Sitting of 6 June 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bognor Gas Light and Coke Company (Electricity) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Everton, etc., Drainage Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Lea Bridge District Gas Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Maidenhead Gas Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
North Middlesex Gas Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Southgate and District Gas Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Brighton and Hove General Gas Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Brodsworth and District Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Christchurch Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Herne Bay Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Stockport Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Swanage Gas and Water Bill [Lords] (by Order),
York United Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Falkirk and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
Copy presented of List of Societies approved by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and by the National Health Insurance Commissioners for England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations of the Insurance Commissioners (Wales) as to claims for exemption [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 150.]
Copy presented of Regulations of the Joint Committee as to the constitution of a separate section established by a Society for the purposes of Part I. of the National Insurance Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 151.]

FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.
Copy presented of Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops for 1911, Report and Statistics [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

ARMY.
Copy presented of Report on the Discipline and Management of the Military Detention Barracks and Military Prisons, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Amended Scheme made by the Army Council in respect of the Territorial Force Association for the County of London [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

COMMERCIAL INTELLIGENCE.
Return ordered "showing the number of Annual and other Reports received from (1) His Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Officers; and (2) His Majesty's Trade Commissioners in the Dominions and British Possessions, which have been dealt with by the Commercial Intelligence Branch of the Board of Trade, and published or communicated to Traders during 1911 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 224, of Session 1911)."—[Mr. Sydney Buxton.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Irish-built Ships (Dutch Government Statistics).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether representations will be made to the Dutch Government with a view to their recording the purchase of sea-going vessels and including them in their official statistics as imports; whether he is aware that the total value of Irish imports into the Netherlands is seriously under-estimated by reason of the exclusion of Irish-built ships from these statistics; and can he state whether the United States, France, or Belgium, which keep separate records of Irish trade, do or do not include seagoing vessels as imports?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I am afraid there is not sufficient ground for suggesting to the Netherlands Government that they should alter the basis on which their imports statistics are compiled. The question of what articles should be included in and what articles excluded from record is one on which different countries are bound to take different views. The United States of America do not record imports of sea-going vessels, possibly because foreign-built vessels are not admitted to the American Registry. Both France and Belgium record such imports, but according to the published returns no sea-going vessels were imported into either country from Ireland in any of the years 1908–10.
  Mr. BOLAND: Could the right hon. Gentleman at least suggest to our Consul that in drawing up his report this year he will put at the end a note indicating the value of Irish-built ships imported into the Netherlands?
  Sir E. GREY: My recollection is that the Consul placed a note to that effect in his previous reports, but the amount was not put at the end in a tabular statement.

  China.
  Mr. STEWARTasked whether before officially recognising the Chinese Republic Government, His Majesty's Government will take steps to secure that the conflict of authority at present existing between the Chinese officials and the municipal government of the international
  270
  settlement at Shanghai will be terminnated, and that the boundaries of the settlement will be re-adjusted to meet the present unsatisfactory position?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Legation at Peking continue now, as in the past, to make every effort to secure an amelioration of the sanitary and police conditions prevailing in the district of Chapel, which borders on the limits of the international settlement, and a clear and satisfactory demarcation of the boundary of the settlement itself. Any measure calculated to attain these objects, which may be initiated by the Consular Body at Shanghai and receive the approval of the Diplomatic Representatives at Peking, will have the cordial support of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that there are certain British (Glasgow) interests in Chinese railways, etc., with regard to which he was endeavouring to arrive at a general settlement with the Chinese Government in 1906, and which still remain unsettled; whether a settlement of these outstanding Glasgow interests is included in the negotiations now proceeding, or in contemplation, regarding Chinese financial matters; and, if not, what steps he is taking or proposing to take to secure a settlement of these claims?
  Sir E. GREY: The interests referred to are presumably certain claims in connection with Chinese railways, etc., put forward by Mr. George Turner, a contractor residing in Glasgow. These claims have been carefully investigated, both before and since I went to the Foreign Office in 1905, and I am satisfied that there is no ground for the intervention of His Majesty's Government. They were therefore not included among the claims to which reference was made in 1906, and have not been the subject of any negotiations with the Chinese Government.
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether the British Government continues the policy of giving diplomatic support to only one British bank in Chinese finance, thereby allowing compacts between certain banks and others whereby competition for Chinese finance is excluded, and the application of the money and the attendant patronage are monopolised?
  Sir E. GREY: Pending the final issue of the loan now being negotiated with the Chinese Government, His Majesty's Government have assured their exclusive support to the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, the British representative in the International Combination which, it is hoped, will render effective the aim of His Majesty's Government to prevent any return to the former unprofitable policy of international competition in Chinese loans. The support now given to the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank in no sense confers a monopoly on it for the emission of future loans that may be issued on behalf of China, and I understand that the bank is perfectly willing to admit to full financial participation British houses of well-established reputation.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the American section of the six-Power group for financing China is identical in personnel with, or embraces the same parties as, the American group who, acting in secret compact with a British firm in 1910, contracted for a loan with the Chinese Government for the construction of the Chinchow-Aigun Railway and for the application of the money; whether he is now aware of the terms of that secret compact; and whether the British Government gave any diplomatic or other support to the British firm towards obtaining the concession for the Chinchow-Aigun Railway?
  Sir E. GREY: We have no accurate information as to the constitution of the American group referred to nor do we know of any secret compact between them and Messrs. Pauling, the firm interested in the Chinchow-Aigun Railway. With regard to the concession in question, His Majesty's Government were unable to give diplomatic support for this particular enterprise.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the names of the individuals and banks constituting the different groups of financiers now acting together with the support of their respective Governments as the six-Power group for the purpose of financing China; whether the terms of the agreements between these groups and between them jointly and China, and the nature of their authority from their respective Governments, will be made public; whether the groups undertake to find a sixth of the money in each of their respective countries; if the money is to
  272
  be raised mainly or wholly in England and France, will he explain to what extent the other groups or the countries they represent are to participate in the profits or to control the expenditure, and for what consideration; and, if their only contribution is silence or support in taking advantage of China's difficulties by creating a monopoly in Chinese finance, whether the British Government will support the combination for this purpose?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot supply details as to the composition of the financial groups concerned in the loan to China or the terms of their agreements, which are at present the subject of confidential negotiations between themselves. I have already explained, in reply to previous questions, the nature of the support given by His Majesty's Government to the British group in the financial combination, and that it involves no pecuniary liability on them. We have no desire to take any advantage of China's difficulties. It is China who wants to borrow, and not others who wish to press loans upon her. If China can do without foreign loans at all it would be a very great relief, and put an end to many troublesome questions. It is clear that in the present state of affairs in China, if money is to be lent, it must be upon proper conditions, otherwise Chinese credit will disappear and confusion and chaos will result, and I cannot support anything that is likely to produce these untoward consequences.
  Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman not supporting a Home Rule Bill which will produce these consequences? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]
  Sir E. GREY: So far as I have heard the Debates on the Home Rule Bill it has never been suggested that it will ever produce any consequences in China.
  Mr. GINNELL: In view of the actual financial condition of China, does His Majesty's Government regard it as consistent with the advice tendered to the Chinese Government by foreign Ministers and others, and reported in this day's "Times," in reference to the circumscribing of Chinese finance?
  Sir E. GREY: If the hon. Member will let me have a copy of that question on the Paper I will answer it.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that if the Home Rule Bill is passed it will not have the effect indicated?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Home Rule Bill has nothing whatever to do with this matter.

  Trans-Persian Railway.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the personnel of the British and other groups of financiers who undertake the finance, construction, and equipment of the proposed Trans-Persian Railway, their terms of participation, the nature and extent of the British Government support, and the present condition of the negotiations?
  Sir E. GREY: The "Société d'êtudes," consisting of British, French, and Russian members, who will undertake the preliminary investigation connected with the railway, is not yet definitely constituted, but it is expected that the three groups will shortly be completed, after which a meeting will be held in Paris for the purpose of constituting it. The financing, construction, and equipment of the line will be undertaken by a company or companies to be formed later, and the control of those operations will be equally divided between the representatives of the three Powers concerned. As regards the extent to which His Majesty's Government are supporting the enterprise, I have nothing to add to the reply returned to the Noble Earl the Member for the Hornsey Division of Middlesex on 19th March last.
  Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any British syndicate has been registered for this purpose in England?
  Sir E. GREY: I imagine not. If the hon. Member will give notice of the question, I will give him a specific answer.
  Mr. MORRELL: May I ask whether the negotiations have reached a stage at which they could be conveniently discussed in this House?
  Sir E. GREY: Of course, the question is one that can be discussed at any time, Tout in regard to the negotiations themselves at the present stage at which they are there is really very little to be said, because so little is definite.

  Nyasa (Murder of Rev. A. Douglas).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what was the result of the trial of the Portuguese customs official who shot the Rev. Arthur Douglas at Nyasa; and
  274
  whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any further action in the matter?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Government have received from an official of the Nyasaland Protectorate, deputed for this purpose, a full report on the murder and all the circumstances leading up to it. They propose, however, to defer taking any action on that report until they shall have learnt the result of the trial, which, according to the request preferred by His Majesty's Government at the instance of the Bishop of Nyasaland, should be held at an early date at Mtengula instead of at Ibo, the ordinary seat of the competent court.

  Baghdad Railway.
  Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he will state whether Koweit is to be abandoned as the terminus of the Baghdad Railway, and, if so, why; and what terminus is to take its place?
  Sir E. GREY: No decision as to the terminus beyond Baghdad has been arrived at, but negotiations on the subject of the Baghdad Railway are still in progress between His Majesty's Government and the Turkish Government, and until they are concluded I can make no further statement with regard to the question.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can give us any further information with regard to the settlement among the various Powers interested?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot make any further statement at the present stage of the negotiations.

  Fighting at Fez (European British Subjects).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information regarding the present position in Fez?
  Sir E. GREY: A despatch from His Majesty's Consul at Fez, dated 26th May, states that all the European British subjects were inside the Consulate quarter when the attack began on the night of 25th May, and next morning he brought them to the Consulate. It appears that they have been quite safe during the fighting. The latest information, dated 2nd June, is to the effect that the situation at Fez is much improved.

  International Opium Conference.
  Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked whether any report had been made by the British Plenipotentiaries to the International Opium Conference at The Hague; whether the Convention and the report were signed by all the Plenipotentiaries with or without reservations; what the reservations, if any, were; and whether the further papers to be presented will contain full information on these points?
  Sir E. GREY: A report is now in course of preparation by the British Plenipotentiaries to the International Opium Convention, and will be laid before Parliament. It will contain no reservations, and will, I believe, bear the signatures of all the Plenipotentiaries. The Convention was presented to Parliament in February last, contains one reservation, and bears the signatures of all the British Plenipotentiaries with the exception of Sir Cecil Clementi-Smith, who was absent in England at the time that the Convention was signed.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: Were any definite instructions given to the British Plenipotentiaries and were they carried out?
  Sir E. GREY: I would like the hon. Member to give me notice of that question.

  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what reasons are assigned by the Commissioners of National Education for not putting lay assistants in convent schools on the same footing as regards security of tenure, salary, and pension rights as the women teachers in ordinary national schools; whether he is aware that a number of these teachers have been trained at the expense of the State, and that in some cases these lay assistants are obliged to teach extra subjects without any remuneration; whether he is prepared to have this question of convent assistants fully investigated; and whether he is aware that at the recent teachers' congress a resolution embodying the headings named was unanimously adopted?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture,): The Commissioners of National Education inform me that lay assistants in convent national schools are employed and paid by the communities, and not by the Commissioners. They are not eligible for
  276
  pension under the Teachers' Pension Act of 1879 so long as they are employed only as lay assistants. Some of these lay assistants are trained teachers, and have been unable to obtain employment in ordinary national schools owing to the non-occurrence of vacancies. A resolution to the effect stated was passed at the recent Congress of National Teachers. My right hon. Friend sees no necessity for any investigation in regard to these teachers, whose position and conditions of employment are well understood.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that a rule has recently been made by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland withholding three months' salary from married women teachers at the time of maternity unless such teachers pay substitutes for that period out of their own pockets; whether he is aware that difficulty is found in obtaining substitutes, and consequently the money is withheld at a time when it is most useful to pay the nurse, doctor, and other incidental expenses; and whether the money so saved is handed back to the Treasury or goes towards other educational purposes in Ireland?
  Mr. RUSSELL: My right hon. Friend is aware that a rule has been made as stated. The Commissioners of National Education have no knowledge of the alleged difficulties in obtaining substitutes. They do not insist on such substitutes having the full qualifications required in other cases. Any portion of the Parliamentary Vote unexpended at the end of the financial year must be refunded to the Treasury.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Solicitor-General for Ireland whether, in granting paper promotion to first grade teachers, the Commissioners of National Education have, on the strength of Rule 105 (a), which positively asserts that teachers promoted from a lower to a higher grade receive on promotion the salary fixed for the grade to which they are promoted, made themselves responsible for the payment of the arrears due to these teachers; and whether these teachers could individually or collectively take any action to recover the sums due according to the rules of the Commissioners of National Education.
  Mr. RUSSELL: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is advised that the answer is in the negative.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    EXISTING STATUTES (MODIFICATION).
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, under Sub-section (11) of Clause 2 of the Government of Ireland Bill, it would be competent for the Irish Legislature to alter or modify the details of the Land Purchase Acts, the Old Age Pensions Acts, the National Insurance Act, and the Labour Exchange Act; and if he will state what is meant by the general subject matter of those Acts?
    Mr. RUSSELL: It will not be competent for the Irish Parliament to alter or modify the details of any of the enactments referred to so long as the administration of the enactment in question is a reserved service.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my question and say what is the meaning of the expression "general subject matter of these Acts"?
    Mr. RUSSELL: It may not be a very happy expression, but it had reference to land purchase enactments which are spread over a large number of Land Acts that are not specially Land Purchase Acts. That was the real reason of it. It can be considered in Committee if necessary.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it possible for the Irish authorities to pay the expenses of workmen in this country, under the Labour Exchange Act, to go to Ireland?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I do not see how that arises.
    Captain CLIVE: Who is to be the judge as to which Acts are capable of revision by the Irish Parliament?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is for discussion in Committee.

    FINANCE COMMITTEE.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the memorial signed by a large number of Members of this House, he will now publish that portion of the evidence given before the Committee on Irish Finance in respect of which no pledge of secrecy was made or is now insisted upon?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George, for the Prime Minister): The memorial will be considered by the Prime Minister on his return, and perhaps the hon. Member would therefore be good enough to repeat his question next week.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that the memorial to the Congested Districts Board in regard to the division of the demesne lands of the-Wills-Sandford estate was signed by 82 towns tenants in Castlerea, who submit that these lands should be apportioned amongst the town tenants generally; and if he will state whether the petition of the memorialists will receive further consideration?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Congested Districts Board received a memorial purporting to be signed by 82 tenants and subtenants of the town of Castlerea. As my right hon. Friend has already stated, the primary object of the Board in purchasing the demesne lands of the Wills-Sandford estate was the improvement in the condition of agricultural tenants, not the partitioning of such lands among town tenants. The petition referred to, which has been already ruled upon by the Board, cannot be further considered.

    Public Offices (Dublin).
    Mr. HORNERasked how much of the £225,000, authorised by the Public Offices Sites (Dublin) Act, 1903, for the building of a college of science and other offices in Dublin, was unexpended on the 31st March, 1912; were plans and specifications prepared for buildings which would have exhausted substantially the whole amount provided; was work stopped on the buildings; has this unexpended amount been brought into the estimated expenditure on Irish services in 1912–13, Appendix B of the White Paper [Cd. 6154], on the outline of the financial provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill; and, if not, and it it is not intended to resume the work, will this unexpended amount be credited to the Irish Exchequer in the event of the Bill becoming law?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The sum mentioned by the hon. Member has been used for the acquisition of sites and for the building of the

    279
    Royal College of Science. A small amount remained unexpended on the 31st March, 1912, but the whole of the balance is required to meet liabilities already incurred at that date. The remaining parts of the hon. Member's question do not therefore arise.

    Malta (Finances).
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the finances of Malta are in a serious condition; and, if so, what steps His Majesty's Government intend to take to meet the difficulties arising?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I must refer the Noble Lord to the Report, presented to Parliament last month, of the Royal Commission on the Finances of Malta. The recommendations made in that Report are now under consideration.

    Teaching of Geography (Singapore).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that the Child's Geography, by M. J. Barrington Ward, M.A., published by Bell and Sons, is used as a text-book for Standard III. in the Victoria Bridge school, in Singapore; whether he is aware that on pages 50 and 51 of this book it is stated that the false religion known as Mahomedan was founded by Mahomed, a native of Arabia, who called himself the prophet of the true God; whether he is aware that the pupils at this school are largely Mahomedan; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the negative, though I presume that, as the pupils are to a large extent Malay boys, many of them profess the Mahomedan religion. A copy of my hon. Friend's question will be sent to the Governor for his consideration. If the facts are as alleged I do not think the book a suitable one for such use.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the attitude of the Colonial Education Department due to the fact that Mahomed was not of pure European descent?

    Malay States (Sanitary Regulations).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies
    280
    whether he is aware that in the Annual Report of the Selangor Health Department, in the Federated Malay States, Dr. Gerrard states that an unprecedented amount of obstruction and passive resistance has been shown by certain members of the planting community towards the sanitary regulations laid down in the Estate Labourers Enactment, that gross cases of insanitation have been discovered, and that the majority of the visiting medical practitioners, except in a few cases, have not inspected the dwellings of the labourers or given any advice to managers as to the ordinary sanitation of these places; and whether the Government proposes to take any action?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have seen in the Press an extract from the Report to the effect quoted in the question. I have no doubt that the Local Government will take any steps that may be necessary or desirable.

    British East Africa.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked whether it is intended that no further Grant-in-Aid will be given by the Imperial Government towards the finances of British East Africa; and whether, in that case, the Colonial Office proposes to alter the form of local government so as to give the Colonists a full voice in the spending of their own money?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am not in a position to say whether or not any further Grant-in-Aid from Imperial funds will be required for British East Africa.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILE: In the event of further financial aid being required, will it be forthcoming?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I think that that question approaches the region of hypothesis.

    Police (England and Wales).
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give any figures showing the increase of the police force in England and Wales on some such date as 1st April, 1912, compared with a similar date in the preceding year; and whether this increase in the force has been due to the fear of labour troubles?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The numbers of police in England and

    281
    Wales are published annually in one of the Appendices to the Reports of His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary; and I do not think any useful purpose would be served by calling for the special Return suggested by my hon. Friend. It would not be possible to distinguish the increase of numbers due to fear of disturbances in connection with labour disputes from the much greater increase due to growth of population and to the arrangements now being made for the grant of the weekly rest-day.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very largely increased cost has been put on the county councils owing to the increase in the police force?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, but I believe that the reasons which I have given are the cause of that increase.
    Sir J. D. REES: Was the increase due to the provision of an expeditionary force to Wild Wales or other parts of the country?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.

    Shops Act.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked if the memorandum issued by the Home Office on the law relating to shops is intended to convey the decision that the whole premises of a coal merchant where the business is conducted, including the wharf, the yards, and the lorries from which coal is retailed, will be regarded as a shop within the meaning of the Act; and if the men in charge of the lorry from which coal is retailed, and the men wholly employed in loading or unloading coal and filling coal bags, will be regarded as shop assistants within the meaning of the Act?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no authority to give a decision on the particular questions raised by the hon. Member, but I think a retail coal merchant would be well advised in regarding any premises in his occupation in which coal is sold by retail and dispatched to customers as coming within the Act. I would refer the hon. Member to the definition of the expressions "shop" and "shop assistant" in Section 19 of the Act. Persons employed in selling coal from carts in the street are not shop assistants, but the provisions of Section 9 of the Act apply to such sales.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the 19th May
    282
    last year the Home Secretary wrote from the Home Office to say that the provisions of the Shops Bill will not apply to people delivering coal at houses?
    Mr. McKENNA: That is quite consistent with what I have said. The words-are "who are mainly employed."
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer he has just given is in conflict with that given by his predecessor in Grand Committee in regard to the men employed as carmen and others mentioned in the latter part of the hon. Member's question?
    Mr. McKENNA: No; I was not aware of that.

  PORT OF LONDON (STRIKE).

    UNION AND NON-UNION LABOUR.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether the Home Secretary's attention has been called to the case of John Fitzgibbons, who was fined 40s. at the Thames Police-Court for shouting at blacklegs, urging them to come out on strike; and whether he will review this and other sentences passed on the same occasion for similar offences?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have obtained a report of the facts proved at the hearing of the charges against this man and two others concerned in preventing certain vanmen from working, and find no reason for advising any interference with the sentence. His fine has been paid.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the police attack upon people who stood upon the footpath between Canning Town station and the iron bridge, Barking Road, on Thursday morning last; if he is aware that a reporter of the "Star" newspaper, who was witness to a man being chased across the road, was pushed and struck by the police, and that the man moved off to the pavement and approached a sergeant, when two other constables rushed at him, seized him by the scruff of the neck and, with unnecessary force, hurried him off down a side turning; whether he is aware that on Wednesday, 29th May, at the corner of Beckton Road, the police on horseback rushed into the crowd and attacked men, women, and children, with the result that. two children and an old man and woman were injured; and if he is prepared to hold an inquiry into the matter?

    283
    Before my question is answered, I wish to point out that the way it reads makes it represent that the witness was assaulted. I wish to make it clear that he was only witness of an assault.
    Mr. McKENNA: Inquiry is being made into the circumstances referred to by my hon Friend. It is quite impossible to get the Report to-day. I will make further inquiry about the matter.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the circumstances in which on the 28th May the Home Secretary received a deputation from the strike committee of the transport workers; if at that meeting he gave any undertaking to the men that the military would not be employed to protect the carriage of merchandise from the docks into London; and whether, in view of the allegations made by the men as to the conduct of the police in connection with the strike, he will issue a verbatim report of what took place at the interview?
    Mr. McKENNA: I received the deputation at their own request. Their object was to make certain complaints against the police, and to offer their own co-operation in securing the delivery of the food supplies. I gave no undertaking of any sort with regard to the employment of the military, but I explained that no soldiers had been employed, and I expressed the hope—which I am sure this House shares—that order would be maintained without the necessity for their employment. The interview was private.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Was a shorthand note taken of the interview, and, if so, can a copy of it be obtained by any Member of the House?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked how many additional police have had to be employed for the protection of life and property endangered by the action of the transport workers on strike in endeavouring forcibly to prevent the removal of goods and merchandise from the London Docks, and how the cost thereby incurred will be borne?
    Mr. McKENNA: The services of 791 men of the Reserve of Metropolitan Police pensioners have been utilised as additional constables. The cost will be borne by the Metropolitan Police Fund.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked whether, in reply to requests for protection in connection with the transport strike, the protection of the Metropolitan Police was promised so far as the resources at their disposal permitted; whether these resources were in all cases sufficient to comply with requests for protection; and, if not, what steps were taken to supplement the police forces available?
    Mr. McKENNA: So far as the resources of the police permitted, they have given protection against risk of disorder or intimidation, but it is only in the case of the food supply that extensive precautionary measures have been taken. The number of police available for this duty has been increased by stopping leave, by drawing police from quiet districts to those where disturbance was feared, and by recalling a large number of police pensioners to the ranks.
    Mr. FRED HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the reluctance on his part to get the military to assist the police was in any way in consequence of information received for and on behalf of the candidate for North-West Norfolk?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not understand the point of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. FRED HALL: I am very sorry the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman can put it down on the Paper.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask whether the Metropolitan Police will have consideration for leave to make up for the extra duty they have done, and also for certain extra allowances on account of the additional work of which he has spoken?
    Mr. McKENNA: I believe that is the general practice.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked whether the Home Secretary has received a copy of a resolution passed by the executive committee of the London Corn Trade Association, asking the Government to let it be known during the present dock strike that protection would be given to all those desiring to work; and, if so, whether he has taken steps with a view to an official announcement of the Government's willingness to furnish such protection, in view of the publicity given to the assurances which he gave to the strikers' leaders on certain points?
    Mr. McKENNA: I received the resolution referred to. No formal declaration of the intention of the Government appeared to me to be called for. The intention of the Government to maintain order and protect the food supply was amply shown by the steps which have been taken.
    Mr. FREDHALL asked whether the police protection given to merchants and traders during the transport strike extended to all classes of goods, or whether it was limited to food and perishables or in any other manner?
    Mr. McKENNA: The police have been ready to act wherever they were called on to suppress disturbance or intimidation, but it is only in connection with the food supply that they have arranged extensive precautionary measures.
    Mr. BARNES: Has not the hon. Gentleman exhausted the number of questions allowed?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The number of questions permitted to an hon. Member is eight.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked whether the facilities in the shape of permits given by the disputes committee of the National Transport Workers' Federation in the dock strike for the conveyance of goods in certain circumstances, have been utilised in any way in connection with the Post Office or any other Department of the Government service; and whether the Law Officers of the Crown have advised on the question of the legality of the issue of such permits on the part of the Federation in the conditions obtaining?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have communicated with the Post Office, and find that no permits have been used, and I know of no Department that has used them. I have not consulted the Law Officers.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Home Office entered into any arrangement or bargain with either party as regards measures of repression or protection during the strike?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Home Secretary moved the Port Authority of London to refuse the "Lady Jocelyn" leave to enter the Albert Dock; and, if the answer be in the affirmative, whether such action was taken in consequence of representations made by any and, if so, by what persons?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have from the first strongly deprecated the bringing of the "Lady Jocelyn" into the docks as a step likely to cause irritation and to increase the difficulties of the police. I was led to take this view after consultation with my advisers, and not in consequence of any representations made to me.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not think that it rather impairs his claim to a position of perfect impartiality between the two parties to the strike?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; the admission of the "Lady Jocelyn" would undoubtedly greatly aggravate the present state of feeling, and I conceive it to be my duty not to allow anything to be done which would unnecessarily provoke strong feeling.
    Sir J. D. REES: Can the right hon. Gentleman consider the claim of any portion of the community to exercise their legal rights unnecessary, or whether it is not his duty to support any such effort on their part?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no power to stop the "Lady Jocelyn" from coming into dock if it chooses to exercise its legal right to come into dock, but the owners of the "Lady Jocelyn" have no necessary claim on the police of London to withdraw their forces from other places where they may be required to protect the "Lady Jocelyn," which is advised not to come into dock.
    Sir J. D. REES: In that case, may I ask whether the claim for protection is a geographical matter, and depends on the distribution for the moment of the police?
    Mr. McKENNA: The claim for protection in every case must depend upon the number of police available for the purpose. It would be impossible to give precautionary protection in the case of every demand made upon them; but it is desirable in all disputes of this kind that efforts should be made on both sides to avoid all unnecessary causes of friction.
    Mr. BOYTON: What was the nature of the cargo on the "Lady Jocelyn"?
    Mr. McKENNA: The cargo was one of men.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is it not the fact that the "Lady Jocelyn" was amply protected by a volunteer police force?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no knowledge whatever of a volunteer police force.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Home Secretary was a party to the recent issue of permits by officials of the Transport Workers' Federation to the Thames Steamboat Company and other services?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember the promotion of an agitation against the payment of rates under the Education Act, for which his right hon. colleague beside him was chiefly responsible?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend was then at the Home Office.
    Mr. INGLEBYasked whether, under the existing law, non-union men have the same right to work as union men; and, if so, why protection is not given to them when leaving and returning to their homes?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative; to the second, that where protection is necessary it is given so far as practicable. It is obviously impossible to have a constable continuously in attendance on every workman.
    Mr. INGLEBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only yesterday men had to leave the unloading of a ship in the Surrey Commercial Dock, and give notice to their employers to that effect, because of the threats to which they were subjected that their homes would be attacked if they continued to work, and that they would not run that risk on account of their wives and families; and whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give them protection?
    Mr. McKENNA: I dealt with that particular case in the reply which I have given to the hon. Gentleman. I do not understand that he alleges that in any cases homes were attacked.
    Mr. INGLEBYasked the Home Secretary whether Sir Edward Clarke's report on the recent strike of transport workers was submitted in a draft form for approval by the Board of Trade before he signed it; and what alterations, if any, were made in his original draft report before it was signed by him?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. INGLEBYasked whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation this Session with the object of prohibiting the employment of non-union labour or which would have the effect of making it impossible or difficult for non-union men to obtain work at the Port of London?
    Mr. BUXTON: No, Sir.
    Mr. INGLEBY: If this federation scheme is carried out, would not that prevent non-union men from obtaining work?
    Mr. BUXTON: No, Sir.

    Conviction of Railway Servant (Remission, of Sentence).
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the circumstances under which Maurice Leahy, a member of the society of railway servants, was convicted on the 13th May at the West London Police Court for assault; and on what grounds the Home Secretary has seen fit to remit the sentence, in view of the expression of opinion by the magistrate as to the necessity for the adequate punishment of such conduct as that for which Leahy was found guilty?
    Mr. McKENNA: I was not satisfied on the evidence that no provocation had been offered by the prosecutor. The magistrate passed the sentence on the view that it was a case of deliberate and unjustifiable bullying, but it seems to me unlikely that one man who was alone would have bullied two railway inspectors, who were strangers to him. In view of the prisoner's previous good character, of which evidence was given extending over a period of twenty years, I considered a term of fourteen days' imprisonment was sufficient punishment for the offence proved.
    Mr. FRED HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in future in cases of sentence for assault it is his intention to draw a distinction between members of trade unions and other men? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
    Mr. McKENNA: There is no ground for putting such a question as that to me.
    Mr. FRED HALL: I simply asked it as arising out of the question I put, and I think a reasonable answer might be given.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    PASSIVE RESISTANCE.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether passive resistance to the payment of compulsory contributions under the National Insurance Act will be regarded in the same light as passive resistance to payments due under the Education Act, 1902, so as to assure persons concerned of the friendly intervention of his Department?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not know what the hon. Member means by the friendly intervention of my Department, nor have I any reason to anticipate the hypothetical circumstances on which he grounds his question.

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE OFFICERS.
    Captain MURRAYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether it was proposed that officers of Customs and Excise should undertake certain duties in connection with the administration of the National Insurance Act; and, if so, what was the nature of those duties?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The main duties of these officers will be the dissemination of general information about the Act, preliminary work in connection with claims for exemption certificates, and dealing with questions as to the rate of remuneration as affecting the contributions payable by the employer and employé respectively under Section 66 of the Act.
    Captain MURRAY: Will these officers receive extra remuneration for the work they are called upon to undertake?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There has been a recent revision of pay and conditions in which these extra duties have been taken into consideration. There is also being made at present a very substantial increase in the number of the staff.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases the men are already grossly over-worked?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am aware of the conditions under which these men work, and I think there will be no difficulty in their carrying out these duties.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Will clerical assistance he given where it would be useful?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I should like to have notice of that. Perhaps some arrangement of that sort might be made.
    Mr. BOYTON: Will these officers also continue their work under the Old Age Pensions Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly.
    Mr. LYELL: Will these new duties be merely temporary to bring the Act into force, or will they be permanent?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The great bulk of the work we expect to be purely temporary in character.

    LIABILITY OF TRADE UNION'S.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he would issue regulations stating whether an insured person, who was a member of a trade union which was his approved society under the National Insurance Act, would be able to sue his trade union for benefits to which he was entitled under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If an approved society refuses to pay any of its members the benefits to which they are entitled under the Insurance Act, the latter will be able to appeal, under Section 67, to the Insurance Commissioners, who will take steps to ensure that the society carries out the duties under the Act which it undertook as a condition of approval.

    RESERVE VALUES.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the tables on reserve values and on contributions at different ages issued by the Insurance Commission were based on the same rates of average sickness as were assumed by Messrs. Hardy and Wyatt when the National Insurance Bill was before Parliament?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The basis of the reserve values in respect of sickness as well as the other factors will be fully explained in a Report which I hope to lay on the Table of the House at an early date. I may say, however, that the basis, so far as sickness is concerned, is the same as that used by Messrs. Hardy and Wyatt, namely, the experience of the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, and that, although the adjustments made to those rates are somewhat different in form from those adopted by Messrs. Hardy and Wyatt, the ultimate results are in close agreement with those obtained by them.

    MODEL RESOLUTIONS.
    Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention had been drawn to a circular issued to friendly societies, containing model resolutions to be passed by societies and branches of societies desiring to become approved under the National Insurance Act; whether these model resolutions implied that the subscriptions paid by members of these societies and branches must be immediately reduced pending the final approval of the scheme submitted to the Registrar; whether he was aware that the circular was causing considerable resentment amongst numbers of friendly society members; and whether the circular would be withdrawn owing to its ambiguity and interference with the rights of self-government which members of friendly societies had always enjoyed?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. Member's question refers to the form of provisional scheme under Section 72 of the National Insurance Act issued by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, this form does not imply that the subscriptions paid by members of societies and branches must be immediately reduced pending the final approval of the scheme submitted to the Registrar. It was intended to provide societies with an easy method of reducing, by a proper amount, the contributions of members who become insured persons, if the society desires to make such reductions, and was accompanied in each case by a circular which makes the matter clear. The circular states that it is open to a society to submit a scheme for continuing each member's contributions and benefits as before, and that it may give an option to members who become insured persons to continue their present contributions and benefits, or to pay contributions and receive benefits at a reduced rate.
    Mr. POINTER: Have the hon. Gentleman's Department and the Commissioners received several letters of protest, asking for an explanation with regard to this particular form? Under these circumstances, would it not be best to withdraw the circular because of its misleading character? A large number of friendly society leaders, at any rate in my own town of Sheffield, are up in arms against it, thinking it means that they have to do this compulsorily.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have received no representations at all on the subject, and
    292
    I have no knowledge of my Department having received any. If the hon. Member will look at the circular he will see that it is quite voluntary on the part of the friendly societies. I am quite prepared to make that clear in the proper fashion.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked what was the total number of societies which had been in communication with the National Insurance Health Commissioners with a view to their becoming approved or with a view to their obtaining information prior to their deciding to become approved; and what proportion of the total working population did these societies represent?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am quite unable to give any numbers of all societies which have communicated in any way with the Commissioners with a view to obtaining information prior to deciding to apply for approval, as it would involve examination of some thousands of letters and reference to some hundreds of interviews. A first list of societies actually approved will be issued to-morrow, and further lists from time to time, as they are ready.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any indication of the proportion of the working population of the country that are likely to drift into the position of deposit contributors?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think it would be perfectly premature to make any statement as to that. From all the indications I can see I think there will be very few indeed. We shall not know really how many until next October.

    SUPPLY OF BOOKS.
    Mr. GILLasked if it was the intention of the National Insurance Commissioners to supply the approved societies with the first set of books; and, if so, whether they would be supplied free of cost?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The books which the Commissioners will require to be kept in prescribed form, that is to say the Membership Register, Contribution Register, and Benefits Register, will be supplied to approved societies in unbound form or in temporary binding free of cost.

    POST OFFICE EMPLOYÉS ADDITIONAL WORK.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Postmaster-General, what arrangements he has made to remunerate Post Office

    293
    employés for the additional work which they will be called upon to undertake in connection, with the National Insurance Act?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am considering the question of the remuneration to be paid to Scale Payment Sub-Postmasters for the additional work to be imposed upon them in connection with the National Insurance Act. The additional work at other offices, staffed by persons in the direct employ of the Post Office, will be met by the provision of additional staff where necessary.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Will the extra payment be made out of Post Office funds or out of the funds of the Treasury?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Post Office is recouped its expenditure either from the Treasury or the National Insurance Fund.

    Coal Mines Regulations Act, 1911.
    Mr. FENWICKasked whether a young person under fourteen years of age and employed underground in a coal mine before the 1st July, 1912, will be compelled to give up such employment under the provisions of the Coal Mines Regulations Act, 1911?
    Mr. McKENNA: The employment below ground of persons under the age of fourteen is prohibited after 1st July next, except in the case of persons who were lawfully so employed before the passing of the Act—that is, before 16th December last. Persons under fourteen who commenced work underground after 16th December cannot, after 1st July, legally be employed underground until they reach the age of fourteen.

    Vagrancy Act (Flogging Sentences).
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Home Secretary whether two sentences of fifteen strokes with the birch in addition to nine months' imprisonment were passed under the Vagrancy Act at the London Sessions on 7th May; whether he has noticed the recent marked increase in the number of floggings ordered by magistrates under this ancient Statute; whether it is the policy of the Home Office to discourage and restrict the powers of flogging thus given to magistrates which Sir Matthew White Ridley, when Home Secretary, proposed to withdraw; and whether he can hold out any hope that the matter
    294
    will be dealt with by legislation or otherwise?
    Mr. McKENNA: Two incorrigible rogues were sentenced under the Vagrancy Act, as stated in the question, the latest of the offences proved against them being persistent solicitation by a male person for immoral purposes. With regard to the increase in the number of cases under the Vagrancy Act in which whipping has been ordered and the way in which such case's as have been brought under my notice have been dealt with, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 1st May. I maintain the policy of my predecessors in objecting to whipping as a sentence for such offences as begging or sleeping out, but the present case is quite different. I have no intention at present of proposing legislation on the subject.

    Naval Estimates (Shipbuilding).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to say when it is proposed to take Vote 8 of the Naval Estimates?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the negative, but perhaps the hon. Member would postpone this question to a somewhat later date.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question is put down at the request of the Prime Minister, and I have received no intimation that it would not be convenient for him to be here to-day to answer?

    Criminal Law Amendment (White Slave Traffic) Bill.
    Mr. JAMES MASONasked the Prime Minister whether he can see his way to providing facilities for the further discussion this Session of the Criminal Law Amendment (White Slave Traffic) Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am aware of the strong feeling in the House with regard to this measure, but I can at present make no statement with regard to facilities.

    Budget Resolutions.
    Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to proceed with the Report of the Resolutions agreed to in Committee of Ways and Means?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I fear it is not yet possible to fix a date.

    Electoral Reform Bill.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to introduce an Electoral Reform Bill before the adjournment of Parliament in August; and whether, in the event of his answer being in the affirmative, he can give the approximate date of its introduction?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can make no statement on this subject at present.

    Taxation (Real Estate).
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to impose further taxation on real estate, with a view to the remission of taxation at present imposed on certain necessaries of life?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have already laid before the House my proposals for raising the revenue required for the current year. As regards the year 1913–14, I must ask the hon. Member to await the next Budget statement.

    Motor Cycles (Silencers).
    Captain MURRAYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has considered the advisability of issuing Regulations prohibiting the use of cut-outs or open exhausts on motor cycles, in view of the fact that with a properly designed silencer silence can be obtained without appreciable loss of power?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The matter has been under my consideration, and I am having some investigations made with a view to the possible issue of Regulations to secure the object which my hon. Friend has in view.

    Milk Bill.
    Mr. BARNSTONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has now abandoned the intention of introducing a Milk Bill this Session?
    Mr. BURNS: The answer is in the negative.

    Employment of Lascars (British Ships).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any information as to the total number of Lascars employed in British shipping, and as to the character the Lascars have borne as able seamen according to the records of the Board of Trade?
    Mr. BUXTON: The total number of persons comprised under the head of Lascars, who were returned as employed on ships registered in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands, and Isle of Man, during the year 1910 was 43,934. The term "Lascars "in these statistics includes Asiatics and East Africans, whether British subjects or foreigners, employed on vessels trading between India and the United Kingdom, or entirely in Asiatic or Australian waters, and serving under agreements which terminate in Asia. The Board have no records which would enable a comparison to be drawn between Lascars and any other class of seamen, as to the character they have borne as able seamen.
    Sir J. D. REES: Am I to understand that in the right hon. Gentleman's Department the term Lascar connotes any Asiatic blood or birth?
    Mr. BUXTON: It includes Asiatics and East Africans, whether British subjects or foreigners.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does it or does it not connote any Asiatic blood?
    Mr. BUXTON: What I read was Asiatic or East African.

    Railways Bill.
    Mr. BARNSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if it is his intention to proceed with the Railways Bill; and, if so, when the Second Reading is likely to be taken?
    Mr. BUXTON: I propose to proceed with the Bill, but I cannot yet fix a date for the Second Reading.
    Mr. BARNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Second Reading will be taken before the Summer vacation?
    Mr. BUXTON: I cannot.

    British Steamers (Statistics).
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to give the number of British steamers on the high seas on the 16th March last, homeward bound from South America and the Cape of Good Hope, in the South Atlantic only, south of an imaginary line drawn from Demerara to Tangier, and state the total value of those steamers; the approximate value of the foodstuffs carried therein; and how many British steamers were in port in the South Atlantic on that date?
    Mr. BUXTON: I find that only a part of the information asked for could be supplied and that the preparation even of this would involve a considerable amount of time and trouble. Perhaps, therefore, the Noble Lord will speak to me on the matter.

    Central London Railway Company.
    Mr. JAMES THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Central London Railway Company have offered arbitration in connection with the dismissals of six of their employés; if so, when was such an offer made and what were the terms of the same; whether he has seen the resolution passed by upwards of 30,000 railway men pledging support to any action their society may consider necessary to secure that these victimised men shall have a fair trial; whether he is aware that at the meeting referred to the promise of arbitration into this question was again offered; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. BUXTON: So far as I am aware, the only proposal made by the Central London Railway Company in the direction of submitting to arbitration the questions connected with the dismissal of certain of their employés at the time of the recent coal strike was contained in a letter addressed by the company to the Board of Trade on 18th April. The company then suggested that as a preliminary to arbitration on the question referred to, it should be decided, by some party to be mutually agreed upon, whether, in complying with the request of the Board of Trade in reinstating these men last August, the company had prejudiced its rights to dispense with the services of any or all of the men at its own discretion, and whether, if such rights had been prejudiced, the company was not still within its rights to dispense with any or all of these men, in case the company had reasonable proof that the agreement had been broken and the men had made themselves objectionable to the remaining portion of the staff. It was added that, supposing the result of this inquiry was to the effect that the company acted outside its rights, then an arbitration on the lines suggested by the Board of Trade might be sanctioned by the company. I am aware that a meeting of railway men on 2nd June passed a resolution to the effect stated in the question. I have no reason to doubt that the men are still willing to submit their case to the decision of an arbitrator on a reference in terms such as
    298
    were suggested by the Board of Trade, but, as stated in a reply to a question by my hon. Friend on the 30th April, I have no power of compulsion in this matter.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general manager of this company publicly stated on two occasions that the company had offered through the Board of Trade arbitration, and that as a result of that statement the men's case has been prejudiced?
    Mr. BUXTON: The only offer of arbitration we have had from the company is that which I have stated, and it does not really seem to me to bear on the point in question.

    Board of Trade (Petitions from Employés).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Board of Trade why no consideration has been given to the petition of the tape holders and boatmen of the Marine Department submitted on 16th December, 1909; and will the petition now be considered?
    Mr. BUXTON: Some improvement in the pay of tape holders and boatmen was granted in April, 1909. The further petitions of these officers of December, 1909, were to a considerable extent reiterations of previous applications which the petitioners had already been informed could not be granted. The petitions were considered, but I will now look into the matter again.

    Laundry Trade (Trade Boards Act).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the London County Council (recorded in the London County Council Minutes, 14th May, p. 1177) to the effect that the council had decided to communicate with any associations of employers and employed in the laundry trade, asking them to consider the advisability of applying to the Board of Trade to constitute a trade board; whether he is aware that there is discontent in the laundry trade, and that the rate of wages in some branches of the trade is exceptionally low; and whether, under these circumstances, he will agree to make a Provisional Order applying the Trade Boards Act, 1909, to the laundry trade?
    Mr. BUXTON: I have seen a copy of the resolution referred to, but I do not know what action, if any, has been taken

    299
    thereon. Any representations that may be made to me on the subject will receive my careful consideration.

    Labour Exchanges (North Wales Advisory Board).
    Mr. POINTERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any indication as to when the North Wales Advisory Board, under the Labour Exchanges Act, is to be appointed; and will he state the reason for the delay that has taken place?
    Mr. BUXTON: Invitations have now been issued to representatives of industry in North Wales to serve on an advisory trade committee for that area; and the Committee will be appointed as soon as the necessary replies have been received. The constitution of this committee has been delayed chiefly owing to pressure of work in connection with the preparations for the administration of Part II. of the National Insurance Act. North Wales, however, has not been without representation, since it has had four members to represent it upon the Liverpool Advisory Trade Committee.

    Government Workers (Wages).
    Mr. BARNESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that labour unrest is partly due to low wages of Government workers; if he can issue information of the number employed in his Department over twenty years of age, and whose wages are not more than 20s. per week; and will he undertake to pay a minimum wage of 24s. per week to all adults employed in the Department?
    Mr. BUXTON: The staff of the Board is a very varied one and scattered over many parts of the United Kingdom. The rates vary according to local and other circumstances, and I am not able at the moment to give my hon. Friend the information he desires. As regards the last part of his question, my hon. Friend will understand that, in so far as these rates are general throughout the Civil Service, the matter does not rest with my Department, and even where they are rates fixed for officers under the Board of Trade only, they are usually rates sanctioned by the Treasury. I am, however, looking into the matter with a view to determining whether there are any cases in which it would be desirable to approach the Treasury for a revision of scale.
    Mr. BARNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman not get the information as to the number working at a pound per week, or not more than a pound per week?
    Mr. BUXTON: I could not give it in answer to the question. It would take some little time to prepare.
    Mr. BARNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman get it in course of time?
    Mr. BUXTON: Yes, certainly. If the hon. Member asks for it I will get it.

  LOSS OF STEAMSHIP "TITANIC."

    WATERTIGHT COMPARTMENTS.
    Mr. MACMASTERasked what examination was made of the watertight compartments of the steamship "Titanic" with a view to ascertaining their efficiency, either during construction or before the sailing of the ship from Southampton; who made such examination or examinations, and on what date or dates; what reports, if any, were made thereon, and when; and what action, if any, was taken by the Board of Trade upon such reports before the sailing of the ship?
    Mr. BUXTON: It appears to me that as full evidence as to the surveys of the "Titanic" by the Board of Trade officers will be given before the Court of Inquiry, it is hardly advisable to go into the matter at the present time by way of question and answer in this House.

    School of Forestry (Edinburgh).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he was now in a position to make any announcement about the establishment of a school of forestry in Edinburgh University?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): There is already a school of forestry in connection with Edinburgh University.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: Has the right hon. Gentleman kept in view the recommendation of the Committee that Aberdeen would be the most suitable site for a permanent central school of forestry in Scotland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am aware of the recommendation, but I do not think it arises on this question.
    Mr. LYELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that recommendation was made only on the hypothesis that there was a clean slate?

    St. Kilda.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he was now in a position to state the condition in which the islanders of St. Kilda were found by one of His Majesty's warships; what steps were taken to relieve their needs; and what steps he was prepared to take to prevent a similar state of affairs recurring?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am informed that the captain of His Majesty's Ship "Achilles" reported that, on arrival at St. Kilda on 22nd May, it was found that the islanders, while not absolutely starving, were running short of oatmeal, flour, tea, sugar, salt, etc.; that the cattle and sheep, though plentiful, were unfit for killing on account of poor condition, and that for meat the inhabitants were largely depending on sea-birds and sea-birds' eggs. About a month's supply of provisions was landed, the distribution to be arranged for by the minister, postmaster, and precentor, who were to form a committee for that purpose. The question of improved means of communication is being carefully considered.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    LONG RANGE BATTLE PRACTICE.
    Mr. GRETTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he was aware that battle practice with big guns was carried out in the Navy of the United States of America at 11,000 yards and in the German Navy at 9,500 yards; and if he would state why on recent occasions battle practice by British ships of the "Dreadnought" type had been at 4,000 yards only?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I have no official information as to the ranges at which the ships of the United States and German Navies carry out their battle practice. With regard to the latter part of the question, I have to say that the figure quoted is not correct.

    ADMIRALTY EMPLOYÉS (MINIMUM WAGE).
    Mr. BARNESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he was aware that the prevailing unrest was partly due to the low wages paid to Government workers; if he could say how many persons over twenty years of age were in Admiralty employ whose wages were not more than 20s. per week; and if he would provide in the next Estimates for a minimum wage of 24s. being paid to all adult workers in the
    302
    employment of the Admiralty who were of adult age?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Omitting apprentices, the number of male persons over twenty years of age employed in the Home Establishments in receipt of not more than 20s. a week is approximately 300. Practically all of these are employed at Haulbowline, where the rate for labourers is 20s. a week, though there are five men engaged in the Medical Establishments, in various capacities, who are receiving 20s. a week or less. With regard to women workers, there are, so far as I can ascertain, about 580 receiving wages of not more than 20s. a week. Most of these women are engaged as spinners, colour makers, tracers, seamstresses, washers and mangers, and charwomen. I cannot give the undertaking asked in the last part of the question. I may add that all dockyard employés have a means of direct access to the Board of Admiralty annually at the hearing of petitions, and the claims put forward by them are carefully considered.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does that reply refer to the wages paid to labourers at the dockyards?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The labourers in this answer are the labourers at Haulbowline, where the rate is 20s.
    Mr. BARNES: Does it include commissionaires?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: They are not included. They get 21s. I went into their case.
    Mr. BARNESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the labourers employed at the Fairfield shipbuilding yard have struck on account of the firm ignoring their application for an increase in wages; whether he is aware that other shipbuilding firms in the district have been requested to boycott the men on strike; whether he is also aware that the Fairfield Company have sent His Majesty's ship "Endeavour" to be cleaned and docked with the firm of Henderson, Meadowside, Partick, where the rates of wages are very low; whether this has been done with the consent of the Admiralty; and whether he will make full and prompt inquiry into the matter, and secure strict compliance with the terms of the Fair-Wages Clause?
    Mr. HOLMESalso asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has

    303
    been called to the present dispute in the Fairfield shipbuilding yard at Govan; and whether the Government propose to take any action in the matter, with a view to its equitable settlement?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am advised that the labourers employed at the Fairfield shipbuilding yard have struck for an increase of wages. I am also informed that the firm have communicated with other federated firms in regard to the strike. I have instituted inquiries respecting the "Endeavour," but have not up to the moment received any reply. I could not say, upon the evidence before me, that there has been any breach of the Fair-Wages Clause, but I will have further inquiries made forthwith.
    Mr. BARNES: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the Fair-Wages Clause in respect to sub-contractors is carried out with regard to this ship?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If it is not, certainly!
    Mr. BARNES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an agent on behalf of this firm is sending round lists of the men on strike to the firms in the district asking those firms not to employ these men?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I said I had received some information to the effect that the firm had communicated with the other federated firms in respect to this matter.
    Mr. BARNES: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the wages paid to these men in future are increased to the £1 0s. 3d., which is the standard rate paid in the district?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will see that the Fair-Wages Clause is carried out.

    ADMIRAL BROCK'S DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Admiral Brock's Discipline Committee has yet reported; and, if so, when the House may be expected to be in possession of the Committee's findings?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Committee on Naval Discipline has not yet concluded its labours.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the
    304
    statement made in the Press in regard to this Report?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have seen statements in the various newspapers, but they are unauthorised. The Committee has not concluded its labours.

    CANING OF BOYS.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the number of punishments by caning in the Navy shows any diminution; whether the practice is reserved for grave offences only; and whether he can now see his way to issue a Yearly Return of the number of canings inflicted?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No record is kept at the Admiralty of the number of canings, and it is therefore impossible to say whether or not there has been a diminution. There has, however, been no change in the Regulations governing the offences for which caning is allowed. I may add that the whole subject of punishments is engaging the attention of the Committee on Naval Discipline.
    Sir W. BYLES: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that the predecessor of the present First Lord promised to take into consideration the question of giving us an Annual Return of the number of canings? At that time it came out that one in every three boys was subject to this kind of punishment.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I know that the predecessor of my right hon. Friend promised to give the matter his consideration, but I do not know that he ever made any other offer.
    Sir W. BYLES: That is what I said; has he done it?

    ARMOURERS' CREW RATING.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the slowness of promotion in the armourers' crew rating; that there are men of excellent character and skilful mechanics in the Royal Navy, having eight years' service and more, and qualified for the rating of armourer's mate, but in present circumstances have little chance of obtaining the promotion; whether he will say what is the average pay of armourers' crew, exclusive of good conduct badges, and how it compares with the average pay of mechanics doing similar work in private firms?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think that any comparison could usefully be made between the average pay of armourers' crews and of the rates of pay outside., There is nothing definitely corresponding to the armourers' crew in the private trade. The pay on entry as armourers' crew is 16s. 4d. per week and free rations. This is exclusive of pay for good conduct badges. I may add that the position of the armourer class is at present under consideration, and it is proposed to make some improvement in their condition.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question, as to whether he is aware of the slowness of promotion in the armourers' crew rating?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, I replied to it in the last part of my answer. I said: "I may add that the position of the armourer class is at present under consideration, and it is proposed to make some improvement in their condition."

    Royal Dockyards (Pensions for Hired Men).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make any, statement to the House concerning the proposal to grant pensions to hired men in His Majesty's dockyards?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As I have already informed the hon. Gentleman, at recent hearings of the workmen's petitions the question has been raised as to whether it would be practicable to frame a self-supporting superannuation scheme for employés not entitled to a retiring allowance under the scheme of establishment. We have given the men an undertaking that the Board of Admiralty will have the matter examined, and advise them as to the weekly contribution they would probably have to make to such a scheme. Our inquiries have not yet reached a stage which would enable us to make the further communication promised.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been drawn to a statement in the Press on this matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes; but the statements made are entirely premature. I am bound to say that I was sorry to see them, because they raise hopes that may not be realised. I should be very loath to do that under any circumstances.
    Mr. WHELER: Can the hon. Gentleman make any statement-
    Dr. MACNAMARA: In regard to the Self-Supporting Superannuation Scheme?
    Mr. WHELER: Yes.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid not.

    Regent Street Quadrant.
    Mr. BOYTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he could state the result of the consideration he promised to give to the objections made by the parties most particularly interested, the existing lessees, on the question of the design of the further buildings to be erected in the Quadrant of Regent Street?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I fear I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for West Carmarthenshire on 2nd April last.

    Mr. Bonar Law (Glasgow Speech).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention had been drawn to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bootle in the St. Andrew's Hall, Glasgow, on 21st May, wherein he said that the shooting of anti-Home Rule rebels in the North of Ireland by British soldiers was to exercise a tyranny as unjustifiable and cruel as had ever been seen in the world; and what action he proposed taking in the matter?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I have considered the speech referred to by the hon. Member, but I am unable to find anything in it which calls for action on my part.

    British and French Governments (Postal Exchange).
    Sir GEORGE DOUGHTYasked the Postmaster-General whether the negotiations between the British and French Governments have resulted in an agreement for cheaper postal exchange between the two countries; whether the rate of postage on letters is to be reduced from 2½d. to l½d.; and, if so, at what date is such reform to commence?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Negotiations are still proceeding with the French Post Office with a view to a reduction in the rates of postage on parcels exchanged between the two countries, and I hope shortly to bring the new rates into force. I am not in a position to give any particulars as regards new rates for postage of letters.

    National Education (Ireland).
    Captain CRAIGhad the following question on the Order Paper: To ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in the case of national school teachers who have retired recently or are about to retire after long and efficient service, they will be entitled to the new scale of pensions which has been repeatedly foreshadowed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and whether he can state the date on which it is expected the new scale will be made public?
    Captain CRAIG: May I ask why I cannot have an answer to my question. The right hon. Gentleman referred me to the Treasury. The question has been on the Paper for a month. I do not see why I should suffer owing to the bungling of the Government?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman had better put his question down for Monday.
    Captain CRAIG: I will put it down for Monday for the Prime Minister to answer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord BALCARRES: Would the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer make a statement as to the business of the House?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On Monday, the Second Reading of the Trades Unions (No. 2) Bill will be taken.
On Tuesday, we shall enter upon the Committee stage of the Government of Ireland Bill.
This will be continued on Wednesday.
On Thursday, we shall either proceed with Home Rule or take Supply—probably Supply. But perhaps the Noble Lord will kindly put a question to me on the subject early next week?
Friday is a private Member's day.
With regard to to-morrow, I may say that the first Order will be the Government of India Bill. If time permits tomorrow we shall proceed with the other notices on the Paper in the following order:—The Public Offices (Sites) Money Resolution; the Second Reading of the Inebriates Bill, the Royal Scottish Museums (Extension) Bill, and the London Institution (Transfer) Bill.
Lord HUGH CECIL: May I ask whether it is the intention of the Government to depart from the Standing Order which allocates Thursday for Supply? I venture to say it is an extremely inconvenient course for Members?
Mr. WEDGWOOD: If Supply is taken on Thursday next will the right hon. Gentleman let us have the Colonial Office Vote?
Lord BALCARRES: It is the usual practice to consult the Opposition as to what Vote should be put down.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It was understood when this rule was first established that the Opposition should be consulted, and that they should have a predominant voice in the choice of the particular Vote to be put down.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that we have the Colonial Office Vote as soon as possible?
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Will any form of closure resolution be proposed on Tuesday in regard to Home Rule?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
Lord BALCARRES: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange to let us know tomorrow, if possible, whether Thursday is to be devoted to the Government of Ireland Bill?
The MASTER of ELIBANK (Mr. Murray): I will have a consultation with the Noble Lord this afternoon.
Mr. MALCOLM: May we have an answer to the question of my Noble Friend below?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot answer that without consulting my colleagues.
Mr. BOOTH: Do the Government propose to suspend the Five o'clock Rule tomorrow or the Eleven o'clock Rule any day next week?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not to-morrow, and it is not our present intention in respect to next week.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Edward George Hemmerde, Esquire, K.C., for the County of Norfolk (North-Western Division).
SUPPLY.- [SEVENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1912–13.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLASS IV.—BOARD OF EDUCATION.

  STATEMENT BY MR. PEASE.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £9,254,765, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid." [Note.—£5,250,000 has been voted on account.]
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): In submitting to the Committee for the first time the Education Estimates for England and Wales, which amount to £14,500,000, I am conscious that a very heavy responsibility rests upon me personally, and with eight months of service in that Department, I realise the difficulties are considerable that beset anyone who attempts those duties, and I also realise that the duties are multifarious and of a very serious character. My task certainly is not made easier by the continuation of the denominational religious controversy which still exists throughout England and Wales, and which I think interferes with the progress of education as well as prevents the harmony and unity of effort which ought to exist in this country in the promotion of a national educational system. No apology, I think, is needed by me for the amount of money I am asking the Committee to vote. If there is one great service in this country in which money can be profitably invested I believe it is in education. I have no desire to occupy the time of the Committee very long this afternoon or to deprive hon. Members of the opportunity of criticising, or, in my view, doing what is very much better, of making suggestions for my consideration, but I do feel that it is due to the Committee that some statement should be made by the Government in regard to the steps they propose to take to meet the various problems which arise, and of stating their policy and of recording the additional progress which has been made in the country.
  In my judgment the House of Commons has passed a large number of measures
  310
  which give a good deal of ground for unrest among the local education authorities in this country. I have not myself been a manager of several voluntary schools for many years, and I have not been a member of a county education committee for a large number of years, without realising the point of view looked at by the representatives of the ratepayers and the local education authorities of this country, and when we pass measures such as those relating to the Provision of Meals, Medical Inspection, Choice of Employment, Medical Treatment, and when we also pass a Bill, as I hope we may, for dealing with the Mentally Defective, and when at the same time the Board of Education is constantly raising the educational standard, I recognise that we are placing increased financial obligations upon the local educational authority, and I certainly look forward to the day when the Committee which is now investigating the incidents of taxation and rates may report with a view perhaps to mitigating to a large extent the great burdens which fall upon many classes of the ratepayers and taxpayers in this country. Perhaps I may be allowed to point out that of the Grant-earning schools of this country and the schools which are inspected by His Majesty's inspectors, that we have 20,757 elementary schools with about 5,500,000 children in average attendance. We have in the 982 secondary schools which are inspected 170,769 pupils; we have in our 84 Training colleges something like 12,850 students, and we have in our various technical classes throughout the country about 829.780 pupils. There are also 22 universities, colleges and institutions which receive a Grant out of money which it is in my power to distribute. The Vote also covers expenditure in connection with our science and art colleges and our own science and art museums. We have, in addition, the medical branch, the legal branch, and the inspectorate, and we have a very large staff consisting of some 2,140 persons in the service of the Board of Education. Of the £14,500,000, something like £13,750,000 is distributed in Grants in one form or another; £159,000 is paid in pensions to elementary certificated teachers, and from the balance, £585,000, maintain our museums and pay the salaries and wages of the staff, and carry on the whole administrative work of the Board.
  4.0 P.M.
  I think it may be convenient to the Committee if I first take up the elementary side and explain what we are doing in connection with elementary education.

  311
  During the year there has been an increase of council schools to the number of 193. There has been a decrease of 115 voluntary schools, and 59 voluntary schools have been transferred to the control of the councils. I am glad to say that last year the attendance of the children of this country in our elementary schools alone has approximately been 90 per cent. of the children upon the school register. This is a new record of regularity of attendance. The children under five years of age have been reduced by 31,533, and I suppose, having regard to the many duties placed upon the education authorities, that they doubt whether the expense and trouble involved in connection with the teaching of children under five years of age is hardly commensurate with the amount of education they are able to give them. The children over the age of twelve have also decreased by 8,118. That is not necessarily to be taken as a real decrease in the number of children receiving education, as undoubtedly a greater number of children are now being taken from the elementary schools and go forward to the secondary schools of the country. Between the ages of five and twelve there is an increase in the average attendance of 32,169. We have approximately 111,000 certificated teachers trained and untrained. One of our main difficulties at the present time is a threatened shortage of teachers. The figures have recently been prominently before the country, and I do not propose to dwell upon them more than to say that their importance ought to be somewhat discounted by the fact that whilst there has been a large reduction in the number of teachers entering for the Preliminary Certificate Examinations, that reduction may be partially accounted for by the fact that there has also been a large number obtaining entrance into the training colleges through the Oxford and Cambridge local examinations instead of by obtaining the Preliminary Examination pass. It is not true to say that it is within the power of the Board of Education accurately to adjust the supply of school teachers to the demand. We are unable to forecast how many are likely to enter or how many may leave the service of the country after they have entered the profession, and we have no knowledge how many who have left may return into the profession. Undoubtedly there is not an inconsiderable number who return into the
  312
  service from time to time after they have left.
  I suppose it will not be suggested by anyone here to-day that we ought to allow more candidates to enter the profession by lowering the standard of qualification required. Such a step would be a retrograde policy and one which certainly cannot be supported by the present Board. We are, however, very anxious to stimulate recruiting in the profession, and I have listened to deputations, been in consultation with very many authorities, and officers have been taking evidence in connection with this subject. The subject is not one upon which you can generalise because there is often a surplus of one kind of teacher when there is a lack of another kind. In urban districts there may be a surplus while there may be a deficiency in rural districts, and individuals are very apt to get into a panic if for a few weeks a certain number of certificated teachers are unable to find vacancies. On the other hand, if there is no stock and advertisements are put into the newspapers by the local education authorities, asking for teachers, and there are no responses, again the local authorities equally get into a panic. One of the problems, no doubt, is how to attract the candidates for the profession. Obviously an increase of salaries is the best way of doing this. That, however, does not rest with the Board of Education so long as the schools are efficiently carried on, because the payment of the salaries and the arrangement of the salaries rests entirely with the local education authority. One thing we can do, and we are about to do it, and that is to make the service more attractive by increasing the pensions of the certificated elementary school teachers. I stood almost aghast when I realised what the position was when I came to my present position. The average salary of an elementary school teacher was £145 for men and £99 for women, and the maximum pension which anyone could receive at the present time under the existing system is £59 for men and £40 14s. for women, whilst the average pension payable last year was only £38 for men and £29 for women.
  I have had consultation with my colleagues at the Treasury on this matter to see whether I can secure an increase of the Pension Vote. On this question the Board of Education has been insistent, and I am very glad that we have not only been able to secure a Grant from the

  313
  Treasury, which will double the present pension of elementary school teachers in regard to the payment from the State, but we shall also be able to increase the disablement allowance from £l to 30s. in the case of men and from 13s. 4d. to £l for women. I have had placed at my disposal by the Treasury a sum equivalent to a perpetual annuity of £200,000. Whether out of this sum any further benefits can be provided in addition to those which I have already mentioned I cannot say, but I propose to refer the matter to a Departmental Committee which I am about to appoint to look into this question. It is due, I think, to the teachers, who devote the whole of their lives, as a great number of them do, to the public service and to whom we look for the moulding of the minds, the intellect, the character, and the physical growth of the future race of this country, that we should make the service as attractive as we possibly can. The duties of a schoolmaster or a schoolmistress are arduous, exhausting, and monotonous, and require long training. They have to possess special qualities, such as patience, and also that very valuable quality in connection with children, a personal magnetism for the child. In proportion as we are generous I think we shall attract the best teachers in the country into the profession, and in proportion as we are parsimonious we shall fail to secure the best results.
  There is one other matter in connection with the elementary side, which is a real departure, I ought to mention to the Committee. In my view the ideal system of issuing money for work done in the schools of this country is not to base it upon average attendance, but upon the value of the work performed. I am starting an experiment this year, which I hope may be successful. I have taken the special subjects, handicraft, gardening for boys, and domestic subjects for girls, cookery, laundry work, and household management, and I am proposing this year to give to all the large authorities who have hitherto earned a Grant of £1,000 in these subjects a block Grant, provided they do similar work this year to that which they have performed in the past year. They will receive certainly no less than they have received in the past year, and in all probability they will receive a substantial sum more if they do further work than they have already performed. It may interest the House to know that in connection with these subjects
  314
  of the county authorities, fifty-nine out of the sixty-two are now giving instruction in these special subjects. In connection with cooking there are 335,568 girl students. There are 121,727 girl students learning laundry work, and 25,083 learning housewifery work, and 7,289 are taking the combined subjects. There is a steady increase in the number of these school courses. The number in cookery has increased from 635 to 670, laundry work has increased from 50 to 89, and housewifery from 6 to 24. In school gardens there has been a steady development in teaching the children what I may call petty agriculture, and there has been a considerable increase—from 1,872 courses last year to 2,270 courses in the present year.
  I hope that my experiment in connection with the block Grant may prove successful. It will, I believe, diminish to a large extent the amount of correspondence that may be required with the local education authorities, because they will not always be having to go to the Board of Education in connection with small points, which require a great deal of correspondence and clerical work, and it will ease very materially the amount of work of the Board of Education as well as an connection with the carrying on of all these domestic and special subjects, which I believe are of great utility to the children in our elementary schools.
  I propose this year to place a new code on the Table of the House. The changes are not very great, but we shall omit a certain number of obsolete provisions. We shall insert the block Grant provision, and we propose some other changes, all in the direction of giving increased latitude to the local education authority and showing that we have increased confidence in the work which they perform. The variations which we propose will be to enable them to consult with the inspectors on the spot in order to avoid a great number of unnecessary references to headquarters, such as those which occur in connection with small alterations to premises. In such cases the inspectors and the managers will meet and agree upon any small alterations of premises which now have to come to London for the assent of the Board. Again, when it is proposed that children should take excursions to places of historical or other interest in the country, or to inspect field work, instead of applying to the Board of Education all that it will be necessary to do will be for an arrangement to be made with the

  315
  inspector, and if he approves of that work it can be undertaken.
  With regard to school playgrounds, a Committee was appointed some months ago to look into the question to meet, as far as possible, the views of the local education authority, so that we should not ask for unreasonable accommodation for playgrounds when it is difficult to obtain them. That Committee is looking into the question, and I believe it is very nearly ready to report.
  With regard to the choice of employment, an Act has recently passed enabling authorities to set up committees to arrange for the choice of employment of children when they leave school. Under that measure forty schemes have been submitted for the approval of the Board. We have already passed twenty-seven, and I believe within the next fortnight four or five others will be approved. The amount at our disposal is only £10,000, but I hope it will not be many years before the Board of Education may obtain a further sum to extend that very useful work.
  I want for a moment to touch upon the medical branch, which, I think, is one of peculiar interest. The number of meals given to school children in the country throughout the past year was 16,872,997. In London 9,138,755 meals were given to the children attending the schools. The cost of the food was £89,609, and the other cost in connection with the provision of these meals was £63,959, making a total of £153,568, and voluntary contributions of £1,370 only were recovered from the parents. Sir George Newman's report, I think, has been read by a great number of Members in this House, and has as well interested a great number of people outside. I do not propose to deal with many matters to which the report relates, but I may remind the Committee what was the result of the medical inspection of the children. It showed that 10 per cent. of the children in attendance at our elementary schools were defective in eyesight, 4 per cent. were defective in hearing, about 7 per cent. suffered from adenoids or enlarged tonsils, 40 per cent. were suffering from decayed teeth, 35 per cent. were verminous, and 1 per cent. were tuberculous, and between 1 and 2 per cent. had heart disease. I am glad to say the local education authorities have already been doing a good deal to try and deal with the ailments of these children.
  316
  Seventy-eight authorities have established nurses, seventy-two authorities are practically giving free spectacles to the children who require them, children are treated by twenty-two authorities in hospitals, and forty-eight authorities have-already established clinics. I have secured from the Treasury a Grant this year of £60,000 to help and encourage the local education authorities in treating these ailments, and I believe that amount will have to be extended in the years to come. The House has so far been kindly disposed in not criticising me too much in regard to the regulations which I have circulated in connection with the distribution of this £60,000. It is the first year we have had at our disposal any Grant to help the local education authorities in treating children for their ailments. I have indicated in those regulations, and by replies to questions in this House, that as a general standard we hope to be able to pay pound for pound in connection with the work done, but during the first year we desire a certain amount of latitude to be given by the House, because we are not quite sure how much work may be undertaken during the current year by the local education authorities, and we shall have to do the best we can with the £60,000 at our disposal.
  I may perhaps be allowed to say one word in connection with the care committees. A large number of care committees have been established throughout the country to look after the children and to act as go-betweens between the local education authorities and the parents and to try and assist children who have to be operated upon or who require attention. There are in London in connection with this work 990 committees, and there are 6,500 individuals who are already sacrificing a great deal of their time in voluntarily undertaking this work on behalf of the elementary school children in London. They are doing excellent work, and I think we are fortunate in having in our country so many people ready to come forward and do this kind of work. More strength to their elbow.
  I should like to say one or two words with regard to the mentally defective. There are 48,000 mentally defective children of school age, and of those we believe that about 32,000 are educable. Of the 32,000 that are educable, about half can be treated in special schools, and be taught to maintain themselves and become satisfactory

  317
  excellent citizens. If they are not treated in special schools, they may degenerate and become, as they do now, to some extent, wasters. They may tend to become criminals and help to fill our gaols, or they may tend to become imbeciles and help to fill our asylums, or they may tend to become paupers and help to fill our workhouses. Therefore, from a national investment point of view, it is of importance that everyone should do their best to try and see that special schools are created in this country with a view of educating all the children who are apparently mentally defective but who are educable. One-third of these children, I say, can be taught to maintain themselves, one-third can be taught to maintain themselves partly, while one-third are uneducable and will have to be under the supervision of the authority that is about to be set up for the mentally defective by the Bill which I trust may before many weeks be passed through Parliament, I admit in connection with this matter that more money ought to be given by the State, and I am glad to say that at the present time the Government are considering how they can encourage local education authorities to build special schools in order to look after the educable mentally defective children. There is one other subject in connection with Elementary Schools which I know interests many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that is the question connected with the differentiation of teachers' salaries in Wales. Perhaps I may be allowed to express my own gratitude for the way in which the Opposition have allowed me to have a more or less free hand during the past few weeks in endeavouring to secure an increase of salary for the teachers in certain voluntary schools in Wales. In March last, when this question was raised on the Vote on Account, I informed the House that my attention had been called to twelve cases in which complaint had been made by the managers of the differentiation of salaries paid to the teachers by the local education authorities in their voluntary schools. Since then, I am glad to say, in ten out of those twelve cases matters have been settled. There are still two cases outstanding of that group of twelve, but since March my attention has been called to five other cases. At the present moment one is settled. I am in negotiation with the various authorities concerned in the other four cases, and I expect a settlement will
  318
  at any rate be arranged very shortly in three out of those four cases, so that after the next few days I trust there will really be only three cases in which no permanent arrangement of a satisfactory character has been arrived at between the local education authorities and the managers. I therefore propose, as I indicated in March last, to appoint some one to go down to the places concerned and hold immediately a public inquiry. I have asked Mr. Robert Younger, K.C., whether he would undertake this duty. He has consented, and I am now about to frame the reference. I trust the result of his inquiry will be to bring to an end those unfortunate differences which have arisen and which have caused us a good deal of anxiety.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask whether the inquiry will be limited to the question of salaries alone?
  Mr. J. A. PEASE: I have not definitely settled the terms of reference, but I shall no doubt be very largely guided by the terms of reference arranged in connections with the Swansea case. I might say the two cases which are going to be inquired into by Mr. Robert Younger are the Caerphilly case and a case in Anglesey at Menai Bridge.
  We are satisfied with the progress which has been made in connection with our secondary education system. It is not perhaps all we want, but, at any rate, a great number of gaps are gradually being filled up in the country. The Act of 1902 certainly left a big gap between the elementary schools and the secondary schools. That gap, to a certain extent, has been filled up by the forty-seven higher elementary schools which have been established, by a certain number of central schools which take what we may call the top classes from a group of schools in the vicinity, and by what we may call the higher tops to elementary schools, which do a certain amount of the work required to co-ordinate and systematise the elementary and secondary schools. One of our first objects is to try and widen the character of our secondary schools and to give them an increased bias of a commercial, industrial, and agricultural tendency, according to the needs of the various localities. Another of the objects we have in connection with our secondary schools is to try and extend the number of years of school life. Unless we can extend the number of years

  319
  of school life we cannot, of course, secure a satisfactory scope of work done in these secondary schools. During the last three years we have been inspecting a large number of these schools, and we are inspecting about 200 schools every year. We are doing something to promote the teaching of modern languages. We are behindhand, as compared with some of our competitors on the Continent, in the teaching of foreign languages, and we are doing what we can to encourage the better teaching of them in our secondary schools, and I am very glad to be able to report considerable improvement in that respect. We are also interchanging with France and Prussia a certain number of student teachers so that we get the benefit of the teachers from those countries, while some of our teachers go over to Germany and France and acquire better linguistic knowledge by teaching in those countries. We are also indebted to a certain extent to a trust, of which Lord Shuttleworth is chairman, for being able to encourage certain masters in secondary schools having their expenses paid for visiting other secondary schools and thereby getting a wider experience in the work of their profession.
  The Consultative Committee, over which Mr. Acland presides, has reported during the year with regard to the examinations in secondary schools. We are in substantial agreement with most of the principles that Committee has laid down, and I am hoping to invite the leading English Universities to confer with the Board of Education with a view to meeting some of the most practical suggestions. The financial aspects of the proposals are of the most difficult nature, but, unfortunately, the Committee did not see their way to deal very fully with the problem. The Committee is now engaged in doing what it can to help us by taking evidence with a view to reporting the best means of promoting practical work, and we are asking them to report how it should be encouraged and developed in secondary schools.
  In regard to pensions for old age I have had several interviews with representatives of the secondary school teachers, and we have together secured from the Treasury a promise of a substantial Grant to enable those teachers in secondary schools which are receiving a Government Grant to receive a contribution towards an old age pension. The
  320
  scheme is not sufficiently developed for me to be able to say exactly what will be the lines of the scheme, but generally speaking the sum given will be more or less equivalent to the Grant now given to the certificated teachers in elementary schools. I should like now to say one or two words in connection with our training colleges. We have introduced a four years' course—a voluntary system. We have found in practice that a three years' course, in which students are not only expected to take their degree, but also to learn how to teach, is an inadequate period for the work which we are expecting them to undertake, and if they can add another year on to their period of residence and attendance in a training college they will be free from that strain and pressure which have broken down many students. Sir Alfred Dale, addressing a meeting the other day, approved the proposal, and said:—
  "It would ensure solid and sound work without undue strain or pressure, and he welcomed the proposal."
  In order to make the proposal as attractive as we can we have done two things. We have abolished the obligation on the part of the student, who enters a training college for four years, to pay fees out of his personal allowance, and we pay them from the State. The net result to the men and women attending these training colleges will be, if they are resident at a hostel, that men, instead of receiving £30 a year net, will now receive £35 for each of the four years, and women, instead of receiving £15 net, will receive in future £25 per year for the four years. There are two other alterations which we are making. We are reducing the number of subjects which we are encouraging to be taught in the training colleges with a view to trying to prevent that strain and pressure of which complaint has been made. We find that more attention has to be paid to professional subjects, including hygiene and physical training. But students have already acquired in secondary schools a knowledge of certain subjects before they enter the training colleges. And we do not put such pressure upon the principals and the managers of training colleges that some of the ordinary school subjects should be taught so extensively as they have been in the past. Another alteration of which we have approved is to encourage the experiment by means of which students can go into training colleges at different periods of the year, so that instead of all leaving at

  321
  one particular time after having completed their course, they will leave at different periods, and there will be less likelihood of many remaining for a few months unemployed.
  In connection with the technical branch we believe that the old examinations, both in science and in art, in the lower stages have done their work, and we have issued two circulars, one numbered 776 on science and one numbered 786 in art. For these two circulars we have been somewhat criticised, and I have realised that whenever an alteration is made, and especially one which is going to effect some saving, you must expect criticism from some quarters. But I am quite sure the abolition of these examinations in the lower stages, both in science and art, is progressive. Instead of scholars and students being worked up to a pitch for a particular examination they are taught on freer lines, and the educational result is very much more valuable. If I take Circular 776, which has been so much criticised, by abolishing a system which is but a relic of "payment by results," we are going to save a sum in the aggregate of something over £7,000, and the greater part of the sum is going to be distributed in connection with helping better inspection of these technical classes. Grouped courses will be more established, and they will be closely related to industries in the various localities. We do not want students during their earlier stages of technical education to feel that they are bound by syllabuses and examinations. We wish the local education authorities not only to have permission, but to be encouraged to reduce the number of examinations. If they want examinations they can hold them themselves, but we believe that better education can be given if no resort is made to the lower grade examinations. The higher stage examinations will still be continued. We do not suggest that even these are a necessity, but we propose to hold them. We do not want a student any longer to go before an employer and say, "Here is a certificate for this, that, or the other." We think that the certificate will be of very much greater value if the student goes to an employer and says, "I have been attending the whole course for a series of years," whether it is in connection with engineering, buildings, or textile manufactures, or whatever the subject may be, "I have completed it satisfactorily. The certificate
  322
  is signed by the principal of the college, and it is also endorsed by the Board of Education." I believe that certificate will be of very much greater value than the great number of certificates which now lie in the drawers of many principals and are never demanded by the students themselves even after they have passed examinations. By this policy we hope to arouse an increased interest among the employers of the country. We want them to do more with their employés, to form committees to work with the local education authority, and to establish technical classes connected with engineering, building, and textile manufactures.
  In the art circular also there has been a misunderstanding in some quarters. It has been assumed that our object has been to exclude from the teaching and study of art all except those who have been through the secondary schools. That is not what we say in our circular. Hitherto the system to a large extent has been meaningless. One student may have taken up drawing in a cursory way, another etching, another painting, and so on. Now the system will be laid out with the view of training for art in a comprehensive scheme, and these certificates will be evidence of real proficiency in art, and competency in designing for a particular industry, or of capacity to teach. We believe that, in connection with the qualifications of the teacher, it is necessary for the teacher of art not only to have natural talent in connection with his art, but also to possess a certain amount of general education, and we lay down the principle that the amount of general education known should be at least of the standard which is given in our secondary schools. For example, a student only wastes his time if he endeavours to teach an art class in advanced work unless he has at any rate some little knowledge of the literature and history of the art subject which he is teaching. With regard to inspectors, we have been obliged, owing to these alterations, to consider the increase of their number. The increase has been twelve during the past year, and I have now got power from the Treasury to further increase the number. We have appointed special expert inspectors, for the first time, who have expert knowledge of economics, engineering, building, and other subjects, instead of having the general knowledge which is possessed by most of our other inspectors. The work connected with women in this

  323
  country has been steadily increasing, not only in connection with our training colleges, but in connection with those domestic subjects to which I have already referred. I believe that for this work we require a large increase in the number of our women inspectors, who have hitherto been overworked. As vacancies occur among our male inspectors, I propose to fill up the next few places by appointing an additional number of women. During last year we only had twenty-eight women inspectors, although half the population of this country, or rather more, are females, and we have had something like 370 men inspectors. I propose in the next few months to bring up the number of women inspectors from twenty-eight to forty-one.
  Perhaps I may say one word with regard to what I believe to be the great blot on the whole of our educational system in this country—that is the lack of continuity in the education of children after they leave our elementary schools. The number of children who are at school between the ages of twelve and thirteen is about 593,000; between the ages of thirteen and fourteen, 384,000; between fourteen and fifteen they suddenly drop down to 36,000, and, of course, after fifteen there are none in any of our elementary schools except in the few higher elementary schools. As a consequence, a great number of these children—a very able writer in the "Yorkshire Post" gave the figure the other day as six out of seven— never continue their education again in this country. At any rate, the proportion of individuals who are only educated up to the age of fourteen is excessive, and enormous sums of this country's money are being wasted because we have no proper system of continuing the education of our young people. There are three directions in which I think work can be done. Of course, in connection with our evening technical schools we do work now of a very satisfactory character, and of an increasingly satisfactory character, but what we want employers to do is to make it a condition of employment, wherever it is possible, that those young people whom they employ, who leave school at the age of fourteen, shall on one or two afternoons or mornings in each week be compelled to attend some higher technical class or some trade class. There are some employers who are doing it in this country. The North-Eastern Railway Company are
  324
  doing it to a certain extent. They send some of their young people to the Armstrong College at Newcastle, and they not only pay their fees but also their wages while they are attending technical classes. I instance that as a case in point, and hold it up as an example which many others might follow with advantage to the community. At present we have only thirty-two day or evening trade schools in this country, with only 2,813 students attending them. The experience connected with these schools is surprisingly satisfactory. Before these students have completed their full course they are snapped up, and a great attempt is made to take these children away before they have completed their two years' course in these trade schools. I would like to urge all those who desire to take these children into their works that at any rate they should leave them at their trade school until they have completed their full two years' course. The last few months are the most important in connection with the teaching of trade classes, and it is most valuable not only to the individuals themselves, that they should complete their full course in these trade classes, but it is equally important to the employer in whose works they are going to be employed.
  I should like also in connection with continuation work to pay a tribute to the excellent work being done by the Workers' Educational Association in London. The number of tutorial classes has grown from 2 to 8, 35, 70, and now there are 100 of them. The Universities are being brought into contact with the progressive working men specially in London, who undertake to go through a full three years' course. The work which is being done in connection with that organisation is of the very highest value.
  I come to practically the last branch I wish to deal with, that is the University work. The University work is to-day becoming of increasing interest to the whole community. The Universities are becoming more open to the humbler classes than ever they were before. There is one very great advantage in connection with the University work, which is that it is outside the sphere of both religious and political polemics. We have at our disposal £42,000, which we are distributing among twenty-two institutions. £12,000 of that money is new money, and this money is given to colleges, hospitals, and other University institutions, such as

  325
  do medical and technical work of a high character. We nave also at our disposal for distribution a sum of £150,000 which is now being distributed on the recommendation of the Committee presided over by Sir William M'Cormick. The Committee have allocated this money, and I have accepted the recommendations of the Committee. The Committee visited the whole of the Universities in the country, except Nottingham, and upon that they had a very full report of the inspection of the work which is being done in Nottingham. In connection with this University work I should like to say how much the public are indebted to certain individuals who have endowed the Universities. We are hoping that we may receive more of these endowments, because they are very badly needed in many of the Universities in this country. It is only fair to note the generosity recently exhibited in connection with the London University. The sums given have been very large. We have had £100,000 given for Bedford College; £100,000 for domestic science at King's College for Women; £60,000 for new chemical laboratories, £30,000 for a school of architecture, and £11,000 has been left by wills for scholarships at University College. It may interest the Committee to know that the average income from endowments of these various Universities is 15 per cent., from the State 28.5 per cent., and from fees 32 per cent. The Board of Education are very anxious that scholarships should not be established out of the fees which are paid by the poorer classes of the community. Where scholarships are established, they ought to be paid for out of the endowments kindly provided by individuals. With regard to Wales, the University of Wales continues for the next five years to receive the £31,000 which was promised to them, and in connection with the medical department of University College, Cardiff, £1,500 was definitely allocated to that college two years ago, and it will be still continued. May I refer to a subject upon which there is a Bill at present before the House? It is a Bill which really carries out the result of administrative work. I refer to the London Institution Transfer Bill. An arrangement has been made to enable that institution to be transferred for the purpose of a School of Oriental languages. I am told that unless we are able quickly to pass that measure into law the financial position will become worse and difficulties may
  326
  occur, while at the present moment all the parties have agreed upon the terms upon which this institution may be handed over for the purpose of teaching Oriental languages. In connection with that, money has been secured from the Treasury which will compensate, to a certain extent, individuals who have now got an interest in the London Institution.
  5.0 P.M.
  I must say one or two words in connection with our Science and Art Museums. I hope a start may be made with the new Science Museum this year. The Committee over which Sir Hugh Bell presided has made recommendations, and I believe that their report has been printed and is in the hands of Members. I think we may congratulate everybody concerned that we have been able to come to a satisfactory arrangement as to the site, and with regard to the transfer of the Geological Museum in Jermyn Street, which will be a connecting link between the Science Museum and the Natural History Museum. As one of the results of the erection of that building, the work of solar observation will be transferred on the recommendation of the Committee to Cambridge, and not to the Surrey Hills which was the alternative site. The Committee, by three to one recommended that the University of Cambridge was the better place for the Observatory to go to rather than to the Surrey Hills. No doubt the Surrey Hills would have been nearer the sun, and clearer observations of the sun could be obtained there, but at the same time it would be away from the individuals who want to acquire knowledge in connection with solar observations. As to the Victoria and Albert Museum, we have systematised our inventories and verified the whole of the articles in the museum. We have received a large number of gifts for which we are very grateful to the individuals who gave them. I may mention Mr. Fitzhenry, Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence, Sir William Agnew, among others. We have purchased various articles with an expenditure of £13,600 out of our own funds, including an early fourteenth-century carved sandstone figure of the "Virgin and Child," from Ecouen, and a very valuable Elizabethan tapestry. I am glad to say that Their Majesties have continued to take such considerable interest in the Victoria and Albert Museum that we have received a special loan in connection with their recent Indian visit, and I hope that

  327
  the public will take an opportunity of inspecting these very interesting records of the Coronation visit to India. We have saved something like £5,000 by alterations in the warding of the Victoria and Albert Museum, and we have more individuals now watching over the exhibits than ever before. I believe that all necessary provision has been made for the safeguarding of these treasures. May I in passing allude to a criticism in the public Press a few months ago in connection with the withdrawal of his loan collection by Mr. Pierpont Morgan, it was given out that, owing to certain treatment he had received, Mr. Morgan had withdrawn some articles. That was really not the fact at all. He proposed to withdraw many of the articles which had been lent to the museum merely with a view to escaping the Death Duties on such of the collection as might remain in this country at the time of his death. But to show that he bore no ill-will to the museum authorities I may inform the Committee that we received at the time other articles on loan from him, including a very valuable bronze statue by Benevenuto Cellini.
  The Board, I think, is entitled to take some credit for the re-establishment of the Teachers' Registration Council. It was desired that the teachers should be enabled to arrange their own organisation unfettered by the Board of Education. It was also essential the Register should be established on a firm financial footing. We have obtained from the Treasury a sum amounting to about £10,000, to repay fees paid for Registration on the old Register, £2,800 still remain in hand. We have also obtained a loan from the Treasury to cover a total expenditure of £9,000 in three years to enable this Teachers' Council to be put on a really satisfactory financial basis. One of the great advantages of this council will be, from my point of view, that we should be able from time to time, when we want, to consult the representatives of the teaching profession in this country upon matters on which change is proposed or has been made; we shall be able to work in touch with the teachers, and the establishment of this Registration Council will remove, I hope for all time, any possibility of a recurrence of some of those misunderstandings which have in the past unfortunately taken place. If we can work in touch with the teachers through the Registration Council,
  328
  as I believe we can, I think we ought also to work in closer touch with the representatives of the local education authorities. Those authorities have many organisations at the present time in connection with their educational work. There is the Association of Directors and Secretaries, there is the County Councils Association, and we have also the Municipal Corporations Association, the Association of Education Committees, and the London County Council Education Committee. I desire that we should be able to ascertain the views of all these organisations, and to have them embodied, as far as possible, in one representative committee of an advisory character which would be able from time to time to meet the Board of Education, and thus prevent misunderstandings, between the Board and the local education authorities. I have communicated with these organisations, and I see that they are about to summon a meeting of representatives, which, I trust, will bring about the formation of a body able to place at our disposal the collective experience of Local Education Authorities and which we shall be able to consult. In this way I hope to prevent any feeling that the Board of Education is holding at arm's length the local education authorities, and I hope that, as a result, the hostile criticisms which have obtained in the past will be replaced by good will, and there will be a great addition to the progressive forces of this country in the matter of education.
  Finally, I should like to pay a tribute to the staff of the Board of Education. Never has a President of the Board had a more loyal, more able, or more zealous staff to work with, and I may say that it is the privilege both of my hon. Friend and myself to work with individual members of the Board. They show that they are anxious to do all they can, not to raise points of hostile criticism in connection with any communication that they receive from the country, but to help the local educational authorities and the educational experts in the country in every possible way, and to co-operate with local educationalists in the interests of a cause which they all have at heart.
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I think we may congratulate the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down on the very full, clear, practical, and, on the whole, satisfactory account which he has given of the educational progress of the country during the past year. I am glad to observe that

  329
  he has returned to the practice broken into on one or two occasions in late years, by which the President of the Board or the representative of the Educational Department in this House gives as full a statement as possible of the work of the Department, a statement which has been extremely useful, not only to the House but to the country. I am also glad I shall have little or nothing to say on a topic which has occupied us very frequently in past years, and that is the religious difficulty. I wish to be quite frank with the right hon. Gentleman, and I will tell him that, so long as the regulations for secondary schools remain as they are we shall continue to contend that public money is not being rightly used for the furtherance of a particular form of religious teaching while other forms of religious teaching are unfairly dealt with. As regards individual matters which come before the right hon. Gentleman, so far as our experience of the last eight months has gone, we feel convinced that he will approach any difficulties that may arise in respect of voluntary schools in a judicial spirit, and that he will not put undue pressure on the local authorities in an effort to obtain from them what the King's Bench Division, the Court of Appeal, and the House of Lords have stated in turn to be so obviously their right that the matter ought never to have been brought before a Court of Law at all. We hope that will never occur under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman.
  I will touch briefly on three or four matters which have arisen in the course of these proceedings. I am glad that the Code is to reappear, because it tells us the policy for the year of the Education Department in regard to elementary schools, it informs us what is to be the curriculum for the children, and what are the qualifications to be required of the teachers. For several years past all we have had has been a White Paper merely mentioning briefly alterations in a Code presented to us some years ago, and I am very glad indeed that the right hon. Gentleman is returning to the former custom of presenting the Code. I am also very glad to hear that the register of teachers is to be revived. It has been long felt that not merely for the convenience of teachers, but of those in search of teachers, it was desirable to have it, and it is also felt that the existence of the register acted as an impulse to teachers in the matter of secondary education, because immediately it
  330
  was dropped the number of teachers who offered themselves for secondary training decreased. I am therefore glad it is now to be revived. With regard to the pensions of teachers, my only regret is that teachers who earned pensions on the old scale are not to come in for the increased pension which their more fortunate successors will receive. They have spent their lives in the service of the children of the country, and I very much regret that they are not going to benefit by the greater liberality which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is extending to their successors. I should like to say a few words with regard to the system of rewards and punishments. Of course, the Board of Education has power to deprive schools of a proportion of the Grants, and, no doubt, that will work as an excellent supplement to the broader rule regarding the grant for average attendance. I think we must feel glad that the candidates are now to come out of the training colleges at different times of the year, instead of all at once. It was a source of difficulty to the younger teacher, who, having spent a good deal of time and money in preparation for the teaching profession, found that owing to the fact all the candidates for teachers' places came out of the training colleges at the same time, he had to wait some months before he had an opportunity of entering into the active duties of his profession. Anyone who has had experience of administration in education matters knows how valuable the work of women inspectors is, and I am therefore very glad to know that their number is to be increased.
  The President gave us some very interesting facts about medical inspection. Medical inspection was a necessary consequence of our compulsory system of elementary education, and the value of it must be evident to all who take an interest in educational problems. There is a further question with respect to the position of the local education authority whose duty it is not merely to carry out medical inspection, but to make arrangements for children who are found to require special medical care. This work has rapidly passed into the nature of a moral obligation, and it is, I think, construed by many local authorities as a duty. As a matter of fact as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, many of these authorities have set up clinical departments in the schools in order to carry out the results of the medical inspection. This

  331
  raises a number of questions, and I hope the Board of Education will not in the present state of our knowledge press upon local education authorities one scheme rather than another. I think it was in the report for last year that the medical inspector referred to what is being done by the local education authority for London, which, I believe endeavours to work with the hospitals and other voluntary agencies through which it can obtain by arrangement the necessary medical service and carry out the work of medical inspection. I think the report of the medical officer of the Board was to the effect that the task which lay before that authority was one of unexampled difficulty, and that at that time it had not had a fair trial. I think it would be very unfortunate if any cut and dried method in dealing with this question were insisted upon by the Board, and if any local authority which is honestly endeavouring to discharge the heavy responsibility laid upon it by the Act were not allowed to try more than one experiment in the matter with the view of obtaining the best and most economical mode of dealing with this important question.
  I pass to the question of the secondary schools. I notice from the report that the number eligible for Grants has increased, and that generally as to the secondary schools over which the Board of Education exercises the influence which is due to the making of the Grant the Board on the whole are satisfied with their condition. No doubt the report tells us that the period of time during which a boy or girl remains at a secondary school is not as yet sufficient to give him or her the benefit which we expect from a secondary school. I hope that the Board, so far as it lies in their power, will continue to press for a longer term, that a secondary school which receives a Grant from the Board will not be regarded as a mere finishing establishment to which a child can go for a year or eighteen months from an elementary school, and that the Board will insist, so far as they can, that a preper term of secondary education will be required, so that a child will get the benefit which we believe is to be derived from secondary education. There is another point in the report of the Board on which I should like to touch. It is not a popular subject, and I do not hope that it well excite any great sympathy—I mean the encouragement given to the study of Greek. I notice
  332
  that a certain number of schools, mostly endowed schools, do encourage the study of Greek. A few municipal schools do so also. I heard not long ago with some satisfaction that the number of municipal schools which require the study of Latin is on the increase. I know that many of the schools cannot afford to teach Greek—that is to say they cannot afford the expense of a man who has knowledge of the subject. The report of the Board states, as if it were a matter of pride, that in those schools in which Greek had been taught it had been done on the payment of an additional fee, and that the additional fee was done away with, so that anyone might learn Greek as part of the ordinary school course. I should think the result of that would be that the study of Greek would be almost discontinued, for, having regard to the small incomes of teachers in our secondary schools, and the miserable insufficiency of the staff in these schools, it is very likely that they would not be able to have a man to teach Greek. I think it would have been very much better to have allowed the fee to remain, and to have provided that, in the case of a boy who could not afford to pay, the fee should be remitted or advanced, rather than that over the larger area, where it is absolutely necessary boys and girls should learn Greek, they should be excluded from the study of the finest literature any country ever produced.
  I come now to a point on which the President of the Board of Education dealt with some feeling, namely, the want of continuity in our education. The elementary school curriculum is a matter on which the Board may dwell with some pride. The secondary school curriculum in a somewhat lower key may also be looked upon with satisfaction; but then there is a gap between the two. What is to happen with respect to children who have not the time to go to our secondary schools? What are the resources available for them? There are the higher elementary schools. I regret to find that the number of these schools satisfying the conditions which are required is not large. Some of these schools had to be discontinued because they were not discharging the duties they were intended to perform. On the whole the higher elementary schools have not been the success which at one time I hoped they would be. The object of the higher elementary schools was primarily to supplement the elementary schools in the case of boys or girls

  333
  who could not afford the time to attend the secondary schools. The higher elementary school was to carry on on a somewhat higher plane the work of the elementary school, the course of training corresponding to the conditions of the area in which the school was in order that a boy or girl should have the chance of carrying out the literary side of his or her education, and giving some practical instruction in work which would be useful on leaving school. That was the object for which the higher elementary school was brought into existence in 1905, and I am sorry to hear that the element of continuity which was then contemplated does not seem to prosper under existing conditions.
  What resources are there besides the higher elementary schools? There are continuation classes, but what are the conditions of these classes as a whole? They do not play a very large part in the Report of the Board. I find that the number of those who attended continuation classes has slightly increased. In the Report of 1909–10 there were 750,000, roughly speaking, in attendance, while in the following year there were 16,000 more. I find from a note that one-third of the number are over twenty-one. That means that there is a long gap between the time of leaving the elementary school and the period when young people go to the continuation classes, and whereas, in the urban areas it is fifty-four, in the rural areas it is forty-five. That shows that there is a problem here which must press upon the heads of the Department. We want the education of the children to be continued, whatever views may be held about the advantages or disadvantages of the half-time system. We heard the views of hon. Members expressed on that question in the very interesting Debate which took place a few weeks ago in this House. Nobody wishes that a child's education should be impaired by the half-time system, or that its education should be limited to the age of thirteen or fourteen. There are some difficult questions in this connection which cannot be answered in one way. You have to consider what the aim of the child is on leaving school, what he ought to learn in continuation classes beyond what he already knows, and, incidentally, what the parent wishes him to do. These are questions which cannot be answered by any rough-and-ready method of simply raising the school age. If you merely arbitrarily raise the school age, you may
  334
  make a boy remain longer at school than he wants to stay, and when you turn him away from school you may not have any employment for him when he is ready for work. In the urban districts I understand that employers are giving their minds to this question, and taking care that the young people in their employ do for a certain number of hours in the week devote themselves to the continuation of their education. But what is the fate of children in the rural areas? It seems to me that a boy's education there is sometimes really more suited for a clerk than for one who is to work on the land. I have heard advocated an extension of the school age to fifteen or sixteen. Is the education under the curriculum the sort of education to fit a boy, or to incline a boy, to work on a farm? I confess I am sceptical as to whether nature study and lessons in gardening give a boy the habitude to work on the land. I should be glad if the Board of Education would turn their attention seriously to this question, and ask whether a child in a rural area might not leave school earlier on two conditions, one being that the work to which he is sent is really serious work, which will fit him for his future sphere in life, and not merely for, as was described in the Report of the Departmental Committee that reported on half-time, the perfunctory performance of manual labour, and the other being his attendance at a continuation school.
  Those two conditions, I think, would be essential in any scheme of rural education which would tend to keep people on the land and give them an intelligent interest in life after leaving school, in following out the career of an agricultural labourer or a small holder or a small farmer. I would urge the President of the Board of Education to turn his attention very seriously to this matter, because it seems to me that there is a very large number of children in the country upon whose education the country is spending a very large sum for which it is not getting any adequate return. In reference to the various Grants which are made for university purposes, I am glad to know that it is the Education Department and not the Treasury which is now making them, and I would ask the President to consider whether the Grant which is made to King's College is adequate for the work which that college has to do. My hon. Friend the Member for London University (Sir Philip Magnus) is more fitted to deal with

  335
  this subject than I am, but it has been represented to me, and I think with some force, that that college is doing work which would entitle it to a larger Grant, and doing it under considerable difficulties, as the site is cramped, and the college has to occupy some buildings at a rent of £3,000 a year. The fact that the site is in many respects convenient for those who attend the college should not be set against this claim, but should rather be regarded as a matter which entitles the college to further assistance under this Grant. Another point that should be considered is the necessity of a higher rate of pay for the staff in order to retain good teachers.
  I now come to a point to which I refer with some reluctance) and that is the relationship of the President of the staff, which the right hon. Gentleman said just now was so admirable in its administration of the education of the country. At the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's tenure of office a change took place, and a new permanent secretary, whose appointment, I think, is a matter for congratulation, succeeded to the office lately held by Sir Robert Morant. The result of that was that the post of principal assistant secretary for elementary education became vacant. There were working under the late permanent secretary more than one gentleman of long experience in that particular branch of the work, a branch of work which needs special knowledge and special experience, and they were passed over for a gentleman whose capacity is undoubted, of which I have had both useful and pleasant evidence, but who was a junior and had no special experience in that particular branch of the work. The senior assistant secretary in consequence resigned his office, having had twenty-one years of service. I call attention, as I have said, with reluctance to this matter, because these gentlemen are well known to me personally. I have worked with them with the greatest satisfaction, and I have the highest opinion of the capacity of both of them to do any work which they undertake to do.
  But I would like to call attention to the fact that the rewards offered to our permanent Civil servants are not very great. The work which they have to do is of the highest importance to the country. The qualifications which they bring to bear on that work are so good as or, I suppose, better than those of the Civil Servants of
  336
  any country in the world. "We get practically the best men available for very difficult work, for which very little outward reward is given, and if there is any idea that in the making of appointments or promotions men are passed over who should not be passed over I think the service will suffer. It is specially desirable in the case of the particular Department over which the President now presides that it should not suffer in consequence of any suggestion that officers are promoted without due regard to the claims of persons of long experience. Last year we were surprised, I think the whole House was startled, by the way in which the then President of the Board of Education (Mr. Runciman) threw over the report of his chief inspector and announced that that did not represent the policy of the Board. That was, I think, a departure from the relations in which the President should stand to his staff, and I confess that I listened to the speech then delivered with great pain and with a feeling that the relations of the Civil servants themselves and their political chief could not continue on those lines. That happened last year, and now this year, when we have the suggestion that in the same Department officers and promotions are dealt with capriciously and without due regard to experience and long service and the undoubted claims of officers of the Board, I should be afraid that the Department might get a bad name in the Civil Service and that the admirable work which has hitherto assisted the political representatives of the Department may no longer be forthcoming; and no one would regret more than I that the Department, with which I was for some time connected and of which I have the most agreeable recollections, should suffer in that way.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I will not follow the right hon. Baronet in the polemical opening of his speech nor in his critical ending. I will speak from the point of view of one who tries to take some small part in the local administration on one or two matters which appear to be of practical moment. I thank the President for the tone of his speech and the clear evidence that it shows of educational progress, and I thank him especially for his very kindly reference to local education authorities and the perfectly clear way in which he showed that he looks upon them as colleagues rather than as persons who are to be told what they are to do, and who are to be treated as people with whom cordial

  337
  relations are not permanently possible. My first remark is with regard to the system of Grants generally to local education authorities. I think that of late years, and under both Governments, there has been too much of a tendency to use the machinery of the block Grant and the general Grant to put pressure upon the local education authority which may have done badly in one particular direction, but done particularly well in others. I confess that I should like to see a greater segregation of Grants, so that, for instance, if there was a case of a county or town having fallen short, say, in its evening classes, but doing particularly well in the ordinary elementary schools, any reduction of Grant should be restricted to that department of effort in which they have failed, and it should be perfectly clear that where they have done well they are given the maximum support which the central authority can give. I think that that would intensify educational interest, and might be developed much more than at the present time. I am sure that the Committee heard with great pleasure the suggestion of the President with regard to small structural alterations and small local details being settled by the managers and an inspector instead of taking up invaluable time at Whitehall. Of course, it often happens that you have to deal not only with managers but with local education authorities who have an inspector of their own. But I welcome any Ministerial utterance which tends to give greater freedom of action to local authorities and greater quickness and decision without increased expense in the innumerable small details which have to be settled, and without taking a very long time to settle.
  I will give one illustration, which is not without what I might almost call a humorous aspect. Last year it chanced that in the county of Northampton it was desirable to have a room in a small town to set apart for instruction in handicraft laundry work and cookery. There was a provided elementary school and there was a secondary school and an evening continuation class. Accordingly this scheme, extremely modest in extent, but with its varying aspects according to these great divisions of education, had no doubt to be considered by some important person in each of these divisions of the Education Department. The room had to be used no doubt by the children in the elementary day school, which was its principal use, and also by the children of the secondary school and by the pupils in the evening
  338
  continuation school, some of whom would be full-grown adults. The result of extreme attention to infinitesimal detail in this case was that although plans were submitted on the 20th November, nothing more was heard until the 7th March, when a considerable part of the year had gone by. Then, when everything was approved of, it was ordered that the number of adults using this room was to be limited. The result is that you have eighteen benches, and when the children, who either attend the elementary school or the secondary school, are using the room all eighteen are allowed to be used. But when the adults are there only sixteen can be taken in. What difference it would make to an adult, whose thinking requirements are greater than those of a child, that there should be two vacant benches in a room it is difficult to see. I quote this as an instance of what happens not in any critical spirit of the Board, with the praise of whose officers I would like to associate myself, to the full as one who has often had the pleasure of getting advice from them, but, as an illustration of how very much simpler it would be where a room is mainly used for one purpose that the whole matter should be settled promptly by a representative of the Board, without going into all the different sub-departments at great expenditure of time and without any really satisfactory conclusion.
  I may give another illustration. There is a small special Grant of not more than £15 given to schools in very thinly populated districts. In one of these districts, also in the county of Northampton, it happened that one mistress resigned and left at the end of the school year. Her successor was not appointed until after the holidays. Inasmuch as during five weeks of the year there was not the complete staff, although during those five weeks there was no school going on, there was a deduction of the Grant actually made by the Board in respect of that period. I think these are admirable from the point of view of the great and well-known form of mental power which can deal with the infinitely little as well as the infinitely great, and I am quite sure that the remarks of the President of the Board of Education this afternoon as to giving greater freedom of action by relieving the Board itself of the decision of small matters like these will be welcomed by Members of the Committee. There are two other matters of great importance. One is the problem referred to both by the President and the right hon. Baronet, namely,

  339
  the problem of what you are to do with the enormous number of children who leave the voluntary school and who never find their way to the secondary school. I am sure the Committee has heard to-day, as Members have heard before, and "with no less anxiety, that there are only some forty-seven higher elementary schools. I am certainly not going back into the controversies of past years. I am not here today to criticise the Act of 1902. Everybody knows that before the Act of 1902 there was in all the best Board Schools of the country a great deal of valuable information given to children older than we find even now in the schools, either council or non-provided, throughout the country.
  I have always supported, and will continue to support to the utmost of my ability, the widest extension of the scholarship system in secondary schools, and while I hope that the 25 per cent. minimum will never be reduced, but will be increased, I am confident no system of scholarships, in anything like our present financial circumstances, will ever be able to secure to children of the artisan classes all the facilities for education above the mere elementary which they ought to have, not only in their own interests, but in the interests of the country itself. I think it is much to be regretted that the higher elementary schools are not more numerous and not more successful. I do not propose to go into details on this point; I do not propose, indeed, to analyse or criticise the various conditions which determine the character of those schools; but I do ask my right hon. Friend most earnestly to look into this particular problem to sec whether the conditions cannot be improved in the great urban districts of the country, such as in Lancashire, in Yorkshire, and in London—to see whether something cannot be done to have schools of this higher type, though they will, of course, be open to the criticism of thorough-going educationists that you are not keeping the lad or girl for a long enough period to give full secondary education; but it is true in education, as in many things, that half a loaf is better than no bread, and even inadequate food if wholesome, will stimulate the appetite, rather than give satiety, and I am confident these schools, if well arranged, will stimulate the demand for higher secondary education, and give more popular support to what might be done in this House in the future by
  340
  any party to enlarge the sphere of secondary education and increase the number who will benefit by it.
  The other point is with regard to a matter which was omitted by the President of the Board of Education, perhaps perforce omitted on an occasion of this kind, though it is one which every local administrator must from time to time speak about, and that is the great necessity of our having local grants for building new council schools and towards paying off the loans on existing, council schools. Anyone who has had to take part in the decisions of the local education authorities—where it is perfectly clear that a new council school must-be put up—well knows the difficulties that every administrator has to face. We are beset very properly by the desires and fears of the ratepayers. We are bound if we can to provide education, particularly, as often happens, when alternative forms of elementary education have failed and cannot be continued. Even where there is no controversy or divergency as to the type of school, the provision of a new council school, on which the whole of the education authority are agreed as being necessary, is cramped and hindered by the weak financial position of the local education authorities all over the country. Building Grants for the purpose are eminently necessary. Whether they can be provided in their fulness under the existing law is a matter on which a divergence of opinion exists, and one into which I will not enter.
  I do urge upon my right hon. Friend that this is the line on which educational progress should go. I know not whether he is meditating another Education Bill. If he is, I offer him my most heartfelt sympathy. I do say—and I think hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with us on this side of the House—that all the difficulties we experience proceed from the real facts of life, and the real conscientious opinion on both sides. It is because of the good contained in the views held on both sides that difficulties are experienced when it becomes necessary, from time to time, to deal with the problem from the point of view of the ratepayer, of the administrator, and of the educationist by getting further resources from the State to promote the cause of education That is the policy which I respectfully urge upon my right hon. Friend, and having urged that upon him, I end by thanking him for his speech, and saying

  341
  that the discussion this afternoon will, I am certain, show Members in all parts of the House that we are alike agreed in trying to make the education of our country as valuable in many ways as possible.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I think all Members of the Committee will agree with the last speaker that our thanks are due to the President of the Board of Education for the extremely lucid and full statement which he has given with regard to the existing conditions and prospects of education in all its branches. The area of the subjects which he has covered is so vast that any friendly critic can only hope to deal with one or two of the matters to which he has referred. I cannot help thinking that every critic of the Board of Education ought to be a friendly critic, particularly having regard to the vital matters with which the Board of Education has to deal. The work of the Board should be considered as something altogether outside party politics. The President of the Board of Education rightly suggested that instead of criticising its work, one ought to try and make suggestions, and I hope I will be able to make one or two suggestions which may not be altogether without value to the Board of Education. I should like to join in what the President said in regard to the ability of the permanent staff of the Board. It falls to my lot to have frequent communication with members of the Board of Education, and I can certainly speak to their ability and to the persevering efforts they make in order to do all they possibly can to advance the cause of the different branches of education in which they are concerned. At the same time, there is just one criticism, as regards the work of the Board, which I should like to offer, and that is that the Board, instead of leading opinion too often follows, and at a very long interval, the trend of public opinion, with the result that when they introduce changes, as they frequently do, and as the President informs us they propose to do in the near future, those changes are often somewhat out of harmony with what the existing conditions require.
  I propose to make a few remarks on that all-important branch of education to which the President of the Board of Education referred—I mean our elementary education, because, after all, that is the most important part of the work with which the Board of Education has to deal. Upon its success depends the future of
  342
  the great mass of citizens of this country. For many years—I think I might say for almost thirty years—I have been endeavouring to urge upon the Board of Education the great importance of giving, instruction in our schools of a thoroughly practical kind, and to do so not only by making some form of handicraft an essential part of the instruction in our schools, but by teaching subjects in the schools directly through the medium of the senses, so that our children may not only be passive listeners, but feel that they are taking active part in the instruction which is going forward. From the Report recently published by the Board, it appears that in 1891, the number of schools in which some form of handicraft was taught was 145. Twenty years afterwards, in 1910, that number had increased to 4,264; but, from the statement of the President made this afternoon, it would appear that there are at present 20,757 public elementary schools, so that even now some form of handicraft is taught in not more than 20 per cent. of the schools of the country. In their last Report the Board said:—
  "The need for some form of training in handicraft as part of elementary instruction for boys, was pressed upon the Government in the first report of the Royal Commission on technical education in the year 1882."
  I was a member of that Commission, and, as a member, I visited all the principal schools in nearly every part of Europe. At that time I was very much struck with, the remarkable results of the introduction; of manual training into the boys' schools, in France. That training, it seemed tome, made the French artisans pre-eminent among the workmen of Europe for their initiative, their alertness, their resourcefulness, and for their inventive power. I may say, incidentally, that my acquaintance with French schools since then has-shown me the mistake of trying to Germanise our system of education. I bay that not only of our elementary schools, which I believe are better than the German schools, but also with regard to the teaching of science in the universities and the higher technical schools. Professor Huxley, I noticed, in a book I was reading only yesterday, speaking of the influence of German men of Science, said:—
  "In those constructive processes on which everything most valuable in science depends, the French are their superiors, and the English also."
  6.0 P.M.
  I do not agree with those who attempt in this country to cry up everything German, and to Germanise if possible the whole system of our education.

  343
  It was in 1882 that the Government was pressed, as they themselves state, to introduce some form of handicraft into our elementary schools, yet it was nine years after that, in 1891, that in 145 schools only was handicraft instruction given. Yesterday I came across a letter which illustrates still further what I have been saying as the only criticism I make on the Board. The letter was written to me in the year 1901 by one of the secretaries of the Board of Education, and in it he says:—
  "The point you raise as to the examinations in elementary science is a, very important one, especially in view of the fact that the Board is seeking to discontinue all such examinations."
  What the point was I forget now. That was ten years ago, and we have just heard that only last year the Board came to the conclusion to give up their elementary examinations in science. I quite recognise that the Board are right to take time to consider suggestions which are made to them, but still I think it is almost the duty of the Board to endeavour to lead public opinion rather than to follow it at so long a distance. What, I would ask, is the position of handicraft in our schools at the present time? The President of the Board has spoken very encouragingly as regards the larger amount of instruction given in these various subjects. The report to which I have referred states the number of boys earning Grants increased from 81,292 in 1899 to 187,111 in 1910—that is a very satisfactory increase in ten years. The question I would like to ask the President of the Board is why should those boys be "earning a grant" for handicraft instruction? Why should handicraft at the present moment be regarded as a special grant-earning subject in our schools. Why is it that after twenty years of trial, when it is recognised that the instruction is of the greatest possible value, handicraft is not yet made part of the regular curriculum given in our schools? Surely the time has come when the payment of Grants for special subjects ought to be entirely discontinued. It is nothing more than a relic of the antiquated system of payment by results. What, I venture to think, the Board ought to do is to indicate what should be, within general limits, the curriculum of the elementary school, and to give block Grants to the school, provided all the subjects of instruction are properly taught.
  344
  To regard handicraft as a special grant-earning subject after thirty years of experience in the teaching of that subject appears to me to show an utter misconception of the place it should occupy in our elementary schools. I venture to say that elementary education will continue to be founded on wrong principles until some kind of constructive work is regarded as an essential part of the curriculum of every elementary school. The Board themselves state in their Report that, as the result of experiments in the teaching of handicraft, it is shown that the children "evinced a keener and more intelligent interest in their school work, and generally were more alert and were more resourceful." They go on to state that "handicraft as a subject or as a method," clearly recognising that it should be both, "appears now to be firmly established as an integral part of the curriculum in a large number of schools." If it is so recognised as an integral part of the curriculum, why is it that the Board do not themselves so regard it, treating it in the same way exactly as they treat reading, writing, or arithmetic? But according to the report of the Board, handicraft "is, however, still comparatively a new subject." It is a little remarkable, after thirty years' experience, to speak of handicraft as a comparatively new subject. If it be a new subject, whose fault is it? Surely it must be the fault of the Board of Education for not having given that encouragement to the teaching of the subject which I venture to think it was their duty to do. I perfectly agree with the Board that in the teaching of the subject the greatest possible latitude should be given to the teachers, and that the teaching should be different in our urban and our rural schools, and that even in each of those two types of schools the teaching should be varied according to the different districts and according to the surroundings of the school and the requirements of the locality. So far I also agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford that far less is being done for our rural than for our urban districts. I think that some form of manual instruction is even more important in our rural than in our urban districts, but I will not pursue that matter because I know that the hon. Member for Wiltshire desires to speak on it.
  I have noticed that after many years, the Board have recognised as an educational axiom that the teaching in girls' schools

  345
  should be different from the teaching in boys' schools. To have stated that fact twenty years ago would have given rise to considerable opposition. At present, in our elementary and secondary schools the Board correctly recognise that the kind of handicraft or manual teaching to be given to girls should certainly be differentiated from that given to boys. I am not going to dwell on the extreme importance of giving children in our elementary and secondary schools adequate instruction in domestic subjects—in all matters relating to cleanliness of the home and of the person, to the principles of clothing and to plain cooking. In my opinion, the three C's, cleanliness, clothing, and cooking, are quite as important as the three R's. I may be told that there is some financial difficulty in making handicraft instruction an essential part of the curriculum. The reason likely to be assigned is that the teaching of any form of handicraft is expensive, more expensive even than the teaching of Greek. This is so, and I am quite certain our local authorities cannot bear the burden of increased expenditure. Therefore whilst I sincerely hope that a larger number of schools will be provided with the means of giving handicraft instruction, the additional expense ought certainly to come from the Exchequer and not from the local rates. I earnestly trust that before next year's Estimates are presented to this House, some form of handicraft will be included in the new Code which is about to be issued as a part of the instruction which is essential and indispensable in every public elementary school.
  Closely connected with this matter and with the other matters to which my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford has referred is the question of the school-leaving age. I may say at once that, personally, I am desirous of seeing the school-leaving age raised. I think this reform is far more important than the proposal to enforce attendance at evening schools. I object, if it can be avoided, to all forms of compulsion. It is necessary, I admit, that there should be compulsory education in our day schools, but if we can possibly avoid compelling young persons to go into evening schools I should like to endeavour to do so. Compulsion is the last measure to which we should resort. I am inclined to believe that children would be glad to remain longer in the elementary schools
  346
  if the instruction were made more interesting than it is at present, and, moreover, parents would have less objection to requiring their children to remain longer in the schools if they were more convinced than they are at present, that the education provided in the school would be subsequently useful to them in the work in which they have to engage. Reference has been made to a Bill that was introduced into this House this Session to amend the laws relating to school attendance. That Bill has passed its Second Reading, and is now being considered in a Committee of this House. The effect of that Bill, if passed, will certainly be to lengthen school life and to abolish half-time. I should like to say I approve of both proposals, provided that the instruction given in our schools is based upon sound principles. In the interesting discussion to which my right hon. Friend referred, which took place on the Second Reading of this Bill, it was pointed out—
  Mr. KING: Is it in order to discuss Bills before the House and answer discussions on the Second Reading of those Bills?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I did not gather that the hon. Member was doing that.
  Mr. KING: I did.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is the kind of remark an hon. Member ought to make to the Chair.
  Mr. KING: It was not intended and I beg to withdraw it at once.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: In that discussion on the Second Reading of that Bill it was pointed out that the practical training that is given in the factory, in the field, or in the workshop had a very stimulating effect on the children, producing self-reliance, quickening their observations, and making them better fitted for after life. I believe that is true, but it was also shown that the removal of those children from school at an early age in order that they might obtain half-time work in the factory or elsewhere was injurious in its effects. In that I also agree. It was said, and said correctly, that the atmosphere of the factory certainly did not tend to improve the moral character of the children, and moreover it was pointed out that unless half-timers are educated in special schools the discipline of ordinary schools would be interfered with by removing; the children for a half-day during

  347
  certain days in the week. What is the solution of this difficulty? What we want to do is to unite the advantages of the half-timer with longer school attendance. I think this can be effected by a rearrangement of the curriculum in our elementary schools, so that half the time is devoted to ordinary school instruction and the other half to those practical exercises to which I have referred. There would be no difficulty whatever in adopting such a course. Handicraft exercises, elementary science, and physical training ought to occupy fully half of the child's time at school, and the rest of the time should be devoted to ordinary school subjects. For this purpose it is necessary that the leaving age should be raised, and I am strongly in favour of that being done. If this course were adopted we should have all the advantages which in the discussion to which I have referred were pointed out as appertaining to the kind of training obtained in the factory, together with the advantages of school life. I think that the Board of Education might carefully consider a proposal to lengthen the school life and at the same time to introduce a larger amount of practical instruction. It is quite possible that fewer subjects would have to be taught, but that would be no great disadvantage. What we want is a few subjects taught well, rather than a large number of subjects taught badly or imperfectly. It is very important in elementary as in other branches of education to remember the educational axiom—non multa, sed multum.
  One other subject to which I wish to refer is the importance of linking up elementary and secondary education. This has been attempted by the regulation, introduced by the present Home Secretary when President of the Board of Education, requiring a school receiving full Grants to admit 25 per cent. of children from elementary schools. I have always criticised that regulation as a crude, imperfect, and unscientific means of effecting an object which we all have in view. It is shown to have failed by the very fact that the Board of Education themselves have had to introduce a number of exceptions. During the past year they lessened the number of entrants from elementary schools in 103 cases. I have always opposed that regulation, and experience confirms my opposition. I yield to no one, in this House or out of it, in my
  348
  desire to see full opportunities afforded to every child in the Kingdom to develop all his faculties to the highest level of educational efficiency. At the same time, I do not consider that this is the best means of achieving that object. The Grant paid to a secondary school ought not to depend on any such artificial condition as the number of admissions from public elementary schools. On the whole, I would prefer to give effect to the ideal of the Labour party, and to free our State-aided secondary schools, provided they afforded a suitable after training to our elementary school children. For that reason I am in full agreement with the last two speakers as to the great advantage of encouraging the formation of a larger number of schools having such a curriculum as the higher elementary schools had a few years ago. That would be a form of secondary education of which in any circumstances a large number of children from the elementary schools would be glad to avail themselves. At the present moment there are before Parliament many Bills introduced by private Members dealing with some of the subjects to which reference has been made in this Debate. Some of those Bills overlap, and the Clauses of one Bill are inconsistent with Clauses of another. I think that the whole question of the linking up of elementary and secondary education should be considered either by the Consultative Committee or by some Commission or other Committee. The matter should not be left in the hands of private Members, but, the Government themselves should bring in a comprehensive measure dealing with the whole of this important subject. That is a suggestion which I hope the President of the Board of Education will carefully consider.
  Reference has already been made to the small amount of Grant given by the Board of Education to King's College. Of the total increased amount of £50,000, much less is given to the College than the education which it is now providing would justify. Only £2,000 has been given to King's College, whereas £4,500 has been given to University College. As an old student of University College I should be very glad indeed if £10,000 had been given. At the same time, I fully recognise that the work now being done by King's College is nearly if not quite equal to that of University College. There seems to be no reason whatever for this disproportion in the allocation of the

  349
  £50,000 with which the Board of Education have to deal. King's College is suffering from the fact that it has removed its school; it has also given up its Civil Service classes, which brought in a large amount of income. The consequence is that whilst its work is extending in every direction, and the number of students from the college who take their degrees at the university is every year increasing, the amount of Grant given by the Board of Education is quite disproportionate to the large amount of educational work which the college is doing. I am not certain whether the President of the Board of Education has any fund out of which he can increase this Grant. If not, I sincerely hope that he will bear in mind the claims of King's College when he has to consider the allocation of the Grants next year.
  Sir JAMES YOXALL: In reference to the speech to which we have just listened, a comparison based on the number of schools in which manual training is given is a little misleading, because many of these schools serve as centres to which the children from neighbouring schools are sent. I think my hon. Friend has quite underrated the amount of practical work that is being carried on. He has also, in the latter part of his remarks, somewhat overrated the relative necessity of manual training in the schools. All the children in the elementary schools will not take up manual occupations, and, having regard to the comparatively small number of years that a child spends at school, and the five or five and a half hours in the school day, to give one-half of the day to the subjects to which the hon. Member has referred would require the addition of another year to the school life, which I think would be too large a demand to make, but without it the hon. Member would be unable to provide the requisite commercial training to send out the necessary number of clerks and office boys able to spell correctly and to work sums rapidly. Manual training is not the only subject; there are a number of necessary subjects to be taught in the schools. The hon. Member's speech as a whole was so admirable that it is with all deference I put forward these remarks in the way of criticism. I should like to congratulate the President of the Board of Education on the matter and manner of the speech with which he opened the Debate. That speech, though long, was not tedious; it was full of interest from beginning to end,
  350
  and was an admirable example of what a speech by the President of the Board of Education ought to be. The right hon. Gentleman has not been long at the Board of Education, but he has done very well there already. He does not flash with the brilliancy or assume the degree of omniscience that some of his predecessors have done, but he has brought to a very difficult situation and to the heated condition of affairs at the Board of Education undoubted powers of—I ought not to say appeasement, but for the moment I cannot think of a better word—which have produced throughout the country generally among educational authorities, schools and teachers, a better condition of things than has existed for many years past.
  The right hon. Gentleman has shown by his speech that he proposes to carry that policy further. He has referred to a council of teachers, and announced his intention of bringing before that council for consideration, consultation and advice, questions on which the Board may require assistance of that kind. He has also announced a totally new departure in the endeavour to set up a consultative committee of members or representatives of educational authorities. I remember that six months ago not only were the teachers on their part complaining of the absence of any proper method of consultation, but the local education authorities were complaining that they were not taken into consultation; they were anxious to constitute a committee of the kind suggested, and to force upon the Board, if it were still unwilling, their opinion and advice. Fortunately for the state of education of the country generally, the President of the Board has taken the step which he has now announced. With regard to the superannuation of teachers, both in elementary and in secondary schools, I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the grant of money and the honest endeavours they have made to bring about some improvement in the too meagre superannuation allowance in the one case, and to give some allowance where before it was totally absent in the other. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he proposes to set up a Committee to settle certain details in regard to the Grants which are to be added to the expenditure by the Board on the superannuation of teachers in public elementary schools. May I take it that I am right in assuming that certain points of detail will be

  351
  referred to this Departmental Committee? I understand the Committee will consider whether this total sum of £200,000 is to be spent all in one year, or spread over ten or twenty years, and whether at the end of the stated period it is possible the money may or may not be all spent, and as to "whether it will provide the benefits which the right hon. Gentleman announced to-day? Will it also consider the question of an increased rate per £ per year paid by the State in superannuation in respect to every year that the teacher has served in the school, and also an increasing rate of disablement allowance in the case of the teacher breaking down, and not being able to continue because of severe and continued ill-health? I understand that the Committee is to consider and to find out actuarially whether the amount at their disposal will enable the benefits to be conferred on the teachers as a whole, and, if so, what those benefits should be?
  I trust the right hon. Gentleman will keep before him the case of the oldest teachers in the country, the men and women who began to teach as pupil teachers or assistant teachers, some of them as far back as 1847, and who, in entering the profession between 1847 and 1861, established thereby the right to the only kind of pension then in existence, which at the age of sixty-five meant £20, £25, or £30 per year. Some hundreds of these old men and women are still living on as best they can on this pittance. They were teachers in this country at a time when teaching was worse paid than ever since. They "were teachers at a period when it was the most difficult kind of work possible, because of the indiscipline and general ignorance of the whole population. They were badly paid. They were retired upon these pittances. I should like to know if this Committee will take their case into consideration, and will say that out of this £200,000 they will put aside a few pounds more per year to be added to the pensions of the old woman of eighty who is living upon a pension of £20, or the old man of seventy who is living upon a pension of £25?
  The next case in point of urgency is that of those teachers retired upon a pension under the existing Act. My right hon. Friend referred to the maximum possible under the existing Act as being £59 in the case of a man and £40 in the case of a woman. He did not tell the Committee—I know he did not mean to keep it from
  352
  the Committee, but I think it ought to be explained—that out of these sums of £59 and £40 often at least two-thirds, if not three-fourths, is drawn from the accrued value of the contributions made year by year by the teachers themselves. Will the State contribute a little more generously in the average case, and will those teachers, who have retired, or may retire, the day before the date of the new Bill becoming an Act thereby by the mere lapse of a day, or a week, or a quarter, cut out of the benefits of the augumented pension? The third case I would plead for as a subject for consideration by this Departmental Committee is that of the teachers who did not accept the Act in 1889, are now outside it altogether, and have no right or claim whatever to any pension from the State; yet they are still teaching in the schools upon exactly the same footing as those teachers in the same schools who will receive the benefit of the improved superannuation. Can something be done to admit these teachers to the benefits of the Act? There was some question raised by a deputation to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the methods whereby teachers might retire at an earlier age than sixty-five, not being broken down in health, but retiring as they were very weary, and not quite able to carry on the work much longer. I hope that matter will come before the Departmental Committee.
  In full confidence that the Committee will do its work well, and that the whole of these matters will receive their sympathetic consideration, I leave the matter there for the present, and pass on to a point of criticism, the only one I wish to raise. The President of the Board of Education referred to Circular 786. He said it had been misunderstood. Circular 786 has reference to schools of art and teachers in schools of art. I agree with, with him that it must have been very gravely misunderstood, for it does not appear that the interpretation put upon it by the Board of Education is the interpretation that is put upon it by the schools of art and those interested in the country. There are many points that I might dwell upon in that circular, but I will take only two. The circular refers to scholars or students, then to pupil teachers in the schools of art. As I read it, it says with regard to both of the classes that henceforward a secondary education or the general education given preliminarily in a. secondary school up to the age of sixteen

  353
  will be required. That is to say, that not only those who wish to be pupil teachers, school teachers, or school masters, or school mistresses, shall have to have a good general education up to the age of sixteen as a preliminary to their education in art—a thing to which I take no exception whatever—but that it shall be required from the boys and girls leaving the elementary schools and going into the schools of art. It also is to be required in the case of the boy or girl in the public elementary school, who, leaving that school at the age of fourteen and having displayed distinct artistic capacity, wishes to go into the school of art as they have done in the past, and are doing at the present time, and who will not be able to go in for these excellent examinations to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I certainly approve, so far as I can judge, of the change in the whole system of examination, but I should like to have from my right hon. Friend two assurances.
  The first is that the circular will not be so used, and is not intended to be so used, as to prevent the boy or girl exhibiting special artistic capacity, the young apprentice to a bookbinder, the young brass-worker, the young silverplate worker, at the age of fifteen going to a school of art and having the full benefit of the teaching of that school, simply because he or she has not been to a secondary school up to the age of sixteen. My right hon. Friend will, I believe, give me that assurance. I cannot agree that the apprentice teachers in the Schools of Art should be required to go through some regular course of continued secondary education, or obtain its equivalent in some other way. I want to be quite sure that the circular will not be applied to those already in the school. As the circular is worded it appears that from 1st January, 1913, the change shall take place, irrespective of its retrospective action upon pupil teachers already in the schools. That would be most unfair. I hope before the Debate closes the Committee may receive the assurance that this retrospective action upon the young teachers will not take place, and that there will be nothing to prevent the young artisan of thirteen or fourteen, in a craft where artistic training is required, taking the full benefit in future as he has done in the past of the Schools of Art throughout the country. That is all the criticism I have to make, all the fault I have to find. A contrast, I may observe to what has been, the case in former years.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: In the observations I desire to address to the Committee I can compress my observations into a few moments, and direct them to one particular case, that of St. Joseph's Roman Catholic schools, Nymphsfield, Gloucester. The President dealt with the facts of the case. They are very simple, and can be briefly stated. In 1900 there was only one school in this particular village, and that school was an Anglican voluntary school. The heads of the school agreed to transform it into a council school. This school apparently did not fulfil all the educational demands of the village, and there was a request made to a Catholic lady, Miss Leigh—she did not approach those concerned—but she was approached by the inspector of schools, and urged to establish a school for the children who did not desire to go to the council school. At first she was rather reluctant to undertake the duty, because she did not think she would be able to find sufficient scholars for such a school. After making inquiries, however, she found she could get a sufficient number of scholars to attend the school, and on 29th October, 1900, the school was opened. The school proved efficient almost immediately, and ever since it has been honoured every year in succession by extremely favourable reports from the inspector of schools. Nobody, in fact, denies the thorough efficiency of the school.
  In this school at the present moment there are the majority of the children of the village. It is some testimony, not merely to the educational efficiency of the school, but to the kindly, generous, and tolerant spirit in which it is conducted, that a certain proportion of the children in the school are Nonconformist children. The council school, although it is a council school, is largely under the control of members of the Church of England, and its entire attendance consists of children of Church of England parents. Nonconformist parents apparently have preferred to send their children to the Catholic school. At the present time, I believe, the school has in it something approaching seventy children. Some half of these, if not a larger proportion, are Catholic children belonging to the locality. There are, in addition, a number of boarded-out children. The majority of the population of the village are Catholics, according to the latest returns that can be got from attendance at religious services. I believe these facts will not be disputed. Ninety Catholics are found on Sunday to be at

  355
  Mass, thirty people are to be found at the Church service, and twenty-six at the chapel, so that a majority of the children of the village of school age attending school are Catholic and a majority of the population of the village belong to the same denomination as the school. The school has now been in existence for ten or eleven years. It has maintained that high character to which I have already referred all through that period, and it desires, of course, to be put into the same position as the other voluntary schools of the country and to get support from the State. I am unable to say on what ground that support can be refused, and that is also the opinion of the local education committee. They have more than once, I believe, declared their readiness to offer no opposition whatever towards the recognition of this school by the Department. The only body that stands in the way is the County Council of Gloucestershire. So far as the President of the Board of Education is concerned, it is in justice to the temperate spirit in him which is recognised in all parts of the House as to the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has conducted his Department that I venture to think he would not stand in the way of the recognition of this school.
  I am not able to penetrate the reasons which have influenced the action of the county council. I am all the more surprised because I understand the majority of the county council are Churchmen, and of course see eye to eye in many respects with the community to which this school belongs on the question of the recognition of voluntary schools. I should hope there will be an expresseion of opinion in various parts of the House in favour of the recognition of this school, and I urge upon the President of the Board of Education to use the powers at his disposal for the recognition of this school even if the county council does, as I hope it will not, persist in its opposition. I urge that for this reason. In all the Debates we have had upon the schools' question, hot and fierce as they were, I think we have all agreed upon the principle that in regard to certain districts in the country where parties are divided there should be the power of appeal to the Department, because we are all of the conviction that a public Department trying to carry out education as best it can will be free from those local jealousies and bitternesses which are such
  356
  an obstruction towards the friendly conduct of education in the country, and I think that if we could get an appeal to the Department it would be a safeguard against the oppression of minorities, Catholic, Anglican, and Nonconformist. I may not say it would be an adequate safeguard, but certainly it will be a very good form of appeal. This is one of the cases where the President of the Board of Education might justify the hopes placed in his Department by seeing justice done.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: I am sorry to take up the time of the Committee upon an occasion like this, when so many hon. Members wish to speak and when the time at our disposal is so short. The matter to which I direct attention is a small one, but there is a very large principle involved, and as I have failed so far to induce the Board of Education to deal with this matter in the spirit in which I think they ought, I feel bound to bring it before the Committee. It is the case of the education of a boarded-out child. I think I shall be right in saying that hon. Members, on whatever side they sit, are agreed that children who come under the Poor Law should be boarded out, and I think I am also stating what is common ground when I say that the first function of the Board of Education is to see that that education is provided, and consequently to see that that provision is made use of. In the present instance I shall have to show the Committee that the Board of Education, far from seeing that education is given to boarded-out children, has adopted a principle which absolutely excludes certain boarded-out children from being educated at all. There are several cases in point, but I only mean to deal with one, because it is connected with the constituency I represent. It is the case of the Newhaven Board of Guardians, who boarded out a child in the county of Hampshire under the local education authority.
  This child attended a school in the Southampton educational authorities' area. In August last a demand was received by the Newhaven guardians for the payment of school fees. The Newhaven guardians made inquiries, and they found that the East Sussex County Council, in whose area they are, did not charge school fees for children boarded out in Sussex, and it seemed to them hardly fair, seeing they paid their contribution towards children boarded out in their area for years, that they should pay a contribution for

  357
  children boarded out by them in the Southampton area, and they declined. A correspondence ensued between the Newhaven Board of Guardians and the County of Hampshire Local Education Authority, and the Board of Education. Here is a letter from the Board of Education to the Newhaven guardians:—
  "Sir,—In reply to your letter of the 31st ultimo, I have written to say that although Section 2 of the Elementary Education Act of 1900 does not make a contribution by the guardians obligatory in respect of the education of Poor Law children in public elementary schools, it was expressly intended to meet this case for the provision of public elementary school accommodation, which would impose a burden upon the area in which the child is boarded out. The Board therefore think it reasonable for the local education authority to refuse admission to its school unless the guardians are prepared to fall in with the provisions of the Section."
  There was no extra expense in this case upon the Southampton education authority, because there was ample room at the school. The child was already attending there, no extra teachers were required, and indeed so far as the Southampton education authority was concerned, this child was a source of profit, because he helped to earn the grant without any extra cost, and had brought a sum of between £12 and £14 a year, all of it money spent locally into that district, therefore I do not think the Southampton authority have any grievance so far as this child is concerned. The Board of Education by their action eventually excluded this child from the school, and have continued to do so up to the present time. This child is receiving no education at all; he is excluded from the school and is left to play about or get into mischief or do anything he likes in the neighbourhood in which he resides. It places this boarded-out child in a very invidious position when he is not allowed to go to the public elementary school. It is not as if the Board of Education always took up this attitude in regard to boarded-out children. I happen to be in possession of a letter written from the Board of Education in 1897, at a time when the public elementary schools were paid for very largely by private individuals. I have their letter written in regard to a certain Church school where the managers were finding accommodation and education for boarded-out children. What did the Board of Education then write?—
  "Reverend Sir,—Referring to your letter I am directed to state that my lords recognise no distinction between children boarded out and other children in the place, so long as the children are resident in the district where the public elementary school is provided."
  358
  If the Board of Education felt it necessary to force the Church authorities to provide for these children at that time, and to find accommodation for boarded-out children, on what ground does it now exclude such a child when there is ample accommodation, and when it is paid for by the public authority? I think I am entitled to press for an answer on this matter, because it affects not only this one case: there is another case where similar action has been taken in regard to the same Southampton area. The child is now nine years of age, and for the last seven years has been residing in the Hampshire Union, and now he is to be forbidden any education at all, and kept out of it by the Board of Education until the guardians either like to pay or remove the child. We all know what the feelings of the local boards are, and we know they do not like to be treated unjustly, and if the Board of Education think it is not fair that a child boarded out should receive free education let them lay down a definite rule. Let them insist upon all boards of guardians paying for boarded-out children or say, "We will not enforce that rule, and if the local education authorities do not charge in one case they shall not charge in another." It is very undesirable that this present system, by which it is obligatory and not compulsory, should continue. Let the Board of Education settle it one way or another. There is nothing in the Act of 1890 which says that the foster-parents should be deprived of the right of having the child educated, and I think the Board of Education would be carrying out their duties much more in accordance with the manner in which they should if they first gave consideration to the child and insisted that it should have education, instead of taking the extreme and most disgraceful step of excluding the child from education and taking no steps to see that the child should get education anywhere else. While this conflict was going on during the last six months I approached the President of the Local Government Board and he sent down an inspector, who has now arranged with the Newhaven guardians to take away the child and send him to the training ship in order to end this squabble I do not see any excuse why the Board of Education should have forced this child away from the school and placed him in a most invidious position for the last six months and jeopardised his future. I hope the President of the Board of Education will assure the Committee that he is going to put an end to

  359
  this system, and if he feels that boarded-out children should be paid for that he will take steps to make it universal and not exercise the discretionary power vested in him to refuse education to a particular child.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I should like to join with hon. Members who have preceded me in congratulating the President of the Board of Education upon the very able statement which he has made, and the manner in which he proposes to manage his Government Department in co-operation with the local authorities. I know that they are anticipating a much more pleasant time under his jurisdiction than they have had in the past, and they certainly reciprocate his very kind feelings in regard to future work. I should like to refer to the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Sir W. Anson), in which he regretted that higher elementary schools were not more numerous in the country at the present time. I think we all regret that such schools are not more numerous than they are, but I think we can trace the decline of higher elementary schools— or what we used to call higher grade schools—to the Cockerton Judgment, when we had a large number of first-class higher grade schools in existence which the Cockerton Judgment destroyed. Local authorities erected schools at very great cost. In my own town we erected a school at a cost of over £22,000, and this was converted into a purely elementary school at great cost to the local authority. It is since that date that the decline in the number of higher elementary schools has taken place. That, I think, is a very serious drawback.
  Another drawback is that the quality of education given in the higher elementary schools is almost equivalent, although I do not say equal, to the education given now in our public secondary schools, but the difference between the Grants and the cost of conducting a higher elementary school is so great that with rates increasing as they are local authorities hesitate to erect or to start any further higher elementary schools. I think that is a serious drawback. We are now establishing, under the Act of 1902, a system of secondary schools in most of the progressive counties. For instance, in the county of Durham we have now sixteen of what we call Division I. schools under the
  360
  control of the higher education committee. These sixteen schools are financed by the county council. When the Act of 1902 came into operation in 1904 there was not a single one of these schools in existence, and, therefore, you had the local authorities hesitating to erect higher elementary schools in addition to the secondary schools which they have been compelled to erect. Where they are permitted they charge fees and they are practically compelled to charge them. In addition to that they obtain a Grant of £5 per head per scholar as against a Grant of 30s. before in the higher elementary schools, and 45s. for the second year, rising to 60s. in the third year. I would like to make two suggestions here. I am at one with the right hon. Member for the Oxford University in thinking that we ought to link up now that we have a large addition of boys and girls from the elementary schools going into the secondary schools. We ought to have something to link up with these children better than we have at the present time. I think the higher elementary schools, more especially in our large industrial centres, ought to be encouraged, and I should like to see a much higher Grant by the Department towards these schools. I think they ought to start with £3 at least for the first year, and that would encourage local authorities, and it would pay something towards the establishment of the more costly schools.
  My second suggestion is this. In many places there is not the facility for erecting a higher elementary school. I should like to see the Board of Education encouraging upper standard schools, grouping schools or districts together, and having an upper standard school for the advanced scholars so that they can be prepared for our secondary schools. There, again, that requires very expensive teachers and better equipped schools, and I would suggest that the Board of Education should take that factor into consideration, because in the county I live in there are some districts where we have started an upper standard school with that object in view, so that the boys and girls could go from the elementary school to be trained in an upper standard school, and then go on to the secondary school. I offer those suggestions to the President of the Board of Trade, because I think, from my practical experience in regard to the working of elementary schools and secondary schools, they would certainly be a great advantage to education.

  361
  I intended to call attention to two subjects. The first was raised by the President of the Board of Education, and it relates to the possible shortage of teachers. This is going to be a very serious master, and in a few years we shall have a great dearth of teachers. That is quite evident, because the local education authorities are becoming alarmed. We consider that the present system for the entrance of candidates for pupil teachers has broken down. We are strongly of that opinion. The system has broken down because the Board of Education a few years ago acted rather prematurely in abolishing the pupil teacher centres. I think that was a very great error, because they made it a condition that a child or an applicant should have had two years in a secondary school. In a county like ours, when the Act came into operation in 1904, we had not 1 per cent. of our population in secondary schools—in fact, we had no such schools except of a semi-private nature. Everybody knows it takes a considerable amount of time to start secondary schools. You have your scheme to adopt, schools to erect, difficulties with the Board of Education, and after that it takes a few years before you can get your system into operation. In the county in which I live we have sixteen secondary schools, and we are spending this year £83,000 upon higher education. That is a very large sum of money, but we feel that the system of exacting two years' residence or a term of two years in those secondary schools precedent to an applicant becoming a pupil teacher or candidate militates against candidates applying. Let me give the figures so far as my own county is concerned, because I think they are illustrative of all parts of the country. It is estimated that we have a wastage of 390 teachers. In 1907 we had 470 candidates, and that was before the pupil teacher centres were abolished. Then we had 470 candidates for pupil teacherships, and that number fell in 1908 to 416, and in 1902 we had only 142 applicants. Therefore the number has dropped from 470 to 142. That is a very serious deduction, and when we have to supply a wastage of 390 teachers the Committee will see that in a county like ours we are bound to have a very great shortage of teachers.
  I understand that the Board of Education have appointed a Committee to investigate this matter, and it is certainly very urgent. We suggest that the pupil teacher centres should be re-established,
  362
  and they should be attached either to the secondary school or to the advanced upper standard school where secondary schools do not exist. I think that where you have the pupil teachers specially trained in a separate department it is a great advantage to the pupil teachers, and certainly it is a greater advantage to the candidates to come forward. The next point I wish to call attention to is local expenditure on education. I am not a person who believes in Grants-in-Aid, because I think it is a system which leads to very great extravagance. I have held that view for many years, and I am bound to say I have come to the conclusion that it is quite impossible now for education authorities to go on with the vast expenditure they have to incur under the Act of 1902. I have heard speeches from the other side over and over again charging this Government with placing upon the local education authorities increased expenditure by medical examination and such things. I may tell the House that that is a mere flea-bite in comparison with what we have to spend. I am going to give as an instance my own county because I want to give a practical illustration. I have had the figures taken out and I want to show what happens not only in the case of counties, but in the case of borough councils, and what they have to suffer under the Act of 1902. Out of £486,000 expenditure in 1912 we are only spending £3,700 upon medical examination. Anyone will see at once that that is a mere flea-bite in comparison with the great cost of education. Perhaps this statement will surprise the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Oxford University, because when I quoted the figures before I think he was alarmed. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the Act of 1902, or whether he was in charge of the Education Department, because I was not in the House at the time. That Act has really created a revolution in this country.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: And a very good one.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Although I am a pronounced Nonconformist, I admit that this Act has done a great deal of good, Why-do I say it has done a great good? This Act, when it is worked in the sense it ought to be worked, has created a revolution. It may startle the House when I tell it that we have increased the accommodation in the county of Durham by 74,896 places. There was in the county schools in 1904 accommodation for 41,706 children.

  363
  That has grown till last year there was accommodation for 116,602. That is a tremendous total, and it has really settled the educational controversy, because if you can turn our children into the public schools the education question is solved. How has this taken place? We have had 101 Church of England or non-provided schools transferred to the local authorities, and I may say that to my own knowledge the President of the Board of Education—I mean Lord Londonderry—has transferred one himself. When the local authorities served him with a notice to improve a school he possessed outside Durham he, as a wise man, transferred that school to the local authority, and we have built a splendid school in its stead. There were in the non-provided schools when we took them over in 1904 accommodation for 89,561 places. That was reduced last year to 44,653. In other words, there was a transfer of 44,908 places from the non-provided to the provided schools. That is an enormous turnover. In addition to that, we have had an increase in the population, and we have had to make provision for that to the extent of something like 29,988 places, which makes the 74,896 new places which the council have provided. In other words, the council now is in possession of 234 schools, whereas when the Act came into operation they were only in possession of ninety-six. We have not had a single complaint from a single parent in the county with regard to those transfers, and, not only have we not had any complaints, but we have been congratulated everywhere upon the schools.
  It is unfair and extremely hard that the local ratepayers in a county like Durham—I am only giving this as a practical illustration—should be called upon to bear the whole of this cost, because we cannot help it. A large number of these schools were in a very disgraceful state, and, when the large colliery owners and the other people who were in possession of them found they had to pay the education rate in addition to keeping up their schools and improving them from a sanitary point of view, they came to the conclusion it was much better for them to transfer the responsibility for them to the county council. The result has been that up to the present time we have had to spend £756,788 upon our voluntary schools. That is a very large sum. We have spent upon secondary schools £150,000 and upon the training college
  364
  £2,725, making altogether a total of £911,000; and we have commitments up to the present time of £392,000, including £40,000, our share of the training college. We shall therefore in the course of the next year or two have spent no less than £1,304,000 upon new schools. I say that it is a very serious charge to make upon the ratepayers. The President of the Board of Education knows the county of Durham. He lives in the county, and he was a member of our county council. I want to point out to him the seriousness of this to the ratepayers. It has come to this: We cannot go on unless we get some assistance from the Government. There is a charge of £75,910 a year for interest and repayment of loans. That is made up of a charge of £42,000 on the county council, and one of £33,000 on the separate areas under Section 18 of the Act of 1902, which permits the county council to charge separate areas to the extent of 50 per cent. The result is that some of these areas have a rate of no less than 10¾d. in the £. That is a very serious charge in addition to the rate of 1s. 4d. in the £.
  Let me point out another feature of this expenditure. While the Act of 1902 compelled a local authority to pay the teachers without having full control over them, there was no provision made for any additional Grant to the local authorities towards that cost. When we took over the schools in 1904 we had to level up the salaries of the whole of the teachers in the non-provided schools. They were paid 11s. per head less than the teachers in the old board schools. In 1906 we spent £212,000 upon teachers' salaries. In 1912 that was increased to £321,000, an increase in six years of no less than £109,000. In 1906, two years after the Act was brought into operation, the cost amounted to 39s. 7d. per scholar, and in 1912 it had increased to 51s. 3d. per scholar, or an increase of 11s. 8d. per scholar, showing that we had made a great advance in levelling up the salaries of our teachers. The cost of the maintenance of the schools has increased 3s. 7d. per scholar, and the loans have increased 4s. 7d. per scholar. In 1906 the Grants from the Government amounted to £203,000, or at the rate of 38s. per scholar. That had increased in 1912 to £257,000, or 41s. per scholar, an increase of 3s. per scholar. In 1906 we spent from the rates £83,000, and in 1912 that had increased to £208,000, or an increase of £125,000 against an increase of £54,000 from the State. That is a very

  365
  serious charge. While the rate per scholar from the Government only increased by 3s., the increase from the rates amounted to 17s. 7d. per head.
  This increase is going on at the rate of £15,000 per year. It is bound to go on, and, with this increased cost, it is quite impossible in my opinion for the local authorities to undertake this vast expenditure of money without they obtain some additional Grant from the State. I wish to make a suggestion to the President of the Board of Education and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think it is a practical one. It is that we should have some assistance in the form of a building Grant. Where local authorities are compelled to build largely to make provision for increasing population and to replace transferred schools which are in bad condition and have to be pulled down, I think the Government ought to give them increased Grants. I was very pleased to-day to read an article in the "Westminster Gazette" upon this very point. The writer suggests that to solve this great difficulty the Government ought to come to the rescue of the local authorities by giving them a building Grant. This would encourage them to go on building better schools. There is continuous grumbling by local ratepayers. In some of our towns the education rate is working to 1s. 10d. and 2s. in the £, and it will soon be above 2s. I regard this as being a very serious matter, and I hope the President of the Board of Education, now he is installed in his office, will, with his practical knowledge of the working of our local authorities and his sympathy for them, take the facts I have given him into consideration, and I trust, if not this year, then next year, the Government will bring in some scheme which will alleviate to some extent the sufferings of our local ratepayers.
  Mr. HOARE: I remember that during this Debate last year one of the features which came most prominently to the front was the serious controversy that had arisen between the Board of Education and local authorities in the country. I am glad to think that, during the time the present President of the Board of Education has been in office this difficulty has, to a great extent been allayed. I am sure it is a matter of the greatest satisfaction to those who are engaged in the local administration of education to know how close and sympathetic an interest the right hon. Gentleman is taking in their
  366
  daily work. Perhaps he will pardon me if I mention a single example. I understand that during the last few weeks he has been devoting much of his fully-occupied time to visiting many of the schools and educational establishments in the county of London. It is a matter of great satisfaction, both to members of the London education committee and to the officials who are engaged in the administration of education in London to know that the right hon. Gentleman is taking so close an interest in their work. The remarks I intend to make will be much more in the nature of suggestions than of hostile criticism. The hon. Member who has just spoken referred to the great difficulties which arise in connection with the cost of education in its various branches. He alluded to the cost in the county of Durham. Let me supplement what he said with one or two examples taken from the county of London. In various directions London feels aggrieved at the amount of assistance it is receiving from the National Exchequer. Some years ago a Grant was offered under certain conditions to what were known as necessitous school areas. It may seem to be a curious state of affairs when I tell the Committee that, for one reason or another, the county of London has been reduced to the condition of a necessitous school area—a most curious basis to take for your Exchequer Grant. But when once you take it, it seems to be particularly unfair, as soon as you have a great local authority like the county of London eligible for such a Grant, to say that you will not give it to any new area, however necessitous, if it has not received such a Grant in the past.
  The President of the Board, in his interesting statement, alluded to the necessity for doing more for mentally and physically defective children. Under the Defective and Epileptic Education Act of 1893 the county of London has been taking action in the direction of providing school accommodation both for cripples and for mental defectives. I understand that at the present moment half the accommodation provided for these children is provided in the county of London, and, in view of that fact, it seems hard upon London that it should not be receiving its proper share of the Grant. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the figures he will find that the actual Grant falls considerably short of the 50 per cent. to which, in my opinion, the county of London is entitled. I need not allude to many

  367
  other difficulties that face great urban areas like London. Let me only say this. One of the difficulties of London is to find sites for new schools or to enlarge the sites of old schools, and the fact that London has very often to spend £20,000, £30,000, or even £40,000 on a particular site for a new school should, I think, induce the authorities at Whitehall to deal with it more liberally in the matter of financial Grants. We certainly have a very strong claim for more favourable treatment than we have received in the past.
  Last year, in the course of a somewhat bitter controversy, the Board of Education fined the county of London £10,000 for what they said was a refusal to carry out certain regulations in the Code. I understand that an arrangement has been come to under which, in the course of a number of years—I believe it is fifteen years—the county of London will spend not less than a capital sum of £5,000,000 in putting its classrooms into the condition desired by the Board of Education. In view of that fact I think it is exceedingly hard, when you have shown that London is anxious to do not only what is necessary, but to set an example to the other great local authorities, that it should still be insisted that this very unjust fine, as we consider it, should be enforced. The President also alluded to the excellent work that is being done in our trade schools—work which he described in this sentence:—
  "The experience connected with these schools is surprisingly satisfactory."
  I am sure that anyone who has had practical experience of the working of these schools and classes in great areas like London will agree with every word that the right hon. Gentleman said. But let me impress upon the Committee the fact that these classes are extremely expensive. Let me give one example to show what the best trade classes that are now held in London are costing. They are the classes in the girls' trade schools. At the present moment the London ratepayers are finding £11,996 for these particular classes, while the Board of Education, which expresses its satisfaction at the conspicuous success of the classes, is only finding a sum of £2,237. In other words the National Exchequer is only encouraging this most excellent industrial training to the extent of 18.6 per cent. of the entire cost. In view of that fact the Committee will, I am sure, agree with me when I say
  368
  it is extremely difficult to extend these expensive classes in the way we should desire if we do not receive more generous Grants from the National Exchequer.
  Then the President also alluded to what is a very real difficulty the local education authorities have to face, and that is the possibility of a dearth of teachers in the course of the next few years. It has been suggested that the solution of this difficulty is to be found in the payment of better salaries to teachers by the local authorities. To a great extent I agree, and I am glad to think that, at any rate in London, the salaries of teachers have been very considerably raised during the last five or six years. But that is not the only difficulty. In spite of the fact that in London we have, on the one hand, raised the salaries, and, on the other hand, have provided for an extensive system of superannuation, to the extent of not less than £45,000 a year, the number of candidates for the teaching profession in the London, training colleges has fallen off to a remarkable extent. I find, for instance, that while in the year 1908–1909 there were 1,171 candidates for the teaching profession from the various London colleges, at the present moment there are only 435. Now I believe that, in the course of the next few years, we shall require more, rather than less trained teachers. Figures of this kind seem to point in the direction of there being a very real shortage when the increased demand arises. I hope, therefore, that the President of the Board of Education will take an early opportunity of consulting the new body which I am glad to think he is about to set up— a body of representatives of the various local educational organisations, with a view to coming to some conclusion, first, as to what should be the policy of the Board with reference to the qualifications and number of teachers during the next few years; and, secondly, what the various local authorities can be reasonably called upon to supply. The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to the question of the universities. I am glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for London University has put in a claim for an increased Grant to King's College. That seems to me to be a demand with a very good foundation, for I find, in looking at the statistics regarding the Board of Education Grants for university education in England and Wales, that the percentage of the National Grant to London represents only 30 per cent. of the entire cost of universities in England and Wales. I do not

  369
  grudge Wales the 53 per cent. which it receives, but what is fair in the case of Wales is also fair, surely, in the case of England generally and particularly in the case of London.
  There is one special example I would like to bring to the notice of the President of the Board, and that is the example of the Imperial College of Science and Technology. It seems to me that there is here a magnificent opportunity of doing some extremely useful work to assist university education in the capital of the Empire. I believe that that institution, which should hold a unique place amongst the educational institutions in this country, demands something like £100,000 a year if it is to be made as successful as everyone desires it to be. A Grant of £20,000 a year from the Board of Education seems to be scarcely adequate for such a great and excellent institution. I am aware that during the past two or three years the Board has thought that the county council should do more than it has done for that institution, but I desire to remind the Committee that a great institution of that kind is really national rather than local. That can be proved by examining the origin of the students who are now following courses in it. In view of that fact it is for the Board to show the way, and then for the local education authority to supplement, so far as it is able, the generous treatment which I hope the Board will give to it in future.
  There is only one other subject with which I desire to trouble the Committee. I hope they will bear with me while I allude to it, for no detailed allusion has yet been made to it. I refer to the question of medical treatment. During the last two or three years hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have been pressing the Board of Education to make a Grant towards medical inspection and medical treatment. I am very glad to think that the time has come when they are prepared to make such a Grant. I am glad that is so both from the point of view of the local education authorities, who urgently need the money, and also from the point of view of the Board of Education itself, for it has seemed to me inevitable that if the Board of Education had refused to make a financial Grant it would have lost all control over what will be in the future one of the most important branches of public work in our educational system. But when I come to the conditions under which the Grant is going to be
  370
  made, I think there is some ground for apprehension. In the first place, I do not think that £60,000, which works out at about £200 for each local education authority, will be adequate. I was glad to hear the President state that he looked forward to the Grant being increased in the future. In the second place, I am not quite sure that the Regulations may not be used for imposing upon local education authorities one uniform system of medical treatment. That is a very important point for this Committee to consider. I have read the various reports of the Board's medical officer, and I have also followed the correspondence that has been going on between the Board and the London County Council, and I own that I have come to the conclusion that what the officials of the Board and the President of the Board seem to desire is, that a uniform system of what are known as school clinics should be set up in London and in other parts of the country. I am quite aware that many sentences might be quoted both from the medical officer's reports and from the President's own speeches to show that they are anxious that attention should be paid to the existing provision, but if I mistake not their general trend, it is in the direction of setting up a uniform system of school clinics everywhere. That would be a matter of very great regret.
  I take the case of London. In London you have a whole variety of agencies, institutions, hospitals, dispensaries, nursing associations, and charitable institutions, and a large body of leisured voluntary workers, all capable of assisting most materially the work of medical treatment. It would be a very unfortunate thing in two directions if this voluntary work was regarded askance and a system of school clinics was imposed upon the county of London when you have this whole variety and network of other agencies already in existence. I said it would be a drawback in two directions. Let me explain to the Committee what I mean. I believe that one of the causes which have led to the comparative failure in certain directions of the Education Act, 1870, has been that you have failed to excite the interest of the parents in the education of their children. I believe that if you remove yet another branch of educational work from the purview of the parents to the purview of specialists and officials, you will accentuate that failure. I am quite aware that in every area you must have a large number of specialists and officials, that you

  371
  must have in a matter such as medical treatment, provision, where no other such provision exists, under the control and supervision of the local authority, but side by side with that I am most anxious that you should continue to have medical treatment not only in school clinics, but also in the homes and rooms of the parents of the children who need to be treated. I believe it will very often come about that, although such kind of treatment may be more expensive, both in time and money, you will be conferring a much more lasting benefit upon the parent and upon the child by sending a nurse or doctor to the parent's own home, where the influence of the doctor or the nurse will be not restricted to the one particular child, but reflected upon the whole family and the whole surroundings of the household.
  In another direction I believe it would be most unfortunate if any uniform system of school clinics were imposed upon education areas. I believe that one of the great dangers of the future is that you will have two classes; you will have a class, or caste, of officials growing greater every year, and you will have the general body of the public. If you insist upon a uniform system of school clinics you will be putting the whole of the medical treatment into the hands of official specialists. It therefore seems to me that the kind of experiment which the London County Council have initiated of leaving medical treatment, where there is no other provision, in the hands of the general practitioners of the neighbourhood in what are known as Medical Treatment Centres, deserves very great encouragement, for thereby you bring into this magnificent work not only the official specialist but the general practitioner acquainted with all the local characteristics, both of the neighbourhood and of his patients in that particular neighbourhood. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board comes to reply in this Debate this evening, he will be able to reassure those of us who are anxious that no voluntary agency, where it is efficient, should be excluded from this very necessary work. What the Board should consider in making their Grants is not the particular locality in which medical treatment may be given, but simply and solely the efficiency of the particular kind of treatment. I think it is most important, when you have got a whole variety of agencies and institutions capable of doing magnificent work, that
  372
  you should not put your forces on parallel lines, where they will never meet, still less should you put them on black and white squares, where they will simply checkmate each other. I am very much afraid that if any exclusive system, such as I have suggested, is imposed, you will be excluding from this excellent work the whole variety of bodies, and people, and institutions, who might assist you in a most efficient and excellent way. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reassure us on that point, and I hope he will have some comfort to offer us upon the various financial details which I have ventured to place before the Committee.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): I am not rising in order to try to bring the Debate to a conclusion, as I understand there will be a considerable opportunity after the private Bill has been disposed of for other Members to address the Committee, but as several questions have been raised, and hon. Members may wish for an answer at the present time, I am going to reply to one or two of them. I think, perhaps, the most interesting subject raised this afternoon was that to which the hon. Member for the London University (Sir P. Magnus) paid a good deal of attention. That was the practical character of our education. I should like quite definitely to say that the thing which the Board of Education is attending to at the present time is attempting to make our education more practical than it has been in the past. We all admit that there has been too much literary education, and we should all like it to be of a more practical character. But you cannot change it in a day. You must get teachers who can alter the methods of their teaching, and school buildings which will allow of any new methods which you want to introduce. That is perhaps especially true of manual work, to which the hon. Member devoted some of his attention. He objected to a special Grant being given for manual work. I do not think the Board of Education would defend that as a permanent system at all, but as it stands I think it must be admitted to be an inducement to local authorities to give manual instruction. The alternative is, of course, to make manual instruction compulsory, and that is what is asked for, but we cannot make manual instruction compulsory where we have not got the buildings, and we cannot in a day require all schools or all sets of schools to provide buildings in

  373
  which manual instruction can be given. If you take the rural districts of this country, what a tremendous outcry there would be if we were to demand that every school should give manual instruction, which would imply, in a great number of cases, building an additional schoolroom in which it could be carried on.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: In rural schools agricultural teaching would take the place of manual instruction.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: As far as the rural schools are concerned we are trying to do that. I have no doubt that the Board of Education will make all these things more a requirement in the curriculum, but we must watch our opportunity. We cannot force the pace beyond a certain point. I would also point out, and I think this is really a most important thing, that gradually a new spirit is coming over the teaching of the country and that the teachers, largely owing to the greater freedom with which they are now treated, largely owing to their own better opportunities of education, and largely owing to the general change in public opinion, and to suggestion from within and from without, are rapidly altering the method of their education. You have only to look at any given subject now and you find in many schools a practical turn is given to a subject which, if taught in the older method, is purely literary and dull. What we want in the schools is not necessarily manual training or technical training. What we want is a spirit in the training which will enlighten the children and make their minds brisk and excite their interest in education. Teachers all over the country now are becoming more and more interested in the experiment, one might almost say carried to an excessive degree in certain places, of making education of interest. The Montesoro system in Rome is being talked about in the teaching world, as is also the village in Sussex to which Mr. Holmes referred in "What is and what might be." It is this new spirit which is permeating the teaching world which is above all going to make a difference in the education of the country. That is the practical direction in which we want our education improved, and I can assure the House that the Board of Education will, in every way it can, encourage practical subjects to be mixed up with the more literary subjects which are now required.
  374
  I must pass away from a general topic of that sort to one or two particular questions which have been raised. The right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Anson) and the hon. Gentleman (Sir Philip Magnus) both spoke about the Grant to King's College, and considered that it was inadequate. I am afraid it is practically impossible to discuss such a matter as that in detail. My right hon. Friend has considered the thing carefully, but he has felt himself bound to accept the recommendation of Sir William McCormack's Committee which was appointed to inquire into matters of detail of this kind, and I think the House will really agree that he was practically bound to follow their advice. I understand that King's College has been treated, not only with fairness, but with generosity by the standard on which the Committee were acting, and I do not really know whether, if there were any revision made of the sum, King's College would come off better or worse. With regard to the question of medical treatment to which the hon. Member (Mr. Hoare) referred, I can only assure him that what the Board of Education is considering is not uniformity. That is the last thing we want. What we want is effectiveness. More especially if a public Grant is given in connection with medical treatment, we of course feel bound to convince ourselves that the most effective way of dealing with the children who require medical treatment has been adopted by the different authorities. We have no preconceived opinion finally in favour of any particular form of treatment, and the question will be considered on that basis. Of course if we come to the conclusion that clinics are best, there is no doubt about it the Board of Education will largely encourage that system of treating children, but they are not binding themselves to give any decision in the case of any particular authority. A question was raised by the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) with regard to the Roman Catholic school at Nymphsfield. My right hon. Friend has decided to send down an officer of the Board to make inquiries with regard to the position there. That will probably be a sufficient answer.
  A question was raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Rupert Gwynne) with regard to a single child that has been excluded from a school by the Southampton education authority. The child was boarded out in the district by the Newhaven guardians, who refused to pay for its education. The hon. Member spoke as if the Board of

  375
  Education were responsible for getting the child educated. The truth is there was a quarrel between the two education authorities as to whether the Southampton education authority ought to educate the child for nothing or whether the guardians should pay. My right hon. Friend did what he could to induce the local education authority to accept the child, but when on a matter of principle, and not because they did not want to educate the child, the local education authority said they were not bound to and they were afraid of a large number of guardians' children being dumped upon them, I think the Committee will feel that my right hon. Friend was justified in not taking the extremely strong step, which was always left to him, of fining the local education authority for not educating the child. Considering that the Poor Law guardians were bound by the Poor Law order somehow or other to get the child educated, it would have been a very strong measure to bring his full forces to bear upon one local education authority because the other local authority would not take other action. The thing has now been happily settled, and the child has been taken away and sent to a training ship.
  The subject of the superannuation of teachers was raised by the hon. Member (Sir J. Yoxall). He was very anxious that the case of old teachers who are only getting code pensions and also teachers who have not come into the superannuation scheme should be considered. My right hon. Friend, when he appoints the Departmental Committee, will ask it to consider whether the money will be sufficient to meet any or all of these classes. It is impossible, I think, for him to say more at present. With regard to Circular 786, in the first place I believe the Art Teachers' Association approved of that circular. It was not done in the dark. The matter was very carefully considered, and was submitted to the very full consideration of specialists and others interested, but I think the interpretation which has been placed upon it is wrong, and I should like to reassure my hon. Friend with regard to it. In the first place, the circular certainly does not prevent any artistic boy or girl from going to any school of art. It is not intended, and it does not, and I do not think it can be read as doing that. It refers to those who are entering the teaching profession. It is true that it applies to those who are already in a school and going in for the profession, but as
  376
  early as 1910 the Board of Education made it quite clear that a good general education—a definite standard of good general education—would be required of those who were going to become art teachers. Passing through a secondary school is not necessary but a reasonable standard of education is required. It is just as necessary for art teachers, as for any other type of teachers, and I do not think this requirement will operate in any way unfairly upon those who are going into that part of the profession.
  Sir J. YOXALL: It is the pupils I am anxious about, those who are leaving the elementary schools and going to the school of art.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I have said they are not affected; they can go into the school. The only persons for whom the standard of secondary education, or its equivalent are required, are those who are going into the teaching profession. They cannot become teachers unless they have a decently high standard of general education. I think I have answered all the particular questions which have been put to me. The one general question of education finance it is impossible to answer in a few moments. The Board of Education, of all the Departments, is most anxious to get money, and will do its best to get it.
  Mr. WRIGHT: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) said it was impossible for the Board of Education to do very much in the direction of woodwork and manual instruction because it entails the building of additional rooms in every school throughout the country where such instruction is not being given at present. I think in saying that he forgot the instruction which is given in many schools at present and which entails no extra building; whatever, but can be given upon the ordinary school desks in the ordinary schoolroom. I was glad to hear what the President said as to the attitude of the Board towards this kind of instruction throughout the country, and especially in the rural districts, because it is well known by all those who have anything to do with education that in the past there has been a great deal of instruction given in the rural schools which was of very little advantage indeed to the children who received it. It is perfectly true that a new feeling has come over the teachers in the school. That has been brought about by the new type of inspector whom we have had for the last three or four years. During the time I

  377
  have had to do with education in the county in which I live, we have had no fewer than three inspectors in a very short time, but each one of them has been full of this new spirit.
  And, it being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  NATIONAL ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BILL.—(By Order.)
  [Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean) in the Chair.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. BRADY: I would strongly appeal to the Chairman of Ways and Means not to press the Second Reading of the Bill to-night. As he very well knows negotiations have been proceeding between the parties interested, and we are in hope, largely owing to the patience and courtesy of the Chairman of Ways and Means himself, that a settlement will be arrived at in a few days. I therefore urge him to allow the Second Reading to stand over.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I am sure it is a great disappointment to me that this Bill is not now to get a Second Reading, as I had hoped. I have been engaged until the last moment in endeavouring to bring that about, but, as the hon. Member knows, without success, though I hope the matter has been brought to the point of success. Under these circumstances, I feel it would not be wise to press the Second Reading of the Bill to-night; but in acceding to the hon. Member's request, I should like to express not merely my hope, but my view that, after negotiatons have taken place, it will be both possible and right that the parties ought to come to an agreement, so that either side may avoid the chance of opposition in the further stages of the Bill. I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned accordingly until Monday next (10th instant).

  MIDLAND RAILWAY (LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY PURCHASE) BILL [Lords]. (By Order.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. BOWERMAN: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now" and to add at the end of the Question the words, "upon this day three months."
  Since I gave notice of the Amendment, an Instruction has been placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for Devizes Division (Mr. Peto), which really meets the point I desire to raise to-night. I take it that, I am not in a position to move the Instruction. The point I want to raise is this: A large number of season ticket holders in Southend have been induced to take up their residence in that district solely through the offer on the part of the railway company of very reasonable and cheap fares. Most of these season ticket holders are, as far as I know, workmen. In fact, I have worked with some of the men who, by reason of the inducements held out by the company, which they appreciate very greatly, were induced, though working in London, to take their wives and families to this place. There is a splendid service of trains at remarkably cheap fares. Another company now comes along and is about to take over that particular railway. The men naturally feel there is grave risk that the advantages which they have enjoyed since they became residents at Southend are likely within a short period to be withdrawn. I understand that an association of season ticket holders was formed, that many public meetings have been held, and that resolutions have been passed. The promoters of the amalgamation or purchase claim that they have the consent of the borough council and of other public and responsible bodies, and they appear to be inclined somewhat to disregard the eventual effect which such a change as is now proposed may have on these particular workmen. The only point the workmen desire to have secured is that a reasonable time shall elapse after the purchase by the Midland Railway Company before any alteration of those fares is permitted. I think the House will agree that is not an unreasonable view for those men to take. Having

  379
  been induced by cheap fares, though at some disadvantage to themselves from the pecuniary point of view, to decide on making a change of residence—this is a question affecting 6,000 or 7,000 people, most of whom are workmen—it does appear to me that they are justified, and I hope the House will think I am justified on their behalf, in resisting the passage of the Bill unless an agreement is arrived at whereby the existing fares may remain as they are at present for a reasonable period.
  I understand that the promoters are quite prepared to allow the existing fares to remain as they are until 31st December, 1913. The season ticket holders are quite satisfied with an arrangement of that kind; but they wish the arrangement to be accompanied by the safeguard which is embodied in the Instruction on the Paper, which I am not at liberty to move. They wish the arrangement to be accompanied by the safeguard that before any revision of passenger fares becomes operative an appeal should be allowed to the Board of Trade and the Railway Commissioners. If a guarantee of that kind can be given by the representative of the Board of Trade, then those men and myself, and I hope the House, will be quite satisfied; but, in the absence of a guarantee to that effect, I propose to continue the opposition to the Bill. I appeal to the representative of the Board, of Trade to remember who those men are. They are working at various trades for weekly wages which are not very high. I can speak for those who are engaged in the printing trade. They are men who, at great expense to themselves, and probably at some inconvenience from the point of view of living away from their friends in London, have taken up residence at some distance from town. Speedy transit is provided, and they are prepared to make this journey, feeling that though they undergo a little inconvenience they are compensated by the wonderfully cheap travel. I think it is only fair that the position of those men should be considered, and I hope that the representative of the Board of Trade will be able to state that, in addition to allowing the existing fares to re main as they are until the end of 1913, in the event of the company deciding then to revise fares there will be an appeal on the part of those who may object to that revision, either to the Railway Commission or to the Board of Trade.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. HILLS: I welcome the very reasonable and moderate speech in which the mover of the rejection of the Bill has introduced his motion. I think that the House will generally sympathise with the object of the hon. Member, but before going the whole length that he asks us to go there are certain considerations which, ought to be borne in mind. This is a Bill for the amalgamation of the Midland and Tilbury lines. That amalgamation has been supported by every single centre of population in the district served by this line, and by the Dock Board, the Chambers of Commerce, and the local authorities at Southend, and all the local authorities on the line. The only opposition is from the association of railway travellers whose spokesman is the hon. Member. He asks that for a certain term of years the existing season ticket rates will not be raised, and also that clause should be inserted in the Bill whereby the company will be precluded from raising the season ticket rates in future until they could show good cause for doing so. The position of the season ticket holders is as follows. Last year all the railway companies, with, I think, no exception, except the Tilbury Company, all raised their season ticket rates, and there was a very large increase all over the railway world. The Tilbury fares were not raised and remained very low as the hon. Member has recognised. Now that the Midland Company are acquiring the Tilbury line they recognise that the prosperity of Southend and of a. great many of its inhabitants is largely dependent on the Tilbury line, and they have no present intention whatever of raising those fares. But when they ask the company to bind itself for all time not to raise fares I submit that they are asking a thing which goes far beyond the general statute law which binds railway companies, and which I may submit is pretty strict against all raising of fares, and a condition which only very special circumstances would justify. Season-ticket rates at present are not subject to the general law of passenger fares. They are special privilege tickets, and the rates could be raised or lowered very much as the companies please.
  All this question is very carefully considered in the Report of the Departmental Committee, which reported last year, and which was presided over by an hon. Member of this House. The Report, which, is

  381
  an extremely able and comprehensive document, obtained the assent of the whole Committee, among them the hon. Member for Norwich, and it has been, I believe, generally accepted as laying down a reasonable scheme on which these amalgamations are to be carried out. They, speaking generally, lay down three main conditions which should be observed before Parliament is asked to assent to amalgamation. They are at page 42, Section 188, Sub-section 19 (a), (b), (c). The first is that for the purpose of railway rates any two amalgamated lines should be treated as one line. The advantage of that is well known to the House. You get one through rate, and in case of the unit of distance the fraction of the unit of distance will not be charged twice over because there is a fraction at the end of one line and a fraction on the other. And also, where a company is entitled to charge a higher rate for the first part of its transit and a lower rate for the second part, it cannot charge the higher rate twice over. That has been met by Clause 10 of the Bill before the House. The second point is that provision should be introduced into the Act restricting the dismissal of servants in consequence of amalgamation. That point is entirely provided for. Clause 8 of the Bill provides that all officers, clerks, and servants of the Tilbury Company shall become officers, clerks, and servants of the Midland Railway with the same rights and subject to the same obligations under which they serve at present. That is an absolutely binding statutory obligation on the Midland Railway. The third point is that care should be taken that nothing shall prejudice the pension rate or security of pension funds.
  Then the Report goes on to say in the absence of special circumstances the opportunity of a proposed fusion should not be used as a lever to impose further conditions. I do submit to the House that this is a case which comes within the findings of the Committee. Here you have a specially low rate for season tickets, which has been a very beneficial one, and I do ask the House to say that this is not a case in which you should use the fact of amalgamation as a lever to extract special terms for the season-ticket holders. I assure the Mover of this Motion that there is not the slightest intention on the part of the Midland Railway to increase those rates. We recognise that a large amount of the traffic of the line does consist of these season-ticket holders, and a large amount of the prosperity of the line depends upon them.
  382
  But we have also to look to the fact that Parliament and public opinion are constantly laying fresh charges and fresh burdens upon railway companies. We all know that after the strike last August it was recognised by the Board of Trade that if the railway companies were put to extra cost for the services of the State they should be entitled to raise their fares, and that has been recognised by Clause 2 of the Railway Bill that has been introduced into this House.
  I submit to the House that this is a case which falls within the report of the Departmental Committee, and falls within the Railways Bill. It is exactly the sort of case which that Bill is made to meet. I believe the Government intend to pass the Bill this year. The hon. Member has not shown any special circumstances whereby the season ticket holders of Southend-on-Sea should have any special treatment beyond that which the ordinary law provides. I wish to tell the House what occurred when this Bill was in another place. There the Bill was opposed by a body of persons, of which the association for which the hon. Member opposite speaks formed part. An agreement was decided upon whereby until the end of 1913 no increase in the season ticket rates is to be made. It quite satisfied them. I submit to the House that it is not fair for all time that a company, on which large burdens may be placed, should be absolutely precluded from increasing the season ticket rates. I assure the House that there is not the slightest intention at present on the part of the Midland Railway Company to increase those fares. That is the last thing they would do.
  I say, however, that the company ought to have the right to do so. It is not fair to exclude them from that right, and I submit that the season ticket holders are absolutely protected under the general law, and under the Railways Bill which is before this House. I suggest to the hon. Member opposite that if he thinks he has a case he ought to make it before the Committee, and not prevent this Bill from being read a second time, and going to Committee. All the opposition to the Bill, except on the part of the hon. Member, has been withdrawn. It is supported by every single public body in the district, and in all the towns which are served by the Tilbury Line. They all want the amalgamation, and I respectfully submit to the hon. Member that he should make his point before the Committee, who, I

  383
  have no doubt, if he can make out a case, would listen to him. The Bill is one that will largely increase the public facilities, and I hope the House will agree to the Second Reading.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: I wish to point out that I am not asking the House to agree that these season ticket holders should remain at the present fares for all time. Nothing of the kind. I stated that the men are quite satisfied with the declaration that the fares shall remain as at present until December, 1913. All the men ask is that, if the period should come when the company decide to revise their fares, then they may have the right to appeal cither to the Railway Commissioners or to the Board of Trade before that revision becomes operative.
  Mr. PETO: I cannot say, after listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hills), that I am the least bit convinced that this Bill should receive a Second Reading, unless there is some very much better security than the assurance the hon. Gentleman gave us, that the last thing the Midland Railway Company think of doing is to raise these fares. The hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Bower-man), who moved the rejection of this Bill, says that the Southend-on-Sea season ticket holders will be quite satisfied with the right to appeal to the Board of Trade or to the Court of the Railway and Canal Commissioners. Assuming that an increase of the fares was made, and the right of appeal is in existence, I would point out that it is an exceedingly costly thing, and an exceedingly difficult thing, to put into effect. The hon. Member for Durham says that in Clause 2 of the Railways Bill the principle is recognised of giving effect to the promise of the Government to the railway companies last August that if there is any increase in the remuneration of the employés it may be followed by an increase of rates. I quite admit that is the Clause in the Railways Bill, but the Railways Bill is not an Act of Parliament yet; it has not gone through the House, and I venture to predict that in its present form it is not likely to go through this House.
  What I want is something more definite than the assurance which has been given. In spite of the statement of the hon. Member that the last thing the Midland Railway Company intend to do is to raise these fares, I would point out that these are admittedly exceptionally cheap
  384
  season ticket rates. The Tilbury and Southend Railway Company do a season ticket business on a wholesale scale, whereas the season ticket business of the ordinary railway companies may be regarded, in comparison, as a retail business. I put it simply as my own view that before there is any question of raising the rates to the season ticket holders it should be proved that certain advantages are being given to the railway company's employés, and that the conditions of their employment are being improved, but account should also be taken of the great saving in the costs and charges which will inevitably result from the amalgamation by the purchase of the Tilbury Line by the Midland Railway Company, which is the subject of this Bill. The Railways Bill is still only a Bill and not an Act of Parliament, yet we have the same question coming up here in the form of this Midland, Southend, and Tilbury Railway Bill. We say that we are bound to prevent this Bill from passing the Second Reading until we know what the decision of the House is upon this question, which is one of a geneal matter of principle. I have put down an Amendment which I am told is out of order. I will only refer to it for the purpose of saying that in that Amendment I lay down a principle which I think justifies me in supporting with all the power at my command the hon. Member for Deptford in the rejection of the Bill.
  I submit that it lies with the railway company to prove, when they propose to increase these rates, not only that they have increased the pay to their employés, but that they have taken into consideration all the savings in charges due either directly or indirectly to the amalgamation, and that in spite of that there still remain increased expenses due to the better wages and improved conditions of their employés. It is they and not the season ticket holders who must prove the case to the satisfaction of the Court of the Railway and Canal Commission. The season ticket holders of Southend-on-Sea, though many of them are poor people who depend upon these cheap fares to be able to live in a wholesome atmosphere, would not begrudge any increase of fares which was proved to be reasonable and justified by extra burdens on the railway company. To my mind it is a monstrous proposition to throw the onus of proving this case upon a body of people who cannot possibly prove the case. The facts are only known, and can only be known, to the railway companies. They can show perfectly easily,

  385
  if they wish to do so, what are the savings made in the course of running traffic and what are the increased charges due to the better conditions of labour that they are employing. They can do that, but the outside public and the season ticket holders cannot. The hon. Member for Durham is one of the strongest advocates in this House of better housing conditions for the people. We are always hearing about the Housing and Town Planning Act. We are constantly hearing about getting "lungs" for London. Here, without any intervention of this House, we have got naturally— due to one fact, and one main fact, and that is cheap rates of travel—what is better than the Housing and Town Planning Act, and what is better than lungs for London. We have got for some thousands of hard workers the opportunity to get out of the City atmosphere and live in the country by the seaside. I venture to think, therefore, that this is much more than an ordinary question that might be raised on a private Bill. It is a question of principle, and I ask the House certainly not to pass the Second Reading of this purchase Bill until it has first considered and thoroughly debated the principles of the Bill which is before the House, the Railways Bill, on which the hon. Member for Durham relies for his case for the amalgamation in the form in which it is in the Midland and Southend Railway Bill. I hope that this Second Reading will be refused in order that, when we consider this Bill, we may consider it in the light of an Act of Parliament, which will have been thoroughly discussed in a full House before it ever becomes an Act of Parliament; and then we shall see the first fruit of the amalgamation policy conforming to the general lines laid down in this House.
  Mr. MORTON: I do not understand that the hon. Gentlemen who are opposing this Bill desire to prevent the Bill finally being carried. What I understand they want is to make some provision whereby the public will, in case the Bill is passed, be protected in the future as they have been in the past. The hon. Gentleman who represents the promoters has given his case away when he suggests that this Bill shall go to a Committee upstairs. It is not fair to suggest to working men that they can find £500 to oppose a Bill upstairs, and this House ought to protect people against anything of the sort. I do not know that we ever before heard the promoters of a Bill making use of a Bill which is before the House, and which the
  386
  hon. Member who spoke last very properly says is never likely to be carried in its present shape, if at all. I do not see how they have a right to make use of that Bill. I believe it is agreed that the prices of the tickets shall not be raised until 31st December, 1913, but the further condition is asked that if there should be an increase after that date there should be the right of appeal, either to the Board of Trade or to the Railway Commissioners. It appears to me that that is a very modest and fair request. Surely if the working men trust the Railway Commission or the Board of Trade, the railway company ought to do the same. I hope the hon. Gentleman speaking on behalf of the company will give way, and save the company and the other people the expense of fighting a Bill like this up stairs. The Bill is not being opposed, but conditions are sought for the protection of those who have had them for some time, and if there had been no amalgamation there would have been no talk of this at all. It is a very fine thing for rich people and millionaires to say, "Let us go upstairs, and let us have a fight." But it is well known that ordinary people cannot find the money to fight a case of this kind upstairs. I hope that the House will protect those who have made, through my hon. Friends, a very modest request indeed.
  Captain JESSEL: I hope the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill, both in the public interest and in the interest of those who are interested in the Tilbury line. As regards the point put by the hon. Member, he seems to forget that there is no change in the law at the present moment. The public have their rights exactly as they had them before, and they can appeal to the Railway Commissioners as regards any increase in the rates demanded by the railway company. With all due respect, I venture to point out to the House that this is an entirely new claim which is made on the railway companies. Season ticket holders have never been able to obtain this, and why this particular company, when it comes before the House, is subjected to an innovation in the ordinary law I cannot understand. I also wish to point out that all the bodies interested, the Chambers of Commerce, the corporation of Southend, and of Westcliff-on-Sea, and Leigh-on-Sea, are all agreed in favour of this Bill as an advantage to the district served by the railway company, and I claim with all

  387
  due respect that some deference should be paid to local feeling in this matter. On the bigger question as regards the advantages to the public by the amalgamation, the London and Tilbury Railway Company has been a prosperous undertaking. South-end is growing, and the very prosperity of Southend has been the undoing of the London and Tilbury Company. We, and I speak as a director of the London and Tilbury Company, are only very small people. Our capital is five million. Our trouble is that we have not got a terminus in London. Our traffic is increasing, and there is no doubt that we are face to face, either with the impossibility of carrying all the people who want to live at South-end and thus afford another lung to London, or else we shall be open to the charge of overcrowding, or else it is quite impossible to continue our service. What we are faced with is a huge capital expenditure which our chairman at the last yearly meeting of the company stated would involve a sum of two and a half millions. Is that a fair burden to put upon us? With our capital of only £5,000,000, including debentures, preference, and ordinary stock, we cannot do it. The Midland Company offer us a price which is satisfactory to our shareholders, and we as directors think that in the interests of the shareholders we should accept the offer. We are satisfied that it is not only in our interests, but in the interests of the localities served by our line that a great company like the Midland, with some £200,000,000 capital, should come into the field. They will be able to carry out what we cannot do, and to find the large additional capital required for a terminal station in London. That is the ground on which the Tilbury Company ask the House to sanction this Bill.
  9.0 P.M.
  Those who are interested as officials and from the labour point of view—we have never had any quarrel with our men—are quite satisfied with the conditions. The corporation of Southend and other local councils are also in favour of the Bill. The one body opposed to it is the Railway Passengers' Association of Southend. The members of that body were represented before the House of Lords Committee. They joined the corporation of Southend in their petition, and the Lords Committee gave to the corporation of Southend, and the parties joined with them a clause providing that they should have for two years the same privileges as they already enjoy. That Clause was satisfactory to the
  388
  corporation, and the opposition was withdrawn. The House has already heard that there is no intention of increasing the fares. Why should an exception be made as regards this particular company? The promoters have carried out all the recommendations suggested by the Report of the Departmental Committee of last year. There is no necessity for an innovation of the kind proposed, because, as the law stands, before it can raise its rates a railway company has to make out its case before the Railway Commission. There is no alteration in the law in that respect. The innovation is for the season-ticket holders to claim something beyond the ordinary provisions of the law. I respectfully urge the House not to throw out an important Bill of this kind. The measure is of great importance to men at the General Post Office, and many other workers in London whom we bring up in time to get to their work. If the Bill is thrown out it will hamper the great developments which have been going on, because there is no chance of the London and Tilbury Company being able to carry the necessary works on its own account. The Bill does not confer any monopoly on the Midland Railway Company because Southend is served also by the Great Eastern Company. It would be an injustice to the promoters of the Bill and a hardship to the public if the House refused to allow the Bill to go upstairs in the ordinary course.
  Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: If I were studying my own interests and those of the railway which I represent, I should certainly vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. But I desire to take a broad view of the situation, and to consider whether the Bill is in the interests of the public generally, and especially of that portion of the public who reside in Southend. I feel that I on behalf of the Great Eastern, and not the Midland Company, should be presenting a Bill for the purchase of this line. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Morton) rather suggested that some other company might have been the purchaser. I hope the hon. Member does not think that I have been asleep. The fact is that, not being a Common Council man, I have not a large balance at my bankers, and the price demanded by the Tilbury Company was so excessive that my company, though they felt they were the people who by priority ought to have the right of acquiring the line, were unable to entertain the proposal. The Midland Railway, having come in and overbid

  389
  the Great Eastern Railway, have now presented this Bill to the House. I entirely endorse what has fallen from my hon. Friend (Captain Jessel). The Tilbury Company, owing to the enormous increase in the traffic and the growth of the population of Southend, are not able to deal in an efficient manner with the traffic. If we had been able to acquire the line we would have been able to deal with it satisfactorily. I am confident that the Midland Railway, by the acquisition of the line, will confer a great benefit upon the people of Southend, and all those who travel between the Metropolis and that town.
  Mr. MORTON: By raising the fares.
  Lord C. HAMILTON: Having regard to the competition of the Great Eastern Railway, whose fares are proverbially low, I do not think that the Midland Railway will commit suicide by attempting to raise their fares. It is the intention of the Midland Railway, should this Bill pass, to electrify the Tilbury line. That undoubtedly will be an enormous boon to those who travel by it, and I have no doubt that the ultimate result will be to oblige the Great Eastern Railway to electrify its competing line, so that the public will benefit by both routes. I think the House, in a matter of this sort, should take a broad view of the situation. I do not believe there will be any attempt on the part of a great company like the Midland to do anything so short-sighted as unnecessarily to raise the fares or rates upon the lines that they desire to acquire. I therefore respectfully ask the House to be good enough to give a Second Reading to the Bill, so that it may be considered by a Committee upstairs.
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: We have just had the advantage of experiencing what I feel to be a real exhibition of the true British spirit displayed by the Noble Lord in asking the House of Commons, on broad principles, to give a Second Reading to this Bill. If anyone should have opposed this Bill I suppose it would be the Great Eastern Railway Company; but the Noble Lord has dealt with the matter with British character and instinct, and the true spirit of the British House of Commons. He said, "Here is a Bill before the House which it is desired should go upstairs for consideration." He asked the House of Commons, although it may be contrary to his interests, to allow the Bill to go to the Committee upstairs. Since I have been in the House I have never, under
  390
  the circumstances, heard a more admirable speech than that of the Noble Lord. Obviously the Midland Railway Company coming into the Great Eastern Company's area must be a serious matter for their consideration. May I suggest to my hon. Friends below the Gangway that they can take a broad view, and I think it is always in the interest of the House of Commons to take a broad view in matters of this kind. No one can fail to recognise the importance of the point raised by the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman). It is important in this sense, that Southend has grown up because of the cheap season-ticket fares; and no one in the wide world wants to interfere with the development of Southend.
  But let the House remember that in this proposal of the purchase of the Tilbury line by the Midland Railway Company that the season-ticket holders of Southend are not worsened at all. The Tilbury Company can raise their season-ticket fares whenever they like without interference by this House; and I do not think the Midland Railway Company, with its huge capital and enterprise, are likely to be so shortsighted as to increase the season-ticket fares and prevent the development of their business. On the other hand, if the Midland Railway Company spends two and a half millions of capital money, half as much again as the capital of the London, Southend, and Tilbury Railway Company, in giving extra facilities to the season-ticket holders of Southend, I am not at all sure that the question is not open to consideration as to whether the fares should remain the same. If, as a matter of business, the Midland Railway Company should be in competition with the Great Eastern Railway Company, it will be a serious question for them to consider whether they will not lose more by raising the fares than by keeping them as they are. It all goes to show that this is a very admirable proposal in the public interest. Nothing could be more against the public interest than that this House of Commons should refuse a Second Reading to this Bill. I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sutherlandshire (Mr. Morton) that the season ticket holders are not in a position to go upstairs and fight this battle before the Committee and spend a lot of money in arguing their case, because, of course, they have no case to argue before the Committee.
  But the broad view to take up, as the Noble Lord opposite said, is this; Here is

  391
  the Midland Railway Company which proposes to purchase the London and South-end line, to develop and to further develop, and to increase the facilities from London to Southend and other parts of the district between London and South-end; why then should we intervene on the Second Reading and prevent this Bill from being properly considered in the Committee, and, after being thus properly considered, come down here for consideration and Third Reading? I am in full sympathy with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford that it would be a grave and a serious thing for Southend if the season ticket fares were increased after Southend has grown up and many people from London have gone out on the basis of these fares. At the same time, I cannot conceive how the interests of London and Southend and the district between will suffer by the proposals before us, or that we will be acting in the interests of the public if we block the Second Reading of this Bill. I only rise because I do sincerely appreciate the speech of the Noble Lord, and I hope that the spirit displayed by him will be exemplified by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. They have made their protest; they have put their case before the House and the public; and I hope that, having gone so far as they have, they will emulate the spirit of the Noble Lord opposite and allow this Bill to have a Second Reading.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: Like the previous speaker, I was immensely interested in the speech of the Noble Lord. But I do not place the same interpretation upon it as my hon. Friend has done. I am simply going to say this, that the speech gives another evidence of the great loyalty that exists between railway magnates in this House. I often think if we could develop the same amount of loyalty amongst the workmen as that which prevails amongst the railway directors that the prospects of my class would be immensely brighter than they are. I have not learned from my colleagues that there is any desire to prevent the Midland Railway Company acquiring the Tilbury Company's undertaking, nor do we desire that the development of the town of Southend should in any way be hampered. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hills) referred to the Report of a Committee upon which I sat, and my responsibility for my share
  392
  in its recommendations. I have no desire to shirk that responsibility. I recognise that the tendency towards amalgamation is inevitable. In my opinion it is a wise and desirable thing to foster rather than to restrain. Nevertheless we have to recognise that with these unifications there are certain attendant evils.
  In this case the season ticket holders, who in the main are a body of working people, will have not only to encounter the opposition of a small concern, but that of that immensely wealthy undertaking the Midland Railway Company. It is quite true to say that the status of this class may not in any way be altered; but there is just a danger that it may be. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] Well, I accept the undertaking of my hon. Friend that there is no present intention on the part of the Midland Company to alter the rates of the season ticket holders.
  Mr. HILLS: Clause 8 prevents the Midland Company altering their status at all.
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: I am speaking of the operation of the rates. My hon. Friend stated there was no present intention on the part of the Midland or acquiring company to increase the season ticket rates.
  Mr. HILLS: Quite so.
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: That is all very well for the moment. But these people, it must be understood, have been led to take up their residence in Southend by the facilities offered by the Tilbury and Southend Company. My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford and myself are acquainted with a number of them. They are poor men who desire, because of their families, to be situated in a more congenial atmosphere and environment than prevails in London. They have been induced to take up their residence in South-end by the cheap facilities offered by this company, and therefore they are very naturally apprehensive that under a change such as is suggested, and a new body entering into control with whom they had previously no contract, that the opportunity might be availed of to increase the rates. I honestly accept what the hon. Gentleman opposite has said; he is able to give an undertaking for the moment, but that cannot be held to allay the apprehensions of those people who have established their household at considerable cost in Southend. My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford, with those people on behalf of whom he is

  393
  acting, is quite willing to accept the undertaking of the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the company that no alteration will take place before the 31st December, 1913, but if these men had the assurance that they would have some right of appeal before an increased rate was contemplated, I think they would be perfectly satisfied.
  The hon. Gentleman opposite made some reference to some contemplated legislation. Of course, that has no bearing upon this particular case. I think the hon. Member for South Wilts is perfectly right in saying that the Railways Bill as at present drafted has no possibility whatever of securing the sanction of this House, but, notwithstanding the report to which the hon. Gentleman made reference, he will there find set forth very markedly this particular point. We desire that there should be a cheap method of appeal. The procedure before the Railway Canal Commissioners is so costly as to be practically prohibitive to any but very wealthy corporations to proceed against railway undertakings. In this case we are dealing with a body of very poor people, and therefore, if the hon. Gentleman opposite bases his case very largely upon some contemplated form of legislation, I can very logically rely upon the recommendations and purport of the report in order to indicate to him how he ought to meet the position on this occasion. Various reforms have been suggested, but a cheap and simple method of appeal would be the best. I respectfully suggest to the hon. Member if he could give an undertaking here to-night, that if it was intended to increase the rates of the season ticket holders they would have the right to appeal to the Board of Trade, he might very well secure the Second Reading of this measure without further opposition from those with whom I am acting, and I think in saying that I am saying nothing in conflict with the recommendations of that Report. I respectfully suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he might remove opposition by giving that undertaking which, in my opinion, would inflict no injustice upon the company and would allow them to proceed with the great enterprise upon which they are embarking, and would secure the good will and confidence of the season ticket holders as well as others interested in this matter.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I think my hon. Friend who has just sat down must see the unreason-
  394
  ableness of making an appeal to the Board of Trade a condition of securing the Second Reading of this Bill. I do not see how he can associate himself with the position of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto). The hon. Member put down an Instruction which, I understand, is not in order, but the hon. Member, in fact, argued on the ground set forth in his Instruction. He thinks the proper course is not to let the Bill pass, because you cannot give an Instruction at this stage, which Instruction, as a matter of fact, is out of order. The proper course for him would be to take counsel with the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hills), and have his proposal fought out before the Committee upstairs. My hon. Friend appealed to me to give an undertaking on behalf of the Board of Trade, either that those season ticket rates should never be raised, or that before they were raised an appeal should be given to the Board of Trade. He must realise that the Board of Trade cannot give such an undertaking as that, and I do not see how the hon. Member for Durham could give an undertaking of that kind, because it all depends upon legislation not yet carried. It would take more than the company's good will to give the right of appeal to the Board of Trade unless you had an Act of Parliament giving the Board of Trade power to exercise rights of that kind. The appeal of my hon. Friend, with which we are all in perfect sympathy, does not in the least justify us in merely refusing to give the Bill a Second Reading; and I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford does not want to go to the extreme which the hon. Member for Devizes does. It does not follow that by holding the Bill back an undertaking will be given. We are told that those who benefit by the cheap fare rates on the Tilbury line are apprehensive lest their present advantage should be taken away. Why should they be more apprehensive that their advantages would be taken away under a combine than under the present system? They would be no worse after the passing of this Bill than they are at this moment. Nay, they would be in a better position after the passing of this Bill, because this Bill gives them two years' security, whereas without this Bill they have no condition of security at all. May I point out to the hon. Member for Deptford that the Bill does explicitly secure extremely low third-class rates. The maximum third-class rates are the very lowest in Great Britain. The Bill, under Clause 10, expressly

  395
  secures these very low maximum rates, and when you have an undertaking that up to the end of next year the season ticket rates shall not be raised, you cannot fairly pretend you will be in any worse position in the end after the passing of this Bill. You actually have this particular advantage secured for two years for which you have no legal claim whatever now. Supposing you refuse to give this Bill a Second Reading, the Tilbury Company could proceed to double the rates.
  Mr. MORTON: They are not likely to do that at all.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: They are not likely, but that argument answers itself. The Midland Company are not likely to do it. No company is likely to wish to raise these season ticket rates unless it finds itself financially coerced to do so. The Midland Company are not more likely to do it than the Tilbury Company are likely to do it now.
  Mr. MORTON: It is the other way about. We know the Midland Company has raised fares.
  Mr. HILLS: No, no.
  Mr. MORTON: They put up the weekend tickets to Scotland by 20 per cent.
  Mr. HILLS: They only put up the privilege tickets.
  Mr. MORTON: People would depend more upon getting justice from the Tilbury Company than from the Midland Company.
  Mr. HILLS: It is very misleading to say the Midland Railway have raised fares. All they have done, and what many other lines have done, is in certain cases to increase the privilege tickets.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: It is perfectly obvious that the raising of privilege tickets is a very different thing from the raising of season tickets. The Board of Trade is perfectly impartial between the companies, and the Board of Trade has no reason whatever to suppose that the Midland Company would be more disposed to raise the old season ticket rates than the Tilbury Company. In any case, what my hon. Friends below the Gangway ask for cannot really be secured at this stage. If they desire to make this very remarkable exception in regard to season ticket rates, "why single out this Bill and impose a re-
  396
  striction that is not in existence as regards the existing Tilbury Company Surely a matter like this ought to be dealt with in Committee upstairs. I cannot possibly give any such undertaking as the hon. Member for Deptford asks for. This is a question which should go to the Committee, and if hon. Members fail to intro-duce their proposal they have still power to do what the hon. Member for Devizes desires by refusing the Bill a Third Reading. I think what has been suggested would be a distinctly unreasonable course, because the season ticket rates on the Tilbury line are extremely low, and the promoters say that they have no desire or intention whatever of raising these rates. They undertake that until the end of next year they shall not be raised, and they say, "Do not ask of us what has never been asked of any other company, namely, that whatever increased cost may be put upon us we shall never be in a position to raise the season ticket rates."
  If you do not give a Second Reading to this Bill you will in effect be declaring in favour of the imposition of a restriction upon season ticket rates which has never been applied in Bills of this kind before. I think the hon. Member for Deptford having got this declaration from the purchasing company, which is a very unusual promise, to keep the rates absolutely unraised for two years, should recognise that this is all he can reasonably expect. If the hon. Member and his Friends are afraid of the present conditions being lost, and desire to propose such conditions in the Bill, I think he must recognise the reasonableness of the appeal to let this Bill go upstairs for that purpose. The hon. Member for Sutherlandshire knows the nature of our procedure as well as the rest of us. He spoke of a very large sum being required to oppose a Bill of this kind upstairs, but I do not think that argument will apply to the insertion of one Amendment. If the case is anything like as strong as the hon. Member for Devizes made out it will be a strong case for the Committee upstairs. At any rate, I think it will be admitted that we cannot make this change here. You are either going to give this Bill a Second Reading or you are not. Does the hon. Member for Devizes contend that in spite of this absolutely unprecedented assurance a restriction should be imposed that no matter what may happen season ticket rates shall not be raised?
  Mr. PETO: I did not take up any such unreasonable attitude. I said I thought

  397
  this Bill should not receive a Second Beading, because it was a Bill for the purpose of an undertaking and effecting an amalgamation. It was argued on the Railway Bill before the House that because of Clause II. this Bill should go through and have a Second Reading. My position is that it should be delayed until there has been a full Debate on the principles of the Railway Bill.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: That is still subjecting this Bill to an unfair strain. The reference of the hon. Member for Durham to the Railways Bill merely conveyed that the Government has recognised that a railway company might reasonably raise their charges under certain circumstances is a fair one. To delay this Bill until the Railways Bill has been discussed, especially after the hon. Member's own prediction that that Bill has a stormy career before it, is practically an admission that you are now trying to make a victim of this Bill. If the hon. Member for Devizes had any case against the Bill itself, and if my hon. Friends below the Gangway had any labour grounds of opposition, or any opposition on the merits of this Bill, their action might be justifiable. I understand, however, that my hon. Friends below the Gangway have no labour case against this Bill. They recognise that the rights of the employés are very well secured, and they are merely anxious to preserve those facilities which exist. That being so, I do think it is unreasonable to delay the Second Reading. I cannot give the undertaking my hon. Friend has asked for on behalf of the Board of Trade. I ask him to recognise that all those interests for which he has spoken are better secured by the passing of this Bill than without it, inasmuch as you get a certainty for two years. I appeal to the House to let the Bill go upstairs and allow those points to be raised in Committee.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: It has been stated that the season ticket holders will not be in any worse position after the Bill passes than they are at the present time. After the statement made by the Noble Lord tonight—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to make another speech.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: After the statement made by the representative of the Board of Trade and the fact that the further opportunity will be provided for this House, both in Committee and on the
  398
  Third Reading, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

SUPPLY.— [SEVENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1912–13.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Postponed proceeding resumed on Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,254,765, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid." [Note.—£5,250,000 has been voted on account.]
  Mr. WRIGHT: When the proceedings were interrupted I was congratulating the Government upon the position taken up by the President and the Secretary of the Education Department that teaching of a more practical nature should be given throughout the schools. The teachers in the schools are now imbued with a different spirit to that in which they used to carry on their work, and they no longer move in that somewhat narrow groove in which they moved in the time when Grants to the schools depended upon the results of examinations. It is quite true that we still find traces of the old narrowness. Sometimes we hear of head mistresses teaching girls in the fifth standard algebra, geometry, and things of that kind which are of little practical use to them; and occasionally you hear, as I heard the other day, of a head teacher in a school giving instruction to girls on home management and complaining that the dietaries did not deal enough with hydro-carbonates and carbohydrates. I do not know what those various things may be. I have no doubt they have something to do with dietary, but they are not terms I myself understand very much about. Those are survivals of the old system of teaching subjects with a view of getting scholars up to a certain standard and of earning Grants by scholars passing that particular standard. I am not sure

  399
  that the present system of payment on attendance is really very much better. It at any rate has its disadvantages. It certainly leads in many cases to children going to school when they are quite unfit, and it even leads to cases of teachers scouring the countryside to fetch children into the school. I know of a case in which a child was brought to school in a perambulator, wrapped up in a shawl, merely that it might count in attendance. That is not a good state of things, and cases of children who never miss attending for six years are not at all desirable in my opinion. It would be far better, now we have the system of medical inspection and treatment, that the Grant should be paid to those authorities who make proper provision for that inspection and treatment; and that it should be made on the number of children in the district and bear some fixed proportion to the amount spent by the particular authority.
  The President of the Board of Education began his speech by saying that all money spent on education was money well spent. I am sure when he said that he carried with him everyone who is interested in the subject of education. He did not, however, go on to tell us from where the money which is spent and which could be so well spent on education was to come. The difficulty of all education authorities at the present moment is one of finance. The question of educational progress is one almost entirely of finance. The President of the Board of Education, however, comes here to-day and the only contribution he makes towards this financial difficulty are two Grants, one of £60,000 for medical inspection work, and another special Grant for increasing the pensions of teachers. That is all to the good; but those are two things which do not really touch this part of the problem which is before the education authorities of the country. The education authorities want a Grant towards their building programme, and until there is some Grant made on some fixed proportion of the expenses on building forthcoming from the Treasury, we shall not get that progress in education which everyone is anxious to see. The President asked Members of the House to make suggestions. If there is one I could make, it is, at any rate, an extremely simple one. It is that the Grant should be based upon some fixed proportion, say the old proportion of 50 per cent. of the expenditure. The local education authorities should have the right to a
  400
  Grant at that rate, and the Board of Education should keep up their sleeve, as it were, another 10 per cent., which they should make to the authorities who behave themselves as good children and carry on their work properly in the opinion of the Board and its advisers.
  At the present moment there is an enormous debt for buildings put up in the past, the interest on which, according to the "Westminster Gazette," amounts to something like £3,000,000 a year. Loans in the past have, as a rule, been for a period of thirty years. It does not seem to me impossible that those loans should be taken up and extended over a longer period than thirty years. If that were done, there would be a much smaller amount to be paid in interest year after year, and there would to that extent be a relief of the burden which these authorities have at present to bear. I do not know whether such a suggestion is practical, but I think it is, at any rate, one worthy of consideration. Of course, loans are now granted for longer periods than thirty years for buildings and the land; but all past loans were granted for that short period. I do not see any reason why they should not all be amalgamated. I should like to recommend to the attention of the President of the Board of Education the example of the President of the Board of Agriculture with regard to farm institutes, the Grant in connection with which to be made by the Treasury is, I understand, going to be as much as 75 per cent. of the cost of the building. I do not expect the Board of Education will make Grants for new buildings on such a liberal scale as that; but it is important and necessary, if progress in educational work is to come, especially in such counties as that in which I live, where a great amount of new buildings and repairs to old buildings has to be done that there should be some Grant in some form or other on some fixed proportion. The Grant of £60,000 for medical treatment and medical inspection is no doubt all to the good; but I am not sure the Board of Education should have absolute discretion in the giving of it. The President told us that so far as they are able they mean to give £l for £l of the expenses incurred by, the various education authorities. If he can give an assurance to that effect to the education authorities concerned, then no doubt they would know where they are. That is the important point. Unless they can have some assurance of that sort, it is quite impossible when they are drawing

  401
  up their scheme of medical treatment to know to what extent they can depend upon a Treasury Grant for assistance, and not knowing that their scheme is bound to suffer. If they knew what they could count on they would be more ready to extend their work.
  There is only one other point on which I should like to say one or two words, and that is the question of the shortage of teachers. The President suggested that as a remedy the salaries should be increased. That is all very well. I dare say if we increased the salaries more people would join the teaching profession. There the same point comes up again. Where is the money to come from? Anyone who knows anything about the working of education committees knows that teachers' salaries have been going up quarter by quarter ever since 1902, and they constitute one of the main charges on the education rate at the present moment. No doubt if salaries were increased more people would join the profession. It has also been suggested that if pensions were increased that too would have an encouraging effect. But that is not quite the point. The shortage, I think, is very largely due to the new requirements of the Board with regard to teachers. Take the case of the pupil teachers' system. There is a period between when these pupil teachers leave school and when they begin to earn money, and the parents of many of them cannot afford to have these young people at home bringing nothing in.
  The hon. Member for Stockton suggested that the pupil teacher centre system should be re-established. I, for one, agree with him, because under the present system we are losing the children of what I may describe without offence as the working classes, and we are becoming more and more dependent for the supply of teachers on the lower middle class. The ideal system is one which will embrace both these classes. We cannot afford to do without them, and I think we are more likely to get teachers from these teaching centres than from children of the lower middle class. Many children of the middle class go into the secondary school, but do not take advantage of the opportunity to become teachers. They simply use these secondary schools in order to further a career in a quite different direction, and they never would become teachers at all. I hope some remedy may be found for this. I have figures here
  402
  from various councils in the North of England, as well as from the big boroughs. The district comprises Cumberland, Cheshire, Derbyshire, Northumberland, Nottinghamshire, and parts of Yorkshire. In 1906 there were 2,024 pupil teacher entrants, but that 2,024 was reduced in 1911 to 844. In the county boroughs the totals fell from 510 in 1906 to 223 in 1911, and for the whole country the figures in 1906 which were 11,008, came down in 1910–11 to 6,137. I believe that, according to the Board's calculations, it is necessary to secure something like 11,000 entrants per year in order to obtain the necessary supply of teachers. But we are only getting about 50 per cent. of this total, and we shall, I fear, be placed in a very serious position before long. The responsibility to some extent rests on the Board of Education, and it certainly ought to devise some means of ensuring that, in the future, there should be a proper supply of teachers.
  I should like next to refer to what has been described as one of the greatest blots on our educational system, and that is the gap between our elementary and our secondary schools. The figures which have been put before the Committee this afternoon show the falling off in the number of children who pass into the continuation schools. It has been suggested that we should have a grouping of the schools with what may be termed a higher top—or upper top—in which more advanced subjects can be taught. That is a solution which I think might be encouraged. It is one which I have seen in actual practice in Derbyshire and it has been successful to some extent, although I agree that there is difficulty in getting the managers of schools in surrounding parishes to allow their children to come up to the secondary schools. The difficulty may in part be accounted for by the fact that the people in one village will not allow their children to go into the next village, and much depends on the action of the inspectors. I think that by their influence a good deal more might be done in this direction. But it certainly will take some time before it can be accomplished.
  I wish to raise three local points in regard to Derbyshire. One in connection with the discretion of the local educational authority. There was a school at Melbourne the teacher of which was dismissed by the local education authority on "educational grounds." There has been a good deal of correspondence on it, and

  403
  I believe that the Board has not yet come to a decision. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember, if he is going to override the decision of the education committee of the county concerned, the question will at once arise whether the discretion of the authority in dismissing this mistress on "educational grounds" is well founded. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not give his decision without due consideration. Another question of a similar character arose in connection with a school known as the Whaley Bridge School, a school which the education authority concerned wished to run as a mixed school. The Department has refused to pay any Grant to this school, on the ground that there is no special head mistress for the infants to be taught. There, again, the authority concerned has, after considering all the circumstances of the school—and one of the circumstances is the personality of the headmaster of that school, who, in addition to having done excellent work in the school, has an evening continuation class of a larger number than any other continuation class throughout the county— the authority has decided to keep the whole of the school, including the infants, under this headmaster. I hope that in this case the Board will be prepared to reconsider its position. The President, in his speech this afternoon, ended by wishing all those who were interested in education in the localities more power to their elbow. I think it is those who are interested in education in the various localities of the country who should wish the President more power to his elbow, because the question is one mainly of finance and of a struggle between the Board of Education and the Treasury, and unless the President of the Board of Education can bring sufficient pressure upon the Treasury to get a different system of Grants, and a more extensive system of Grants in the future, T am afraid we shall have to mark time with regard to education.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: I think the Committee and the President of the Board of Education are to be congratulated upon the more placid waters in which we steer today than we did in the corresponding Debate last year. We are now discussing real educational matters, and to me, at least, it is a delight that we should be doing so. I wish to deal with two or three points which have been mentioned in the course of this discussion, both by the hon. Member who
  404
  has just sat down and other Members on both sides of the Committee. First, with regard to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Wright) with regard to the dismissal of the teachers. If the county council has good grounds for that dismissal they can have no possible objection to an appeal being made by the teacher for a hearing against unjust dismissal. We must remember that the teaching profession is a branch of the State service to all intents and purposes, and that in other branches of the Civil Service there is the right of appeal. The teachers do not possess that right of appeal, except under certain authorities who, by their own volition, have set up subcommittees to which teachers may appeal for rehearing in the case of suggested dismissal or, shall we say, removal to a less onerous position. With regard to the question raised both by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. J. Samuel) and the last speaker, the question of the supply of teachers, there is no doubt that it is a most important question. I think the two hon. Members who have suggested the re-establishment of pupil teachers' centres should remember that if those centres were hastily closed with considerable difficulties on the part of the staff, who were in some cases transferred to positions of inferiority, we should beware of setting them up again, unless we take away from any corresponding institution some of the evils which were associated with the old pupil teachers' system.
  10.0 P.M.
  There was the system of segregation, and one of the weaknesses of the present system of training teachers is to place our future teachers in a groove of their own. Although the pupil teachers' system, from the professional point of view, had much to commend it, from the broader educational point of view the course in the pupil teachers' centre was too short to be of considerable advantage to those who were in it, and it had this added disadvantage, of segregating the young teacher, instead of allowing him, in the secondary school, to mix with those preparing for other professions and so enlarge his outlook on life, men, and matters generally. With regard to encouraging the supply of teachers, without a doubt the emoluments do weigh considerably in stimulating a proper supply. I suggest to the President that it is a matter which concerns his Board, and I was sorry to hear him

  405
  disclaim much responsibility in that direction. As a matter of fact, the President of the Board, through his inspectors, does take note of that kind of thing in secondary schools, with excellent results. In the reports on secondary schools you will find continually mentioned the amount of the salaries of assistant masters and mistresses in secondary schools which receive Grants from the Board. The effect of that has been to encourage the managers to treat assistant masters and mistresses in secondary schools in a better way, and the further effect has been to stimulate the better supply of teaching material for our secondary schools. The consequence is that the secondary schools to-day are doing better work. A school is dependent in the main for its success upon the type of staff, and the action taken by the Board of Education in calling attention to the low salaries in secondary schools is having the effect of improving the type of education in those schools. The extension of that system to elementary schools would have the effect, first of all, of improving the low salaries of teachers in those schools, and would also help to solve the difficulty of the teaching supply.
  As to the threatened dearth of teachers, I think it will be found on examination to be a dearth of uncertificated teachers, and it arises from the fact of the local authorities, because of their financial difficulties, not being in a position to advertise for the services of fully-qualified teachers. Where they do advertise for qualified teachers, and pay rates similar to those paid in the county boroughs, the number of applications which come along, even to-day, would prove that the shortage is one of uncertificated teachers, and not of certificated teachers, in the main. I would remind the Committee that when the late President of the Board suggested that there was a dearth in certain localities, some individuals with whom I am associated looked into the matter of the advertisements of those authorities, and found that almost every one of them in advertising for teachers suggested scales of salary which were totally inadequate, and that the authorities in the larger boroughs, who were also advertising at the same time for teachers, were getting as many as they required. If the President of the Board will follow up his admirable suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to superannuation—and I would desire to associate myself cordially with the thanks that have been tendered to the President in that
  406
  regard—and will further press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the necessity of coming to the assistance of local authorities, so that they may stimulate a proper supply of teachers by offering salaries commensurate with the work, I believe the threatened shortage will be of very short duration, if it ever arises at all. I want to warn the President of the Board against setting up higher elementary schools. Higher elementary schools strike me as being pseudo secondary schools, the intention being to divert those who ought to flow naturally from the elementary into the secondary system into a kind of cul de sac, from which there is no exit into the university. The higher elementary school is not needed in our system. Our system naturally falls into three chief heads, the elementary, the secondary, and the higher, the higher including the technical and the university It is easy for us to differentiate our types of secondary schools and avoid the higher elementary school, which was suggested by the report which the consultative committee set forward as a means as it were of diverting the clever boys of the artisan class into schools from which there was no exit on the proper side instead of diverting them into the secondary schools where they might get the full benefit of the instruction given in them. The hon. Member (Sir Philip Magnus) in my view has suggested the right remedy for the evils which are associated with our secondary school system. Free the secondary school system and allow admission to it on merit alone and abolish the fee system, which allows the children of the privileged to get there, while cutting out a good many of the children of the artisan class who would benefit by a course in the school, and would also add to the general efficiency of our great labouring population.
  I wish further to congratulate the President on the changed attitude of the Board towards the local education authorities. I happen to have met representatives of the authorities quite recently, and the opinion has been expressed to me, and with pleasure I reiterate it in the House, that there is a changed attitude at the Board of Education towards them, and it is being, recognised that on our great local education authorities we have many individuals who know something about education and how to administer it, and they are not being kept, and it is not proposed to keep them, in leading strings to the same extents

  407
  that they have been kept. They welcome very cordially this proposal that they shall be consulted with regard to the regulations which they will be called upon ultimately to administer. This betokens a flexibility and a suggestion of initiative in the authorities and a power to them to experiment which is, in my view, all for the good, and they are to be relieved of an excessive amount of minute tabulation and the making of returns, which will be a very great relief. Even to the extent of the official correspondence—it seems a small matter, but it is a fact that the change in the tone of the official correspondence is greatly welcomed in the offices of the local authorities. There is less suggestion of autocratic assurance about it than there was, and there is a desire to work more in harmony and meet the wishes of those who are responsible in the main for the carrying on of the work.
  I want now to turn to a further point made by the President on the question of school clinics. The proposal is that there shall be a Grant of £60,000 in aid of medical inspection and treatment, and it is not before the time that this proposed Grant is going to the authorities to assist them in this work. The unfortunate part is that, remembering the evil to be treated, the amount is almost microscopic. Remembering that there are 6,000,000 children in the schools, it works out at 2½d. per head, which is not a great amount, but I realise that the President is making claims on the Chancellor. There are £6,500,000 now in the Treasury—a sort of floating balance—and I hope the President will knock at the door of the Treasury and ask for a little more money on behalf of the medical inspection of school children. With regard to the method of allocation, I think, in the way of experiment, the President ought to be allowed a free hand for his first year, but the effect is going to be—and I hope that this will be watched—that the authorities which are most progressive are to get most money. Will he remember what the effect will be on the children tinder the control of the non-progressive authorities who do not propose to spend a penny? These are the children who are going to be neglected, and the probability is that under these authorities where this great question is ignored you have probably the greatest amount of child suffering from diseases and small ailments, which might be easily
  408
  removed. Therefore there ought to be some pressure exerted on the authorities who are doing nothing, and they ought to be whipped into action and stimulated by some benevolent compulsion in the way of aid. There ought to be some standard set up by the Board below which it will not allow authorities to fall. I recognise, of course, that they must come along, too, with the assistance which is necessary to help these authorities out of their difficulties.
  The President quoted the figures, but I doubt whether the House recognised the significance of them. He said there were 10 per cent. suffering from serious defects of vision. Ten per cent. probably appeared a small matter, but it is 10 per cent. of 6,000,000 children, which means that 600,000 children in the schools of the country of school age are suffering from defects of vision. Four per cent. is small, but 4 per cent. suffering from defective hearing means 240,000 children, and again 8 per cent. from adenoids means 480,000, and the appalling number of 2,400,000 children are suffering from unclean heads and the like, and a similar number from defective teeth, so that the evil of child suffering in the schools must be in the main enormous. Medical inspection, good in itself, is only making a diagnosis of the trouble, and to stop at medical inspection is to ignore the application of the remedy. Medical inspection without medical treatment is of no avail, and therefore the school clinic, which some people appear to dread because of the name and their ignorance of what it means, must come along to supplement medical inspection if medical inspection is to be worth anything at all. The school clinic. What is it? Not an expensive school infirmary where major operations are commonly performed every day, but a small central building or a room in a selected school, which may be equipped at small expense to perform minor operations and to give that medical treatment which will prevent the tiny ailments of youth becoming permanent disabilities in age. As a matter of fact, I find Miss Margaret Macmillan, who has done magnificent pioneer work in this connection at Dept-ford, is able to treat the children there at something like 3s. 9d. per head per annum, and she is fortunate enough to be able to do her work without any expenditure from the rates. But she estimates that any authority can do the work adequately for an amount of 4s. or 5s. per head.

  409
  Aristocratic Cambridge has given a lead in regard to another matter, the setting up of a dental clinic. Cambridge, by voluntary means, set up its dental clinic before the local authority financed it at all, and when it took it over it found that 75 per cent. of the children of school age were suffering from decay of the permanent teeth. Now that the local authority has taken in hand and supplemented the voluntary work, and a school generation has passed through the hands of the dentist in charge, there has been a complete revolution, and he certifies that 72 per cent. of the children of school age are free from decay of the permanent teeth; and when you remember that something like 3,000 men were invalided home from South Africa through defects of teeth and—probably this is a rather modest estimate—something like 35 per cent. to 40 per cent. of our soldiers are rejected by recruiting officers because of defective teeth one sees the loss of national efficiency—and that is where the Imperialists may come along and assist us—because of the absence of proper treatment in dental clinics and in the clinics of the normal kind. The President has also indicated that the Board is considering the question of mentally defective children. I am glad to find that he has taken the trouble of visiting one of these schools to study the problem for himself. I have visited several of these schools. I hope the President will keep this particular work under his own care and, no matter what the Bill suggested by the Home Secretary may be, it is work essentially for the Board of Education and for the local education authorities. It is most hopeful to find that one-third of the children can be trained to maintain themselves, and one-third to maintain themselves partially. It would appear to me that for the work of administration the local authority are the proper persons to deal with this matter, and not some glorified Lunacy Commission which will dub the children lunatics before they arrive at that stage, reflect upon the parents, and cause untold difficulties by dubbing the children insane at a time when they might be brought into the fighting army of labour instead of being thrown into the scrap heaps of lunatic asylums. The President of the Board of Education has suggested that we might make one or two suggestions for consideration. I would say that his aim should be to bring the elementary school by means of the regulations as near
  410
  as possible to the standard of the secondary school, that in floor space he should bring the nine or ten square feet into the region of the sixteen or seventeen square feet of the secondary school, that the central hall should be as generous as in the secondary school, that the playground should not be considered sufficient with thirty square feet per child, while it begins with fifty square feet in the secondary school with a minimum of 750 square yards. The classes in the elementary schools are still too large when they stand at sixty, when in the secondary schools the number is thirty, and usually considerably less than that. With regard to the Grant, it is illogical and unfair to the authorities to pay them on the average attendance of the school only instead of paying them in respect of every child who appears on the school book. There again we should bring the standard of the elementary school up to that of the secondary. In the secondary you are paying per child, and books and apparatus are provided for each child. There should be a cessation of the system of pressing children unduly in the matter of perfect attendance. The teachers obey the behests of the authority to get the average highest attendance, that being the basis of the payment of the Grant. Where the medical inspection is most thorough you have a reduced average attendance, and penalise the authority because of its thoroughness. The thing is obviously unfair. One thing which would be welcomed by the authorities would be the payment of the Grant on the basis of the numbers on the rolls in the elementary schools as you do in the secondary schools. As to the small school, it is placed under great disabilities. In the case of the secondary school you say that the Grant shall not fall below £250, but in that of the elementary school you say that an extra grant of £10 or £15 may be given with a reduction if the teacher is not engaged during the holidays according to one hon. Gentleman on this side. One thing I observe with very great pleasure—namely, the encouragement given to the tutorial classes of the Workers' Educational Association. The system is only four years' old, but there have already been 3,000 students, of whom 600 have completed three years' courses. This is the testimony of Mr. A. L. Smith, of Balliol College, in regard to these classes:—
  "Twenty-five per cent. of the essays examined by him after second year's work in two classes, and first year's

  411
  work in six classes were equal to the work done by students who gained first classes in the Final Schools of Modern History. He was astonished; not so much at the quality as at the quantity of the quality of the work done."
  I hope the President of the Board of Education will be enabled to encourage this kind of work. Why debar a child at fifteen from continuing its education? If a child is in an elementary school beyond fifteen the Grants are stopped. The age bar should be removed, and where children have not been able to pass to a secondary school, but have been kept by their parents in the elementary school, we should allow the school to retain them beyond the age of fifteen with the parents' consent by giving Grants in such cases. I have to express my pleasure at the course of this Debate, and to thank the President for the admirably full explanation of the work of his Board for the year.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I would like to express to the President of the Board of Education my sincere thanks for one of the most hopeful speeches upon the position of education in the country which I have had the privilege of listening to in this House. I would particularly like to congratulate him upon the encouragement which undoubtedly he has given, with the help of his able colleagues, in making the education in our elementary and secondary schools much more practical than it used to be. I wish to support the appeal made by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) with regard to the Roman Catholic school at Nymphsfield, in Gloucestershire. I have the honour of sitting upon the Education Committee of the county of Gloucester. That committee has on two separate occasions by a substantial majority endorsed an appeal that this school should be recognised as a public elementary school and be in receipt of Grants from public funds. That has been reversed by the county council, which has, contrary to the strongly expressed opinion of the majority of those who are more fully cognisant of the educational needs of the county, appealed to the Board not to confirm this application. Under Section 9 of the Education Act of 1902 the Board are empowered to grant this application, and in support of it I may say that this school is admitted by all parties, whatever be their prejudices, to be a thoroughly efficient school. It is admitted that the majority of the child population at
  412
  Nymphsfield does attend this school in preference to the school provided by the local education authority, and a very large proportion of the children who are not Catholics are children of Nonconformist parents, who are prepared to admit that there is no attempt at proselytising, and that the children are receiving a better education than they could possibly receive elsewhere. I think that the generosity of the Leigh family with regard to this school ought to be to some extent rewarded, considering the very heavy burden that has been thrown on their shoulders in order to maintain this school under Roman Catholic auspices. I find it very hard to defend the giving of Imperial aid to voluntary Church of England schools if recognition is going to be denied to a school of a similar character which belongs to another religious community.
  The right hon. Gentleman has told us, and I am very glad, that he is going to so arrange the training college system that there shall be an output from certain groups of training colleges at different periods of the year. That will undoubtedly to some extent ease the difficult position which results from young teachers not being available at certain times of the year, and a far larger number being thrown upon the market at one time of the year only. While referring to this subject I should like to carry the right hon. Gentleman's interest in training schools just a little further. When he tells us he is going to give encouragement to the teaching of practical subjects, such as school gardening, handicraft, and domestic science he should ensure that the teachers receive some practical training in those subjects in the teachers' training colleges. I happen to know that there are very few training colleges in this country that are giving the teachers any guidance in the matter of school gardening, and that there is a large increase of the managers prepared to appoint teachers with qualifications for giving instructions in school gardening if they were able to get them, but those qualifications are notable by their absence. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has realised that in the purely rural areas, at any rate, the bursar student teacher system has broken down. There is a great dearth, as has been pointed out by several hon. Gentlemen this afternoon, of uncertificated teachers in the rural areas; and this dearth is going to become all the greater when supplementary teachers

  413
  cease to be recognised in the year 1914. How are these uncertificated teachers to be provided under the existing system? The hon. Member for North Hereford (Mr. Wright) in a well-informed speech told the House that parents in the country districts are not prepared to incur the expense of allowing their children to remain for any great length of time in the secondary schools; but, in addition to that, the children that do go to the secondary schools, if they issue from them as student teachers, they necessarily become certificated teachers rather than uncertificated teachers, so that the dearth of this class of teacher becomes considerably greater year by year.
  I have to make an appeal on behalf of the Gloucestershire Education Committee that the Article 28 (a) of the regulations for the preliminary education of the elementary school teacher should be modified so that it should not read that the old-fashioned provision by way of apprenticeship in the elementary school under proper supervision should only be available where it is impossible to provide for the instruction of the pupil teacher by means of a centre, and a centre nowadays means in effect a secondary school. If you are prepared to modify that article so as to leave greater latitude to the discretion of the local education authorities, I am quite sure that those at any rate who supervise the education of the purely rural districts would regard the concession as a very great boon. With regard to this Grant of sixty thousand pounds towards medical treatment of the schoolchildren, just as I believe that an enormous amount of money expended is being wasted because we do not provide a superstructure of education for the majority of the children who in the schools have learned how to learn and no more, so I believe that a large amount of money which is being expended by the local education authorities on medical inspection cannot be justified unless the expenditure is followed with effective medical treatment. We hear a good deal about parental responsibility. I do not know whether parental responsibility is a thing of the past or not. I am inclined to think that, to a very large extent, it is, but we have got to face the fact that it does not, to my mind, remove the obligation which rests upon us to see that the children who are defective in health, either bodily or mentally, receive the education which the State is prepared to provide, or to see
  414
  that their condition is rendered more satisfactory so as to justify the public expenditure upon them. When the right hon. Gentleman tells me that he is going to spend pound for pound, I think it is only fair to ask what is going to happen as regards voluntary agencies at work in the country to-day. How can you estimate the poundage value of their voluntary work. It is just that voluntary work which in my humble judgment deserves every encouragement.
  The right hon. Gentleman in answer to a question of mine the other day assured me that he was going to give encouragement to those authorities which had voluntary agencies at work. I should like to ask him how is he going to give that encouragement under the system which he has adumbrated this afternoon. Is there not a little danger of overlapping between the various authorities in this matter of expenditure on medical treatment? You have already got boards of guardians now encouraged by the Local Government Board to expend public money upon non-institutional treatment of persons not merely destitute, because destitution is to be construed in the future in a very broad way, but in a condition approaching destitution, and they are also allowed to expend money on children and others dependent on them in the event of sickness. Is there not a danger of overlapping? I hope unnecessary expenditure of public funds is not going to result from two different Departments carrying on practically the same work with different officers and different material. With regard to the result of medical inspection, we are told that 35 per cent. of the children, and it is a sad fact, are suffering from a verminous condition. May I throw out the suggestion that we might with advantage adopt in our schools what is already adopted in most factories—namely, that there should be a wooden or other partition between the different pegs in the cloak-room upon which the cloaks and hats of the children are suspended. There is not the smallest doubt that a very large number of perfectly clean children, from healthy homes, have conveyed to them this most unpleasant complaint owing to the transference of this disease from hat to hat or cloak to cloak in the cloak-room. If such a system of separation or partition is possible in the factory, surely it is also possible in the schools of the country.
  In conclusion, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot say a word

  415
  in commendation, which I never yet heard uttered in this House, with regard to the perfectly admirable work which is being carried out by the Rural Education Conference at the present time. This Rural Education Conference, which is presided over by Mr. Henry Hobhouse, the vice-president being Lord Barnard, has done more than anybody to prevent this overlapping and hostility between the two Departments of Agriculture and Education. I think, indeed I am sure, they are pointing the way more than any other body not merely to co-operation between the two Departments, but indicating as well the right lines on which alone our rural education can be made continuous and properly co-ordinated. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that this admirable work, for which Mr. Henry Hobhouse is mainly responsible, does deserve a word of recognition in this House. May I take the opportunity of congratulating him and his predecessor on the fact that now at last those absurd squabbles between those two Departments appear to have absolutely ceased. It is only by co-operation that we can get anything like a real and effective system of rural education, from the elementary school right up to the collegiate centre, which is going to be of any real value to the agricultural population in this country. I take this opportunity, for the second time, of protesting against the very small amount of public time which is allocated to this most important subject of education. I think it is a very great hardship that on the one day of the year on which we discuss this subject that a private Bill is allowed to occupy so much of the time of the House.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move that Sub-head A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £100.
  I cordially endorse the concluding remarks of the last speaker. I, personally, should like considerably more than the allotted time still available. I am unique in this Debate in this sense: Like many other Members, I was officially informed that reductions were to be moved and that Divisions were certain. Hitherto no reduction has been moved, and as far as I can see the one certain thing is that there will be no Division. I move that the Vote be reduced by £100 in order to separate myself from the unanimous chorus of approval which has greeted the President of the
  416
  Board of Education. In my heart I believe in the right hon. Gentleman, and I approve much that he has done, but think he might have done a great deal better. In a perfectly amicable state of mind I shall endeavour to suggest ways in which next year he can do better than he has done. First of all, I want the right hon. Gentleman to exalt his office and to come forward with no apology. Personally, I shall not be satisfied with this Government until they raise the status of the Board of Education to that of other Government Departments. At least ten Cabinet Ministers are receiving £5,000 a year. I do not grudge that at all, but I say that if there is one man whose work for the nation and the importance of whose office justify that large salary it is the President of the Board of Education.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: And you are moving to reduce his salary!
  Mr. KING: I move to reduce it by £l00 this year, but I hope that next year it will be augmented by £3,000. I am sorry the Committee have not devoted more attention to the way in which appointments are made in the Board of Education. I know that this subject is being, or will be, discussed by the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, but I am not satisfied that this important question should be relegated to a body which will take probably three or four years to report. On 1st March a series of very important questions were addressed to the President of the Board of Education by the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. C. Duncan), and from the answers then elicited it appears that neither inspectors nor junior examiners, nor other officials in that Department, are appointed by any sort of competition. They are exempted by Treasury Minute from having to present any certificate from the Civil Service Commission. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should begin by opening, at any rate, some of the appointments in. his office to competition. I am constantly receiving protests from different sources against the present system. Let me point out that the result is that if, as is now the case, a large number of these appointments go to Oxford and Cambridge men, it is taken as a slight by the other universities, especially by London University, and the conclusion is drawn hastily, probably incorrectly, but it is arrived at, that the appointments are given by favour and privilege. I consider that a very

  417
  serious indictment to be able to be drawn against the Board of Education. I want therefore earnestly to suggest to the President that at any rate some of these appointments of inspectors and junior examinerships—probably all the latter— should in future be open to competition amongst those who present a Civil Service certificate.
  Let me pass to another point on which, I think, there is room for serious condemnation of the Board of Education. I refer to the fact in view of the President taking pride to himself for the excellently high average attendance in the elementary schools. He did not tell us that at present there are 10,000 fewer children in the elementary schools than a year ago. Perhaps he does not know, because I had to elicit the fact from a Return (21st February) which I had great difficulty in obtaining. From the last year's statistics there available the fact is shown. It is, of course, due to a good many reasons. It is due to the exclusion of children between the ages of three and five, and to the action of the local education authorities who "hustle" the children out—I use the word "hustle" advisedly—as soon as they reach the age of twelve. The pressure upon the schools is so great, and it is made greater by the now average attendance which prevents the authorities taking upon the books as many children as they could previously, and the result is—I know it—that the word goes forth from the authorities that as soon as the child is twelve, even if in the middle of the term, it has to be sent out of the school in order that some younger child may take its place. It really is a most serious indictment in view of the increase of population and the increased value which, I am glad to see, the working classes themselves are giving to education, that we have 10,000 children less in our elementary schools than a year ago. I think I will not leave the President time to reply, for I am perfectly certain he could not give a satisfactory explanation. I would also refer to the spirit in which our elementary schools are allowed to be managed and conducted by the Board of Education, who allow fees to be charged, and charged without any protest, and indeed with encouragement, in many of the elementary schools of the country. I was speaking recently to a very well-informed journalist, and I asked him—and his answer would probably be given by many other journalists or by Members of
  418
  this House if asked the question—as to how many children are being charged fees in the elementary schools, where those scholars are actually receiving the free Grant. The probable answer from hundreds of thousands of people would be that in this country there are no fees charged at all in our elementary schools. As a matter of fact there are certainly 200,000 children, and possibly 250,000 in elementary schools paying fees and paying fees amounting to £73,000 a year as a tax for education upon those parents who in most cases are badly able to bear that additional taxation.
  Let me point out the parts of the country which are the worst in this respect. I am sorry to say the county of Lancashire is responsible for most of the fees charged in elementary schools. In Birkenhead the amounts charged are very heavy, and constitute a most serious tax upon the working classes. I notice that only the other day the Archbishop of York went down to Birkenhead, and at a great meeting on behalf of the Church of England schools prided himself on the number of children at the schools and on the great devotion and self-sacrifice of Churchmen in Birkenhead for maintaining so many Church of England schools. A few days after a return showing all the fees in elementary schools, which was moved for by me at the end of last Session, was published, and a copy was sent to Birkenhead. I understand there was a discussion at the local education authority in Birkenhead upon these fees, which are especially heavy in that town. One after another representatives of the non-provided schools got up and said that if all the fees were abolished they would have to close their elementary schools. What does that mean? It means that the proud boast of the Archbishop of York in praising the self sacrifice of those supporting the voluntary schools, was either ignorance or humbug. He either was utterly ignorant of the state of the case or he was saying things that he knew were not justified, and I prefer to believe he was as ignorant as he ought not to have been about the matter. Seriously, this taxation of the working classes who have children by imposing heavy fees amounting to many shillings a year upon them, especially in the Church of England schools in Lancashire and Cheshire, is a scandal which the Board of Education ought to do its best to stop.
  As the President of the Board of Education refused to give me the total of the

  419
  fees charged in the different classes of schools I have added them up with considerable labour, and had them checked by a better arithmetician than myself, and I shall give the different totals. I am glad to see that in the Roman Catholic schools the fees now charged are a great deal less than years ago; they amount to only £1,272. In other denominational schools they amount to £277; in the purely undenominational schools they amount to £3,660. I am sorry to say the Wesleyan schools are extremely bad in this respect; they charge heavy fees for education which to my knowledge is often no better than what is given in corresponding schools across the way. In the Wesleyan schools £4,629 is charged every year in fees. In the Church of England schools £26,999 was charged last year. In the council schools, where the charge of fees are to a very large extent in the higher elementary schools with their much advanced curriculum, there is a certain justification.
  In the council schools charging elementary school fees there is collected £26,095, making altogether a total of £73,945 taken every year in school pence in the elementary schools of England which take a fee Grant. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Wales?"] Wales is practically without any school fees at all, because there are only two elementary schools in Wales in which fees are charged. I want to suggest to the President of the Board of Education that this is really scandalous, because it is taxation upon the poorest of the people, and I think he might do something through the Code in various ways, or through his inspectors, to assist the schools to be in practice what they are in theory, free, and open to all the children that are there. Perhaps the Government will give us another day to carry on this discussion. The rural schools have had several pleas put forward on their behalf. I wish to put forward a new plea, which is that they have been unfairly penalised by the operation of this special Grant for necessitous areas. That Grant was never given unless the area had a population of 20,000. Which is the heaviest burden, an urban area with a school rate of 1s. 7d. in the £, or a rural area where the school rate is 3s. 9d. in the £, and yet all the conditions under which the necessitous Grant was given, and three-quarters of the surplus above the 1s. 6d. borne by the taxes instead of the rates, by those very condi-
  420
  tions all rural parishes with a heavy rate were ruled out of this special assistance. Here is a case which has not been actually stated here this afternoon, but it is a very serious case in a number of parishes. If the President likes, I could give him a list of a certain number of parishes very highly rated indeed. I have the statistics here, but I will not trouble the Committee with them now, but if the right hon. Gentleman will privately show that he has some sympathy with the rural parishes struggling with a 3s. 9d. education rate, I will send him a list which will help him to form a sound judgment. Although I have moved a reduction of this Vote, I am not very anxious to go to a Division upon it. It really is a pleasure to me to find that Radical opinions in the matter of education are evidently gaining ground, and that Radical administration of education is compelling admiration on the other side of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We are discussing the administration to-day, and not one of those Gentlemen opposite have dared to move a reduction to-night. It has been left to one who is a Radical of Radicals, and his only dissatisfaction is because the administration is not quite Radical enough.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I am the last person to offer any criticism of the right hon. Gentleman's administration, because my object in rising is to make an appeal to him to give his very favourable consideration to an application which he has received with regard to the Bath Secondary School. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that the Board of Education have threatened to withdraw a Grant amounting to as large a sum as £l,000 a year from the Bath Secondary School on the ground that the buildings are not wholly suitable. This is an old question. It began in the year 1904. In those days objection was taken to the buildings, not because they were inadequate to the purposes of a secondary school, but on the rather pedantic ground that they were not exclusively allocated to such a purpose, and were at the same time used for the purposes of technical classes and of a school of domestic science and for some other educational purposes. I regret I cannot go into the details of this case, because it is undoubtedly a very strong case indeed. I will only advance one consideration, why the right hon. Gentleman should treat the city of Bath with indulgence and leniency in this matter. Quite

  421
  recently the boundaries of the city have been extended. The area under the education authority has been very considerably enlarged, and it would have been, I think he will agree, very improper on the part of the outgoing council to have committed the new city council of the larger area to a very large expenditure, amounting to some £6,000 on new buildings for a secondary school, when they were shortly to become extinct. Another consideration is that there is being built outside the old boundaries but inside the new boundaries a higher elementary school. Before the right hon. Gentleman insists on the existing school inside the present city being enlarged, it would be wise for him to wait and see what accommodation there will be in the new higher elementary school within the new boundaries. In the meanwhile I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to withdraw the restriction on the number of pupils permitted to use the present secondary school, because it is undoubtedly hard on the city that only 160 children should be allowed to take advantage of it. I make my appeal not only in the interests of the city of Bath, but also in the interests of education in Somerset.
  And it being Eleven o'clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next, the 10th instant.

COMMONS (INCLOSURE AND REGULATION).
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the existing requirements of the Law as to the procedure prescribed in connection with the Inclosure and Regulation of Commons, and to report whether any alterations are desirable:
Ordered, That Mr. Hicks Beach, Mr. Beck, Mr. Brunner, Mr. Ellis Davies, Major Anstruther-Gray, Mr. Hamersley, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Lardner, Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Mr. Perkins, and Mr. Wiles be Members of the Committee:
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
Ordered, That Five be the quorum.— [Master of Elibank.]

PORT OF LONDON (STRIKE).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Master of Elibank.]
Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to raise a question, of which I have given notice to the Home Secretary—
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Master of Elibank): When?
Sir F. BANBURY: Half an hour ago, but I happen to have seen the right hon. Gentleman in the House since. The question is, Whether or not it is correct that a certain firm of shipowners—Messrs. Houlder Brothers—having a ship at Purfleet at the present moment, in which they have brought a certain number of free labourers to London, and having been informed that an attack would be made by certain men upon those free labourers, have applied to the Home Secretary for protection for those men in following their lawful occupation; whether it is a fact that the Home Secretary, after having given them an appointment, has evaded seeing them to-day on more than one occasion; and whether it is a fact that the Home Secretary, having sent down certain Metropolitan Police, has given the following instruction: That the Metropolitan Police are not to be used for the protection of free labour, and that the Metropolitan Police are only to be used for the protection of property? I do not say that that is correct. That is the information which is given to me. But I do say this: that, if that information is correct, the Home Secretary has grossly exceeded his duty. The duty of the Home Secretary, as chief of the police, is to see that the peace is preserved, and that everyone who is desirous of earning an honest livelihood in a lawful manner is protected. We all pay rates and taxes for the protection of our lives and property, and the Home Secretary has no right to refuse protection to people who are endeavouring to earn an honest livelihood. I can hardly believe it is possible that the Home Secretary has given these instructions, but when I find that, as was stated by Messrs. Houlder, they endeavoured to see the Home Secretary to-day, and that the Home Secretary, after having given them an appointment, has kept them waiting more than an hour, and has then caused them to be informed that he has gone away,

423
and that his secretary has gone away, and when in addition to that I myself gave notice to the hon. Members who act as Whips for the Radical party more than half an hour ago, and since that time I happened to see the right hon. Gentleman in consultation with a Whip—I cannot be quite certain of that—and now I do not see the right hon. Gentleman in his place on the Treasury Bench—the hon. Member who I asked to give the message to the Home Secretary sends me a note to say that he had forgotten it—
MASTER Of ELIBANK: The Home Secretary is even now on his way and will be here directly.
Sir F. BANBURY: Of course, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's word. At any rate the Chancellor of the Exchequer is present.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The Home Secretary will be here in a few minutes.
Sir F. BANBURY: Then I withdraw anything I have said on that matter. I trust I shall receive an assurance from the Home Secretary that he has given no such instructions to the police, but that, on the contrary, he will give instructions to the police to protect any man, whoever he may be, when he follows the ordinary duties of a citizen of this great country.
Captain CRAIG: I think it would be only fair that we should comment for a few moments on the extraordinary revelation made by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) in order to give the Home Secretary a chance to come to the House and tell us exactly what has happened. I cannot help thinking that the statement of the case made by the hon. Baronet is in every sense true, because it follows what appears to be the system of the Government in all parts of the country where these trade disputes occur. In every instance when I have been present at any of these strikes or disputes in the labour world, the whole policy of His Majesty's Government has been to cater for catching votes among the working classes, and to neglect their real responsibility as Ministers of the Crown. The statement made by the hon. Baronet is a very serious one. If it be true that the Minister of the Crown who is responsible for maintaining law and order in the
424
country has given instructions that men who are willing to earn an honest day's pay for an honest day's work are to be prohibited from doing so by the action of His Majesty's Government, I say that this country is coming to a very strange pass indeed. I was rather annoyed at Question Time to notice that these people who are prepared to work honestly were stigmatised as blacklegs, and I hope in future that word will not be used. It is really rather cruel that men who refuse to be coerced into joining a union should have a term of opprobrium used with regard to them by Members of this House, and that appears to be the view accepted by the Government. In Ireland lately we have had very serious labour troubles and in every instance the employers of labour have been flouted. In one case one man was the chief cause of all the disturbance that was raised. I refer to Mr. Jim Long. Nothing can be more degrading to the honest working classes than for any Government to support a man of that class. The history of this man is not creditable at all to the labour world, and we in the North of Ireland are not accustomed to having men of that class in any position of power or influence in the country. There was an action pending against this man of a very serious character. He fled to the South of Ireland, and when he arrived there he was immediately taken up by the Government, the charge was withdrawn by the Solicitor-General, and he was given a job in order to compensate him for any little inconvenience to which he was put.
Later on, when the strike broke out in Dublin, the Government, instead of immediately laying him by the heels, received him at Dublin Castle, and he was practically allowed to manage the country during a period of turmoil in the Dublin docks. If that was an isolated case it would not have the same importance, but, as a matter of fact, this had occurred before, showing that it was the policy of the Government in order, I presume, according to Limehouse standards, to cater for the many in order to injure the few. If that policy continues to any great extent the natural result is that you cripple the industries of the country, and you invite foreign countries to take up what you refuse to do yourselves, and in every way make it most difficult for merchants and manufacturers of the country to continue. It will be necessary for us to have some information from the Home Secretary. I think it is also fully necessary that the

425
right hon. Gentleman, who is leading the House, and who has unfortunately by his words on many occasions in the country caused these disturbances, raised these class hatreds, and done all that he possibly can to set different parties at each other's throats, should say a few words on this very delicate subject, which is of intense importance to the prosperity of the country—Daughter]—which appears to be a matter for the worst class of laughter from those who sit on the Government benches.
Mr. BOOTH: I believe the House is deeply interested in the point which the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has raised. My explanation of the absence of the Home Secretary at the present time is that he did not receive notice that this question was to be raised. I have no doubt whatever that if the hon. Baronet will have a little patience he will find the right hon. Gentleman in the House before long, and that he will discuss with becoming gravity the matter which has been referred to. I know the hon. Baronet would be the last person in the world to accuse the Home Secretary of any intentional discourtesy. The question is one which I do not care to discuss in the short time at my disposal. I notice there is a general expectancy that I should enlighten the House at some considerable length, but I think a new Member should put restraint upon himself. [At this point Mr. McKenna entered the House.] Perhaps as the right hon. Gentleman has now arrived I may be allowed to give way to him.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I apologise to the House for my absence. By an unfortunate error the notice sent to me never reached me, and nobody, I think, can be justly blamed for that. With regard to the Houlder case, what happened was this: Messrs. Houlder were engaged in unloading a ship at Purfleet with labour imported from Newport, Monmouthshire. Purfleet is not within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan area. The Essex police anticipated last night that there might be a certain amount of trouble. A communication was made to the Home Office, not from the chief constable but from one of the large shipowners at Tilbury. A special officer was sent down from London in order to apprise himself of the actual state of the case at Tilbury, and he was then informed that there was no special need for assistance being given by the Metropolitan police officers. This morning I was told that
426
new cause for anxiety had arisen, and a request was made for a loan of men from London. I replied that I could if necessary send 100 men, provided they could be of service either in protecting the conveyance of necessary food or of assisting the Essex officers in suppressing actual disorder; but that if it was merely to provide protection for the loading of cargoes, we had such abundant demands for the London police that I could not undertake to send men for that purpose. The Essex police replied that with that limitation they would not require the services of any of our London men, and accordingly no men were sent. It is recognised by the House that it is the duty of Government to preserve peace and to take all necessary steps for that purpose, but when action is taken of a kind which is known to be provocative it is too much to ask that police shall be imported from outside in order to prepare the way for provocative action.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: What provocative action?
Mr. McKENNA: In this case it was not a question of protecting men who would usually be engaged at work at Purfleet, but it was a question of protecting men who had excellent opportunity for work at Newport, but were brought in specially as strike-breakers. If these men had carried on their work, or if actual disorder had arisen, it would be the duty of the Government to use every means in its power to restore order. But it is not, it cannot be, the duty of any Government on every occasion to assist employers in actions which are primarily intended, as I believe in many cases—I do not say in this case—to provoke disorder. I will explain to the House exactly the case in point. In London at the present time, as we know, a great deal of work is going on in the docks in unloading ships. There has practically been no disorder. The men have behaved, if I may say so, with great restraint. Although they, rightly or wrongly, feel it a great hardship to them that in a struggle in which they believe they are fighting for their just rights they should be defeated by the action of the Metropolitan forces, nevertheless they have done nothing to provoke disorder. If you are to bring into this dispute a new element, if instead of taking on men from the shore in the ordinary way you bring in ships for the purpose of supplying strike-breakers, although the very same men might be housed on shore and do

427
their work in the ordinary way, you are introducing a new element which is bound to provoke disorder. We are all anxious to avoid anything in the nature of provocative action, and the history of this strike shows that without unnecessary provocation it is possible to preserve peace in spite of the great conflict which now exists over the whole Port of London. I would ask that the same method should be pursued in other districts. This particular district is not immediately under the jurisdiction of the Home Office, and therefore I have no direct responsibility; but if at Tilbury, or any other district, the same method is pursued, giving only such organised protection as can be reasonably given for necessary cargoes, and if the police are used to preserve order, without disturbance, then I am sure in those places we shall be able to get through this strike without any outbreak of disorder. But if, on the contrary, the employers are instigated to use methods which they know as well as I are bound to be greatly provocative to the men, the result is bound to be disastrous. Hon. Gentlemen and I have precisely the same object. We all alike wish to preserve order, and I would ask them to assist me just as I have done my best to prevent disorder amongst the men, and have done my best to prevent them from using provocative action, so I would ask them to assist me in preventing the employers from using provocative action, and when they know that in a case like this these ships brought in specially filled with strike-breakers; when they know the result is bound to provoke a conflagration in the Port, they are doing a bad service to employers and men alike if they encourage the employers in this action. The result of the present strike in London speaks for itself. We have preserved order and can preserve order only by the methods I have explained to the House.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I understood the Home Secretary to say that this morning an intimation came from the Chief Constable of Essex, who is responsible for preserving law and order, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to lay that communication on the Table of the House at once, and also his reply to him, if it is in writing or by telephone. The person responsible for the maintenance of law and order calls on the Home Secretary to let him have forces to preserve law and order. What is the Home Secretary's
428
statement. "If there had been," he says, "any disturbance, if there had been a riot or heads broken, then I ought to send forces down," but is it not the duty of the Home Secretary to prevent a breach of the peace?
And, it being Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL INSUEANCE ACT.
  APPROVED SOCIETIES.
  APPROVED SOCIETIES.
  REPRESENTATION ON ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
  REPRESENTATION ON ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
  PAYMENT OF LECTURERS.
  PAYMENT OF LECTURERS.
  Tobacco Licences.
  Tobacco Licences.
  Tuberculosis Grant.
  Tuberculosis Grant.
ROYAL NAVY.
  EXCLUSION OF TRADERS FROM HIS MAJESTY'S SHIPS.
  EXCLUSION OF TRADERS FROM HIS MAJESTY'S SHIPS.
  Great Western Railway (Pontoon Wharf at Neyland).
  Great Western Railway (Pontoon Wharf at Neyland).
TERRITORIAL FORCE.
  PADDINGTON RIFLES.
  PADDINGTON RIFLES.
  7TH BATTALION ESSEX REGIMENT.
  7TH BATTALION ESSEX REGIMENT.
  Jury Service (Payment).
  Jury Service (Payment).
  Suffragist Prisoners.
  Suffragist Prisoners.
PORT OF LONDON (STRIKE).
  PROSECUTIONS BY POLICE.
  PROSECUTIONS BY POLICE.
  Employment of Children Act.
  Employment of Children Act.
  Local Marine Board (Plymouth).
  Local Marine Board (Plymouth).
  Foreshore, Seaview, Isle of Wight (Crown Rights).
  Foreshore, Seaview, Isle of Wight (Crown Rights).
  Thaxted Postmaster.
  Thaxted Postmaster.
  Brough (Yorks) Sub-Postmastership.
  Brough (Yorks) Sub-Postmastership.
  Compulsory Redemption of Tithe (Glamorgan).
  Compulsory Redemption of Tithe (Glamorgan).