fairer than that.
The President insists on the change of system. I am not prepared to argue one way or the other about the block grant or the percentage grant, or, as I have heard it spoken of this evening, the percentage block grant—a term with which I am not quite familiar. But, as far as the block grant is concerned, from the point of view of the taxpayer it is far better to know how you stand, to know that the sum voted is a definite sum, and that you are not budgeting on absolute guesswork and generally on in flated estimates, when the benefit of the inflation will not be received by education because it goes towards the reduction of debt.
Another point made by the noble Earl who moved this Motion is that all the local education authorities in the country are producing figures and complaining that the new policy will cost them so much here and so much there. On behalf of the President of the Board, I must say, as I think noble Lords will have noticed from his answers in another place, that he cannot accept these figures without very careful scrutiny. To judge from the over-estimates that I have already quoted I should think that he is perfectly right. If the local authorities generally have over-estimated to the same extent, the ratepayers of their districts will be very agreeably surprised. My noble friend opposite referred to the commitments that the local authorities have already made on their old programmes. The President will very sympathetically consider the case of a local education authority which is already committed to capital expenditure of that kind, and it will be taken into account in arriving at the basis of the particular grant for that district. On the other hand, it docs not mean that local educa-
1486
tion authorities will be able necessarily to carry out after the year 1926 the complete programmes that they have prepared. These programmes have not come before the Board, and have not been approved of.
My noble friend drew a most pathetic picture of the enormous amount of time which he has expended on a programme, and he foresaw that the whole of his programme would be wasted, and that he would not be able to carry out alt the improvements which he contemplated. That will probably not be the case. The grant here is capable of revision, and is for one year. When the programmes are in, the grant may be revised with reference to the programmes produced by local education authorities. That, I think, is a great point. The President can revise the figure at any time. On the other hand, when he revises it he will still know just what his commitment is. It will not be guesswork, as it was under the old system.
The noble Earl made an impassioned appeal about education. I think he jumped to the conclusion that, owing to the issue of this Circular, the whole education of the country was more or less going to the dogs. I must say that personally I have never been a believer, as some people are, in the idea that efficiency in education is commensurate with expenditure on education, and I am rather surprised that my noble friend does not share that view, as efficiency combined with economy is, I should have thought, a remarkably good axiom. He seemed to think that because there might be some economy in the expenditure on education therefore the efficiency of education would necessarily be impaired. I do not think there are many of your Lordships here who would insist upon that as a truth.
I do not know that I have missed any outstanding points in the speech of the noble Earl who moved, and I should like to turn for a few moments to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Gainford, who I notice is not at present in his place. I will not go into any more details regarding the block grant system. I know that I have gone rather sketchily over the whole thing, but I feel that I am in a subordinate position in which it would be very unwise for me to go into any great detail and to take away the full

1487
value of the remarkable speech which I have no doubt the President of the Board will make to-morrow in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, suggested that the President of the Board had been pressed into this policy by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is a wrong impression to give your Lordships. This policy is the deliberate policy of the President of the Board, and if there has been any pressure at all from that part of His Majesty's Government which is even more attracted to economy, it has merely been to push the system forward sooner than it would otherwise have been. It is the deliberate policy of the President of the Board and of His Majesty's Government. The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, asked me about Lord Meston's Committee. I am afraid I have no knowledge of that Committee, but I will try to get the information he requires and let him have it.
I ought to say something about that part of the Circular which deals with children under the age of five. One part of the formula in the appendix concerning the grant mentions the possible exclusion of children under five years of age. It is the opinion of the Government that, generally speaking, children under five should be in the home and not at school. But it is perfectly true, and is very clearly recognised by the Government, that in certain localities and under certain social conditions it is extremely advisable that children under five should be accommodated either wholly or partly in the schools. The President of the Board recognises that this is a possibility, although he considers that it should be discouraged to a great extent as being of little value to the child, except, as I say, in very special localities. He recognises that there are certain localities and certain social conditions in which it is advisable for children under five to be accommodated in this way.
The numbers of children on the register are interesting. On March 31, 1905, from the age of three to five, the number was 583,268. I will not go through all the figures, but the total dropped in 1922 to 158,285 as compared with the 583,000 odd that I have already mentioned. From various temporary causes it has gradually mounted again until, in 1925, it was 221,797, which is less than half of
1488
what it was in 1905. There is a good deal of difference of opinion as to whether there is a general social tendency to send children under five years of age to school, and I should like in this connection to quote the following recommendation from the Report for 1924 of Sir George Newman, the Chief Medical Officer to the Board of Education:—
"That young children under six years of age should be discouraged from school attendance if the distance from school is excessive (or in winter or in inclement weather)."
This naturally has reference only to rural areas because the distance from school in urban areas would not be particularly excessive.
The whole point is that there is not the money available, as has been said on other occasions, for doing everything that educationists want to be done. Mothers and parents generally have to choose whether they think it is more valuable to have their children educated—I use the word "educated," although I do not think it actually meets the case of children of from three to five years of age—and so prejudice, under present conditions, the possibility of there being enough money available later on for them to have a higher education when their time comes. It is a matter of choice, a matter of opinion. The President of the Board is decidedly of opinion that it is far more beneficial to the children to have a chance of being educated in a higher way later on than for them to spend at school what we regard as the somewhat unprofitable years between the ages of three and five. That is his deliberate opinion and, as I think, the opinion, rightly expressed, of His Majesty's Government. They prefer the possibility of training-on at the other end rather than starting too early.
I was asked about the effect of the Circular on the scales of teachers' salaries under the recent Award of the noble Viscount, Lord Burnham. If your Lordships will allow me I will quote an answer given by the President of the Board to a Question asked in another place on Thursday last by Mr. Trevelyan. The answer is as follows—
"I have been informed that the standing joint committee passed a resolution in the sense indicated by the right hon. Member"—

1489
that is, as to the alteration of the grant without prejudice to principle, which was the question asked by the noble Earl—
"but I do not find that it was ever formally forwarded to me. It has, so far as I know, never been claimed that anything said or done in connection with the arbitration proceedings could commit the Government or Parliament in the slightest degree to the continuance of a particular grant formula or grant system, nor could I for a moment admit such a claim if it were made; but I have every intention of making such grants to authorities as will enable them to continue the payment of the allocated scales, and I have already made it clear that such payment will constitute a condition of grant."
I do not think I need add anything to that statement. It explains itself and it is, again, the deliberate policy of the Government that the Burnham Award should be kept as it is.
I am afraid I have dealt very inadequately with the Question raised by the Motion, but I would like to sum up in a few words the impression that I hope to have left upon your Lordships. It is that the policy of the block grant was a deliberate policy, founded on the possibility of there being a better education under it. The grant is a minimum and not a maximum grant, and is capable of adjustment to local conditions. Local authorities have merely to put their case adequately and properly, and to prove it, and I can assure them they will have sympathetic consideration from the Board, and that the grants can be adjusted. So far as the programmes which have been drawn up with great labour by local education authorities are concerned, the basis of grants can be altered to meet those later on when the programmes are submitted. The President has a great deal of lattitude to deal with special cases, of all kinds under the Circular.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARK: My Lords, the speech which has just been delivered to us on behalf of the Government has given us a somewhat more favourable interpretation of the Circular than is generally held. The noble Lord laid great emphasis on the fact that the figure for the last year will be the minimum figure, and that, therefore, there will be a possibility, and a probability in certain cases, of additional grants when the local authorities make out their case. I think it is regrettable, however, that this Circular was issued
1490
before a conference with the local authorities had taken place. No circular has, I think, caused such a consternation—possibly on a mistaken interpretation—among those who are interested in educational progress as that which is now under consideration. It has caused something like dismay, and the reports from various centres show us that in quite a large number of cases schemes which have been already undertaken have, for the time at any rate, been suspended to see what the final result of the discussion on this Circular will be.
Personally, I am not opposed to the block grant principle. I think there is a great deal to be said for it. But the opposition is not so much to the block grant as to taking as the, figure for it the amount of a year in which economy had, in a very special way, to be practised, and without taking into consideration the developments in education which, almost inevitably, must and certainly should take place in the next two or three years. Take, for instance, one illustration alone. In a number of localities large districts are growing up, numbering not thousands but tens of thousands of inhabitants. In one of those districts that I know within the next two years it is planned that three schools should be built. This will undoubtedly mean very heavy expenditure by the local authority. I hope this is the kind of case to which the noble Lord referred, and that it will be considered with sympathy by the Government or the Board of Education.
But I do want to stress one particular thing, the importance of which I think has not been sufficiently realised by the Minister of Education—namely, the bringing to the schools of the children under five years of age. The Minister of Health apparently holds that this should be discouraged, though in certain districts and in certain instances it might be allowed. I regard this as a very grave matter indeed. If I am asked whether I attach very much value to the actual education that is given to the children under five in schools, I must quite frankly say that if education means simply the imparting of knowledge and information I attach very little importance to it, but on the other hand, it must be borne in mind that the education that children are to receive at the age of five is very often rendered impossible by the conditions under which they

1491
have been living previously. Ideally, no doubt, it would be right that children under five should be kept in their own homes and taught there, but we have to face the hard facts of the situation. Many of those children live in overcrowded homes, their playground is a tenement staircase or the crowded court or alley, they are underfed or badly fed, and the result is that when they go to school at the age of five they are at first incapable of receiving education.
I remember an experienced teacher working in a very poor part of a provincial town saying that the first two years of school life had to be spent in preparing the children from that district to receive anything that might be called education. The Chief Medical Officer to the Board of Education, writing in 1924, pointed out that there had been an immense improvement in the practical treatment of defective children who went to school, and he proceeded to say:
"But concurrently there has been little or no change in the causes and origin of disease in school children. Medical examination of children has probably revealed unsuspected defects which in earlier days remain undetected, but that cannot explain the fact that the number of sick children at the commencement of school life is as large as ever. The young child comes to school already diseased. In 1924, 38 per cent. of the entrants in London were found to require medical treatment. This clearly is home-produced and not school-produced."
Therefore the sooner you are able to bring the children into the school premises where, under proper treatment and under proper supervision, you are more likely to make them ready for education and for the teaching that they will receive when they reach the age of five. I do press most urgently on those who are responsible that they should not discourage children under five from attending schools from these poorer districts in which the conditions of life are so extremely difficult.
I quite realise the extraordinary difficulty in which the Government is placed. Everyone is calling upon them to economise, and the moment that they economise in any department they are told that that is a department in which economy is quite impossible. I think that education is possibly one of the very few departments in which we cannot, with safety, economise. I should like to emphasise that education does not affect
1492
only one particular class of interest, it affects the whole of the nation. The whole future of the nation depends upon the kind of education that is being given to its children. There may be differences of opinion as to the merits or demerits of democracy, but I am sure there could be only one opinion that of all politics the worst, the most dangerous, and the most incompetent is an uneducated democracy. For the future of the country and the welfare of its citizens, I trust that the Board of Education will make it perfectly clear that this Circular is not meant to discourage progress in education, and that the Government still stands definitely by the pledges it made at the last Election that national education should have a foremost place in its programme.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships would allow me to say a very few words at the end of this interesting debate. I am not going to traverse the ground which was covered by my noble friend who spoke on behalf of the Government. I have nothing to add to what he said in regard to the details of this question, but I do think one or two words might be spoken in order to make the position of the Government clear. I think that the noble Earl who introduced the subject to your Lordships' notice used some very hard language of my noble friend the President of the Board of Education. He can take it from me that that language was wholly undeserved. There is not a more ardent educationist than my noble friend, and it is the measure of the position in which we stand financially that even he has found it necessary to do what he can to help the country in the situation in which we are placed. I hope that will be entirely and absolutely understood. I think there is nothing more unfair than the charges that have been made here and elsewhere against my noble friend.
There is an assumption that everything is rigidly fixed by the exact terms of the Circular which has been under discussion. That is not so. The principles, of course, upon which the Board of Education is prepared to work are disclosed in that Circular, but as regards the details, the amount, and the method of assessment, these questions remain open for discussion; and if noble Lords will read the

1493
Circular carefully they will see that such a discussion is foreshadowed with people interested in education in the localities. There is no desire, I can assure noble Lords, to starve education. That is not at all the policy of the Government in any case; and with reference to what the right rev. Prelate has said any commitments into which local education authorities have entered must be honoured. There is no suggestion that we should say to local education authorities who have entered into contracts that they must break those contracts. Nothing of the kind. There is no such suggest ion on the part of the Government.
But the fact remains that economy, not in the Board of Education alone but generally in all Departments of the Government, is urgent. I thought it a little hard, I must say, to hear the noble Lord, Lord Gainford—he is not in his place at the moment, but I must say one word in reply to his speech—use the kind of language he did this afternoon. I do not say that he expressed himself immoderately, he never does, but he seemed to think there was no economic side to this question at all. It is only a few months ago that we listened to a very interesting speech delivered from exactly the same place by the noble Lord's leader, the Earl of Oxford and Asquith, and I should like to remind your Lordships even at this late hour of some of the very interesting phrases used by the noble Earl on that occasion.
Let me quote one. The noble Earl said this:—
"I say to the people of this country and to both Houses of Parliament, in the plainest possible terms, that expenditure on this scale is more than this country can afford."
I should like the noble Lord to have heard this—
"The inference, the inevitable inference, is that there is one and only one way of escape "—
I am making use of some strong language, but it is not my own language and I am not prepared to say that I go the whole length of the noble Earl, Lord Oxford—
"ruthless and relentless cutting down and cutting off of every form of avoidable expenditure."
And the noble Earl went on—
"The spending Departments always have at their disposal a well-filled arsenal not
1494
only of plausible but often of well-founded arguments. Are you going, they ask, to starve national defence? Are you going to cashier devoted and efficient servants of the State? Are you going—an argument which is perhaps more potent to-day than it used to be in days gone by—to cripple or main the machinery and the further and future developments of social reform?"
I hope the noble Viscount below me, Lord Astor, will see the length to which the Leader of the Liberal Party went.
And this is how the noble Earl concluded—
"But all those things, relevant as they are and, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's point of view, difficult as they are, must give way to the supreme national necessity."
That was the argument of the noble Earl, and it is an argument, which has had no effect whatever en the noble Lord, Lord Gainford. He did not seem to appreciate that there was any need for economy; and though, as I have said, I should not perhaps have expressed myself in such terms as did the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, yet in the main he is right. It must be ruthless economy, not only in the Board of Education, in so far as that is possible without doing harm, but in every Department as well. I am quite confident that unless the noble Earl who introduced this subject and other noble Lords realise this they will undergo some shocks as the, policy of His Majesty's Government on economy gradually unfolds itself.
As for the policy on education, my noble friend behind me has already stated that we look to progress in education more in the development of secondary than elementary education. Most of us think that a good deal of money has been wasted on elementary education. It is not that we despise education, but we do not want to waste money, and with less money more wisely spent better results can be achieved. That is the direction in which we hope to move. I do not say that it can be achieved at once. It is a matter which may take many years to develop, but depend upon it, it is not by the lavish spending of money that you achieve great results, and above all, it is not by ignoring the vital necessities of the country that the Government desire to secure a reputation in the country and go down to history as an efficient Government. No. We hope not to spend lavishly but to spend money well, whether it be on education or any other service.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, it is only because my points have remained quite unanswered that I venture to rise again at this late hour of the evening. The noble Marquess has paid a personal tribute to the character of the Minister of Education, with which all of us must agree. At the same time this is not a personal matter; it is a matter of Cabinet policy. The points that I made, and which still remain unanswered, are, first, that this is a gross breach of faith with local authorities; that local authorities were urged to prepare schemes and were not put in possession of the full policy of the Government. The noble Lord who replied for the Government talked about schemes that I myself contemplated being put into operation and made it appear as though it was a personal grievance of mine. It was not only the expenditure on development that I contemplated, but the development and expenditure that were bring urged on us by the Board of Education itself. Then there was the question of the decrease in the expenditure of the Exchequer at the expense of the rates or of the children. That point was not touched. I am told that I jumped to a conclusion that this meant economy and the restriction of education. I do not think I jumped to a conclusion. All I know is that the local education authority of which I am a member has, since the issue of this Circular, actually put off the building of all its secondary schools, the very type of education which the Government profess to believe in most.
Then we are told that this is only a minimum. There is no mention of the word "minimum" or "maximum" in this Circular. I only take, and the country can only take, the Minister at his word. We are told that
"The President of the Board has decided that in the present state of the national finances he would not be justified in making so large a demand upon the taxpayer …."
and so on. Then we have in small print an appendix dealing with the basis on which he intends to make grants. There is not a word about a minimum or a maximum. We are told that the Minister is prepared to meet local authorities on the question of expenditure to which they are already committed. That may be so, but, to use the words of the noble Lord himself, these schemes which we are dis-
1496
cussing are not approved and therefore, apparently, the Minister does not intend to meet local authorities on the point of these schemes, but only on the point of expenditure which was started before these schemes. That does not meet the point at all.
LORD SOMERS: I think the noble Earl rather misunderstood me. I said that when the programme, or schemes, as he called them, are put forward by local educational authorities, the President of the Board will base the grants which he proposes to give on those schemes, duly considered by him.
EARL DE LA WARR: What the noble Lord first said was that he would meet local authorities with regard to schemes to which they were already committed; but they are not yet committed to these schemes. Moreover, on the further point that he raised, there is no mention in the Circular that the Minister intends to meet local authorities on the point of the future schemes which they have been devising and which are not yet approved. The noble Lord who replied for the Government said that the local education authorities would have a chance of meeting the Minister of Education and putting their views forcibly if they wished to do so. I think I can guarantee to the noble Lord that there will be a most literal interpretation of his words, and that he will find that even his most Conservative friends on the local education authorities will put their view most forcibly to the Minister. He also said that the Minister, to use his words, does not quite know where he is. That is exactly the impression that the contradictions both in the Circular and in his recent speech made upon me, and I would suggest that, for the benefit of those authorities who have to look after the interests of education in this country, the sooner the Minister does know where he is the better.
On Question, Motion negatived.

DAMAGE BY HEAVY ROAD TRAFFIC.
LORD RATHCREEDAN LORD RATHCREEDAN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, seeing that considerable time must necessarily elapse before the provisions of the promised measure dealing with roads come into operation, they will consider

1497
the advisability of taking some step to diminish the damage now sustained by owners and occupiers of house property in close proximity to roads used by heavy vehicles, more especially those roads used by omnibuses in the vicinity of the Metropolis. The noble Lord said: My Lords, under the circumstances I do not feel that I am justified in detaining the House, and I will therefore content myself with asking the Question which stands in my name upon the Paper.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I also will deal with this Question as briefly as I can. Generally speaking, the view of the Ministry of Transport is that the remedy lies rather in strengthening and improving the road surfaces, a process which has been pressed forward as rapidly as circumstances permit, than in placing further limitations on the weight and speed of heavy motor vehicles. So far as the Ministry is concerned, little evidence of serious damage to buildings from this cause has been produced, and it is considered that on a properly constructed road in a reasonable state of repair no reasonably sound building would be seriously affected by the traffic. The Minister does not feel, therefore, that any case has been made out on these grounds for reducing the present legal limits of weight and speed for heavy motor vehicles. It may be pointed out that no alteration has been made in the maximum axle weights or speeds of heavy motor cars since 1904, except that the maximum speed of heavy motor cars fitted with resilient tyres with registered axle weights between 6 tons and 8 tons was raised two years ago from eight miles to twelve miles per hour.
So far as the road surfaces are concerned, substantial grants are made from the Road Fund towards the cost of improving the surfaces of roads, to render them suitable for the traffic upon them. Section 7, subsection (4) of the Roads Act, 1920, empowers the Minister of Transport, on the application of the council of a county or a county borough, and after holding a public inquiry, to prohibit or restrict the use of particular classes of mechanically propelled vehicles on roads, in any case in which it appears to him to be proved that a vehicle of that class cannot be used on that highway without endangering the safety of the
1498
vehicle, or the persons therein or other traffic using the highway, or that the highway is unsuitable for use by a vehicle of that class. It will be observed that the factors to be taken into consideration are safety of vehicles and their passengers and the suitability of the road as a road. The Minister is advised that it is very doubtful whether the powers of this section could be invoked merely on the ground that damage to house property by vibration is alleged.
Within the City of London and the Metropolitan Police district omnibuses are allowed, under the provisions of the London Traffic Act, to ply for hire only upon routes which have been approved for such purposes by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who, of course, is the licensing authority for the area. In considering whether he should include any particular street or road in a route to be defined for this purpose, he may have regard only to the question of public safety and to the convenience of traffic. This power of the Commissioner does, however, ensure that omnibuses are not run upon streets or roads within the City of London or the Metropolitan Police district unless the Commissioner is reasonably satisfied that they are suitable for this traffic. In the legislation which the Minister of Transport hopes shortly to introduce for the better regulation of public service vehicles it is intended to confer upon licensing authorities throughout the country certain powers for controlling, by means of conditions attaching to the licences, the routes of omnibuses and chars-a-banc, subject to suitable safeguards.

DIOCESAN BOARDS OF FINANCE MEASURE, 1925.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of the most rev. Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, I beg to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Diocesan Boards, of Finance Measure, 1925, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. This Measure refers purely to administration and is, I believe, quite uncontroversial. It is founded on the recommendations of the Commission that inquired into the property and revenues

1499
of the Church and over which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack first presided, being followed in the chair by Sir George Murray. The Measure has since become urgently necessary owing to the provisions of the Dilapidations Measure, which has become law. The Ecclesiastical Committee has commended it to Parliament and recommended its adoption. I beg to move.
[From Minutes of December 14.]

ABERDEEN CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (Lord Balfour of Burleigh) and reported from the Committee.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.