Sitting of 10 April 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Bishop's Waltham Water Bill.

Heathfield and District Water Bill.

Ordered, That the Bills be committed.
Crowborough District Gas and Electricity Bill (by Order),
Titchfield District Gas Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.
Edinburgh and East of Scotland College of Agriculture Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Belfast Corporation Bill,
Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill.
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Swanage Urban District Water Bill.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Private Bills (Group B).
Sir Edwin Cornwall reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills;
1326
That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the councils of the borough of Kingston-upon-Thames and of the urban district of Farnworth, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order by the Secretary for Scotland under the Act, dated 25th March, 1913, relative to the burgh of Kirkcaldy [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE OBSERVATORY.
Copy presented of Report of His Majesty's Astronomer at the Cape of Good Hope to the Secretary of the Admiralty, for the year 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Return of Advances made under the Irish Land Purchase Acts during the month of May, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Return of Proceedings of the Irish Land Commission during the months of January, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1907.
Copy presented of Return giving particulars of cases in which persons had been reinstated with the assistance of the Estates Commissioners during the quarter ended 31st December, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Fifth General Annual Report of the Public Trustee [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

CROWN COLONIES, ETC. (DEATH SENTENCES).
Address for "Return showing the number of Death Sentences and executions in

1327
British Crown and other Colonies and Protectorates during the year 1912, with the population of such Colonies and Protectorates, respectively (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 394, of Session 1912–13)."—[Mr. George Greenwood.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  War in Balkans.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has information to the effect that Mahomedans who, relying on promises of protection for their persons and property and freedom for the exercise of their religion, have returned to their homes in Macedonia have suffered ill-treatment and death, violation of their women, forcible conversion to Christianity, and other outrages; and whether representations will be made to the Allies on behalf of these ex-Turkish subjects?
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the complaints of those Moslem inhabitants of Eastern Macedonia who, relying on Bulgarian assurances, returned to their villages, are being subjected to persecution by Bulgarian Comitadjs, who are alleged to violate young girls and murder those who refused to adopt the Christian religion; and whether he will take steps to induce the Bulgarian Government to enforce guarantees for the protection of minorities throughout the conquered territories?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): All that I can do is to bring any reports that reach me before the Bulgarian Government, in order that steps may be taken to prevent abuses and to punish the authors of them. This has been done, and will be done by His Majesty's Government as readily in the case of Moslems as of Christians.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the impression prevails that Great Britain sympathises with the Allies and not with their victims, and that has produced a very unfortunae effect in India?
  Sir E. GREY: It is very undesirable there should be an impression that we are
  1328
  less ready to take up cases of abuse of which Moslems are the victims than of Christians. It is a question not of creed but of humanity. I have expressly said we have been as ready in the ease of Moslems as of Christians.
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will answer the last part of my question as to guarantees—whether he is going to take the same steps to obtain guarantees in Macedonia as he has already promised to take in Albania?
  Sir E. GREY: The question with regard to a limited portion of the frontier of Albania is a question of international steps to be taken. We cannot possibly take steps to establish a Protectorate over Macedonia.
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: Can the right hon. Gentleman not promise guarantees for Moslem inhabitants on the same basis as in Albania whore his statement referred to guarantees for the minority?
  Sir E. GREY: My statement with regard to Albania referred to a certain international agreement. There is no international agreement with regard to Macedonia.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea as to the truth of these statements?
  Sir E. GREY: I stated repeatedly it is very difficult when a state of war is going on to be quite sure as to who is responsible for what has occurred and as to what has occurred, but in all cases which have been brought to my notice of reports which seem to have foundation I have brought them to the attention of the Governments concerned for the reasons stated in my original answer.

  Chinese Republic.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the condemnation by the United States Government of the conditions sought to be imposed upon China by the sextuple finance monopolists, the willingness of financiers outside that ring to lend sufficient money on terms satisfactory to China, and the official recognition of the Chinese Republic by the United States Government, whether the British Government is now prepared to follow the example of the American; if not, whether China will be coerced to reject the proffered American loan; and whether

  1329
  official recognition of the Chinese Republic by this country is to be made conditional on her submission to the terms dictated by Russia and Japan and condemned by America?
  Sir E. GREY: With regard to the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the question of the recognition of the Chinese Republic, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 7th instant to the unstarred question by the hon. Member for East Nottingham. I am not aware that any independent American loan has been, or is likely to be, offered to China. The recognition of the Chinese Republic has nothing to do with the reorganisation loan, and is not dependent in any way upon the loan negotiations, nor are the conditions of the loan dictated by Russia and Japan.

  Portugal (Political Offenders).
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information as to the alleged imprisonment, without trial, and ill-treatment of political offenders in Portugal?
  Sir E. GREY: I have received some information. The question is one which concerns the internal administration of Portugal, and beyond stating that abuses must have a very unfavourable effect upon public opinion and sympathies there is little that any other Government can do unless its own subjects are concerned.

  Peruvian Amazon Company.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the Report of United States Consul Eberhardt at Iquitos, made in December, 1907, to his Government at Washington, and referring to the conditions on the property of the Peruvian Amazon Company, formed the basis of communications between the United States Government and the Foreign Office; and, if so, when was the first communication made?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the negative. The first communication between the two Governments with regard to the proceedings of the Peruvian Amazon Company took place between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States in October, 1909, and was based on questions asked in this House in September and October of that year. The questions referred to a Report on the subject from the United States Consul at
  1330
  Iquitos, and consequently His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington was instructed on 20th October, 1909, to ascertain whether such a Report had been furnished to the United States Government, and he replied on 28th October that the United States State Department had no Report on the subject.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the inspection made by a representative of the Estates Commissioners on the holding of Charles O'Connell, Foildrenagh, Mastergeehy, on the estate of Mr. D. C. O'Connell, he will now state whether the Congested Districts Board have to decided to arrange for the sale of the holding at the price fixed by the Estates Commissioners, or, if not, can he state on what basis the sale is to be completed?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The price placed by the Estates Commissioners upon Mr. Charles O'Connell's holding was £180, at which sum the Congested Districts Board will be prepared to sell the holding to him.

  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the extra amount per annum required to give full salaries to paper-promoted teachers in Ireland would be only £1,400; whether there is any rule of the Education Board which authorises the withholding from teachers of the salaries attaching to the grade to which they are promoted; and whether, seeing the treatment accorded to those teachers and the small amount required, he will request the Treasury to make the necessary Grant?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. As I stated in reply to his question of 28th March, it would require an annual sum of £1,400 to pay at the higher rates the 113 teachers who are at present awaiting vacancies in the higher grades. An indefinite increase, however, in the standard numbers of the various grades would entail an extra annual charge of many thousands of pounds. Rule 102 (c) of the Commissioners of National Education states that the number of teachers recognised in each grade or section of a grade is fixed from time to time by the Commissioners and the Treasury. The Irish Government in-

  1331
  formed the Commissioners in 1911 that they were prepared to recommend to the Treasury a limited expansion of the numbers fixed for the first grade on the understanding that no further promotions should be made save on the occurrence of vacancies, but the Commissioners declined that offer.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Is it not the fact that the Commissioners of Education have tried to do away with this rule, but the Treasury have refused their consent?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Treasury are quite unable to do away with the rule altogether without adding very materially indeed to the annual charge.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Will not the Treasury allow the Commissioners of Education, who are responsible, to decide when teachers should get an increase of salary?
  Mr. BIRRELL: All that the Treasury insist upon is that there shall not be an indefinite increase, and that some modus vivendi should be established. We have made a proposal of that sort to the Commissioners, but they have declined to accept it. I am quite prepared to consider the question again, if there is any disposition on the part of the Commissioners to enter into the matter on a business footing.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend the Treasury to discharge their liabilities to the 113 teachers?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Certainly I would do so, but the Commissioners will not agree to the terms. I am most anxious to pay them.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring some pressure to bear on the Treasury?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Treasury are quite willing to pay the people who are now outstanding, but they will not agree to the abolition of this rule, and thereby make an indefinite increase possible.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Does not that mean that the Treasury can definitely debar the Commissioners from promoting teachers?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is not a question of that sort; it is a question of the money.

  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Mrs. Moriarty, now of High Field Grove, Cheshire, was declared an evicted tenant and entitled to a holding more than six years ago; and whether steps will be immediately taken to find a holding for her?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Mrs. Moriarty was informed by the Estates Commissioners in January, 1907, that her name would be considered in the allotment of untenanted land. After the passing of the Evicted Tenants Act the Commissioners published a notice in the "Dublin Gazette" that they proposed to acquire the farm on Lord Ventry's estate, county Kerry, from which her mother had been evicted in 1888, but they did not proceed further in the matter on being informed that the farm would be required for the purposes of the Congested Districts Board. The Commissioners have noted her application for consideration in the allotment of such untenanted land as they may acquire elsewhere, and her case will be dealt with as soon as practicable.
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Mrs. O'Brien, Castlemaine, county Kerry, was evicted from her holding some years ago, and that she and her ancestor held this land for over seventy years; will he say on what grounds she was excluded from the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act; and will steps be taken to find a holding for her elsewhere?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on the 27th March to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Seeing that this lady and her ancestors were on this land for seventy years, on what ground is she not reinstated?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The estate to which she has ancestral claims is in the hands of a tenant purchaser.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Does not that account for her being an evicted tenant?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No. We cannot give her that particular holding.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give her some untenanted land where available?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That is just what I have said.
  Mr. DELANYasked the Chief Secretary whether he can explain the reason why Mrs. Bridget Swaine, who was evicted in 1890 out of a farm of 14 acres at a rent of £28 a year, on the estate of A. Fitzmaurice, Ballinakill, Queen's County, has not been provided with another holding, her late farm being in the possession of a planter; is he aware that her name was returned by Inspector Moyles, who investigated the case, on an approved list for the farm; that her case has the support of all the public bodies in the district; and can he explain the reason of the delay in providing this woman with a holding?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners received an application from Mrs. Bridget Swaine for reinstatement in a holding on the estate of A. Fitzmaurice and another, Queen's County, formerly occupied by her husband, and now in the occupation of his nephew. The Commissioners decided not to take any action in regard to her application, and they see no reason to alter their decision in the matter.
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked what arrangements, if any, the Estates Commissioners are making, or intend making, for the reinstatement of the evicted tenants in Fermanagh county whose claims have not yet been finally dealt with?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Eighty-two county Fermanagh evicted tenants have been reinstated in their former holdings or provided with new holdings. There are now fourteen persons seeking reinstatement as evicted tenants or representatives of evicted tenants in the county whose applications have been provisionally noted for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land acquired by the Estates Commissioners and who have not yet been provided with holdings. Their applications will be dealt with as soon as practicable.
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked when the Estates Commissioners intend to deal with the claim of James M'Gourty, of Belcoo, county Fermanagh, to be reinstated in the farm on the Jones estate, in that county, from which he was evicted, or to be provided with a farm in lieu of it?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners received an application from this man for reinstatement in a holding
  1334
  formerly occupied by him on the Jones estate, county Fermanagh, and now in the possession of another tenant. The Commissioners, after inquiry and consideration, decided to take no action in regard to his application, and they see no reason to alter their decision in the matter.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the late agent to the Jones estate, Mr. Duffin, empowered me to make a settlement with the evicted tenant on the agent's behalf? Can he say for what reason this man is not recognised as an evicted tenant?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have said over and over again that I really cannot undertake to revise or even in all cases to make myself acquainted with the reason which lead the Commissioners in the discharge of their duty to come to a decision one way or the other. They have the duty cast upon them, and there is no appeal from their decision.
  An HON. MEMBER: Is not the only reason for withholding the holding from this man suspicion with regard to an offence for which there is no foundation?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I hear that for the first time.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Patrick Wren, Ballinascar, Minard, Dingle, county Kerry, has been refused an old age pension on the ground of means; and, seeing that he is entitled only to a sixth portion of a farm which feeds ten cows, on what basis does the pension officer estimate that the annual value of his portion would exceed £31 10s.?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Patrick Wren's claim was disallowed on the grounds that his means exceeded the statutory limit. He resides on a large and well-stocked farm of which he is joint tenant with his younger brother. The Local Government Board have had no evidence corroborating the statement in the question that Wren is entitled only to a sixth portion of the farm.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: If the Local Government Board are informed that he only holds one-sixth, will they reconsider the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Certainly, if that is so.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: Do they consider a farm sufficient only for ten cows a large farm?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is not a question of whether it is a large farm or not. It is a question of whether the means of a person who is entitled to a share of it exceed the statutory limit.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the fact that both the pension officer and the local committee decided in July, 1912, that Jeremiah Shea, Rossmore Tahilla, near Sneem, was entitled to an old age pension, that after his wife's death it was ascertained that his means did not reach the statutory limit, and that no special local investigation has been made by the Local Government Board, he will state why this applicant has not been granted an old age pension?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to his previous questions on this subject, to which have nothing to add.
  Mr. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pension officer in this case recommended the pension? Can he say on whose direction the pension was refused?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It was refused by the Local Government Board.
  Mr. BOLAND: Had the Local Government Board a special investigation? Why did they not accept the decision of their own pension officer?
  Mr. BIRRELL: He is not their pension officer. The Local Government Board are bound to consider every case quite irrespective of the pension officer, or even of the committee. They are bound to consider it de novo.
  Mr. BOLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who informed the Local Government Board, or what reason they had for acting in this way?
  Mr. BIRRELL: They heard the case on appeal, and they would be very neglectful of their duty if they did not consider the evidence one way and the other.

  Central Model Schools (Dublin).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary how many boys in the central model schools, Dublin, were on the Irish rolls on 31st March, 1912, and 31st March, 1913, respectively; is Irish taught inside
  1336
  school hours; how many members of the teaching staff give instruction in Irish; are the Commissioners of National Education satisfied that sufficient provision is made for the teaching of Irish in these schools; and, if not, will steps be taken to secure proper provision?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the number of boys on the rolls on 31st March, 1912, was ninety-nine, and on 31st March, 1913, was 102. Irish is not taught within school hours. One member of the staff gives instruction in Irish, and on the occurrence of a vacancy in the staff the propriety of appointing a second teacher qualified to give instruction in that language will be considerd by the Commissioners.

  Committee on Irish Finance.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked how many of the witnesses have now indicated their consent to the publication of their evidence before the Committee on Irish Finance?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Replies have been received from twenty-five out of the twenty-eight witnesses. Of these fourteen offer no objection to the publication of their evidence, eight, comprising the majority of the Irish official witnesses, object on principle to the publication of evidence given on the understanding that it would be treated as confidential, and three prefer on various grounds that their evidence should not be published. With regard to the Irish official witnesses, to whom assurance had been given of strict confidence, I feel bound to add that in my opinion they have good ground for complaint at the course which, under Parliamentary pressure, has been taken; for it is obvious that by refusing their consent to publication they expose themselves to party imputations and baseless conjectures as to the nature of their evidence. However, notwithstanding what has passed, I shall withhold from publication the evidence of those witnesses who object, and the rest will be published.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it will be fair to publish any portion whatever of this evidence unless there is a general publication of the whole?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Gentleman knows that, with an importunity worthy

  1337
  of a better cause, questions have been put not only to me, but to the Prime Minister and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the result that a promise has been given, which promise must be kept, that the evidence of those persons who do not object shall be published. Certain evidence, as I say, will not be published. I was only saying that I rather sympathise with those Civil servants who feel that by withholding their evidence from publication they are exposing themselves to the suggestion of having said something of a most alarming character, whereas if it were published it would be seen to be something quite different.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that that would be very much like a farce—"Hamlet" without the Prince—to publish these unofficial statements when the all-important statements of the officials are suppressed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am sorry to say that they are not all-important, and I am only sorry that the whole of the evidence will not be published, as I am perfectly certain I should hear no more about it. As a matter of fact a promise has been given, and I am not in a position to go back upon it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I should be perfectly willing to allow him, or anybody, to see the evidence of the official persons: there is no mystery at all about it. The evidence that will be published will be submitted to Members of the House, and I hope that some of them will read it.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if he makes the same statement to the official witnesses that he has just made to the House of his own feeling in this matter, that they will be very easily induced to forego their objections?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know but what there is a good deal in what the hon. Gentleman says. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have put no pressure whatever upon any witness, either to give or to withhold his evidence; and I do not think that these official witnesses really mind a bit whether the evidence is published or not. But they feel—and I do not wonder at it—that they feel on behalf of the Civil Service, having given their evidence on the assurance that it should be treated as confidential, that it is asking rather too much that owing to a Parliamentary exigency it should be given.
  Colonel YATE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why the assurance was given?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There are eighty questions still awaiting answer.

  British Embassies (Silver Plate).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what is signified by the item, £150 for maintenance of plate, in the Civil Service Estimates, Vote 1, of the current year?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The item under Sub-head B, in Vote 7, refers to the maintenance of services of silver plate in the various Embassy houses. These are provided by the Office of Works as part of the official furniture.

  Proof Act (Firearms).
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the schedule illustrating and explaining the assay marks adopted for use on British and imported plate and jewellery a plain equilateral triangle is substituted for the lion, crown, and anchor marks, which are reserved exclusively for British-made goods, and is placed upon all articles of plate and jewellery imported from abroad; whether he is aware that such differential marking differentiates clearly between British-made and foreign goods of this description, while at the same time not in any way indicating the origin or quality of the goods themselves; and whether he is prepared to introduce legislation amending the Proof Act applicable to firearms, in order to make a similar and clear distinction between goods manufactured abroad and proof-marked in England and those manufactured in this country and also proof-marked in England?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The marks used by the various Assay Offices for foreign gold and silver plate are, of course, different from those applied to plate manufactured in this country. Each assay office uses a special mark, and the equilateral triangle referred to by the hon. Member is the special mark used in the case of imported plate by the Birmingham Assay Office. In addition to this special mark, imported plate is required to be marked with an indication of

  1339
  its quality as determined by assay. The matter raised in the last part of the question is now receiving my careful consideration, and I hope shortly to be able to announce a decision.

  Coast Watching.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement as to the progress of the arrangements for coast watching?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): Forty-three watch-huts have been erected or are in course of erection, and others will be erected as soon as the necessary sites have been acquired. Eventually there will be 114 of these huts. Many alterations and additions to the coast communication telephone service have been carried out with a view to the better summoning of assistance to vessels in distress. The Board of Trade are also establishing seventeen new rocket life apparatus stations, and improving the equipment of a number of other stations.

  Steamship "Veronese."
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the inquiry held in Liverpool on the 4th instant into the stranding of the "Veronese," in which the chief officer, Mr. E. V. Hugo, was exonerated from all blame and praised for his ccurageous conduct in rescuing emigrant passengers, and where, nevertheless, the representative of the Board of Trade objected to the granting of art order for his costs against the Board of Trade; and whether he will take steps to see that in future, where the result of wreck inquiries is to exonerate any officer or officers from blame, their costs shall be borne by the Board of Trade, and they shall receive reasonable compensation for their loss of time and employment?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have not yet received the Official Report of this inquiry, but I understand that the facts with regard to the chief officer of the "Veronese" are correctly stated in the question. It has not been the practice of the Board of Trade to agree to bear the costs incurred by parties to inquiries; but, if in any case it could be shown that the Board had without sufficient grounds made an officer a party, an application to the Court for the officer's costs would not be opposed.
  1340
  It is, however, the practice of the Board to pay subsistence allowance to a witness until he is no longer required by the Court of Inquiry, unless he is found in default, in which case such payments terminate at the commencement of the inquiry. In cases of exceptional hardship, the Board will consider the payment, as compensation, of subsistence allowances to a date beyond the termination of the inquiry.
  Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of making a general rule that where officers are exonerated from all blame, and have already incurred considerable loss through attending the inquiry, their costs should be defrayed out of public money?
  Mr. BUXTON: That is a much larger question than one affecting the Board of Trade only; but I will look into it.

  Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
  Mr. SHEEHANasked how many inquiries into improvement schemes under the Labourers Acts have been held by inspectors of the Local Government Board since 31st December, 1912, the number of cottages involved, and the rural districts affected; whether there are over forty schemes of cottages at present waiting inquiry; and what are the intentions of the Local Government Board in respect of them?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Thirteen inquiries have been held since the 31st December, 1912, embracing 1,258 cottages and 109 allotments. In addition, five other inquiries have been ordered but not yet held, involving 363 cottages and fifty-four allotments. Eighteen rural districts in all are affected. There are thirty-nine schemes at present awaiting inquiry proposing to provide 4,994 cottages and 457 plots. The Local Government Board propose to deal with these schemes on the same principle which they have followed since the passing of the Act of 1911, and which has already been fully explained to the hon. Member.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several of these schemes have been awaiting inquiry for over two years, and cannot steps be taken—really this is a serious matter for four thousand odd labourers!—to provide these people with cottages?
  Mr. BIRRELL: We are pressing the matter forward as fast as ever we can.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are at present no funds under the Acts of 1906 and 1911 to provide these cottages?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot produce the money out of my own pocket. I can only spend the money which Parliament has authorised to proceed with these schemes. I cannot promise new schemes.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a matter of the most extreme urgency that money should be provided?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Certainly.
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any scheme for providing additional half-acre allotments for the tenants of labourers' cottages in the Macroom rural district has been promoted since the Labourers Act of 1906 was passed; when were representations for these additional allotments last received and what action was taken; can he state the number of tenants in the district who possess only half-acre allotments with their cottages; and what steps it is proposed to take to put them on an equal footing with all the other labourers who have got an acre attached?
  Mr. BIRRELL: A scheme was submitted by this district council in December, 1907, involving the erection of 382 cottages and also ninety-three additional half-acres for cottages previously built. None of the latter were authorised by the inspector who held the inquiry, as it was felt that the requirements of the labourers in regard to proper housing should take precedence over the proposed enlargement of labourers' plots. The Local Government Board have no information with regard to the second paragraph of the question. On the 31st March last there were 132 cottages with plots not exceeding half a statute acre in this rural district. The making of a new scheme to provide additional half-acres in these cases rests with the district council in the first instance.

  Prohibited Areas (Trawling Act).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether trawlers continue to operate inside and outside the old three-mile limit off the coast of Ballinskelligs; and what steps have been taken to bring
  1342
  to the notice of the skippers of these trawlers the fact that the Prohibited Areas Trawling Act has been put into force?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): No reports of the illegalities referred to in the question have been received by the Department. Since the date of the last reply to a question of the hon. Member on this subject, steps have been taken to obtain the permission of the postal authorities to the posting of notices in local post offices calling attention to the provisions of the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Act, 1909. During the last three weeks the area in question has been patrolled by the Department's steam cruiser.
  Mr. BOLAND: How much longer will the "Helga" remain in these waters?
  Mr. RUSSELL: In justice to other parts of Ireland, the "Helga" cannot remain any longer.
  Mr. BOLAND: What steps will be taken when the "Helga" goes to see that these trawlers do not renew their operations of an illegal character?
  Mr. RUSSELL: My answer to that is this: If fishermen in these ports would assist the Department by going out in their boats and getting the number of the trawler, prosecution could follow.
  Mr. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the "Helga" is away these trawlers cover up their numbers, and the fishermen cannot find out what the numbers are?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I am bound to say I have not heard of it.
  Mr. BOLAND: It is so.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these trawlers ride through the nets of the fishermen and destroy them?

  Abattoirs (Ireland).
  Mr. STANIERasked what loans have been granted in Ireland for the erection of abattoirs; what percentage is charged, and if there is any sinking fund payment; and, if so, what is it, and out of what fund was the money taken for the loan?
  Mr. RUSSELL: No loans for the erection of abattoirs have as yet been issued, but the Department have informed promoters of such undertakings that they will be prepared in special cases to consider, on their merits, applications for loans of part of the capital required. The exact terms on which a loan would be made have not yet been laid down in any case. The rate of interest charged would be 3 per cent. The money required for the purpose would be taken from the Department's Endowment Fund.

  Carriage of Live Stock (Railway Charges).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked if the Great Western Railway Company have recently altered the definition of a part-truck for the purpose of the carriage of live stock to market towns in the West of England, and thereby, to the annoyance of West-country farmers, have increased their charges for the carriage of two cows and two calves by 55 per cent. at one jump; whether the Board have any power to protect the farmers from such treatment at the hands of the railway companies; and, if so, whether he will exercise such power forthwith.
  Mr. BUXTON: I had not previously heard of the alteration in the definition of a part-truck to which the hon. Member refers, but I have asked for the railway company's observations on the matter and I will communicate with him after I have received their reply.

  Crewe Church School.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the official list of schools, as on 12th July, 1912, shows that the London and North-Western Railway Company's Church of England school at High Town, Crewe, is so overcrowded that the scholars in average attendance exceed by 141, or nearly 20 per cent., the recognised accommodation of the school; how many scholars are at present on the registers of this school; whether the managers and the local education authority have been warned; and what steps will be taken to prevent future overcrowding?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): A temporary school to relieve the overcrowding at the school referred to in the question was opened in 1911, and plans for a new
  1344
  provided school to provide for 950 children, with an extension, if necessary, to 1,050, are now under discussion. The overcrowding referred to has been the subject of correspondence between the Board and the authority, who have been warned that if the overcrowding continues the Board will not be able to pay Grant in respect of the school in question without deduction unless they are satisfied that reasonable progress is being made with the erection of the new school.

  School Accommodation, King's Lynn.
  Mr. KINGasked at what date since 1902 the attention of the King's Lynn local education authority was called to the deficiency of school accommodation in King's Lynn; at what dates and to what extent elementary school accommodation has since been provided; whether he is aware that the latest published Returns show that there are only 3,049 school places for 3,266 on the roll when all children under five are excluded; and at what date sufficient accommodation for all children requiring school places will be supplied?
  Mr. PEASE: The figures contained in the question are not quite accurate. The Return shows 3,411 school places, and there is accommodation now for 3,429 in the schools in the authority's area. The average attendance for the last school year exceeded the accommodation in only two departments, and the excess amounted to one unit only in one ease and to two in the other. There are no children under five in attendance.
  Sir J. D. REES: Do not other people, including Members of Parliament, suffer from overcrowding, and is it not better that there should be a little overcrowding than that the ratepayers should be bled to death?
  Mr. PEASE: That does not arise out of the question.
  Mr. KING: Is the margin which the right hon. Gentleman indicated sufficient for the exigencies of classing, occasional illness, and the general administration and conduct of the school?
  Mr. PEASE: I feel the conditions are normal at the present time.

  Bristol University.
  Dr. ADDISONasked the amount of the Grants, in all, made by the Board of

  1345
  Education last year to the following universities; the salary in each case of the vice-chancellor and the total income of the universities, namely: Bristol, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, and Durham?
  Mr. PEASE: The hon. Member will find the latest published information as to Grants and total income in the Reports for the year 1910–11 from Unversities and University Colleges in Great Britain in receipt of Grant from the Board of Education [Cd. 6245 of 1912]. The salary of the vice-chancellor at Bristol is £1,750, and at Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds, £2,000. I am informed that the vice-chancellor of Durham receives a salary of £150, not as remuneration, but in respect of the expenses incurred. I am unable to state the salary of the vice-chancellor of Sheffield.
  Dr. ADDISONasked what is the salary of the present vice-chancellor of the university of Bristol and at what time it was increased to its present amount; whether his advisory committee has ascertained that at that time there were full-time lecturers, demonstrators, or assistant lecturers or demonstrators at that university at salaries not exceeding £160 a year; whether there were any whose salaries were less than £120 a year, and, if so, how many; and if the advisory committee has inquired whether any requests were received from such teachers, either directly or through their chiefs, for increased remuneration, which were refused on the ground of lack of funds?
  Mr. PEASE: The salary of the present vice-chancellor is £1,750 per annum. This salary has been attached to the post since the foundation of the university. I have no information with regard to the third part of the question. The answers to the second and last parts are in the negative.
  Sir W. HOWELL DAVIES: Is it usual for this House to interfere with the question of the management of a university?
  Mr. PEASE: No; it is not.
  Dr. ADDISON: Is it not usual for this House when voting £9,500 to a university to be satisfied of the way in which the money is spent?
  Mr. PEASE: As long as the work is performed properly I have no reason to interfere.
  Dr. ADDISON: May I ask whether the advisory committee sent a report?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There will be other opportunities of discussing this.
  Dr. ADDISONasked whether the teachers at the university of Bristol, other than professors, hold their appointment on a three months' tenure, subject to an annual process of reappointment; how this compares with the conditions affecting the tenure of office of teachers in public elementary schools; and whether his advisory committee have reported that it is in the best interests of university education?
  Mr. PEASE: I have no information with regard to the terms upon which teachers at the university of Bristol, other than professors, are appointed. I believe that agreements between teachers, local education authorities, and the managers of non-provided schools usually provide for the termination of the agreement on a month's notice from either side. My advisory committee's report does not deal with the point.
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTHasked whether at the convocation of graduates of the university of Bristol a resolution was adopted protesting against the distribution of honorary degrees by the council; whether any attempt has been made to expunge the records of such a resolution from the council's minutes; whether he is aware that at the last meeting of convocation on the 6th March officials of the university endeavoured to put down a resolution rescinding this protest; and whether his advisory committee has reported that such interference with the liberties of convocation is in accordance with the statutes of the university and in the best interests of education?
  Mr. PEASE: I have no knowledge of the matters referred to in the question, and I am unable to regard them as within my province. I have received no report on them from my advisory committee.
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTHasked the President of the Board of Education whether his advisory committee will make inquiries of the vice-chancellor of the university of Bristol whether he has received any letters in defence of Professor Cowl, with reference to his dismissal, from outside professors and scholars; whether he has communicated them to the council of the university; and, if not, will he grant an inquiry into the whole circumstances attaching to the case

  1347
  of Professor Cowl and into the administration of the university of Bristol before sanctioning any further Grant?
  Mr. PEASE: As I have already informed the hon. Member for Hoxton, I am not prepared to ask the advisory committee to make any special inquiry into the matters referred to, nor is it my province to inquire into the circumstances connected with appointments and administration so long as I am satisfied with the quality of work in respect of which Grant is paid.

  Breathing Exercises (Elementary Schools).
  Mr. ALDENasked whether any provision is made for proper breathing exercises in elementary schools; and whether any co-ordinated attempt has been made to teach either voice production or a sound accent in the London schools?
  Mr. PEASE: Article 2 (9) of the Code of Regulations for Public Elementary Schools provides for the teaching of hygiene and physical training, including exercises in proper breathing; and for the purpose of this instruction the Board's official Syllabus of Physical Exercises, 1909, is being followed. I have no information with regard to the second part of the question.

  Medical Treatment of Children.
  Mr. ALDENasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has yet considered the advisability of allowing time spent on medical treatment, other than treatment in an oculist's surgery, to count for Grant; and, if so, whether he is yet able to state the special cases in which such allowance will be made?
  Mr. PEASE: The matter referred to is receiving my attention, but, whilst I admit there may be some loss of Grant in a few cases, may I point out that we give to local education authorities a substantial Grant for medical treatment, and local education authorities, under any approved schemes of treatment, earn a great deal more money than they lose through absences of children for medical attention.

  Single School Areas.
  Mr. ALDENasked whether grievances of Nonconformists in respect of single school areas will be dealt with in the new Education Bill he proposes to introduce?
  Mr. PEASE: I must ask the hon. Member to wait for the introduction of the Bill.

  Llansannor Schools (Teachers' Salaries).
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked why the Glamorganshire local authority have not yet paid the arrears of salary due to the teachers in Llansannor Church School.
  Mr. PEASE: I understand the salaries have been paid by the managers, and the authority, who have agreed to maintain the school, are now only waiting for the particulars to be furnished of the total sum asked for before they actually pay the sum due to the managers.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the managers have waited six months or more?
  Mr. PEASE: I was informed as lately as yesterday that they only received the total of the amount asked for and no particulars of items have been yet furnished, and the local authority is waiting to receive these items before paying the full amount.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Does not each day that passes make a larger sum due, and that this argument might postpone payment for months?
  Mr. PEASE: I only express the hope that the managers will furnish the necessary particulars, so that they may be examined in the ordinary way.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked what are the attendance and staffing, respectively, of Llansannor Church school, Llansannor council school, and Maendy council school?
  Mr. PEASE: The average attendance at the Llansannor Church school may be taken as forty-seven, and at the council school as forty-two. The figures are based on 90 per cent. of names on register. The staff at the Church school consists of a head teacher and a monitress, but I understand that the local education authority have advertised for a new head teacher who can speak Welsh and for a supplementary teacher for this school. The staff of the council school consists of a head teacher, a supplementary teacher, and a monitress. The average attendance at the St. Donat's Maendy council school for the last completed school year was eighty-six, and the staff consisted of a head teacher and three uncertificated teachers.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Can the right hon Gentleman give any indication why the staff of the council school is so much larger in proportion to attendance than the other?
  Mr. PEASE: The authority of course have control as to the strength of the staff in the school, and so long as they are sufficient no exception can be taken on the ground of efficiency by the Board.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    HERBALISTS AND CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, under any Section or Sub-section of the National Insurance Act or Regulations relating to such Act, the Commissioners will recognise and sanction the medical treatment of insured persons by unqualified individuals, such as herbalists and Christian Scientists; and, if so, whether, seeing that herbalists and other unqualified persons cannot administer anæsthetics, perform operations, treat fractures, or give death certificates, he will say why this class of treatment is recognised under the Regulations?
    Mr. ROBERTSON (for Mr. Masterman): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which was given him by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 11th February last. There is no provision in the Regulations dealing specially with these cases, but, subject to the conditions therein prescribed, it is open to an insurance committee to allow insured persons to make their own arrangements instead of receiving medical attendance and treatment from a duly qualified medical practitioner on the panel.
    Sir J. D. REES: Can the hon. Gentleman answer the question as regards the death certificates? How can Christian Scientists give certificates?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: It will rest with the insurance committee: if they are satisfied.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Can they not give death certificates?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I cannot answer that.
    Sir J. D. REES: Cannot they more easily give death?

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. ALDENasked whether the case of the insured person over sixty-five years
    1350
    of age in respect of medical benefit will be dealt with in any Bill amending the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I do not quite understand what amendment my hon. Friend proposes should be inserted in the Bill. It is competent under Section 49 of the present Act to societies and insurance committees to provide medical attendance as one of the benefits for persons becoming employed contributors over the age of sixty-five. Money was voted in the recent Supplementary Estimates to help societies and committees desiring to provide medical attendance for such persons by a Grant of 2s. 6d. per head; and the Commissioners at the same time issued a circular, of which I am sending a copy to my hon. Friend, stating that this Grant was available and also containing information as to the rates of sickness benefit that could be provided in addition.
    Sir W. BYLES: Is not provision made for insured persons over sixty-five?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: That question was under the consideration of the Commission the other day.
    Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether any arrangement has been entered into between the Insurance Commissioners of Scotland and the Scottish Clerks' Association regarding medical benefits, and can he state the terms; if not, is there any prospect of the difficulties being overcome?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The Scottish Insurance Commissioners have had a conference with the representatives of the association, and arranged with them that the association should issue medical tickets to its members. At the same time the Commissioners agreed to suggest to insurance committees that members of the association might, if practicable, be allowed an extension of time for the choice of a doctor; and, so far as they are aware, the members are not experiencing difficulty in obtaining medical benefit. The Commissioners are, however, arranging a further conference with the association within a few days.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked why Form Med. 21, for which insured persons were instructed to apply, has been withdrawn?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The form referred to was withdrawn in order to save insured

    1351
    persons applying for permission to make their own arrangements for medical attendance and treatment from the trouble of filling up this form in addition to another form, containing the particulars required by the insurance committees in dealing with the applications. The necessary information can now be given on a single form.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked when it is proposed to take steps to remedy the inadequacy of medical benefit in London?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not prepared to endorse the suggestion underlying the hon. Member's question. I may say, however, that the London Insurance Committee have instructed their medical benefit sub-committee to report as to whether the present system of medical benefit in London could be improved, and to submit recommendations.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Is it not notorious that medical benefit in London is hopelessly inadequate?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I cannot admit the inadequacy.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether every person who has made application for permission to contract out under the National Insurance Act has received Form 43/IC, and if many of these forms have been returned to the insurance committee for the county of London, or if he has information that doctors are refusing to sign the undertaking in Part II. on the ground that its provisions are objectionable; and will a more acceptable form be substituted?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am informed by the London Insurance Committee that the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and with regard to the second part, that between 2,000 and 3,000 of the forms have been returned to the committee. In some cases doctors have declined to sign the undertaking referred to. The sums available for the medical attendance and treatment of insured persons making their own arrangements are the same as those in respect of persons receiving attendance under the panel system; and the effect of the undertaking referred to is to secure that doctors treating them should render the same necessary services as doctors on the panel are required to render under the conditions attached to the payment of the
    1352
    Parliamentary Grant. I see no reason why any modification in its terms is required.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Is there any ground for the impression that the terms of that undertaking have been so drawn as to discourage contracting out?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: They may have to some extent, since the conditions are the same.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether a local medical committee for the county of London has been formed and recognised in accordance with the Act; and, if so, how many doctors took part in the selection of the committee?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: No local medical committee for the county of London has been recognised by the Insurance Commissioners.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Does it not arise that no committee is entitled to style itself the local medical committee for the county of London?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I should think so, but I am not sure.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether, in connection with the administration of the National Insurance Act, due consideration has been given to the fact that it is not of advantage, either to the public health or to that of an insured patient, that he should be forced to wait, often for hours, in a grossly overcrowded room with other patients on each visit to the doctor; and if any effective measures are in contemplation to remedy this drawback?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I do not think there is any ground for supposing that the conditions suggested in the hon. Member's question are likely to occur except in rare instances, but if any complaints of this nature are made to an insurance committee, it would be the duty of the insurance committee to take steps to remedy them.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, for the information of insurance committees and chemists on the panel, what sort of information is contemplated under the heading Miscellaneous, on Form Medical 31, intended to be filled up by such chemists in respect of all drugs and appliances prescribed by doctors for insured persons under the National Insurance Act, seeing that such form provides under separate headings for all goods

    1353
    prescribed up to the value of 1s. and over that value, respectively, and whether in ordinary form or in special form; and whether the use of the above ambiguous expression on the chemists' forms is incumbent upon insurance committees?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Under the heading Miscellaneous it is intended that chemists should include vouchers representing various amounts which cannot conveniently be grouped according to values under any of the other headings, owing to the number of vouchers at any one value being too small to form a separate group. The form referred to is a model form only, and it is open to any committee to adopt any modification which may be approved by the Commission.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that it is most important that, so far as the insurance committees who are spending public money are concerned, that there should be absolute preciseness in these matters?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Yes, it is with a view to securing absolute preciseness that the form has been drawn up in that way.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked (1) whether a workman in a insured trade who becomes unemployed and registers at a Labour Exchange six successive days, and then secures employment for six days, then again registers as unemployed for six days, is entitled to unemployed benefit for the second six days that he was out of employment; and (2) whether a workman in an insured trade who becomes unemployed and registers at a Labour Exchange seven successive days, and then secures employment and works seven days, then again registers as unemployed for three days, is entitled to unemployed benefit for the last three days he was unemployed?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The second part of Section 107 (1), paragraph 3, of the National Insurance Act provides that "Two periods of unemployment of not less than one week each separated by an interval of not more than six weeks shall be treated as a continuous period of unemployment." In the first instance, therefore, given by my hon. Friend, the workman would be entitled to benefit in respect of the second six days of unemployment. In the second instance he would not be entitled to benefit in respect of the
    1354
    second period of three days if he then ceased to be unemployed. If, however, his second period of unemployment lasted for as much as six days, he would be entitled to benefit for the whole of such second period.

    DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether insurance committees are precluded from providing in their regulations for their own convenience that deposit contributors who change their place of residence shall notify to them the postal address of their new place of residence, or whether such notification can only be made to the Insurance Commissioners in London and communicated by them to the insurance committees?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The point raised in the question is one of administrative convenience, and the Commission would be glad to discuss any proposed change of existing practice which any insurance committee may desire.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does that mean that an insurance committee is not entitled to ask these deposit contributors in its area to give notice of any change of address?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I must ask for notice of that.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked if the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to the case of Arthur Wessendorf, of Devonshire Street, N., who had been a member of a sick benefit society for twelve years and joined the State section in June, 1912; is he aware that Wessendorf was notified as tuberculous by Dr. Latham in September, 1912, granted sanatorium benefit early in October, and immediately expelled from his society; that requests to the society and the London Insurance Committee, asking for an investigation, were acknowledged with promise of a further report; and can he say whether any action was taken, and why a report has not been received, notwithstanding a reminder from the doctor on 19th February, 1913?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I understand that the insured person in question, on applying for membership of the New Tabernacle Society in June last, stated that he was in sound health and free from constitutional or recurring disease. It does not

    1355
    appear to be quite clear whether he was formally admitted to membership; but the society gave him seven days' notice from September 26th, of termination of membership (if membership had been contracted), on the ground of material misstatement as to his health on his application. It was open to him to appeal from the decision of the society to arbitration, and ultimately to the Commissioners, but he does not appear to have taken steps to this end, and the Commissioners had no information as to the case until the end of March. The London Insurance Committee have no jurisdiction with regard to termination of membership of societies. They administer sanatorium benefit, but a claim from the person referred to for that benefit would not appear to be affected by his leaving his society.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Richard May, aged 34, a bricklayer, of 43, Wedmore Street, Upper Holloway, was taken suddenly ill on 16th January; that the panel doctor found the patient to be suffering from a weak heart, with left lung much diseased, of which facts the insurance authorities were then informed by the doctor and relatives; that sanatorium treatment has been reported as necessary, but has not yet been given, and the patient is reported to be sinking; is the failure to furnish proper treatment due to the lack of facilities for sanatoria treatment; and, if not too late, can it be given in this case?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: No application for sanatorium benefit was received in respect of the insured person till 27th March, when it was arranged that he should receive domiciliary treatment. He was asked to notify the committee when the practitioner attending him considered that he was in a fit condition to attend for examination by the medical adviser of the committee, who would then be in a position to consider whether any other form of treatment is preferable. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative. From the hon. Member's description of the patient's condition it would seem that for the present he must, in his own interests, continue to be treated in his own home.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Is it not the case that the majority of these applicants are given domiciliary treatment because sanatorium
    1356
    benefit is practically non-existent in London at the present moment?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: That is quite another question. An advanced case is not given sanatorium treatment.

    INSURANCE CARDS (LOST).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the National Health Insurance Commissioners have refused to make any allowance to a workman working at a public institution who, after receiving his insurance card fully stamped from the superintendent of the institution, had it taken from a drawer in which he had placed it for safety; and whether, in view of the fact that the superintendent has certified that the card was fully stamped, and that the books of the institution prove this, he will approach the Commissioners with the object of this workman getting full credit for the payments he has made?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton Division of Lancashire on the 3rd instant.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Am I to understand that this workman will not be credited with his payments?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member will realise that a card which is missing is likely to be used for some dishonest purpose, and therefore it is very hard indeed to accept a mere statement that a card is missing.

    SOUTH SHIELDS INSURANCE COMMITTEE.
    Mr. HUDSONasked whether the South Shields National Health Committee have decided to limit the choice of doctors to insured persons in their area to such doctors on the panel who at present have less than 800 insured persons on their lists; and, if so, whether those doctors who have been chosen by 800 insured persons raise any objections to taking more persons by free choice?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am informed by the insurance committee that they have not arrived at any such decision as that suggested in the first part of the question. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

    SUB-POSTMASTERS (REMUNERATION).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster-General what scale postmasters

    1357
    and sub-postmasters in England and in Ireland, respectively, are paid for the extra work imposed upon them under the National Insurance Act; and, seeing that the work of explaining the Act and bringing it into operation in rural districts in Ireland was difficult, what special payment has been made for that essential preliminary work?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to a question on the same subject. No distinction is made between England and Ireland in this connection.

    Standing Committees (Procedure).
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the proposal made with approval from the Opposition side of the House, that all Bills should go to Grand Committees, and that in no case should the Committee stage of any Bill be taken in Committee of the Whole House; and whether, with the view of shortening the Session and testing the value of this proposal, he will refrain from moving that the Finance Bill and Army (Annual) Bill of this year, the Government of Ireland Bill, the Established Church (Wales) Bill, the Plural Voting Bill, or any other Government measure be committed to a Committee of the Whole House?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I have no reason to think that the proposal referred to by my hon. Friend meets with the general approval of the Opposition. The matter will no doubt fall within the scope of the reference of the proposed Committee and be considered by it.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    IRISH REPRESENTATION.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether Ireland will or may return her present representation for ten months after the Government of Ireland Bill becomes law; and whether, during that period, the Irish Members in full strength will be able to vote in this House of Commons, notwithstanding the fact that they are to be reduced in numbers so soon as the Irish Parliament shall meet for the first time?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. Member to the provisions of the Fill, especially Clauses 49 and 45.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the Prime Minister if it is the case that the Irish
    1358
    Members in full strength would, under those circumstances, be able to vote in this House pending their removal to the Irish Parliament?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I ask the hon. Member to read the Bill.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the Prime Minister not prepared to allow that it is possible to read the Bill without being perfectly clear about it?

    Friendly Societies (Bogus Policies).
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the growing practice of persons of no means or reputation, without giving any security, getting themselves registered as societies under the Friendly Societies Acts, forthwith collecting money from poor people in exchange for bogus policies of insurance, spending the money on themselves and their agents, and when any considerable claim is made winding-up and starting another society of the same kind, or running several concurrently; and, in view of the sum taken in this way in recent years from the poorest of the population, the professed inability of the existing Departments to deal with the evil, and the fact that legislation to remedy it would not be contentious, whether such legislation will be introduced this Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that there have been cases of collecting societies which have been started without a bonâ-fide intention of carrying on business for the benefit of the insured, but I do not think the practice can be said to be a growing one. I fear I do not see my way to introduce legislation on the subject.

    Imperial and Local Taxation (Inquiry).
    Mr. GINNELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman will ascertain and inform the House when the inquiry into Imperial and local taxation is likely to be completed and a Report presented?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that no date can at present be named by the Committee.
    Sir W. BYLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great impatience with which this Report is awaited by local authorities?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this Report would be submitted to the House without delay?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is quite true.

    Education Bill.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked when His Majesty's Government will be prepared to communicate to this House their new education scheme, which has already been partially announced by Cabinet Ministers speaking in various parts of Great Britain?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Not till after Whitsuntide.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to protect the privileges of this House and allow the details of Government measures to be announced first from the Treasury Bench and not through newspaper reports?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that details have been announced in that way.

    Undeveloped Land Duty.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALLasked how many valuations in connection with the levy of Undeveloped Land Duty have been completed; how many still remain to be made; the total cost involved in connection with this work up to the present time; and the total amount of revenue received?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: It is not possible to furnish the information asked for by the hon. Member in the first three parts of the question. With regard to the last part I fear I cannot anticipate the Budget statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. F. HALLasked if, under the terms of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, provisional valuations have to be served upon the owners of undeveloped land assessable under that Act before demand is made for the payment of the duty; and, if so, whether he will explain how it is that in a number of instances this course has not been followed?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, if
    1360
    the hon. Member will supply me with particulars of the instances to which he refers I will cause inquiry to be made into the matter.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is it not a fact that a form has been issued just recently stating that in consequence of the want of time it is impossible to ask for the valuations to be approved before the demands for the actual amounts are made?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question.
    Mr. F. HALLasked if the Commissioners of Inland Revenue levy Undeveloped Land Duty as from the date of the passing of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, although the actual valuation may not be made for a considerable period thereafter; what arrangements are made in the case of such delayed valuations where the land affected in the meantime changes hands or alters in character; and whether any revision of the valuation is made from time to time, and, if so, at what intervals?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the procedure is regulated by Section 19 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, which provides that any unpaid duty shall be recoverable from the owner of the land for the time being. With regard to the last part, I would refer the hon. Member to Section 28 of the Act, which provides for a periodical valuation of undeveloped land every fifth year.

    Waterguard Staff.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether the Departmental Committee on Allowances, referred to in Appendix C, Report, Cd. 6290, now investigating the particular questions affecting the waterguard staff, will adopt the same basis of calculation as extended to the non-waterguard class; whether, in consideration of the delay in isuing the Report, any increases which may be ultimately recommended will be made retrospective; and can he indicate a date when the Report is likely to be concluded and issued?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am unable to make any statement in advance of the new regulations on this subject. It is hoped that they will be issued shortly.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    FLOATING DOCK (CROMARTY).
    Mr. MUNROasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he proposes to have a floating dock taken to Cromarty, in accordance with the intention indicated by him in introducing the Naval Estimates last year?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): Yes, Sir, when her services can be dispensed with elsewhere.

    CADETS.
    Captain CRAIGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the new regulations increasing the age limit for the entry of boys to Osborne to thirteen years eight months will come into force, and from when the proposed reduction in Osborne and Dartmouth fees will take effect; whether such reduction will apply equally to cadets already entered as well as to those joining since the announcement was made; and if he can give a fuller explanation of the bursary system he referred to when making his statement?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The age limits will be thirteen years four months and thirteen years eight months for the December, 1913, examination and subsequent examinations. I am not yet in a position to give information regarding any reduction of the fees or the alternative institution of a bursary system.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS (NAVAL WING).
    Captain FABERasked whether British naval airmen will be allowed to compete for the "Daily Mail" waterplane prizes?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Whilst the competition has the full sympathy of the Board of Admiralty, it is not considered desirable for naval officers of the Royal Flying Corps to take part in it.
    Mr. BARNESasked under what conditions of pay engine-room artificers are admitted to the Royal Flying Corps, and for what period are they expected to serve; are they expected to do passenger flights without additional remuneration; what opportunities are afforded them to obtain pilots' certificates; how long are they enrolled in the corps before being placed under instruction; and if protective clothing is provided at the expense of the Crown or at the expense of the individual?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Engine-room artificers are admitted to the Royal Flying Corps under the conditions laid down for that corps and are paid according to their qualifications, namely, at the rates of 9s. or 6s. per diem. This payment covers any passenger work required of them. Additional remuneration of 4s. or 2s. per diem is allowed if they become aeroplane pilots. They are required to volunteer for four years' service in the Royal Flying Corps, like other active service ratings. They are placed under instruction as soon as they arrive at the flying schools. Arrangements are being made for the supply of a sufficient amount of protective clothing on loan at the expense of the Crown.

    SUBMARINES.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked (1) how many continued service petty officers and men who have served in submarines have left the Navy during the last four years; and (2) the number of petty officers and men who have been employed in submarines who have left the Navy at the end of their first term of service during the last four years?
    Mr. G. LAMBERT (Civil Lord of the Admiralty): I regret that the statistics required by the Noble Lord are not available, and the great labour which would be involved in obtaining them would hardly appear to be justified.

    FOURTH CRUISER SQUADRON.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the full complements of the ships of the Fourth Cruiser Squadron and the nucleus crew complements of the ships of the Fourth Cruiser Squadron; whether the engine-room departments will be obliged to work in two watches if this squadron is employed on manœuvres; and whether, in view of the pressure of such extra work on the officers and men, the Admiralty are satisfied that a squadron manned in this manner is ready for instant action without one hour's delay?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Information as to the complements of His Majesty's ships is confidential. As mentioned in the prefatory statement to the Estimates, the ships of the Fourth Cruiser Squadron, having only recently been constituted out of the training squadron, are at present manned with nucleus crews; their routine is similar to that of ships of the Second Fleet, and if employed on annual manœuvres they will, like ships of the Second Fleet, be completed to full crew.

    Vaccination.
    Mr. CROOKSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, according to information supplied by the medical officer of health to the Port of London Sanitary Authority, the four cases of small-pox received on 9th March from the liner "Gloucestershire" all occurred in vaccinated and revaccinated persons; and, seeing that these facts point to the conclusion that in the matter of small-pox infection the vaccinated and revaccinated are a source of danger to the unvaccinated, what steps he proposes to take?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I am informed that the four patients referred to had all been successfully vaccinated in infancy, but that none of them had been successfully revaccinated. I am advised that the conclusion indicated in the latter part of the question is not well founded.

    Haydock Urban District.
    Viscount WOLMERasked whether the Haydock Urban District Council have petitioned the Registrar-General to constitute the urban district of Haydock into a separate registration district with a resident registrar for births, deaths, and marriages; and whether, in view of the inconvenience of the present arrangement, this petition will be granted?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I am informed that the proposal is now under the consideration of the Registrar-General.

    Telephone Service.
    Mr. GOLDMANasked the Postmaster-General if he will state what is the estimated capital expenditure on trunks during the last twelve months ending March as compared with the corresponding period for the previous year or, if this is impossible, for the latest period he is able to give particulars?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: For the current financial year figures are only available for the eight months ended 30th November last. The capital expenditure during that period amounted to £314,620, as against £184,263 for the corresponding period of the financial year 1911–12.
    Mr. GOLDMANasked what is the estimated profit of the telephone system for the year ending March last or, alternatively, for the periods March to
    1364
    December, 1912, and January to March, 1913; and how much of the amounts available it is proposed to apply to either redemption of plant, expansion of the service, or reduction in rates?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The latest account of the telephone system is for the year ended 31st March, 1912, and is included in House of Commons Paper No. 378/12, published last month. Figures for the corresponding account for the current financial year or the period to the 31st December last are not yet available.
    Mr. GOLDMANasked how many orders for telephone service were outstanding on 31st December, 1911, and 31st December, 1912; and how many in each case had been outstanding for more than one calendar month?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As I informed the hon. Member on the 11th December, 1912, the outstanding orders for telephone exchange lines at 31st December, 1911, numbered 2,115 in the London area. The corresponding figure for the provinces is not available. At the 31st December, 1912, the outstanding orders numbered, in London, 1,943, and in the provinces, 5,836. There is no information at hand as to the number of these orders which had been outstanding for more than a month.

    Postal Pillar-Boxes.
    Dr. ESMONDEasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the proposed erection in Canada of illuminated pillar-boxes bearing the names of streets and advertisements, as well as stamp-selling machines; whether any such proposition has been made to the General Post Office; if so, with what result; and whether, in the event of such a concession being granted in this country, steps will be taken to see that a royalty is reserved to the Post Office?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I understand that paragraphs have appeared in the public Press with regard to this proposal; but I have not received any communication from the promoters. Should any concession of the kind be granted, the consideration mentioned by the hon. Member would be borne in mind.
    Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman give this House an opportunity of expressing its opinion before any such concession is granted?

    CREAMERIES AND DAIRY PRODUCE (IRELAND) BILL.
    Mr. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether, in view of the great interest taken in Ireland in the Irish Creameries and Dairy Produce Bill, and to the fact that it is generally regarded as non-contentious, he will state when time will be given for the further proceedings upon this measure?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot give any definite date, but the Government hope and intend to proceed with the Bill.

    SUFFRAGIST PRISONERS.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I desire to ask the Home Secretary a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether Mrs. Pankhurst is still hunger-striking, and whether there is any truth in the rumour that she is now being forcibly fed?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Mrs. Pankhurst is still declining to take the food provided for her, but she is not being forcibly fed.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can say, without notice, whether any kind of special treatment is being given to Mrs. Pankhurst, such as injecting nutriment by hypodermic injection or by any other means?
    Mr. McKENNA: I should regard that as one form of forcible feeding. Mrs. Pankhurst is receiving no special treatment of any kind at all. She has food left continuously in her cell.

    PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY (WATERMEN AND LIGHTERMEN).
    Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: What precautions he proposes to take to safeguard the standard of competency of those licensed under the new Port of London Authority by-law regarding watermen and lightermen; and whether he proposes to place any limit on the number of licences issued under the by-law?
    Mr. BUXTON: The evidence at the inquiry showed that the examinations of candidates by the Watermen's Company acting on behalf of the Authority are very carefully held and conducted, and the Report of the Committee expressly stated that there was no reason whatever for supposing that that company would not be as strict in examining the applicants under the new class as they have been in examining others. The company act in this matter as agents of the Port of London Authority, and I have accordingly communicated with the Port of London Authority on the subject and have received an assurance from them that they have no intention of sanctioning any relaxation in the standard of efficiency demanded of candidates under the present system of examination. The correspondence appears in the White Paper. As regards the last point, I have no power to limit the number of licences under the by-law.

    SUSPENSION OF MEMBER.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: When he proposes to put down a Motion to terminate the suspension of the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore)?
    The PRIME MINISTER:I will look into the precedents with regard to this matter, and should be glad if the hon. Baronet would renew his question on Monday.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not usual for an hon. Member to give some apology to the House before he is reinstated?
    Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that my hon. and learned Friend refuses to give any apology for that which he considers was quite right?

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what business the Government proposes to take next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday we hope to complete the remaining stages of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill and the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-health) Bill, and the Committee stage of the Army (Annual) Bill.
  The first order on Monday will be the Committee stage of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill.
  On Thursday we shall probably take Supply.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when the Budget will be taken?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Either Monday or Tuesday in the following week.
  Mr. CASSEL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is going to take the Committee stage of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill on Monday, having regard to the fact, which he will recognise, that it is extremely difficult from the drafting point of view to deal with the measure and almost impossible on Friday to place on the Paper notice of Amendments?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that there is any case at all for postponing the Bill. Its provisions have now been discussed on three successive days, the Committee and Report of the Resolution and the Second Reading of the Bill, and there has been ample opportunity of putting down Amendments.
  Mr. PETO: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to give us definite information as to what business will be taken on Thursday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday.

  CLOSURE MOTIONS.
  Mr. KING: May I ask for information with regard to the fact that last night after Half-past Eleven, on three occasions, an hon. Member rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  1386
  Although that was done on three occasions, and is so recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT and also in many of the newspapers, there is no record of it in the Votes and Proceedings of the day. Can you give the House any explanation? If the Votes and Proceedings and the Journals of the House are correct, can you, for the information of hon. Members, explain to them what is right in this matter?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must be mistaken in saying that it was after Half-past Eleven—
  Mr. KING: I should have said Half-past Ten.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It was between Half-past Ten and Eleven. I was unfortunately not able to be present in the Chair last night, and that prevented the Closure being moved. Therefore it was proper not to enter it in the Votes and Proceedings because, as the Closure cannot be granted, it is useless moving it. If it is any consolation to the hon. Member to know, I am afraid, if I had been here, I should not have granted the Closure.
  Mr. KING: In order that I and other Members may he guided in the future may I ask will our conduct be regarded as disorderly if we repeat this offence?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not suggest it is a Parliamentary offence. The only thing is it is useless, and nothing results. If I am not present in the Chair, and if my absence has not been officially announced, the Closure cannot be moved.

  BILLS PRESENTED.
    LEGAL PROFESSION (ADMISSION OF WOMEN) BILL.
    "To enable Women to become barristers, solicitors, or Parliamentary agents." Presented by Viscount WOLMER; supported by Mr. Charles Roberts, Mr. Hills, Mr. Murray Macdonald, Lord Robert Cecil, and Sir David Brynmor Jones; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

    ASYLUM OFFICERS (EMPLOYMENT, PENSIONS AND SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
    "To limit the hours of employment of officers and servants in asylums, and to amend the Asylum Officers' Superannuation Act, 1909." Presented by Viscount WOLMER; supported by Mr. Charles

    1387
    Roberts, Mr. Stanier, Mr. Watson Rutherford, Mr. Higham, Sir John M'Callum, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Wardle, Mr. Charles Craig, Mr. William Redmond, Sir David Brynmor Jones, and Sir Reginald Pole-Carew; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

    ECCLESIASTICAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
    "To amend the Eccleastical Law and enactments connected therewith." Presented by Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONES; supported by Mr. Bryce, Mr. King, and Mr. Murray Macdonald; to be read a second time upon Friday, 2nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 92.]
    SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    "To alter the mode of conducting the election of members of School Boards in Scotland." Presented by Sir WILLIAM BEALE; supported by Mr. Bryce, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Munro-Ferguson, Major Hope, Mr. Duncan Millar, and Mr. Dundas White; to be read a second time upon Friday, 18th April, and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

  SUPPLY.— [Sixth Allotted Day.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1913–14.

  SUPPLY.— [Sixth Allotted Day.]

    BOARD OF EDUCATION.—(Class IV.)—VOTE 1.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,260,311, 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, 1914, 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 accordance with the usual practice, I rise to give some account of the work of the Board of Education during the past year. In as much as the amount of £11,817,000, out of the total sum on the Board of Education Estimates for this year—£14,510,000—relates to elementary education, I propose, with the leave of the Committee, first to address a few remarks in respect of
    1388
    that branch of the subject. I must admit at the outset that, during the year 1911–12 and during the past year, our Estimates exceeded our actual expenditure—in the previous year by £72,000 and last year by approximately £200,000, and I think it is due to the Committee that some explanation should be given of that miscalculation. Our Estimates are largely based on the annual increase in the average attendance at our schools, and it has been customary each year to anticipate some growth in the child population of the country attending our elementary schools. But last year—1911–12—those who were compelled to attend the school over five years of age increased by only 4,030, while those who are under five decreased by 20,094, a decrease of something like 16,000 children in our schools. The Census of 1911 shows remarkable figures relating to the six-year-old children in that year, and therefore the eight-year-old children of to-day. They were fewer than the children of the year before—that is to say, instead of there being an increase in the population, there has been an actual decrease of children of school age for that particular year of 846. But that is not all; the statistics of the Registrar-General disclose this fact, which is, I think, of great importance from the national standpoint, that the birth rate is steadily going down. Whilst, in 1903, the number of births was 948,000, in the year 1912 they had fallen to 872,000.
    Mr. BALFOUR: What was the total population at those dates?
    Mr. PEASE: I am afraid I cannot give the totals. I have only looked into the statistics of infantile mortality and infantile births. There has been a diminution no doubt in the death rate of the country, which is a very material factor in connection with children under one year of age. I may draw the attention of the House to the fact that while infantile mortality in 1911 was 130 per cent., in 1912 it had fallen to 95 per cent., and during last year it was a very satisfactory figure. But in regard to school age, there is no such diminution in the child mortality as would counterbalance the effect of the diminution in the birth rate. The total number, therefore, taking a stationary number for our Estimates for next year, will be based upon the figures on the registers of last year—6,033,914 children. But these Estimates are not only disturbed by the diminution in the birth

    1389
    rate; they have also been disturbed by the great diminution in the number of children under five years attending our elementary schools. In 1903 there were 613,475 infants between three and five years attending our elementary schools, while in the year 1912 the number had dropped to 332,866, or a diminution of 280,607 young children, a reduction of 45 per cent. in the ten years. There is no doubt a natural disposition, when a smaller Grant is given for children under five and when additional expenditure is placed upon local education authorities which has to be found out of the rates, for more attention to be paid to those who attend schools in the compulsory ages between five and fourteen than to the smaller children. I am also satisfied, from the inquiries I have made, that experience is disclosing the fact that the education which was given in our infant departments in the past has not really been to the best interests of the small children who have attended our infant departments. That is being more and more realised by the various local education authorities in the country.
    4.0 P.M.
    In 1908 one of my predecessors asked the Consultative Committee to report upon this question, and they reported that if a mother does her duty, if she takes care of her children, if she knows the best way in which to use her narrow means, if she keeps her home clean, if there is a suitable play place for the children, and if the homes are well ventilated and kept decent, there is no better place for these little dots between three and five than under their own mother's care; but that if, on the contrary, the conditions are not satisfactory at home—these children should not be sent to a school where there exists adaptation of discipline and tuition suitable to older children, and should not be subjected to mental pressure or physical discipline—they should be sent to what they call nursery schools, places which should be kept warm, well ventilated, where there would be plenty of freedom of movement for the children, constant change in their occupations and opportunities for sleep; and that the teacher should be very carefully selected to look after these children, and, in addition to the teachers, there should also be attendant nurses. I am glad to say that parents in this country are getting to understand better than they did how to look after their infant children. At the
    1390
    present moment we have in the country 200 schools for mothers, we have a great number of medical officers who superintend the inspection of the babies, either by weekly or fort-nightly visits, and we have a large number of most excellent workers, trained health visitors, who visit the homes of the people and give advice to the mothers and see that they follow the instruction which they receive through the school as to the way in which the children ought to be cared for in their homes. The point in which the medical department has taken the most interest, and which is their greatest ambition, is to prevent and remedy the physical disability which hampers a child from taking proper advantage of the education which the State gives it.
    People are too apt to forget that education in connection with younger children is primarily physical and not intellectual, and that if a child is to be developed into a really good citizen it is essential that every child should enjoy physical training and suitable exercises even during school hours. The object of the education given to the children is to enable them to be turned out from school in a sound physical condition, and to know, when he or she leaves school, how to look after his or her own health in the following years. I believe that under the system of medical inspection which now obtains in this country, and under the medical treatment which every day is being increased in volume, we are going to secure a much healthier race in the future than we have had in the past, and that a great number of these infants who, when they reach the age of sixteen, will come under the insurance funds will not make any claims upon those insurance funds, at any rate before they reach the age of forty, with very large increased benefits to the older people in consequence of the improvement in health. I cannot exaggerate the importance which I attach to the attention which is given to the health of the children during their school life. The conditions in this country are certainly not worse than those in other countries, but still they exhibit a great deal of neglect. As a result of inspection we are able to classify our figures, and the last figures show what a serious amount of illness and trouble there is among the children of this country at the present time when they first enter the schools. Ten per cent. have their eye-sight impaired in some way or other, 5 per

    1391
    cent. their hearing, 3 per cent. suffer from ear disease, 5 per cent. from adenoids, 50 per cent. from serious decay of their teeth—in many cases it goes up to 80 or 90 per cent. of decay, more or less in degree—tuberculosis 2 per cent., heart disease 2 per cent., and malnutrition 10 per cent. I am glad to say that the authorities who have been comparing their statistics, one year with another, have already exhibited a real improvement in the condition of the children.
    The medical officer at Portsmouth informs the Board that the number of those who in 1908 came to school with dirty bodies was 13.8 per cent, last year it was only 3 per cent; those who came to school in a verminous condition in 1908 were actually 43.3 per cent., while to-day it is 13 per cent. The medical officer informs me that as a result of the clinics which has just been established in Portsmouth he believes that the difficulty will be very greatly reduced during the current year. It may also interest the Committee to know, from the statistics we have been able to collect through this inspection, that 1 per cent. of the children are regarded as mentally defective, 12½ per cent. of the children are considered backward, and 3 per cent. are considered to be gifted in an abnormal degree. In our schools we are now employing 700 nurses, and there are 21,000 schools. 943 medical officers are at work in medical service in schools, there are thirty-one authorities which contribute to hospitals, fifty-six have already established school clinics, and there is expenditure on treatment by 229 authorities out of 317. The cost in connection with treatment averages 2d. per child throughout the whole country, and the amount given in support of medical treatment during the financial year ending 31st March last was £50,374. Perhaps I may be allowed to pay a special tribute to the way in which this work has been taken up in London. It has been perhaps the most difficult place in which to organise medical treatment. The removals of the population are enormous in the confines of this great city, but, in spite of that, every effort has been made to follow up the children; arrangements have been carried out at ten hospitals and twenty-three medical treatment centres, and very good work is being done. I have been rather better than my word in regard to the contribution which I gave to London, and we
    1392
    were able to give them a Grant for the last year of £13,683. In addition to that London receives a Grant of £725 in connection with the open-air schools which have been established by the London County Council, and which are materially beneficial to a certain section of the less robust portion of the school population.
    During the year we have made an alteration in our curriculum, and have issued a new code, which will give the teachers a real chance of not only developing their own peculiar and special abilities, but also those of the children. The Board will welcome any well-considered experiments in this direction, having regard to special aptitude and capacity as well as to the surrounding interests in which the schools are placed. I may perhaps be allowed to congratulate Somersetshire, Wiltshire, Warwickshire, and Staffordshire as having already held conferences with the teachers in their districts so as to introduce such subjects as gardening and manual work for boys and domestic subjects for girls, and those subjects are being taught wherever there is an aptitude on the part of the teacher to teach them. We do not propose to compel teachers who have not been trained to teach those subjects, and who take no interest in them, to teach them. We believe this practical education will develop better if it is left to public opinion and to the appreciation which I am quite sure it will bring in its train. In connection with accommodation I have been attacked or rather criticised a good deal by my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) as to the deficiency of accommodation for children over the compulsory school age. I think the hon. Member will find that wherever there has been a case for interference we have been there before him, and that our inspectors do realise at once if the accommodation is not equal to the children in the district. It is, of course, sometimes difficult even for a local education authority to provide adequate accommodation in these cases. There has, perhaps, been a sudden springing up of new industries, and a large increase in population which makes it very difficult for the authorities. Action has been taken by the Board of Education, such as took place in 1908, when the school space was increased from 9 square feet per child to 10 square feet per child. Ample notice was given to the authorities of the intention to require increased accommodation as a result of the increased space required for the children

    1393
    in average attendance at these schools. Where the accommodation has been deficient we have met the local authorities, and I must say that, speaking generally, we have found the education authorities reasonable and ready to respond to any request we have made upon them in regard to finding increased accommodation. We have agreed with the authorities upon a programme which they have carried out regularly in the spirit in which the arrangement was entered into with them. I do not think the hon. Member need fear in connection with this matter of accommodation that I, or the Board of Education, have been lacking in doing our duty. Wherever we find a case of real neglect, we do make a deduction from the Grant we give to the education authority, and in that way we have been able to put pressure upon them which brought them quickly to the view we desired them to entertain.
    May I say one word in regard to the playgrounds. Just before I came to the Board of Education an Advisory Committee was appointed to look into the question of playgrounds. This Committee reported five months ago, and laid down certain definite principles which enabled the Board, and will enable the Board, to maintain a satisfactory space applicable to all ordinary cases. Of course there may be special circumstances which prevent adequate playground space sometimes being afforded to children in old schools, especially in congested districts. But we press upon education authorities to take advantage of any opportunity of anticipating increases in population with a view of securing adequate playgrounds when opportunities occur in connection with schools in any district in the country. Certainly the question of adequate school playgrounds plays an important part in regard to the life of our children. I believe, especially in connection with children who live in slum areas, it is almost essential that they should be able, not only to play in playgrounds, but that they should have games really organised for them, such as cricket and football, in which many practical advantages will accrue to them. May I give one illustration of the way in which limited space even cramps the literary genius or resource of a schoolboy. A schoolboy was recently asked in a school where there was a very confined playground to write an essay on football. The whole essay was as follows: "I like football when I kick the
    1394
    football and it hits the school windows." There is another item upon which we may congratulate ourselves, and that is the creation of a certain number of what I may call intermediate schools—higher elementary and central schools. Nottinghamshire, Durham, Cheshire have all established within the last year higher elementary schools; and the London County Council has also established central schools with the view of bringing children from the elementary schools at the age of eleven and retaining them until fifteen. These children are specially selected, and the schools are placed upon a rather higher standard of education than the ordinary elementary schools. We have now forty-six of these schools in the country, with over 14,000 scholars on the roll. The instruction which is given in them has a much closer relation to the future work of the scholars than is possible in the ordinary elementary schools, and I think this experiment is very well worth following by other local education authorities. I now come to a question on which I know the Committee will expect me to dwell for a moment, and that is the shortage of teachers, which is a very serious matter in the interests of the future of this country. In 1908–9 the number of pupil teachers and bursars was 8,740. In the year 1912–13 there are at present only 4,329.
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: What are the figures for 1904–5?
    Mr. PEASE: I have not them by me, but in 1909 we regarded 14,000 as about the gross inflow which ought to be supplied in the whole country, and the very fact that we have only 4,329 pupil teachers and bursars will show the Committee in what a serious position the country is placed at present. A certain number of people have criticised. I think somewhat unfairly, the Board of Education in regard to this matter, and would like to place the responsibility upon the Board. I am not very thin-skinned, but at any rate I wish to say I am quite satisfied in my own mind that local education authorities have no wish that the responsibility for the training of students and supervision of training colleges should be taken over by the Government. The work of providing training colleges has been a work belonging to the education authorities to a very large extent. One hundred and forty authorities have power to erect training colleges and

    1395
    the Government have given Grants of 75 per cent. to assist them in connection with the erection of these institutions. We do not adopt a bureaucratic method of government in this country, and the responsibility in the main for the recruiting of teachers for our elementary schools, I believe, rests upon the local education authorities. We, at the Board of Education, are only too glad to do everything we can to help them to make suggestions and to give them such assistance as is in our power financially, but there is a great need for some recruiting agency. I believe the schoolmaster is the very best recruiting agent who can be secured for the future teaching of this country. The head schoolmaster in an elementary school gets to know the characteristics of the children and will be able better to find out which of the children are likely to develop into good teachers, whether women or men teachers, than anybody else. There are certain objections in connection with our old pupil teacher system which we do not wish to see repeated, but at the same time I believe a great deal might be done to encourage schoolmasters in bringing forward a certain number of children with a view of their being trained for the teaching profession. We have had a great number of meetings in connection with this subject, and I appointed a Departmental Committee to inquire into it, which reported two or three weeks ago. We have met a large number of representative bodies from local education authorities, and the recommendations of the local authorities really amount to this in connection with the remedy on this subject, that in connection with county districts, where the want of schoolmasters is especially felt, an effort should be made to secure boys and girls who will come forward and go into the teaching profession. It is undoubtedly a fact that those only are willing to stay in the country and those alone really understand the ways and wishes of the people in the country who have been brought up and bred in the country districts. There is a second recommendation, that there ought to be a central class for pupils from surrounding schools to which these children could come, and that these should be gradually trained in the central classes. The head teachers should be adequately remunerated, and we must rely upon them to secure the experiment being carried out. In regard to urban districts the main-
    1396
    tenance allowance to bursars, in their opinion, does not go far enough. One year does not meet the case. When a parent has to sacrifice a great deal if a child is going into the teaching profession, it is very obvious that a contribution for, say, one year's maintenance is not sufficient, and there should be help given during the period of training in the secondary schools, and they advocate that this money should be given during the whole period of four years in the secondary school. The Board has considered how far they are able to meet the proposals of the local education authorities. I am not to-day justified in saying what proposals I am going to make with the view of helping local education authorities, but I am sanguine that in the course of a few weeks at furthest we shall be able to make some suggestion which will do something to remedy this grievance.
    I will just say one word in connection with a matter which has been advocated very strongly by the National Union of Teachers, namely, that uncertificated teachers should be replaced by certificated. We all wish to see the standard of education raised to the utmost practical point in our schools, but certainly I am not convinced at present that such a proposal as they make is really a practical proposal. First of all, there are no certificated teachers to take the place of the uncertificated, and even if there were, the increased cost, which at present, as we are situated, will come out of the rates, would amount to £2,403,000. But I may inform the hon. Member (Sir J. Yoxall) that the number of certificated teachers has been steadily increasing and there are 19,239 more certificated teachers employed in our elementary schools in 1911–12 than there were in 1905–6. The percentage has risen from 58.2 to 63.24, and in the same period the supplementary teachers have fallen by 6,004 and the uncertificated have only increased by 3,714.
    There is one other matter in connection with training colleges which I should like to mention, and it is in connection with the great success which has attended our efforts in securing a four years' course. There has been in our training colleges, unfortunately, often too much pressure upon those who are endeavouring to do too much in their two or three years' period of training. If they have not only to secure a university degree, pass examinations and be properly trained to teach in

    1397
    the schools, four years, of course is really a reasonable period in which to expect all this to be done, and the practice has been adopted in ten institutions of carrying out a four years' course: three years in connection with the work for the degree and in the fourth year preparation for the teaching profession. At the universities of London, Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Bristol (both men and women), Oxford and in three Welsh colleges this arrangement has been arrived at with the Board and success is attending the efforts which they are now making and I am glad to say that whilst in 1911–12 the course was being taken by 410 students, in this year there are in these colleges at present taking the course, 781 students. We have also introduced an alteration so as to prevent all these training colleges sending out their students at one particular period of the year. It has hitherto been the practice that these training colleges should work with the universities and that the year's period should end in the summer. That means that if there are not sufficient vacancies at the beginning of the autumn term, the students coming out of the colleges have to wait some months before vacancies occur. That has been the experience in the past, and it has had a depressing effect upon the training of teachers. I have now made an arrangement with some of these colleges that they should be able to end their year of training, some at Christmas and some at Easter, so as, as far as possible, to distribute the number of teachers who are trained throughout the whole year, so that they may quickly obtain posts in the schools after they have passed their certificate examination.
    May I now say a word in connection with the assistance the House gave me last year in passing the Teachers Superannuation Bill. That Bill has already been greatly appreciated, and the very fact that I know of instances of a male teacher receiving £63, another £61 1s., and another £60 10s., and in the case of three women, £57, £57 12s. 6d., and £55 7s. 4d., as pensions, shows that a very substantial increase in pensions has been acquired by teachers when they leave their profession on arriving at the pension age on what they were able to receive before. I will not say that it is adequate, but at the same time I am quite sure that it will make the teaching profession more attractive than it has hitherto been. A sum equivalent to an annuity of
    1398
    £200,000 was placed at my disposal for this purpose by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This sum, we believe, will not be entirely absorbed, and we are hoping that the Committee over which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Worcestershire (Mr. J. W. Wilson) presides will report before many weeks are over. We have been hoping for it for sometime past, and I am informed that in connection with the actuarial calculations now being carried out the particulars required by the actuaries have been collected. These have all to be recorded and sifted, and as they have to ascertain the cost of the actuarial scheme, the rate of mortality, the rate of break-down, and a great many other things, I am afraid it may not be possible this Session to introduce the further supplementary Bill in connection with the elementary school teachers which we anticipated at the close of last Session.
    There has also been placed at my disposal a sum for the superannuation of secondary and technical teachers. I know that there is a variety of view as to the best scheme which should be adopted in connection with these teachers. Some advocate a flat rate and others advocate a system similar to that which obtains in Scotland whereby the pensions of teachers vary in accordance with the amount of their salaries. All I have to say in connection with that matter is that the limited sum which has been placed at my disposal seemed to compel me to restrict the reference placed before the Committee which I asked to advise me in connection with the distribution of the sum. Whatever that Committee may recommend, and whatever the teachers may say, I will of course pay great attention to the proposals they make, but I must say that any proposals merely protesting against the limitations and against the amount of money I have at my disposal will not in any way be helpful. I am very hopeful that some pension scheme will be established, and that it will be of such a character as will meet the wishes of those specially interested in the subject.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: Does it extend to assistant teachers in secondary schools?
    Mr. PEASE: To all teachers in secondary schools receiving Government Grants so long as they are teaching in secondary schools. There are 885 at the

    1399
    present moment, and they will be superannuated with this money which we have had placed at our disposal by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: On what basis?
    Mr. PEASE: It is on the same basis as the amount of the equivalent annuity of £200,000, which has been contributed for teachers in elementary schools.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Will that include manual training teachers giving full time service?
    Mr. PEASE: No, I am afraid those outside the secondary or technical schools will not be included, but any teacher who is in these schools, I understand, will be included—but not manual teachers in elementary schools who are not certificated or who are coming under the other scheme for certificated teachers.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that £200,000 is the annuity for the elementary teachers. May I ask what is the figure for the secondary schools?
    Mr. PEASE: I am sorry I have not the figure in my mind, but I will be very glad to give it to the hon. and learned Member. The correspondence took place last year, and the amount has escaped my memory. The new registration council, I am told by the Chairman, has so far been an unqualified success. The hon. Member for the University of London pressed me a short time ago to extend the period within which teachers on the old register in Column B might be able to recover their guineas. Perhaps it may be interesting to know that 1552 of those who contributed their guineas originally have applied for and obtained them, thus getting the benefit of the hon. Member's intervention. There is only one other subject connected with the elementary schools which I should like to allude to. There are many special subjects I should like to refer to, such as gardening, but I will deal with one particular branch in which I have been doing my best to promote an interest. It is in connection with sewing and needlework. I am glad to say that I have been able to increase the women inspectors by eleven individuals. There are now sixteen women inspectors, but there is still room for a good many more, especially as we have 3,500,000 girls in the elementary schools. One great advantage of having
    1400
    women inspectors is that they are able to help very much in the teaching of dressmaking in our schools. I believe it is essential for the girls of this country, whether they are going into dressmaking trades or not, that they should all understand how to make their own clothes, and we have now a system by which there is opportunity given in nearly all our schools for every girl being encouraged to cut out, fix, make, and keep in repair the ordinary garments used in her own home. So far as possible the garments they use at home are brought into the schools with the view of being repaired, and instead of great attention being paid, as in the past, to the production of particular "specimen" pieces of work, real practical work has been done in the schools, and the girls have been taught how to make their own clothes in a way which they will never forget, and which will be useful to them all their lives.
    In regard to inspectors, I have been able to increase the number in connection with some of the branches in the Board of Education, but there is one particular feature to which I think I ought to allude. It is one which has caused a good deal of interest in the country, and that is the creation of a new class of inspectors. There have been hitherto three classes, namely, His Majesty's inspectors, sub-inspectors, and junior inspectors. Sub-inspectors were, I believe, selected almost exclusively from those having experience in elementary schools. The junior inspectors were selected from individuals who had secured university degrees, some of whom had had training in our schools, and others who had not. Many of these junior inspectors certainly anticipated that they would be promoted in due course to positions as His Majesty's inspectors. As a matter of fact, there have not been sufficient vacancies to enable anything like the promotion to be secured by them which they anticipated, and there has been in consequence a certain amount of grumbling and dissatisfaction in the matter of promotion. Instead of having these classes only, I thought it was far better that in connection with any vacancies that occurred there should be established a new class of assistant inspectors; that there should be no attempt to distinguish one class of subordinate inspectors from another; that they should all be in the same social position so far as possible; and that all should have an equal chance, on their merit, of

    1401
    rising to be His Majesty's inspectors. I propose, in connection with this class, to make the appointments not exclusively from those who have been teachers in our elementary schools, but there are twelve vacancies now existing, and I propose to appoint them exclusively from among elementary certificated head school teachers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Head teachers only?"] Yes, at the present moment. I am not making any comment in regard to the other vacancies. There are only twelve vacancies at the present moment, and, with the view of limiting the number of applications and not disappointing more people than can possibly be avoided, I limited the choice to teachers of a certain age.
    The result has been that I have had 1,686 letters of inquiry, which I believe in most cases will be followed by applications. We have between 700 and 800 definite applications at the present time, and I am perfectly sure that among these applications I shall find many most competent, if not the very best, men in the country who are willing to come into the work of the Board as assistant inspectors. There has been a great deal of grumbling—I am not surprised at it—that the Government have allowed education charges to advance by expenditure out of the rates much more rapidly than they have allowed it to be supported out of the public revenues of the country, and in that matter I have a great deal of sympathy with the local authorities. The very fact that the local authorities have been spending these large sums has, I must say, made it much more difficult for me at the Board of Education to place such pressure upon the local authorities as I might in some cases have been inclined to do. The local authorities for the last ten or eleven years have come upon the rates for an increase of something like £15,000,000 a year, whilst the Government have only come forward with an increase of £4,000,000 a year. I admit that there is a very strong claim on the part of the local authorities for further assistance out of Government funds. Perhaps, without being disloyal to the Exchequer or my colleagues at the Treasury, I may say that so long as I am at the Board of Education I shall do my utmost, having regard to other claims that may be made upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to press for such additional Grants in connection with the work of education as it is possible for me to obtain.
    1402
    May I refer to the Principality of Wales? It may be somewhat difficult to respond always to certain wishes which are expressed, but, at any rate, I hope I, as a Saxon, have in no way offended the susceptibilities of our Cymric fellow citizens. I have endeavoured to recognise that in the administration of education in Wales it is necessary to be sympathetic and responsive to Welsh national needs and Welsh national sentiments. In regard to the Welsh language, we have done what we could to see that it occupies a proper and rightful place in the schools of the country. As an illustration of what we have done, I may mention that in connection with the national festival of St. David's Day we have done what we could to help the people to make the best use of the national festival and to celebrate it in the most useful manner possible. We have issued a circular, of which 3,250 copies have been purchased from the Board by various education authorities in Wales, with a view of enabling them to celebrate the day in a manner which is most suitable to national sentiment. In regard to educational activities, there have been two new training colleges established, one at Barry and another at Caerleon, and there have been enlargements of others at Swansea and Bangor, and permanent buildings for the university colleges at Bangor and Cardiff. There have been habitations reared for the National Library at Aberystwyth and the National Museum at Cardiff, and there has been a most excellent new training college, which holds 610 students, created at Bangor for training students which will shortly be at work. I believe that the Welsh people will try to do something to retain those students for the Principality after they come out. But I must point out that it will be necessary in Wales and England, if you are going to attract teachers to the profession, to do something to raise the salaries, and with respect to these particular 610 students it would be a matter for regret if they and their talents, including their bilingual attainments, were taken out of their own country, and if they were forced, owing to higher salaries elsewhere, to join the teaching profession on this side of the border.
    Now a few remarks as to our secondary educational system. We have in our urban districts established a system of secondary schools which, I think, very largely meet the need of our urban population, but owing to the great difficulty and expense of travelling there is, cer-

    1403
    tainly in rural districts, a deficiency of secondary schools. In 885 secondary schools the number of pupils receiving free tuition last year was 52,583. Of that number 49,120 came on from our elementary schools. Therefore, so far as an educational ladder has been established between the elementary and the secondary schools, it is satisfactory to note that when there are these large numbers of free places in these schools they are taken advantage of by the poorer children in the community, who come forward out of the elementary schools. I am glad to say, speaking generally, that especially in London and the district around London, the effect of these children being in the secondary schools has been of a most satisfactory character. It has raised the whole standard of education, and made the fee-paying children in these schools work in a manner in which they never would have worked but for the competition with these entrants from our elementary schools, and my inspectors tell me that they are more than satisfied with the rule which we have imposed upon the secondary schools, that twenty-five per cent. of the places in these schools should be thrown open to the children coining from our elementary schools. The staffing of the school is not very satisfactory. Comparing these schools with our elementary schools, we find that the number of schoolmasters is only one to every 13.5 in the secondary schools, as compared with one to every 32.5 in the elementary schools. I regret to say that we have not a very satisfactory account of the way in which many of those who are teaching in the secondary schools have been trained. I may refer to an extract from page 77 of the Report of the Education Board, which was issued a few days ago, in which one of our inspectors reports that in some of these schools there are masters who
    "are graduates with honours of Oxford or Cambridge who have the knowledge but are not able to give effect to it because they have never seriously studied the method of doing so."
    He goes on to say—
    "The present system allows men to drift along into the teaching profession without any security that they have learned to teach. In one school there was not one master who really knew how to handle a class, and at least in some cases this inefficiency seemed to arise simply from the fact that they had never been taught how to do so."
    We have 20 secondary training colleges, 11 departments of university colleges, and 9 independent colleges, and the total output of trained teachers from these secondary colleges last year was only 40
    1404
    men and 195 women. That is an absolutely inadequate output of secondary teachers for the secondary schools which receive Government Grants just now. If I was to dwell upon a number of other so-called secondary schools in this country, I am afraid you would find the position even worse, but at the present moment we have not any accurate knowledge of the kind of education which is given in perhaps 12,000 of the 13,000 or 14,000 so-called secondary schools up and down this country. But I believe it would be found, after investigation, that the majority of the teachers in these schools were no better trained to teach than those taken as a whole in the secondary schools which are now receiving Government Grants. However, that is rather the black side of the picture, and I am bound to admit that there have been great strides forward made in connection with secondary education in this country, and Mr. Gott, than whom there is no better expert in connection with the work of secondary schools, in addressing a meeting of directors and secretaries the other day, used these words:—
    "The wonderful and rapid strides in the type of education given in these schools. Year by year we draw into our secondary schools a better and more highly educated type of both men and women. … The free-placer has set his school a higher standard of work; has produced a greater keenness for knowledge; his presence in the school has, in most cases, had an excellent moral effect."
    But, after all, what we have got to remember is that at the present moment we have no compulsory system of secondary education in this country. What we have got is purely voluntary work clone by our education authorities. There is no compulsion. There is no law to compel individuals to attend these secondary schools, and no compulsion on education authorities to establish them. The work which has been done has been a voluntary undertaking. It has been what I might call an organic growth arising out of the natural instinct of the English people for local self-government, and what I may call the latent desire, which I believe exists in the whole community, to obtain increased knowledge. The improvement is going steadily forward. The body perhaps may be frail, but it is full of life and sensitive vitality, and contains the principle of growth, and it only wants good feeding to enable it to mature. Good feeding means more money, and if the local education authorities can be assisted with more money

    1405
    from the Exchequer, I am quite sure they would make very good use of it.
    I am not going to occupy your time in dwelling at length on the technical side of the Board of Education work, but I would like to say that in my own view we ought to do a great deal more to establish continuation schools in the day-time. I am not a great believer in continuation schools at night as compared with the work that might be done by continuation schools in the day-time. To expect individuals after a full day's work to go into continuation schools, and be able to get the full benefit of the instruction, is asking the impossible. There is no doubt that the weakest spot in the whole of our educational system is the fact that between the ages of fourteen and seventeen the education of most of our children, after they leave school, is neglected. There are only something like 13 per cent. of the total population of these young persons under seventeen who are in attendance at the continuation schools of this country. I believe that much more can be done in the creation of day trade schools, in which courses of from two to four years would be established. Many of these schools have been provided already, but I am told that many more could be provided with great advantage. At the present moment my inspectors tell me that there is room for, at any rate, twenty more in London, and that in the whole country 150 could very well be placed. Wherever these trade schools have been established it is surprising what a success they have been. Before the children leave these trade schools, whether it is dressmaking or engineering, or in connection with dockyard work, or certain classes in London, where they are taught to be cooks, waiters, or what not, before the period of training ends, they have places vacant for them the moment they get out. Attempts are even made to induce them to leave the trade schools before the expiration of their full period of training, and they obtain good wages the moment they leave these establishments.
    5.0 P.M.
    The amount of Grant which the Government gave was, to my mind, wholly inadequate. It was only £2 17s., which is very little more per head than for children attending elementary schools, and I have been able to obtain an increased Grant making a total of £5 during the last few weeks in connection with the trade schools on land, and the £2 17s. has been raised to £10 in connection with the trades which are taught upon various
    1406
    training ships in the ports of this country. Upon the university branch of our work I do not want to dwell, but I would like to express my great gratitude to Sir William McCormick for the way in which he has worked on the Committee in connection with the various universities, to which we now give Grants. The universities receive about £140,000 a year, which has been distributed on the recommendation of Sir William McCormick's Committee. At first these universities were a little shy of any connection with anybody on behalf of the Board of Education. We have no desire whatsoever to interfere with the control and local management of the universities, and we welcome very heartily their co-operation. For instance, recently at Oxford we have been able to make arrangements to help them in their engineering schools. So it is with other institutions—medical institutions and others—which are more and more coming into the work of the Board of Education, and co-operating with that Department. We are not intervening or interfering in any way with them in connection with their own affairs. All we seek to do is to help them in securing an object which is common to both, and we desire to co-operate with them in any way we can without interfering with what are their own domestic concerns. One word and I have done. I must thank publicly the French Government for their great kindness in having lent us for exhibition in the Victoria and Albert Museum certain textile exhibits, including Gobelin tapestries, carpets, and fabrics from the Mobilier National, Paris. They are probably the finest Gobelin tapestries ever produced and collected together. The public of this country appreciated this loan more than I can say, and the very fact that in the months of August, September and October, 221,000 people visited the museum compared with 189,000 in the previous year, showed that this particular action on the part of the French Government was appreciated by the British people. We have acquired a certain number of very valuable purchases for our collection at the Taylor sale, at, I am glad to say, a comparatively reasonable price, while many objects went for prices very much higher than any figure which we could give.
    We have established in connection with the Victoria and Albert Museum an Advisory Council, presided over by Lord Reay; and a number of distinguished men

    1407
    of affairs, collectors, art critics, with Lady Plymouth, Lady Homer, and others, are advising me in the way the collection should be arranged, what we should purchase, and the way in which the various objects can be exhibited to the best advantage. They have already got to work, and I am quite sure their annual report will be of great interest to the public. We have had during the last year 730,000 visitors to the Victoria and Albert Museum, and it has been a great pleasure to me to feel that the wonderful collection there is so much appreciated by our people. The one department with which perhaps I am least satisfied is the College of Art, and that is due mainly to the fact that the work has to be conducted on inadequate premises. I was so much impressed by the fact that when I came to the Board of Education I at once got into communication with the Board of Works and with the Treasury, and we were able to secure an island site, which is on the south side of the Victoria and Albert Museum, at I think the reasonable price of £38,000. That site we propose to utilise this year or next year, for the erection of a building for the Royal College of Arts in which all the various branches of that college may be properly housed. I believe we could then organise the whole of our arts, whether architectural design, painting, etching, or sculpture, in premises which will give a very much better opportunity of their being a credit to the country than is the case at the present time.
    I may say that we very much deplore the death of Mr. Pierpont Morgan. He was a great benefactor to our art collections in South Kensington. I also very much deplore the death of Mr. Fitzhenry, a great friend of Mr. George Salting, perhaps the greatest benefactor that the Victoria and Albert Museum ever had. Mr. Fitzhenry was a very generous benefactor, and we are very glad to have many articles, which he collected, in the museum. The Science Museum is about to be built on a site we have obtained in the Exhibition Road. It is proposed to erect the building in three blocks. The foundations of the first block have already been commenced, at any rate the ground is being cleared, and about £110,000 will be spent in the erection of that museum. Sir Hugh Bell, Sir Henry Roscoe, and other distinguished men have kindly undertaken to advise me in connection with the scope of this museum, the organisation of the
    1408
    collection, the policy to be followed in regard to the acquisition of a museum, and the collection to be placed in the new building, and also as to what would be the relation of the museum to other societies and museums.
    In reviewing the work of the past year, I feel that I have only dealt with a certain number of important features amongst the many I might enumerate, but I wish also to say to the House that I do recognise the great indulgence that they have shown to me personally during the last year. There have been many complex matters, very many difficult questions for me to deal with, and anybody who has been at the Board of Education must surely know the complexities and difficulties which may arise in connection with the manifold operations associated with the education of the children and young people of this country. A progressive policy—and education is of no good unless it is progressive, no matter how administered—is bound to arouse criticism and even opposition; but I have been very fortunate in the help which I have received from the local education authorities, and I am glad to be able to announce that all the borough authorities are now formed into an association, and I am going to meet them for the first time, I think, about a month hence. It will be a great satisfaction to me to be able to consult them, as it has been a satisfaction to me to be able to consult the county association from time to time, and I am quite sure that, when the history of the year comes to be written, at any rate it will be said that we at the Board of Education have been wise in taking the local education authorities into our confidence and counsel. The figures and facts which I have placed before the Committee I think will disclose that substantial progress has been made during the past year. I hope the Committee will realise that my friends and I—helped as we have been by the best trained and, I believe, some of the most brilliant intellects in the public service, men who have been no less distinguished by their loyalty to us than others in the service are to other Ministers—have done our best during the past year in the interests of those who are to be the nation of to-morrow.
    Mr. HOARE: The President of the Board of Education has given a detailed account of a very conscientious year's work, and I am sure that both sides of the Committee can congratulate themselves

    1409
    upon a year's work, which, generally speaking, has been free from those bitter controversies in which education was involved some two, three, four, or five years ago. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to thank hon. Members for the indulgence which they had shown him in the administration of the work of his Department. If he will allow me to say so, I would add that many of us on this side of the House have been particularly conscious of the great courtesy that he has shown to us when we have had any questions to ask him or any criticisms to make on the Education Department. In the few remarks I desire to address to the Committee I desire to confine myself to two facts which have been in my mind whenever I have been brought into contact with educational administration. On the one hand, you have a machinery which, both for completeness and efficiency, can scarcely be matched in any Department of the State; and, on the other hand, it seems to me you have a great deal of waste in the results obtained. Let me say a word or two about each of these facts. I think, with reference to the first, that anyone who has listened to the speech which the President of the Board of Trade has just delivered will agree with me when I say that the machinery of our educational system of to-day is comprehensive and complete to an extraordinary degree. You have, first of all, the Board of Education itself, with its staff of more than a thousand officials. You have, I think, 300 local education authorities, each with its staff of expert officials, and each served by a great band of conscientious voluntary workers. In addition to that, you have 100,000 teachers in our rate-aided and State-aided schools. And we are all conscious of the splendid work that they have been so long doing in those schools.
    What we see is that this machinery has enabled us to bring into school every morning eight out of nine of the six million children of school age, and to make some of them attend so regularly that in London, as no doubt in many places, some spend two, three, and four years at school without missing a single morning or afternoon. If you go a step further you have a system of scholarships now costing the ratepayers of the country the sum of £400,000 a year, and enabling 40,000 children to pass from the elementary school to the secondary school, and from the secondary school to the university. You would have thought that, with this complete and comprehensive machinery, the result would be so satisfac-
    1410
    tory as to silence any criticism of this educational system. But it is idle to deny that at the present moment there is a very general feeling that a good deal of this money is being, if not entirely wasted, at any rate misspent. That criticism is, sometimes of an ignorant nature, but I believe that if you could analyse it you would agree that there is a certain basis for it, and that if the right hon. Gentleman is going to obtain for his new educational proposals a great body of public opinion to support him, he must do something in his administration to silence criticisms and enlist more public opinion on his side. Let me illustrate what I mean by the case of London. In London at the present moment I think a sum of £6,000,000 a year is being spent from the rates and taxes upon public education, and I do not suppose that even the most bigoted critic of the existing policy at Spring Gardens would deny that, both in its policy and in its methods, the London Education Authority compares favourably with all, or at any rate most, of the great educational authorities of the country. I think that anyone who has been brought into contact with the educational work of London will agree with me when I say that no education authority is better served by its permanent officials. It therefore cannot be urged that in London inadequate results are due to maladministration.
    If we wish to assign the causes we must go back further. What is the result of this great expenditure of time and money? Thirty thousand boys leave the schools of London every year, and recent inquiry shows that, even after all this expenditure of time and money, only 28 per cent. of those thirty thousand boys find their work in the skilled trades. No less than 67 per cent. drift into irregular employment, which, as we all know, is very apt to lead in two or three years' time to unemployment. That means a very great waste. A sum estimated at £100 has been spent upon the education of each of those boys, and when we come to think that the only result of that is that 20,000 of those boys drift into unskilled employment, I think we must all agree that there must be some ground for the criticism of our educational system which we so often hear outside. But the full amount cannot be estimated in terms of money at all; it is really a question of human life, and if hon. Members study the findings of the Poor Law Commission, they will find that two out of

    1411
    three London boys drift into casual employment, which in a very high percentage of cases soon becomes unemployment. I find, for instance, whilst 60 per cent. of certain representative skilled trades are filled by boys from the country, only 30 per cent. are filled by London boys. I find, also, that 70 per cent. of the casual dock labourers in London are London boys, and that no less than 90 per cent. of the inmates of our larger common lodging houses and Salvation Army shelters and Church Army shelters are also London boys. That cannot be put down to bad administration, and it cannot be put down to a niggardly expenditure of public money. It must be due in some respects to our system of education. It is, therefore, the duty of all those who are brought into contact with that system to see how we can remedy its defects, either by administration or by legislation.
    Let me suggest one or two ways in which I think an improvement might be made in administration. First of all, there is the waste which is due to ill-health. I quite agree with what the President of the Board said with reference to the various health problems with which the Board has been dealing during the last three years. I do not myself consider that there is any province of our system of public education which is more important than that in which are centred the many questions connected with the health of the children. I am glad to see, so far as I can understand the Estimates, that the Grant for medical treatment is to be increased this year from £60,000 to £80,000, but even so I do not think that it is adequate, and I should like to see a much greater Grant even than the £80,000, which is included in this year's Estimates. Let me give a single example as to a field which has scarcely been touched, and which, I believe, needs the expenditure of public money more than, I think I am correct in saying, any other branch of public work, and that is the education of consumptive children. I believe that the Board of Education might do more in conjunction with the Treasury to encourage, and, if necessary, to insist upon the expert treatment of tuberculous children. At present no less than 1,200 children are being discovered every year by the medical inspection in London to be suffering from tuberculosis. I should very much like to see the President of the Board of Education adopt a vigorous and
    1412
    progressive policy with reference to this problem. I would like to suggest that he should obtain some of the money which is to be devoted to the building of sanatoria under the Insurance Act for the care of tuberculous children, by the encouragement of open-air schools, and other institutions of the kind. In London, that is in one city alone, the Medical Officer of Health calculates that no less than £1,000,000 has been spent upon tuberculous children during the last ten years, who have died during the years when they had to attend school. Think of the enormous waste that is now going on, and how much of that might be saved by a vigorous policy, directed to stamp out this great evil.
    I come to another case of waste. I believe that there is ground for the general sentiment held outside the offices of experts and this Committee, that some of the waste is due to misdirected teaching. I believe, though that criticism often goes too far, that there is some ground for it, and that we are still too much bound up with the antiquated ideas of 1870. Therefore I think that many of us would welcome a great stimulus being given to the encouragement of what is known as manual training in the elementary schools. I was very much interested to hear what the President of the Board said on that subject to-day. After all, what is wanted, is that a girl should be taught not dressmaking so much, as to make a dress; not cookery so much, as to cook a dinner; and I am sure we should welcome any stimulus that he could give to local authorities to bring about a change in the curriculum of the elementary schools, which I am confident is needed at the present moment. It seems to me that much the best way to go to work is to go to the teachers. It is really a problem of teachers, and it therefore is of the utmost importance, as he said, that we should have enough teachers, and that we should also have suitable teachers, and certainly I think that his anxiety as to the number of teachers is by no means ill-founded. If what I am told is correct, in the course of a year or two there will be a deficit of no less than two thousand teachers for staffing our schools. Before you can carry out any reform in the curricula you must certainly have a sufficient number of teachers to man those schools. Further, I do not think that you will get the teaching altered in the way you desire in the elementary schools unless side by side with it you change the course of training which the

    1413
    teachers receive in the training colleges before they go out to the schools to take up appointments. You will not succeed, it seems to me, however much you change the curricula, if you have teachers trained in the same way as they were in a former generation to do that teaching. Therefore, if a change is to come about in the curricula of the elementary schools, it must be carried out more through the teacher than through any number of codes or regulations or directions, either from the Board of Education or from the local education authorities.
    Lastly, it seems to me that there is another field in which a great deal of waste is going on at the present moment, and I would ask the President of the Board most seriously to consider it. It seems to me that at present there are many, too many, officials doing very much the same kind of work in our education areas. The difficulty is that a number of them are subject to different Departments of State and to different local education authorities, and so it comes about that you may very well have the same family being visited at the same time by the relieving officer, the school attendance officer, the sanitary inspector, the health officer, the school nurse, a member of a care committee, and a number of representatives of voluntary and philanthropic associations. I believe this great complexity does lead to a considerable amount of misplaced energy and to waste as its result. I would venture to suggest to the President of the Board that he might summon a conference of the various authorities concerned to see whether they could not reduce the number of this army of officials, for I am quite sure if you could only have a few officials dealing with quite small areas and by that means getting themselves well-known to the families with whom they have to deal, you would get these many problems connected with our educational system much better carried out than they are being carried out at the present moment. I believe that if the administration is really to get its full value it must be supplemented by bigger and wider proposals. This is not the opportunity to discuss what those proposals should be, but I may, in passing, allude to one—the question of money.
    The President of the Board of Education expressed his sympathy with the local education authorities in their great and growing expenditure. That is a subject which we have often discussed in this
    1414
    Committee, and I think that, generally speaking, we are all agreed upon it. I will not say more than that, as far as London is concerned, we believe that we are entitled to a Grant of no less than £500,000 a year more than we now receive from the Imperial Exchequer. I am sure that if we want the education machine to work smoothly, we must not go on indefinitely putting off this question of the relation of the Exchequer to the local authorities, but we must have a general reorganisation of the system at once. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will act up to his words of sympathy, and that in the next Budget largely increased Grants will be given to the educational authorities who deserve them. No doubt in the course of the next few weeks we shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman the details of the new scheme which he is going to introduce. Many of us on this side will welcome any scheme calculated to make our administration more efficient. If the right hon. Gentleman is to carry out this great scheme he needs to enlist the sympathy of everyone interested in education. I hope, therefore, that when he comes to outline his policy, he will not be diverted into those controversies in which we have been involved in past years, but that he will realise that both in administration and legislation he needs the support of church, chapel, council, and every other kind of organisation at present engaged in the work of education. If he does that, and if he frankly recognises that there are in this country some people who like one kind at school and others another, I feel sure that he will receive from this side, not hostile criticism, but the support to which his proposals will undoubtedly be entitled.
    Sir HENRY HIBBERT: I approach this question as chairman of the Education Committee of the County Councils Association of England and Wales, an association which represents some 36 per cent. of the assessable value of the country, and educates 40 per cent. of its children. I am going to treat the question purely from the financial point of view, and I say frankly that I am disappointed with the Estimates which have been presented to us. The Members of His Majesty's Government cannot have appreciated the intense feeling which pervades the whole country with regard to the enormous cost of education. I have been returned to this House within the last

    1415
    month, after a contest which was short, sharp, and decisive. It lasted some eight days, six of which I had to devote to defending my position as chairman of the Lancashire Education Committee. All the additions which have been put on the rates during the last three or four years were supposed to be attributable to the policy that I was following on that committee, and I had to work very hard indeed to secure my election. I mention that simply to show what the feeling is in the country with regard to the enormous increase in the rates. The Executive Committee of the County Councils Association, at their meeting on Wednesday last, passed the following resolution:
    "That this committee (i.) records its sense of the unfairness involved in the administrative policy of the Board of Education with regard to elementary schools since 1903, whereby (a) the standard of building requirements has been advanced, (b) the standard of school staffing has been appreciably raised, and (c) additional duties and obligations have been imposed on local education authorities as regards medical inspection, without corresponding increase in the Imperial contribution in respect thereof; (ii.) urges that the restriction of the Special Aid Grant to autonomous areas and its refusal to rural parishes where the education rate, including special levies, exceeds 1s. 6d. in the £, imposes an unequal and oppressive burden, particularly upon the agricultural industry; and (iii.) urges the necessity of providing adequate relief in the Estimates for the ensuing year, either by a contribution in aid of capital expenditure (past, present, and future), upon school buildings, or by such other means as will lessen a burden which invites daily increasing opposition by ratepayers to all proposals for further advancement and progress in educational work."
    Dealing with these points seriatim, with regard to the first, that the standard of building requirements has been advanced, I shall draw upon my own experience as chairman of the Lancashire Education Committee. There have been numerous alterations in the plans for schools. Only a very short time ago we had ten schools in course of erection and nearly completed. The plans had been before, and sanctioned by, the Architectural Branch of the Board of Education. Before the schools were actually completed, the number of scholars allowed per class-room was reduced by ten, and in one school containing thirteen class-rooms there was a reduction of accommodation to the extent of 130 children, which at £14 per head, the cost of building the school, represented a loss on capital account on that one school of £1,820. Since then we have had central halls, insulated halls, and all kinds of passages; in fact, I have come to the conclusion that the building of schools is not by any means an exact science. With regard to the second point, that the standard of school staffing has been appre-
    1416
    ciably raised, I am very glad indeed that that is so. I do not object to that, although it has cost a very large amount of money. It has cost my own committee something like £7,000 per annum adequately to staff the schools according to the Board of Education's requirements. But I do not grudge the spending of the money, because it is spent in the right direction. I think, however, that the Board of Education ought to come to our relief.
    With regard to medical inspection I say exactly the same. I do not think that there has ever been placed on the Statute Book an Act of Parliament which is more likely to bring forth good results than the Administrative Provisions Act, 1907. At the time that that Act came into operation we were promised some contribution towards the cost of medical inspection, but from that day until last year we did not receive a single copper, although numerous representations were made to the Medical Department of the Board of Education in respect of that promised assistance. In my own county we started with an expenditure under that head of £2,000 per annum. In 1911–12 it had increased to £6,000. In 1912–13 it was £7,000, and for 1913–14, it is estimated to cost no less than £9,000. If we carry out the requests of the Medical Department of the Board of Education with regard to visiting, after-care, and that kind of thing, our expenditure will undoubtedly be increased by another £4,000 or £5,000 per annum. The cost of medical inspection in England and Wales during the last two recorded years, 1908–9 and 1910–11, shows an increase of £79,197 per annum, whilst the total cost of medical inspection itself in 1910–11 amounted to £186,999. The sole Grant given towards medical inspection is not given towards medical inspection proper, but for visiting the children and attending to them, and it will cost a large amount of money to gain a very small Grant. I therefore say, on behalf of the local education authorities, that with regard to medical inspection a larger Grant should be given.
    I come now to the portion of the resolution dealing with the restriction of the Special Aid Grant to autonomous areas and its refusal to rural parishes where the education rate, including special levies, exceeds 1s. 6d. in the £. This resolution was moved by the representative of the Carnarvon County Council, who has furnished me to-day with the following par-

    1417
    ticulars: Out of seventy-seven parishes in Carnarvonshire twenty-two are rated for educational purposes at over 1s. 6d. in the £, three at over 2s. in the £, and one at 2s. 4d. in the £. Surely this is a case where the restrictions of the Board might be slightly relaxed, because most of these villages are exceedingly poor, and to have to pay an education rate of this description, in addition to all the other rates, means an enormous tax on the people. The third portion of the resolution urges the necessity of providing adequate relief in the Estimates for the ensuing year, either by a contribution in aid of capital expenditure upon school buildings or by such other means as will lessen a burden which invites daily increasing opposition by ratepayers to all proposals for further advancement and progress in educational work. I must apologise for mentioning my own committee so often, but I know it better than any other. The Board of Education compelled us two years ago to enter upon a building programme which will last seven years, under which the annual expenditure will be £55,000, and which, at the end of the seven years, will add to our expenditure for the administration of elementary education £22,000 or £23,000 per annum. With regard to the financial position of the Grant given to county councils in England and Wales, I have here a report taken from the Local Taxation Accounts for 1907–12. I find that whereas, in 1905–6, the Grants from the Exchequer towards the cost of elementary education represented 61.52 per cent. of the expenditure, in 1910–11, the proportion had dropped to 55.83 per cent., while the local expenditure had increased from 38.48 per cent., to 44.17 per cent. In other words, out of a total increased expenditure of £921,508, the Board of Education had only contributed £100,225. If we turn to higher education, the position is even worse. In 1905–6, the proportion of expenditure contributed by the Imperial Exchequer was 55.49 per cent., and in 1911–12, it had decreased to 43.67 per cent., while the expenditure by the local authorities had increased from 44.51 per cent. to 56.33 per cent. Put again into sterling out of an increased expenditure of £451,901 the Imperial Exchequer had only contributed the sum of £50,128. Under these circumstances you cannot be at all surprised if the administration of education is exceedingly difficult. In fact, I often think that my position as chairman of my own large authority is very like the position of the
    1418
    policeman described in Gilbert and Sullivan's "Pirates of Penzance." My lot is not a happy one. All increases of expenditure, whether rightly or wrongly, are put upon the shoulders of the education committee.
    We have been promised a new Education Bill. I was hoping that the Treasury might in these Estimates have anticipated the whole or part of the larger amount which it is said may be granted towards the cost of education. What do we find? We find on elementary account there is a decrease of £2,304. First, in the Estimates is the staff, which accounts for an increase of £3,880. The staff of the Board of Education is an excellent one. I know no finer body of men in the public service. I have had the opportunity of judging of their ability, patience and courtesy, because up till last October I was a member of their consultative committee for something like six years. But I do say that they have failed to sense the feeling of the ratepayers. They have sought to make haste too quickly, with the inevitable result that education in many parts of the country have become sadly unpopular. Wherever we go, anyone who has to do with elementary education is asked the question: "How much more are you going to put on the rates? When is tins great extravagance going to cease?" Inspection and examination show an increase of £822. Pensions to teachers—I am glad to say—come in for £18,305. Teachers are undoubtedly one of the hardest working and one of the most conscientious bodies of men and women I know. Unfortunately, owing to the parsimony of the Treasury local authorities are not able to give them the salaries they deserve. Blind, deaf, and defectives, of course, are always a first charge on the country. I see there is an increase here of some £7,000 per annum. With regard to pupil teachers and bursars, I have no remark to make except this: that I think it is a mistake that student teachers do not go to the elementary day school for the whole of the five days, instead of the four. If it is necessary to continue their education, let them do it in the evenings or on Saturdays. To quote the Report of the Board itself on the training of secondary teachers:—
    "I have no hesitation in saying that a year of training, following immediately on an academic course, and without any previous practical experience, is both in general principle and in practice less satisfactory than a course taken in vacation after some years training."

    1419
    With that I thoroughly agree. If it is good for teachers in secondary schools, it is equally good for teachers in the elementary day schools. Further, attendance at the secondary school only one day out of five to a very large extent disorganises that secondary school; therefore, I think it ought to be stopped. Another suggestion I should like to make which, of course, again involves expenditure of money is this: that at the present time the Board give a Grant of £2 to students in secondary day schools under twelve yeras of age. That is contingent upon the individual scholar having spent two years previously in an elementary day school. I do not see any reason why that Grant should not be given to any student under twelve years of age. Further than that, I do not see any reasons why a uniform Grant of £5 should not be given to the student under twelve years of age. Here, again, in the Regulations for Secondary Schools I find the following:—
    "The education of the secondary school may be advantageously begun at an age much below twelve; in fact by means of kindergarten and preparatory departments, it is often made to cover education from its earliest stages."
    As yet, that is not financially recognised by the Board of Education except, as I have shown, to a very small extent. Various items, such as the annual Grants to elementary schools, special Grants to certain local education authorities, and annual Grants for the training of teachers, building Grants for training colleges and hostels, remain as before; while Grants in lieu of fees are £25,000 less, and aid Grants to local education authorities are £35,000 less. I read in the paper a speech made by Viscount Haldane before the National Union of Teachers on Tuesday, 25th March, in which he said:—
    We have always gone on the principle of devolution to local authorities of as much of the task of Government as we could, and he hoped we should not depart front that in education. The mode by which they could ensure that being done through the local education authorities was by means of that little understood instrument—the Grant-in-Aid."
    That is the Grant which the Board of Education are reducing this year by no less than £35,000. I therefore ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Government are ensuring that the Grant-in-Aid shall be better undertood by decreasing it? Further, if it is a question of choosing between devolution and more money, I should say that we want less devolution: we undoubtedly want more money. I want to put the case from a slightly different point of view. I
    1420
    find that the average cost of educating an elementary school child in our day schools is £4 3s. per head. This is divided almost equally between the Board of Education and ourselves. If you take the average school life of the child at seven years and multiply it by £4 3s., you find that the total cost is £29 1s. per head. I want hon. Members to consider the great loss that is to the county and to the country when these children grow up into men and emigrate. I also want hon. Members to look at it from another point of view, which probably affects county councils more than either county or non-county boroughs—that is, the constant migration from the rural districts to the towns. All this means a loss, as I have shown, taking the average duration of the school life at seven years, of £29 1s. per head.
    That is one of the reasons why I think that education ought to be considered more a national question than we do consider it. That brings me to the difference between rates and taxes. I can quite understand the right hon. Gentleman opposite asking me how I reconcile my request for more money from the Exchequer with the remarks I have just made. Well, there is a great deal of difference between rates and taxes. One you feel, while the other, if you do feel it, you do not feel it to the same extent. If you do, you either use naughty words about the Government or you support the party in power because you happen to belong to it. One affects you locally; the other affects you nationally. One part of the country is enthusiastic in the cause of education; another part of the country is indifferent. Yet yon cannot put a ring-fence around each of the local education areas, for you are educating people, as you know, for national use, for national service, for the national well-being. I contend, therefore, that the cost of education is a national one, quite as much as the Army and the Navy. To as large an extent as possible it ought to be economically treated as such. May I point out again that the incidence of the rates is much more burdensome and unfair than the incidence of the taxes. Taxation can be raised from almost uncountable sources. I think right hon. Gentlemen opposite may be considered past-masters at that and therefore the matter may be safely left in their hands.
    I should like to say one other word about higher education, and that is in regard to the discontinuance of Article 38.

    1421
    The change does not make a very great deal of difference, but it is an illustration of some of the Regulations of the Board of Education and the way they work. The Board may pay an additional Grant at the rate of £1 on each pupil for whom Grant is payable. This they have discontinued and in its place have offered to local education authorities a bribe of £1 per head for boys and girls over sixteen years of age who continue their education to eighteen years of age. That is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. But the Board seems to imagine that the small increase in the Grant will, in some mysterious manner, induce children to remain at school longer than they do under ordinary circumstances. The real difficulties in the way of continued attendance at school, at any rate until eighteen years of age, are, in the first place, the comparative failure of the bursar system, and, secondly, a disinclination on the part of parents to allow their children to remain at a secondary school, even with exhibitions. It is rather a valuable illustration of the point I have raised—it is exceedingly singular—that whilst the Board of Education are, as it were, penalising us for not keeping our children at school till sixteen, the Civil Service Commissioners are doing all they can to take our children from us at fifteen. There is a great deal of talk about correlation in education. I only wish it were applied to Government Departments. Dealing with this question of the difficulty of getting children to attend at the secondary school for a longer period than sixteen, I may say that my own committee give a sum of something like £28,000 annually for scholarships and exhibitions. Only £25,000 of that is, as a rule, claimed. Some of these scholarships are of considerable value, and they will pay undoubtedly for the university training of the successful competitors.
    In 1911 we had 252 candidates, and in 1912 we had 224. In addition to this we give something like 589 exhibitions. These exhibitions provide free education up to eighteen years of age. They provide travelling expenses in excess of £1; they give £1 per annum to the students for books, and they pay for their games; and in order that the children of poor parents may be able to dress as well as those they may meet in the forms of the secondary day school, £5 is given to third, fourth, fifth, and sixth year students—in other words, as long as they remain at school. Taken in conjunction
    1422
    with the fact, as I have told the House, that only 3.27 children in the elementary schools are over thirteen years of age, and only 0.29 are fourteen, it seems to me that it is not so much a question of want of opportunity of going forward with their education as a disinclination to take advantage of the opportunities offered. Therefore, I say again, seeing that this action of the Education Board in the withdrawal of Article 38 has penalised the schools of Lancashire to the extent of £1,155 per annum, and in the West Riding of Yorkshire to the extent of £1,244 per annum, it is a step in the wrong direction, and I sincerely hope that the Board of Education gill use their utmost efforts to obtain from the Treasury a larger sum of money than they are obtaining to-day, because I am perfectly convinced in my own mind, as a keen educationist and as one who has spent the best part of his life in trying to improve the education of those in a poorer position than myself, that the parsimony, or comparative parsimony, of the Board of Education or the Treasury in not giving a larger contribution in aid of the rates of this country is having a very detrimental effect upon the course of education.
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir JAMES YOXALL: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has spent many years of his life in admirable service in the cause of education in his own county of Lancashire and elsewhere, and I am sure the Committee will join with me in congratulating him upon a speech in which he has brought before the Board of Education matters of great importance, and in which he has expressed so very clearly the necessary demand for further central aid. If there be a danger of legislation in this country retrograding or standing still, the danger lies in the fact that the Board of Education and the National Exchequer have ceased to supply the needs of education for local purposes by giving it a proper stimulus or aid. Stimulus by means of code circulars, inspection, and so forth are amply supplied, but that is not the stimulus that is required. The stimulus required is more central financial aid, and until that is provided for by a Grant from the Treasury we cannot hope for very much more advancement to be made in the cause of education in this country. Something has been said in the course of this

    1423
    Debate as to education becoming unpopular. I do not think it ever was very popular in England. I think it is no more unpopular now than it used to be. I think it is less unpopular. I do not agree with what the hon. Member has said as to the unpopularity just now aroused. My own view is that it very largely arises from the fact that people are dissatisfied owing to the amount of cost placed upon the rates. Members of education committees are themselves not satisfied and are becoming disheartened. It would be the greatest pity in the world that members of education committees all over the country, who render to the cause of education great services, and have for many years past withstood such unpopularity as is attached to education in this country, should, by the repeated and continued neglect within four, five, six, and seven years, and by repeated breaches of undertakings by Chancellors of the Exchequer belonging to both parties, in the last Government as well as in the present, to give further financial aid to the local authorities, become dissatisfied and less enthusiastic than in the past, and it would be a great blow to the efficiency of education in this country. But when the hon. Member for Chorley went on to refer to the fact that in his own county and elsewhere, full advantage was not taken of the college provided, I think that perhaps there might be another reason than the one he put forward for that state of affairs.
    I think I remember some years ago a speech made by the hon. Member for Chorley, in which he referred to the fact that they provided in Lancashire a certain number of what are called "cotton scholarships," I think the number was five, at a cost of £200 each for the purpose of teaching the technical processes of the cotton trade. Young men of twenty or twenty-two years of age, who had obtained these scholarships, when they wished to enter the cotton trade, found that there were no remunerative positions suited to their age and qualification and knowledge open to them. It was found by the education committees that no places whatever were provided for these young men in the cotton trade at salaries at all commensurate to what they might be entitled to demand. I think that at twenty-two years of age, after studying for five years the technical process of cotton manufacture, a young man might reasonably ex-
    1424
    pect to receive more than 15s. a week to begin with, and I think for young people like that some arrangement must be made by which they can be offered a better salary after a long course of technical education in the industrial processes peculiar to this country than what would be offered them if they went into a workshop or a factory at fifteen years of age. That is one of the causes for a certain amount of unpopularity of the education system of this country, and that is the reason why young people do not generally go to the secondary schools and stay there longer. It is due to the fact that when emerging from school after this training there is no place open for them in the industrial system commensurate to the sacrifices their parents have made in abstaining from availing of the possibility of the few shillings a week which the children would have received if they went to be clerks at fourteen years of age.
    We have not yet organised our junior labour bureau system, and employers and manufacturers have not yet so fully recognised that they may at twenty years of age obtain from the schools or colleges the services of highly skilled and educated men, and until that is brought about there will be a lack of willingness on the part of the children in the elementary schools to take full advantage of the ladder or inclined plane which these scholarships provide. I would not have some Members of the Committee think that the cause of this failure to take advantage of the secondary school system and of the scholarships offered is due to lack of ambition on the part of the children in the elementary schools, or lack of encouragement to those children by the teachers, or to want of due preparation in the elementary schools. That is not the case. It is not that the elementary schools in this country do not regard it as a great honour and distinction for the poorer boy or girl to win scholarships in the secondary schools. The same kind of feeling obtains in the secondary schools, where are displayed in golden letters the names of pupils who have won distinction, as prevails in the endowed schools and the grammar schools of the country, and the Committee will see that the real difficulty is the economic and financial side of the matter and our failure to defray the cost of the passage of the child from the elementary to the secondary schools and the technical colleges, and so forth, and the passage from the technical schools to the

    1425
    universities and into the world of commerce and industry. This deals very largely with the question raised by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education about the supply of teachers. The supply of teachers is not falling off in the elementary schools alone; it is falling off in the secondary schools as well. It is not only the case that parents of children who have gone from the elementary schools to the secondary schools are unwilling to place their children as teachers in the elementary schools professions, but it is because that Oxford and Cambridge Universities organisations for obtaining employment for their graduates are discovering that an increased proportion of their graduates are going to the schools, and it is not to be wondered at.
    The other day I found myself among a group of highly educated persons, lecturers and tutors in history in the universities of this country, and most of them, I believe, certainly two-thirds of them, had remuneration so small relatively to their qualifications and experience, and the course of their preparation, as to be absolutely ridiculous. Younger people of that class are discovering that £120 or £130 per annum remuneration for the honour of being a professor or a lecturer in history is not sufficient to compensate for the lack of the amenities and opportunities of life which is the result of insufficiently paid posts. I think it will be found that more and more of the pupils in the secondary schools and technical institutes and colleges will go into commerce and industry in the future than in the past. I am sure that is so with regard to the supply of teachers in the elementary schools. I am sure the case is this, that as you educate a class of people more and more, and as the general standard of living becomes more and more expensive, these positions, which are highly honourable, held by educated people, do not offer to their holders the proper remuneration which enables them to live up to the standard of their class, and therefore these occupations will cease to be popular.
    What is the case now with regard to the teachers of the elementary schools? My right hon. Friend told us, this year and last year, that one of the chief causes of falling off was the insufficient pay obtained by the teachers in these schools. This afternoon he referred, as he was entitled to, to the improvement made last year in the pension system for teachers in the public elementary schools, and he cited with pride, as he was entitled to, the fact that
    1426
    some of those teachers recently retired since August last upon pensions of £60, £67, and in one case £70 per annum. I am not disparaging that or showing any lack of gratitude for the improvement made, but of that total cost the teachers in question, by their annual contributions, pay something like half. It is the case now that under the improved system the total cost to the State of a teacher who retires at sixty-five years of age is £1 per year of service—that is to say, a teacher who enters the training college at twenty-two years of age and worked in the school for forty-three years will receive per year from the State £43. That is the maximum pension. It cannot be said that a pension upon that scale is sufficient to make provision effectively at that end of the journey; but take the other end—the commencing part of it—and remember the very small pay which is received during the first number of years. These teachers have to spend four years in a training college, and after emerging from the college at the age of twenty-two, they find themselves in the position of commanding a salary of £70 or £90 a year, with the prospect of rising to a maximum of £120 for the rest of their lives. Of course, unless you are a head teacher, in a county borough, you may expect to rise to £160, and in the generous Metropolis to a maximum of £200. These are not very attractive salaries to induce people to join the teaching profession, and until they are improved there is bound to be a falling off in the supply of teachers. With regard to the question of money for improving the salary of teachers, it can only be provided from the central Exchequer, and until it is provided there will be more and more of a falling off in the supply. The President of the Board of Education in referring to this matter scarcely expressed the actual facts. The right hon. Gentleman said the National Union of Teachers wished to substitute certificated teachers for uncertificated teachers. May I point out that what is really desired is that a teacher coming out of a training college certificated and trained should not find herself in the position of being unable to obtain a place at a school because those positions are already filled by uncertificated teachers. Last July a certain number of teachers emerged from the training colleges, and although I have not recent figures, I think it is safe to say that six months after that time hundreds of them are still unable to obtain employment. The country has spent a

    1427
    certain amount of money upon the training of these teachers, and their parents have also spent a large amount of money in providing for those teachers that which the country does not provide. After they emerge from the training colleges they find there is no employment for them and no vacancies in the schools because the scheme of staffing laid down by the Board of Education does not admit more teachers of that class.
    The consequence is that the places of these highly qualified teachers are being filled by teachers who have not half the ability and have not passed any of these examinations, which the certificated teacher is obliged to pass. We want that done away with so far as may be and until every fully qualified certificated teacher has been provided with a post the uncertificated teachers should not be allowed to occupy the posts which the certificated teachers ought to be occupying. My right hon. Friend has referred to the improvement with regard to the inspectorate, and again I think he is justified in taking credit to himself and the Department for the change to which he referred. May I point out that the offer he makes to the teacher in the public elementary school who is qualified to become an assistant inspector is that he shall commence at a salary of £200 per annum. That is the salary offered to a highly qualified teacher who has trained for seven years in a training college and has graduated at a university. Surely this parsimony will fail to produce the right effect. I return to the point I started at, and I renew the emphasis I laid on the speech of the hon. Member for Chorley that until the Board of Education are more generous in regard to these Grants further progress in education cannot be made in this country. You want more central money, and this ought to accompany the proposals which the Government have in mind for educational extension and reform. I have read speeches made by Members of the Government in which it has been suggested that by a readjustment of existing Grants more help might be given to the local education authorities. It has been suggested that this is more a matter of manipulation of figures in regard to existing Grants rather than a question of additional Grants. I think it is obvious that however you manipulate the existing amounts the total remains the same. If you really want to carry out
    1428
    educational reform, you can only do it in one way, and that is by the Government coming forward with a large additional central Grant-in-Aid of local expenditure on education.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Hon. Members who listened to the two last speeches will probably have noticed, as I have noticed, that while the moral drawn by both speakers may be said to be the same, the substance of those speeches and the questions dealt with were very different in the two cases. The hon. Member who has just sat down pleaded, as, indeed, he was amply justified in doing, the case of the teachers. Unquestionably, if we are to estimate the supply of teachers by the market price paid for them, the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Sir James Yoxall) seems to have a good case, because, by the admission of the President of the Board of Education, there has been a falling off in the number of teachers of an alarming character. Although I have no intimate knowledge of this subject except that which is common to anybody who studies these questions at all, if the number of teachers is falling off in this manner then there is plausibility in the contention that they are underpaid. That is the contention of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and if the statement made by the President of the Board of Education is true, the explanation given by the hon. Member for West Nottingham is at least plausible, and, if that be so, I take it there is no remedy for the present condition of things except to raise the salaries of this class in order to obtain the numbers necessary to carry on the national work in which that class is engaged.
    Turning from the special case of the teachers to the wider case dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Sir Henry Hibbert) we come to the question of cost. Now I take it that nobody is better qualified upon the subject of the expenditure by local authorities than my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley. Everybody must have welcomed the intervention my hon. Friend made in the Debate to-day because he speaks not with the transitory knowledge of one whose experience in these matters has been obtained by a year or two of work upon a local authority, but he has been, if my memory serves me rightly, the chairman of the Lancashire County

    1429
    Council ever since the present system of education came into operation. He has had an almost unequalled, and certainly unsurpassed, tenure of office in one of the largest, if not the largest, county authority outside the Metropolis. He speaks, therefore, with an authority to this Committee which probably no one else possesses in the same full measure. He began his speech by explaining the great difficulty he found in fighting a contested election owing to the fact that he and the education committee of the Lancashire County Council were made responsible for all the recent increased expenditure which has in reality been forced upon them by the action of this House and this Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, not by this Government."] I hope hon. Members opposite will acquit me of any intention of making a party point, because I was not thinking of that in the least. Undoubtedly the cost of education has gone up in consequence of the action of this House, and undoubtedly the Government have by their recent legislation forced upon the local authorities increased expenditure, and I admit have forced it upon them in a very good cause.
    Take the case of medical inspection, which is one of the causes. My own sympathies are entirely in favour of medical inspection. I think many of my hon. Friends agree with me that that is a great reform. I do not comment upon the details, but, broadly speaking, I call that a great reform, and I think it would lead us to an amount of knowledge connected with the health of the rising generation and the way to bring up successive generations which we do not possess at this moment. Therefore, my criticism upon the increased cost of education, so far as that branch of it is concerned, is not hostile except in so far as it bears out my hon. Friend's statement that that charge was forced upon the local authorities by the Government and by this House, which is the statement I have already made. There are really only two questions that arise upon it. The first is, Can we in any way diminish this growing expenditure. Granting that there are lines of advance which are costly and necessary, is any of the cost which the Department and the House have imposed upon the local authorities unnecessary? I confess I am not quite so sure of the answer to the last question as I am about the answer to the first. I am sure some of this expenditure has been of a most useful kind, but is the Committee quite
    1430
    sure, and is the Education Department quite sure, that in regard to some of the expenditure which they have forced upon the local authorities they have not really been pedantic and too fond of bureaucratic symmetry and too neglectful of the ability of the locality to pay, as well as the needs of the locality? Do not let anybody say that to talk of the ability of the locality to pay is unworthy of an educationist. We must have right and sense in this matter.
    What are the principles the Government themselves have laid down in analogous questions? When we were discussing the Home Rule Bill, was not a large part of their contention in connection with the financial arrangements of that measure that, however excellent certain social reforms might be in the case of a wealthy country like Great Britain, they were unsuited and ought not to be forced upon a poor country like Ireland? What is true of a poor country like Ireland is surely true also of a poor country parish, and the way the Department sometimes treats country parishes is surely scarcely fair. The country parish is usually controlled, as education is controlled very often, by people who have no very great knowledge of country necessities. They feel, in any case, that a certain fraction of their population will go to other occupations than agriculture, because agriculture in the nature of the case is limited, and under a given system of agriculture only a given number of people can be occupied. You may improve your system; you may substitute one form of agriculture which requires more labour for one which requires less labour; but, broadly speaking, a given system of agriculture requires and will admit of only a certain number of persons, and in every country in the world it is found, when that number is exceeded, that migration or emigration is a necessity. I do not think that broad proposition can be contested. I hope and believe that there are parts of the country where an intensive system may be substituted for the existing system and where the demand for agricultural labour may be greatly increased, but, however you alter the system, there is a point at which that system will not permit more labour than a certain given amount. Therefore every agricultural district in which the number of births exceed the number of persons required there will necessarily be a certain number of its population migrate when they reach the adult age. There is no escaping from

    1431
    that in a healthy society, or at any rate in a society where the population increases in the ratio that we have hitherto regarded as normal.
    Therefore it irresistibly follows that you throw upon your agricultural parish the cost of educating people who exercise the talents which you have educated in other spheres of life. In addition to that, you very often insist, as I think rather pedantically, on forcing upon agricultural parishes buildings which happen to suit the momentary or passing opinion of the authorities at the Education Office. There is also the chronic injustice of requiring them at their own cost to educate those who are ultimately destined to leave them. I cannot help thinking that something might be done in that matter by a reconsideration of the policy of the Education Department. I confess I had hoped that when great county authorities like that over which my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley has so admirably presided for many years were instituted, their protest would have been strong enough to prevent the excess of system which is the inevitable danger of all central administration. I certainly hope that a great educational authority like that of Lancashire will be able to say to the Education Department, "Do not have these perpetual changes of plans. This idea of a central hall and passages may be suitable for certain districts and areas, but it ought not to be unreasonably forced upon the local authority at the local authority's expense." I hope that kind of protest will meet with an immediate response from the Department.
    Do not let the Committee suppose that I intend now or at any time to take up an attitude hostile to the Department. I know them too well. I know the immense ability and devotion and public spirit that Department shows, and I know the extraordinarily good work which they have done and are doing, but a Department cannot help being a Department. It is necessarily subject to the limitations of a Department and to the defects of a Department, and everybody knows what those defects are, and perhaps must be, when they apply too great a uniformity to the rules which they have to lay down. It is perhaps not because they are a Department, but because they are human that the responsible Parliamentary head of the Department is more ready to see somebody else compelled to spend money which
    1432
    they have to get out of the local ratepayer than he is to spend money which he has to get out of his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The result of that, I believe, has been very disastrous to the cause of education. The hon. Member who has just sat down observed that education was undoubtedly unpopular in thin country, but it had always been popular, and he did not see that there had been any deterioration in the national character in that respect. I think, if he saw any change at all, that the change he detected was a greater liking for expenditure upon this great subject. I really cannot quite agree. I think there is growing up among the ordinary ratepayers in the country a feeling that they are being handed over, bound hand and foot, to a Department and an authority which has unlimited power of taxing them and of extracting money from their pockets which they have very little power to control, and which uses them as an instrument for carrying out its own policy. It does not consult him really as to what that policy should be. It cannot but have the result that he regards zealous educationists as expensive faddists, and the whole cause of education suffers.
    We have recently had an adumbration of a great scheme on which I should like, before I sit down, to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman. We have had adumbrated a great new scheme of educational reform, which, as I gather, the Lord Chancellor conceives will produce a great flow of popularity in favour of his policy and of his party. I know the Lord Chancellor is a most zealous educationist, and I believe he would sacrifice everything to education. I am not one of those who think this is a Machiavellian device for stimulating the waning popularity of the party of which the Lord Chancellor is an ornament. My belief is exactly the contrary. The idea of stumping the country in favour of adding so much more to the Education Rate is one which will not have the effect of greatly aiding the candidates who, like my hon. Friend who spoke earlier in the Debate, have got to deal with the subject of local education when the time of a contested election comes round. Of course, if the policy of the Government is not merely educational, but also financial, if they are going to apportion more fairly the cost between the Exchequer and the ratepayer of this great National Service, then no doubt that is an instalment of that reform of which we and

    1433
    hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House have so often spoken, namely, that something effective should be done to lighten the burden now thrown upon the ratepayers for services which are in no sense local, or at least for that portion of the services which cannot properly be described as local. If that is done, I for one should greatly welcome the policy, because, as the House well knows, it is not confined to one side of the House; it has been urged for many years upon successive holders of the office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Might I ask, as I am on the question of the new scheme, what, apart from the financial question, there is in the present condition of education which leads up to it? The right hon. Gentleman has surveyed, as he was bound on this annual occasion to survey, the present position of education in the country. There were some shadows on the picture which he drew, but, broadly speaking, I think everybody will admit that he spoke in an optimistic tone with regard to education in all its departments, and that he did not suggest anything to show that some great fundamental and radical change should be made in our system. How is it possible for the head of the Education Department of the country to survey all the work of the year and to recommend the Estimates of the next year and yet give no hint of the defects in the existing system which this great new reform is going to remedy? I think the right hon. Gentleman himself will admit that his position this afternoon was a very extraordinary one.
    Mr. PEASE: I should have been only too glad to point out the defects which require an alteration in law, but, under the rules of procedure in Supply, it would have been absolutely out of order. Therefore, I was very careful not to deal with any subject in connection with my Department, other than those of the administrative work of the year.
    Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly bound by rules of order not to discuss the Clauses of a Bill, but under no conceivable rules of order was the right hon. Gentleman precluded from saying, "Here are great defects in the system which I am administering, and I shall have to bring in a Bill to put them right." My puzzle is this: I listened with great attention, but I could not detect any paragraph in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which gave the least hint or sug-
    1434
    gestion that he felt some great reform was required. That is a most extraordinary position for a Minister of Education to take up at the very moment when his colleagues in another place are sketching, in, I admit, a somewhat wavering outline and with no great definiteness of drawing, some gradiose revolution in the system which he is administering. On that he makes really no comment, and as to that we really know nothing whatever except that there is an industrious Committee of the Cabinet now occupied in threshing out the details. I do not know that the position of the Minister for Education was ever an easy one, but I should have thought that it could not be more difficult than that of the right hon. Gentleman who has described to us the work of the Board of Education, past, present, and future, without making the faintest suggestion or reference to those schemes which, day by day, or hour by hour, he is presumably discussing with his colleagues. I suppose the time will come, in a few weeks, when the veil will be lifted, and then we shall know what it is the Government propose.
    I am far from being one of those who say that the present system ought not to be criticised. I am not one of those who think that we have no ground, or that the nation has no ground, for saying that we see our way clearly in this matter. Superstitions are very apt to grow around policies which may be adopted, but I should like to hear a really good commentary on our system of competitive examination. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down described the inscriptions of honour put up in the elementary schools recording the names of those who have successfully passed examinations. Ask any parent, from whatever class he may be drawn, who has a son at a secondary school or a university, what he most desires, and the answer will be, "Success in the examination." And so it goes on. I do not deny that in certain respects examinations, and even competitive examinations, are an absolute necessity. But I think we have got into the habit of talking of that which is an unhappy necessity as if it were an admirable institution. Examinations are really most soul-killing institutions. I believe they put the human mind absolutely in a wrong position with regard to knowledge. They are very bad for the teachers and very bad for the taught. You hear it said, "So-and-so's is a most admir-

    1435
    able school, and he is the best teacher ever known." The question is asked, "On what ground?" And the reply is to the effect that a certain proportion of his scholars get such and such a number of exhibitions, or whatever it may be. That, and that alone, is the test by which we measure the merits of the system, the results upon the child or young man, and the benefit to the country. I believe it to be wholly and utterly wrong from beginning to end. I am quite aware that some of the praisers of the old system say that we got better men in the public service, and here and there, in the old times, when there was not this violent competition. I know they exaggerate greatly, but do not let the Committee believe there is no truth in what they say. There is some truth in it. We do know, and if we take the trouble we shall all know more of the manner in which you sap the vitality of the young and make them so admirably adapted to successfully pass examinations that, when they have passed them, they are successfully adapted to nothing else whatever. I think a critic of the educational system in the old days, who criticised our ordinary method of education in those days, saw the dangers of it, because in those days there was great jealousy. The question was asked is education necessary, and the suggestion was that it did not matter. All that has gone.
    We are now spending at a rate far higher than any country in Europe per head of population. We are no doubt lower than America, but the impression on my mind is that our expenditure per head of population is far greater in this country than in any country in Europe. Therefore we are committed, and rightly committed, to great national sacrifices to carry out a great national object. Now is the time when we ought to put aside all fads and superstitions and try to go to the root of the matter in order to see how these vast sums, because vast they are, even compared with our great resources, are well spent, and whether, if new objects are really required, at what cost it is necessary to acquire them. The impatience of the country—and it is a real impatience—at the enormous burden of this taxation, and still more under the enormous burden of the rates, is largely due, not merely to our natural reluctance to put our hands into our pockets and hand over to a public authority a large
    1436
    portion of our income. It is not merely that; it is that there is a certain amount of doubt whether we get anything for the money, or whether we get enough. Nothing will put that right but a real sifting examination into our fundamental ideas of education. I hope the Committee will not suppose that I know exactly the sort of education which I think should be adopted. I really do not. I could make a very good case against certain forms of education which are greatly in fashion. I will not even mention what they are, but I could make an extremely good case, and one which it would be uncommonly hard to answer.
    Yet we have to be careful in dealing with these things. The perennial controversy is between that which is learned because we like learning, and that which is learned in order that we may earn our daily bread, and when education is based on a controversy which never yet has satisfactorily diagnosed the frontier between learning for its own sake and learning for the sake of some technical dexterity, that difficulty will always be presented to us. There is no use in this House running against the determination of the working people of the country to get what they consider a fair return for the labour of their children. I am not arguing that point at all. But do not suppose that you can run up against that kind of feeling with impunity. In districts abroad, where the whole population depends upon agriculture, education is most carefully carried out, and all the arrangements for education are made to suit the fact that the population is a population of small peasant owners, who cannot make their holdings pay unless their children help. If we extend, as I hope we shall extend, the system of small owners in this country, do you suppose they are going to tolerate a plan of education which prevents their children helping them after they have reached an age when they can help them in the necessary operations of agriculture, because the holidays are fixed at a certain time and the seasons do not suit that time. They will not stand it. They will not do it. That is only one illustration. You must consider the earnings of the people. You must make your system as flexible and as convenient as you can make it.
    I must not allow myself to wander into these questions. But I do think, now it has become the settled policy of every fraction of every party, that there must be a great national system, it cannot be a

    1437
    cheap system. It is so firmly established that we can boldly criticise the details of it and try to accommodate it and cheapen it where it can be done without any great loss. I will only appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to do his best to influence the great and able Department of which he is the head, in their dealings with local authorities and especially in their dealings with poor local authorities, to remember that they are poor, and that what is suitable for a rich district is not necessarily suitable for a poor district. As to the absolute rules laid down with regard to central halls, passages, areas, and so on, they may be very good as ideals, which we may gradually hope to approach, but to force them on an unwilling population and on unwilling local authorities is really to do the greatest possible disservice to the great cause of education.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: It is difficult at all times to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, and on the present occasion it is even more so because he comes with the glamour of a welcome to this House in which all sides share. I venture to say the right hon. Gentleman would make out a good case on any side he took and he certainly made out a good case regarding certain matters this afternoon into which I propose to follow him. I will take, first of all, the point he makes with regard to competitive examinations. With his remarks on that particular question I find myself in entire accord. Competitive examinations are great drawbacks to our elementary and secondary schools. But will the right hon. Gentleman remember the cases where the honours board in elementary and secondary schools bear the names of pupils which got there, not so much because of competitive examinations, but because under the most up-to-date authorities the whole school record of the pupil is taken under review whenever a scholarship is awarded. That is particularly true of the Middlesex County Council, whose secretary, Mr. Gott, has been quoted with such excellent effect this afternoon. I am old enough to know the days when competitive examination killed the spirit of education even of our elementary schools; when we were allocated three reading books which we had to go through as many times as possible, and when the pupils were brought under review on one set day in the year, and woe betide the professional record which displayed too many noughts on the blue papers known as the schedules.
    1438
    Those were the days when it was education in name alone, and the real spirit was missing in the school. Those were the days when the infants in the schools went so thoroughly through their reading books that when the inspector came to test the reading of the class, it is recorded that in one case he found the children of an upper class went along with delightful speed, but when he suggested to one particularly bright child, "Cannot you read it without the book?" He got the reply, "Of course." That was a letter perfect accuracy which, though it received the maximum Grant, had nothing of true education about it. That is the sort of thing we desire to kill. May I follow the right hon. Gentleman with regard to his suggestion that the President should give us some indication of the proposals of the Government, and make a suggestion along the lines followed by the right hon. Gentleman, that what is required is less of new machinery, but more of financial lubricant. There is plenty of machinery. The President might very well concern himself with righting two or three anomalies, particularly in single-school areas, and provide what the local authorities are looking for in fuller measure, that is some of the necessary grease to keep the wheels in easy motion. I follow the right hon. Gentleman again with regard to his pointed allusion to the halls and passages in schools in rural districts. I want here to enter a caveat. The suggestion contained in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was that for rural districts something less good, or something less substantial, will serve than what is suitable or necessary in an urban area. To my mind, that is to fob off the rural child with something which is less effective, less educationally perfect, than what you are going to give to the child in the urban area. I cannot assent for one moment to that doctrine, and I trust the President of the Board will not assent to any such proposition. It is on all fours with the proposals which are made for a differentiated lower leaving age for a rural area as against the age for a town area. The suggestion is made that it is done on the Continent. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to a country he knows well—the Scotch rural parishes. He will know that the leaving age in Scotch parishes has been fourteen, for years past. The agricultural efficiency reached there is as high as in any county in England, and higher than in counties where the rural wages are low and the rural leaving age is

    1439
    lower than it is in the agricultural parishes in Scotland. In fact, agriculture cannot thrive on a population which is driven to the fields too early in life. What agriculture needs is a higher leaving age with a thoroughly trained rural population, which will place agriculture where it ought to be, at the head of our industries.
    I want to share in the congratulations to the President upon his excellent speech. If anyone has deserved an increment in salary it is the President, but it is one of the anomalies of English education that the President of the Board of Education receives a salary of £2,000 a year, while the President of the Board of Trade receives £5,000 a year. That is very typical of John Bull. The shop counts for more than the school. Although I am a Member of the Select Committee on the Estimates, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to pass without question the raising of the salary of the President of the Board of Education from £2,000 to £5,000, less because I am a believer in high salaries for Cabinet Ministers, but more for the significance of the thing, and in order that we should have education put in the public view on an equal footing with that accorded to trade, the War Department, and the Admiralty. I wish to follow the President in one or two things he has outlined to-day in special regard to secondary education. I think he has reason to congratulate himself on the enormous increase in the number of pupils in our secondary schools during the last few years. We have now something like 155,000 pupils in our State-aided secondary schools, as against something like one-fifth of that number twelve years ago. I want to call the attention of the President to the fact that the number of secondary schools from which he does not demand the 25 per cent. of free places still stands to-day where it stood last year. There are about 123 State-aided secondary schools which, for one reason or another, are allowed to have such regulations in their administration that they do not give that 25 per cent. or free places that is demanded from the majority which receive the maximum Grant per child in such schools. We have bad to-day such admirable testimony to the fact that the children from elementary schools are among the best pupils in secondary schools, and the testimony of the Report of the President of the Board of Education—upon whose excellence I desire to congratulate him—is such that
    1440
    I think the President might with justice closely scrutinise the reasons advanced on behalf of those schools which grant less than 25 per cent. of free places.
    I hope that he will not take too serious notice of the suggestion made in the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Chorley (Sir H. Hibbert) that he should give the maximum Grant of £5 per pupil in respect of children under twelve in secondary schools. If you allow children under that age to come into secondary schools you may very well have places in them absorbed which ought to be reserved for the excellent pupils who are coming from the elementary schools. If you give the maximum Grant for children under twelve, is it not clear that you will give the authorities an additional inducement to open the doors of their preparatory departments to children who are not ready for secondary education at all, which is really to place an additional advantage in the way of those who desire to remove their children from the atmosphere of the elementary school. In my opinion it is to give a bonus to snobbery, and I say quite frankly it is fatal both to the best interests of the elementary schools and fatal to the best interests of the secondary schools, because it fills them with pupils not yet ready to absorb the best the secondary school can give. I want to congratulate the President on the attention which is now being given to the physical needs of the children. We are giving a wider definition to education. It is not now merely a little of the three "Rs" and an extra subject or two; we are now taking the whole of the development of the child under review, and education is being rightly regarded as the development of a child along its moral, spiritual, physical, and mental lines, and the President's excellent speech and report serve to show that the Board of Education is rightly reflecting the public view with regard to education and is showing that it regards the full development of the child as necessary for its full equipment for life.
    I desire to call the President's attention to something which, if allowed to develop to any considerable extent, will be fatal, that is the idea that you should give vocational training of any considerable kind in the elementary schools. That is to miss the aim and function of elementary schools. It takes different forms in the mouths of different people. If you address a meeting, as it was my privilege to do, in the South-West of England, you have a

    1441
    representative of the local industry suggesting that children should be trained and their fingers developed along lines which would make them facile persons for improving the profits of the local mill. That is at the back of the minds of the individuals who say, "Let us have training in the elementary schools which will, when the children leave, make for their easy transfer from the school to the mill." They are going to help a beneficent Providence to fix the vocation for the child when the time comes for the choice to be made. In another quarter it is suggested that the years from twelve to fourteen should be an early apprenticeship to farming. That is the form it takes in connection with the Farmers' Union. With others it is a suggestion that you should teach carpentering as against handicraft; in other words, that you should regard the child as a kind of person who will be a cog in the wheel of industry. The child has an inherent right in itself to be regarded as an end in itself, and not as a means to an end, that end the production of great profits for those who run the industries of this country, whether agricultural or industrial.
    This vocational training, which is believed in by some of the right hon. Gentleman's own inspectors, should be regarded with some suspicion when applied to elementary schools. I remember one gentleman, who is not now employed by the Board, who suggested that different classes should be started in the school according to the selected vocations of the children, and that the head teacher should apply himself to the individual training of little groups of would-be carpenters, engineers, postmen and so forth, as though that could be done with advantage in an elementary school. Surely, the object of an elementary school is to give a general literary training, which will afterwards allow vocational work in trade schools to supervene. Elementary schools should not be regarded as an early stage of apprenticeship to any industry. May I refer to a difficulty which has arisen in London and elsewhere which is associated with a great evil, that of attempting to make our classes fit our rooms. The late President of the Board introduced his Circular 709, which provided that classes should not exceed sixty in number. It was an admirable reform. [An HON. MEMBER: "And costly."] Very costly, but very necessary. May I suggest that the proposal of the London education authority to go one better and in a few years to reduce the
    1442
    numbers in a class to forty is an entirely admirable proposal and might well be emulated in the county of Durham and elsewhere? The point I wish to make is that to keep the numbers at sixty promotions are taking place at an enforced pace, and that children unfit for the class higher are being pressed into it so that the numbers shall be equalised so far as possible. That is to sacrifice educational efficiency on the altar of £ s. d., and that we ought not to tolerate. I should like to touch on one or two more points, one with regard to the supply of teachers. If we are to get an adequate supply of teachers I am quite certain that a worthy past inspector of the Board of Education may well have attention drawn to an admirable report that he wrote for the Board of Education as far back as the year of 1850, and those who desire to make comparisons of the present educational system with the system of years ago might do worse than turn to that old volume of reports, and they would find much interest and profit in reading them. This is what the Rev. W. J. Kennedy, in 1850, said with regard to the possibility of stimulating a proper supply of teachers:—
    "What would contribute perhaps more than anything towards providing a competent body of masters is if there were some prizes in the market for the most deserving amongst them, namely, the appointment of the best masters to sub-inspectorships. It is beyond a doubt the presence of prizes at the Bar and in the Church of England which contributes to form so large and good a supply of able barristers and clergymen."
    The President of the Board of Education is attempting in small measure to obtain an increased inspectorate by recruiting it from the rank of teachers of elementary schools, but I wish to express my very keen regret that in the appointment of the twelve inspectors which he has in mind he proposes to limit his choice to head teachers. His words to-day will cause profound disappointment to thousands of competent assistant teachers who have worked hard and who have no hope of headships, but who are thoroughly qualified to take charge of the largest school that is available in this land, and yet many of them have deliberately remained in the towns though they could, if they had so minded, have gone to be heads of small rural schools years ago. Many of them hold depress and have qualifications, in teaching ability and the rest, equal to the best in the land, and yet the President proposes to cut this class off from any opportunity of getting one of these very much-desired appointments. It is less the salary which will draw them

    1443
    than the opportunity for taking a wider view of things, and the opportunity for exercising influence in a wider field of activity. I hope it is not too late for the President to reconsider his decision. Many of these men have already applied to him. Their applications are in his Department now, and therefore he ought not to cut off this golden hope of many of them by giving out his word to-day that their applications are to be thrown into the wastepaper-basket forthwith. It is not much to ask, but it is a great thing to them, and, without a doubt, it will give a stimulus to the whole of the assistant teachers in this country to know that some representatives of their grade are to be included in the numbers of those who are to be assistant inspectors I cannot conclude without joining in the thanks which have been given to the President for his excellent attempts to improve the schools by giving a better outlook to the teaching profession. His Bill of last year for improving the superannuation scheme for teachers will help to solve his difficulty in the matter of the teaching supply. His opening of the inspectorate will further assist it, and my own view is that when he has also added to this a superannuation scheme for teachers in secondary schools he will help to solve the difficulty of obtaining a suitable staff in them; and I hope that, whatever disappointment he feels in presenting his Report to-day, he will not be deterred from going forward with his Friend the Lord Chancellor to give us even better things in the future for the education of our children.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I am sure everyone will agree with the hon. Member in his expression of the pleasure which the whole Committee has felt in listening to the inspiring address of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour). The right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to some of the alleged causes of the unpopularity of education at present and the necessity of suiting the burden of the cost to the ability of different districts to pay. I also think the right hon. Gentleman has lifted the discussion to a higher level than discussions on education generally reach, and I very much regret that I shall have to refer to some of the uninteresting details of education to which the hon. Member has also referred, with whom on all points I cannot say I entirely agree. I think, while we are all grateful to the President for the able resume which he has given us of the
    1444
    work of the Board for the last twelve months, the interest which usually attaches to his speech on the Estimates is overshadowed, to some extent, by the coming event of the Education Bill, of which we have heard rumours. By means of the speeches made throughout the country by Cabinet Ministers curiosity has been very much aroused, although not satisfied, and endeavours have been made to excite enthusiasm and interest and attention in favour of the proposal made by the Government. I have no objection to what has been done, provided that when the Bill appears, the country suffers no disappointment in consequence of what I cannot help regarding as the somewhat exaggerated statements which have been made by Cabinet Ministers. I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman said when he expressed regret that the President of the Board of Education, who is more cautious than many of his colleagues, has not given us any definite information as to the reform which it is proposed to introduce. I have on more than one occasion deprecated the passing of Education Bills, dealing with various educational problems, such as half-timers, continuation schools, single school areas, etc., by means of measures introduced by private Members, and I have said I consider the Government ought to take upon itself the responsibility of introducing some comprehensive measure dealing with those reforms, which the working of the Education Act of 1902 may have rendered desirable. With reference to the Act of 1902, we have heard many speeches from Members of Parliament, expressing disapproval of that Act, and I was glad to find that Lord Haldane, in the first of his speeches, said:—
    "There could be no doubt as to the success of the Act of 1902, for which I have always had a weak side."
    That was a very satisfactory statement and I was still more pleased to see the President of the Board of Education stating only a few nights since that
    "The Government were not going to pull up by the roots the system established under the Act of 1902."
    notwithstanding the fact that Lord Crewe who spoke only a few minutes before him, said:—
    "The Education Act of 1902 never wits and never could be of itself the basis of a national system of education."
    These conflicting utterances of some of our great statesmen would seem to show that, whilst desirous of whetting the country's appetite for important educational

    1445
    developments, they themselves do not yet know what the provisions of the Bill to be introduced really are, and I think this explains, rather more than any point of Order, why it was that the President of the Board of Education was unable to respond to the invitation of my right hon. Friend, by indicating what may be the provisions of the important measure which he is about to introduce. I believe Members on this side of the House are quite prepared to give a sympathetic consideration, and indeed a cordial support, to any measure of educational reform which, without imposing any religious disabilities, will, under suitable conditions, raise the school-leaving age and will provide further facilities for continuity of education in day or evening schools, and we are all agreed also that where it is possible the size of school classes in elementary schools should be lessened in order that the teacher may be able to give more individual attention to each pupil. I would go further and say we are all agreed that the teaching profession, both as regards elementary and secondary teachers, should be made more attractive than it is at present in order that the great dearth in the number of teachers may no longer continue to exist. We think it necessary that higher salaries should be paid to competent teachers, that whenever it is possible certificated teachers in elementary schools should be substituted for uncertificated teachers, and that adequate superannuation allowances should be provided for all those who have devoted their whole-time service to the State. As regards our assistant teachers in secondary schools, it is a reproach to this country that their salaries should be so much less than they are in Germany. I find that there is only one scale of salaries among local education authorities in this country in which the maximum salary obtainable by assistant teachers in secondary schools for fifteen years' service is £300 per annum. When you glance through the Report of the Board of Education, on which to a large extent the right hon. Gentleman's speech was based, we realise the very great advances which have been made in education since the year 1902, and we, therefore, are less able to understand wherein this great revolutionary scheme of reform is to take place. The Report covers a vast area of ground and it deals with many questions to which the President has referred.
    1446
    There is one particular subject incidentally touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman, but occupying a larger amount of space in the recently published Report of the Board of Education, to which I desire to refer, and that is the conditions under which pupils are transferred from elementary to secondary schools. It would appear, from statements which have been made by some of our Cabinet Ministers within the last few weeks, that we are far behind other countries in the facilities provided for the passage of a child from an elementary to a secondary school. I think that is not the case. It very much depends on what we mean by a secondary school. Nearly everyone understands what is meant by a primary or elementary school, but there are not so many who could accurately define what we really mean by secondary education or secondary schools. Let us see for a minute how we stand as regards the progress that has been made since 1902.
    In the year 1900 about 5,500 pupils front public elementary schools were receiving from public funds, other than endowments, aid towards continuing their education in secondary schools. In 1911–12, the number receiving free education in secondary schools was 49,120. Within ten years, therefore, the number of children receiving free education in secondary schools had increased tenfold. In this number is not included those receiving instruction in central schools and higher elementary schools, the education in which partakes of a secondary character. We have been told that the scholarship "ladder," as it has been called, can no longer be regarded as the proper figure for indicating the means of transfer from the elementary school to the secondary school. I have always thought that secondary was higher than primary, and that a ladder was a convenient instrument for getting from the ground floor to a higher storey. Of course, it must be remembered that mounting a ladder means climbing, and that climbing means effort, pulling oneself up; but in these days the general idea of education is that a child must not be required to put forth too much effort. Children must walk along the "primrose path," and instead of a ladder there must be a broad tesselated avenue along which the child may smoothly and easily pass. A striking contrast to this new theory of education is a statement in this year's Report. After considering the different means by

    1447
    which a child may be drafted from the elementary school into the secondary school, the Board say:—
    "By general agreement the most satisfactory pupils from the elementary schools are those who obtain scholarships in open competition as distinguished from free places."
    I am quite in accord with those who think that children should be drafted into the secondary schools on the results of their work during their preceding school years, and on the records which the teachers are able to produce. At the same time it is a remarkable statement, and one that does not altogether accord with that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, and with the views of some hon. Members opposite. I think it is an important remark that should be taken into consideration in deciding as to the means to be adopted in transferring children from the elementary to the secondary schools. There is another question bearing on this of considerable importance, namely, the proper age for transferring a child from an elementary school to a secondary school. That is not by any means settled at the present time. Some say it should be between the ages of eight and ten; others say between ten and twelve, while some consider that it should be later than twelve. I cannot help thinking that this question of the age of transfer depends very much upon another important educational problem which is incidentally referred to in the Report of last year. The Report says:—
    The influx of an increasing number of scholars, destined in many cases for commercial or industrial callings, has emphasised the need of departing to some extent front the academic bias of the traditional secondary school curriculum, and of giving greater prominence to the work of a practical and vocational character."
    That statement does not refer to the education in elementary schools being of a vocational character, but it does indicate that the education in the secondary schools should in many cases be of a vocational character, and should not in all cases conform to the old traditional grammar school system. I cannot help thinking that, unless secondary schools can be established in which commercial and industrial subjects are largely substituted for the academic curriculum of the ordinary secondary schools, very little good will result from the transfer of a large number of pupils from the elementary to the secondary schools. I wish to impress upon the President of the Board of
    1448
    Education that what we want in the reform of our present system of education is the establishment of different types of secondary schools. If we are to have a broad avenue along which the child may pass from the elementary school, it is absolutely necessary that we should have different types of secondary schools into which children may enter. All comparisons, therefore, are incomplete and imperfect between this country and other countries, because certainly in Germany and France these different types of secondary schools already exist, and to my mind it is a mere waste of time, and a waste of public money, to send a large percentage of children from the elementary schools to the ordinary secondary schools which still have the academic bias of the traditional curriculum.
    I should like to point out that it is a very great mistake to suppose that sound secondary education cannot be based on a curriculum of practical studies. Nearly every group of subjects well taught by competent teachers may be made the means of providing a liberal education, and what I think our Board would require to do is to encourage to a greater extent than has been done up to the present the formation and establishment of secondary schools, providing practical training and fitting children for commercial and industrial work. If such schools were established, the great difficulty of determining the suitable age at which a child should be transferred from the elementary to the secondary school would be removed, because the elementary school would then give just that kind of preparation which would enable the pupil to profit by the higher instruction in the secondary school. The child might then be retained in the elementary school until he reached the age of fourteen when he would be qualified to enter the special type of secondary school which I have indicated, in which his education might be continued without any break. It is by the better organisation of our secondary schools that we should be able to link up our elementary and secondary schools and break down the barrier which at present exists between these schools. When told that in Germany and France a larger percentage of the children in elementary schools receive secondary education, hon. Members omit to notice that the secondary education in these cases is in science, practical work, and modern languages, and is very different from the ordinary secondary education which is given in our own schools.

    1449
    I am glad that a beginning has been made in this direction by the Board of Education. The Board move rather slowly, but still it is satisfactory to read in a recently issued report that—
    "an increasing number of schools tend to combine with a course of general education instruction in subjects which have a direct bearing on vocational pursuits—industrial, commercial and rural—adapted to the needs of the locality."
    I was very glad to learn from the president of the Board of Education that the number of what are called central schools or higher elementary schools, which I think might be regarded as lower technical schools or practical secondary schools, have somewhat increased during last year, but even at the present time it is ridiculously inadequate, when we remember that the total number of these schools does not, I think, exceed forty-nine. I referred last year in discussing the Education Estimates to the necessity of giving still farther practical education even in our elementary schools. When I speak of practical education, I certainly do not mean vocational education. I mean that kind of instruction which forms an excellent educational discipline. The improvement that has taken place during the past year in giving more practical instruction in elementary schools is not very great. I find that out of 5,617,823 children who are at present in our elementary schools—I suppose half of them may be taken as boys—only 281,286 are receiving any kind of practical instruction; that is to say, in our elementary schools which ought to be giving preparation for vocational training there are not more than one in ten who are receiving any kind of manual training. I venture to hope that some improvement may take place in this respect in future years. I do not believe any improvement can take place until the Board insist upon regarding some sort of practical teaching as a necessary part of elementary instruction. I know quite well that must involve larger expenditure, but nearly all the reforms which are contemplated will necessarily involve greater cost, and I agree entirely with every speaker who has preceded me that that cost must come much more largely from the Imperial Exchequer than from the local rates. It was said by Lord Crewe the other night that "the Englishman pays his taxes in sorrow and his rates in anger." To a great extent that is true. It is quite impossible that any of these reforms to which I have referred, and which are really
    1450
    necessary in order that our system of education may be improved, can be carried into effect unless the President of the Board is prepared, when he introduces his great revolutionary measure, at the same time to state that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is willing to make a much larger Grant out of the Exchequer fund so as to supplement the amount of assistance which is at present given.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member (Sir Philip Magnus) in his long dissertation upon secondary schools. There are one or two points in what he stated in connection with secondary schools to which I would like to refer. I understood him to say that he was in favour of what he called a secondary-secondary school. That is to say a secondary school of a lower grade, which would allow the boys and girls of the working classes to be educated with regard to trade subjects.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I did not mention necessarily trade subjects, nor did I refer to trade schools. There is no reason whatever for supposing that secondary education of a practical character is in any way of a lower grade than that of a literary character.
    Mr. SAMUEL: There is a feeling extant that the secondary education that would fit these boys and girls of the working classes should be of a lower class, differing from that of the grammar schools. If there is any suggestion on the part of the Board of Education to alter the type of secondary education given now in our public secondary schools, which are provided by the public authorities, there will be a very strong opposition to any lowering of the type of education now given in those secondary schools.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I did not suggest any lowering of the type. I suggested a differentiation of the type. There is no necessity for it to be lowered.
    Mr. SAMUEL: We do not want even a differentiation between the class of education given to all scholars who enter these schools. If there are boys or girls, however poor they may be, who desire to have a classical education they ought to receive that education without any desire to give them a lower type. With regard to higher elementary schools, the hon. Member ought to remember that the destruction of the higher elementary

    1451

    schools is entirely due to the Cockerton judgment. We had a very large number of these elementary schools in our boroughs before that judgment was given, and many of these schools were practically destroyed and turned into secondary schools, and some of them into elementary schools. I am glad to say that many of our public authorities are re-establishing higher elementary schools, and I hope that they will grow; but the fact that the Cockerton judgment did destroy these higher elementary schools has discouraged very much the local authorities in re-establishing them, because they are uncertain what the next policy may be. It is the same with the manual training. In former years, under the system of the higher elementary schools, manual training was given to a very large extent. That was also destroyed by the Cockerton judgment, and we are only now beginning to re-establish this system of education. One word about the shortage of teachers, which was referred to by the President and also by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Goldstone). I believe that the shortage of teachers is due, to a great extent, to the destruction of the pupil teachers' centres. I think the change in policy of the Board of Education from time to time is very disconcerting to local education authorities. We established a system of pupil teachers' centres where there were very few facilities to transfer the pupil teachers to the secondary schools. Then we had a great change by which all the pupil teachers, or those who were training to become pupil teachers, should enter the secondary schools. Now I am glad to say that the Board of Education in some districts are reverting to the pupil teachers' centres, and I believe that they are, with the consent and on the demand of the local authorities, re-establishing these centres in different places. I would like to congratulate the President of the Board of Education upon his statement. Though I had not the pleasure of hearing the whole of it, there is one aspect of it upon which I think we can all congratulate him: it is that there is quite a different feeling now between the local authority and the Board of Education, and I hope that that spirit will grow. But I was much disappointed not only with the Estimates, but with the statement, because, although the right hon. Gentleman stated that he was still pressing upon the Treasury his desire for further Grants
    1452
    to local authorities, there was no hope held out of these Grants for the forthcoming year. Any Member looking at the Estimates will find that there actually is a decrease in the Grants in respect of public elementary schools of £14,695, and while there is an enormous increase in the cost of education throughout the country, we find that the Government are actually decreasing the Grants to public elementary schools.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. There is a reduction, no doubt, in the Estimates, but the reason is owing to an overestimate in previous years. The Grants are under Statute, and therefore we cannot alter them. The reduction is merely because there was an overestimate for previous years, and we wish to make a true Estimate now.
    Mr. SAMUEL: That may be a reason, but I think there are, as I shall show presently, other reasons why the Grant may not be so big. I think that the Government is in the position of these local authorities; in fact, all public authorities now are in the position that they cannot find money, and the Government is in exactly the same position this year. We are voting something like £43,000,000 more than we did a few years ago, and the Government are bound to find this increase. There is an increase of £27,000,000 in the civil expenditure, and of about £13,000,000 in the naval and military expenditure. None of us object to the expenditure on the civil side, but some of us do object to the increasing expenditure on the naval and military side, and as long as this largely increased expenditure will proceed, I am quite certain that our Government and no other Government can continue to increase the expenditure or increase the taxes with a view of assisting local authorities. Therefore I hope to see the day when we shall have a greatly decreased expenditure on the naval and military service, so that education may have a chance of increased Grants. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) is not here, because I should like to call his attention to one statement which he has made. He seems to attribute the large increase in the cost of education to something which this Government has forced upon the local authority. There I think he is absolutely wrong. The large increase

    1453
    in the local expenditure is due entirely to the Act of 1902.
    I have had the pleasure of being a member of a local education authority ever since that Act came into operation, and anyone who is connected with a local education authority, and has studied the increased expenditure, knows that it is not due to medical examination. That is entirely a fallacy. In the county Durham, in which I live, the increased cost per scholar between the years 1906 and 1912 was 19s. 8d. I am giving this as an illustration. Only 6d. of that increase is due to medical inspection. Eleven shillings is due to increased cost of teachers. We were bound to level up the very large difference between the teachers who were in the old voluntary schools when we became responsible for them and the teachers in the other schools. The loans charges have been increased by 4s. 3d. per scholar. That is entirely due to the very large increase in the cost of new buildings. I should have thought that the Government in any case would have come forward—and, indeed, I think that a few years ago they promised that they would come forward and give a Special Grant to local authorities who were compelled to build new schools for a growing population—and have taken over a very large number of schools which were formerly voluntary. That makes up an increase of 16s. 8d. The increase in administration only amounts to 7d., and the cost of maintenance to 3s. 4d., altogether the great increase in the cost of elementary education is due to three things. First, increased cost of teachers; second, the loans upon new buildings; and third, the increased cost of the maintenance of schools. Therefore it is an entire fallacy for anyone to state that it is due to medical inspection, because out of this total increase of 19s. 8d. per scholar only 6d. is due to what this Government have forced upon the local authority.
    8.0 P.M.
    How has this large increase been provided? In these six years the Government Grant has increased from 38s. to 41s., an increase of 3s. per scholar, while the charge on the rates has increased from 13s. 7d. to 31s. 3d. per scholar, an increase of 15s. 10d., as against the 3s. increase provided by the State. It is quite impossible for this difference between the local and national expenditure to go on as it is at present, and some local authorities will be compelled to stop providing schools unless they can get some further assistance from the State. There is another reason why I think the increase is due to the Act
    1454
    of 1902. I know one local authority in my own Constituency whose rate has gone up this year 3d. in the £. That is due entirely to the fact that under Section 10 of the Act of 1902, in reference to what are called the Necessitous Schools Grants, the penny has produced just above the 10s. per scholar. Owing entirely to the fact that it is based upon the county rate basis and not upon the borough basis, the increase in the rate has been 3d. in the £. That should not be. This system of giving this Grant should be altered, and it should be given upon ratings rather than upon this system of whether a penny rate will produce 10s. per scholar or not, because it is not based upon what is the local assessment by the borough authorities but based upon the county assessment, which is quite a different assessment altogether. For that reason alone I think that the Government ought to see that there is a different system of giving Grants to local authorities than under the Section which I have quoted. I was reading the other day of a discussion in an adjoining borough as to the rate, which had reached to no less than 2s. 3d. in the £; in fact, the rate is 2s. 1d. in one of the towns I have the honour to represent, while in another adjoining borough it is 2s. 3d. It is quite impossible for the local authorities to continue this great expenditure without getting further aid from the State. Therefore I join in the appeal which has been made, that the Government should endeavour to obtain larger Grants for the local authorities. I am not altogether a believer in Grants-in-Aid, for I think they very often lead to very great extravagance on the part of the local authorities, but I do think that in our system of education, where the local authorities practically are compelled to go on increasing their burdens by making provision for all kinds of education at the request of the Central Department, there is justifiably a strong demand from the local authorities for increased aid, and I press upon the Board of Education and the Treasury, between them, to consider whether either this year or next they cannot increase, by a few millions at least, the Grants to the local authorities.
    Mr. NEWDEGATE: I am sure, like every other speaker, I thoroughly re-echo the statement that there is need of further Grants to local authorities, because in every part of the country the education rate at the present time is most onerous. The reason I rise is to draw the attention

    1455
    of the representatives of the Education Department to Section (a), Clause 3, of the Code. It is rather obscure, but the effect of Order 10 is that no teachers are to be eligible for certain positions except those teachers who have gone through the training college. I think that is a great mistake. In the first place, whether teachers do or do not go through the training college is to a great extent a question of £ s. d. The college fees take up at least one year of the teacher's salary, and he can earn nothing during the time he is going through his period of training. Surely it is a mistake to make it more difficult for members of the working classes to attain the position of head teachers, which is the practical result of Order 10. At the present time, as everybody knows, there is a great dearth of elementary teachers in the country, and, if this Clause of the Code is persisted in, this dearth of elementary school teachers is bound to go on rather than to decrease.
    At the present moment there are a good many people who are members of the working classes, but is it likely that in future they will send their children to become teachers if they know that it will be impossible for them to be promoted to the position of head teachers. It is a very debatable point whether they who have gone through the training college or those who have not done so are the most competent teachers. Personally, I have the honour of being a governor of an extremely good training college, and I cannot speak too highly of the work which is done there. But what is really wanted as regards teachers is character — the character of the head teacher which develops the minds of the children in his school, and I submit that if there is anything in the Code which prevents teachers who have character and aptitude for teaching from rising to the position of headmasters, simply and solely because they have not gone through the training college, the Government should alter it. I have drawn attention to this point at the request of certain friends of mine who are much greater experts on the subject of education than I can profess to be, but I do hope the Government will listen to the appeal that I have made on the subject.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I desire to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr.
    1456
    Trevelyan) to what I think is the most important subject that emerges both from the Report that has been issued by the Board and from the general educational discussion now proceeding. That question is the relation between elementary and secondary education; for that I think is the urgent problem that has yet to be considered in an adequate and scientific manner. I am very much surprised myself that the introduction of the Code has not been referred to in the course of this Debate. I refer to the reprinted Code which was issued last year, and the introduction to which emphasises what I think is the weakest part of our system of national education—that is, regarding elementary education, not as an education appropriate to a certain age, but as an education appropriate to a certain class or rank in life, and regarding secondary education, not as the education in all its varied forms appropriate to the age reached by children, but appropriate for a certain social rank in life. I have referred, in illustration of this idea upon which our educational system is based, to this introduction to the code, which states that the purpose of a public elementary school among other things is to fit the girls and boys practically as well as intellectually for the work of life—as though it were in itself a complete system for the purpose. Another paragraph states:—
    "It will be of importance for the subsidiary objects of the schools to discover individual children who show promise of exceptional capacity to develop their special gifts, so far as this can be done without sacrificing the interests of the majority of the children, so that they may be qualified to pass at the appropriate age to a secondary school and be able to derive the maximum from the education thereof."
    It will be clear to the Committee from that extract that what is contemplated is, not the education in our elementary schools as a recognised avenue to an advance to further education in secondary schools, but a system to be regarded, in the vast majority of cases, as complete in itself, with a view to exceptional children climbing what has been called the ladder of the secondary school. I want to put to the Board a different idea, which I am quite sure is before the Board in part, but which has certainly never been acted upon. I want to suggest that we ought to regard the training in elementary schools as merely a preparation for whatever further training of an intellectual, literary, and practical character the pupil is to receive later in life. I think that we want to get rid of the idea that for the great mass of the children of the country it is sufficient

    1457
    for them to pass through the elementary schools and then to proceed equipped for the work of life. The very report that I have referred to, issued as my hon. Friend says, only two days ago, shows how unrelated the system is, and there is a very able statement in it of the difficulties that are at present encountered. One of those difficulties is very properly referred to in the report, and it is a difficulty that the authorities of the secondary schools find themselves in when the children from elementary schools come to them.
    They find that they have left the elementary schools too late, and that they have to spend a large amount of time in making up the lost ground, ground that has been gained by children who entered the secondary schools at an earlier age. Can there be any more eloquent testimony to the entirely unrelated systems of elementary and secondary education? I suggest that one great reform that has to be carried out is that of giving a far greater liberty in arranging the curricula of elementary schools in order that the later education in the secondary school may not be wasted upon the child who has passed through the elementary school. I suggest that the education authorities, especially those education authorities who have within their own borders the charge both of elementary education and of secondary education, should arrange the two systems so that they naturally fit the one into the other. A national system of education means that the elementary schools should be so varied, so good, so efficient, that they become in time the common schools of the nation, in the same way that in some parts of the States of America the common school has been evolved; that these elementary schools should be the normal and appropriate method of taking the children of our nation between certain ages from the elementary schools to pass, without any discrimination of rank, to the secondary schools appropriate to their natural gifts and capacities. That means that we want a great increase, not only in the number, but in the variety of the secondary schools. I suggest that we should do well to regard as secondary education all forms of education, whether technical, vocational, or literary, that are appropriate to the child after leaving the elementary school.
    It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of
    1458
    Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.

    FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Mr. DELANY: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to insert the words "upon this day six months."
    By the Preamble of this Bill hon. Members will see that the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland is connected with the Great Western Railway Company of England. I desire to speak with regard to a question relating to the management of the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland, which widely-affects my Constituents.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Questions relating to the management of the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland would be in order on a Bill of that company, but are not in order on this Bill.
    Mr. DELANY: On a point of Order. May I refer to a paragraph in the Preamble which authorises the Great Southern and Western Railway Company and the Great Western Company to subscribe towards and guarantee the capital of the company for the particular purpose mentioned "and other purposes"? I submit, therefore, I am entitled to call attention to the management of the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland.
    Mr. SPEAKER: No, I think not. The mere fact that there is a Clause authorising subscription does not entitle the hon. Member to bring up a grievance against the Great Southern and Western Railway. He could do that on a Great Southern and Western Railway Bill. It is obvious he could not do so here, because if he wished to insert a Clause dealing with the matter he could not do that in this Bill because the Fishguard and Rosslare Company would have no authority to carry it out on the Great Southern and Western Railway.
    Mr. DELANY: There are other points upon which I wish to oppose this Bill. In the second place, I refer to the combined action of these two companies to divert the traffic from the ordinary and proper course through Dublin on to Waterford. That system has been going on ever since the amalgamation between the two companies. Dublin, after all, is the capital of Ireland and the natural channel through which most of the traffic should go. That is one point on which I object to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin (Mr. Field) will deal more explicitly, and I am sure with greater knowledge, with this part of the question. There is another question, and that is the appointment of a staff, and in this regard the question extends over the whole system, because the appointment of clerks of the Great Southern and Western Railway extends to the Rosslare and Fermoy line, which is practically owned by the Great Western Railway Company and worked by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company. Some few years ago the Board of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company were forced, practically forced, by public opinion to adopt the system of competitive examination.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That may be a matter of complaint against the Great Southern and Western Company, but it is not a matter of complaint against the Fishguard and Rosslare Company.
    Mr. DELANY: I respectfully submit it is for this reason, that those clerks are interchangeable between the different lines, and go on to the Rosslare and Fermoy line, which, as I say, is practically owned by the Great Western Railway Company, because while it is owned by the Great Western Railway Company it is worked by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company. On that account I submit I am entitled to call attention to the matter.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot accept the view of the hon. Member, but I will hear what he has to say before stopping him any further, though I doubt whether his point is a good one.
    Mr. DELANY: Would you hear the substance of the complaint I have to make? It is this, that under pressure of public opinion the Great Southern and Western Railway Company adopted the competitive system. At the last half-yearly meeting
    1460
    of that company the chairman announced, for what reason I do not know, that the Board were contemplating overturning that arrangement altogether, that they were not getting the best men, and that they were not getting the proper men, and all the rest of it. What I wonder at is this: that a system by which all the public positions under the Government and all the Civil Service appointments are at present made is not good enough for the Great Southern and Western Railway. The chairman says they are not getting the proper men. Perhaps they are not getting the men according to their own hearts. I believe the fact is they are getting too many good men. They are getting them from the Christian Brothers schools, which are taking the lead in the examinations and passing first. Perhaps those men do not meet Sir William Goulding's particular views upon what a good man is or ought to be. There is one thing about it, and that is that as regards mathematics or a general uniform class of men, there are no youths better equipped for clerical purposes and to take up any clerkships than the boys of the Christian Brothers.
    Mr. SPEAKER: What I have heard from the hon. Member makes me think that his complaint is really against the Great Southern and Western Railway Company. If they had a Bill before Parliament, that would be his opportunity to say what he wished to say, but the question does not really affect this Bill.
    Mr. DELANY: I respectfully submit that it is a joint board, and their names are here in the Preamble, which says:—
    "Whereas it is expedient that the company should be authorised to raise additional capital and to apply their funds for the purposes of this Act, and that the Great Western Railway Company and the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland …… should be empowered to subscribe towards and guarantee the capital of the company, and to apply their respective funds for the purposes of such subscription. ……"
    Mr. SPEAKER: The fact that the Great Southern and Western Railway Company are to be entitled to subscribe, or to be called upon to subscribe, towards the guarantee of the Fishguard and Rosslare Company, does not make the Fishguard and Rosslare Company responsible for the

    1461
    matters which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. They are two entirely separate companies, and, although it is true that one may have a considerable holding in another, that does not constitute them the same company.
    Mr. DELANY: I bow to your ruling, but I regret I have not the opportunity of dealing with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, because I have a very strong indictment against them. I beg to move.
    Mr. FIELD: I rise to second the Amendment, and I do so in various capacities—first, as a Member of Parliament for the City of Dublin; secondly, as a member of the Port and Docks Board; thirdly, as a member of the Dublin Industrial Development Association; and, fourthly, as President of the Irish Cattle Traders' and Stock Owners' Association. We have no desire whatever to oppose improvements in connection with the railways; on the contrary, we wish that greater railway facilities should be given to the public, as it is well-known that commerce and trade and transit facilities travel together. Without desiring to transgress the ruling that has been given, may I point out that the Great Western Railway of England, and the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland are practically like the Siamese twins. They are bound together by the strongest force in modern times, namely, financial sympathy, but the Great Western Railway of England is the governing force. An agreement was entered into between the Great Western Railway of England and the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland that as far as possible all the cross-channel traffic from this side should go via Waterford instead of straight to Dublin. The meaning of that was that the port of Dublin was to a large extent boycotted, and an enormous amount of trade was diverted from Dublin. This was felt so strongly by the Port and Docks Board that they appealed to the Railway Commission. That appeal cost us something like £4,000, which shows how difficult it is to approach the Railway Commission with regard to grievances, or to get matters remedied. But although the finding of the Commission was in our favour, it was practically in-operative, because by some means or other the Great Southern and Western Railway have not carried it out. It may
    1462
    be said that the public have the privilege of sending goods by whichever route they please. That is true to a certain extent; but anyone acquainted with the management of railways knows that in the manipulation of the traffic, unless the particular parcel or consignment is specially ordered to be carried by a certain route, the officials of the railway can send it by whatever route they please.
    So far as I am concerned as a Dublin representative, I do not wish to prevent the southern people from having facilities with regard to the Fishguard and Rosslare route. On the contrary, I think that that line deserves to be supported by what may be termed its natural geographical area, but I object to the enormous power wielded by the Great Southern and Western Railway in what railway men call its sphere of influence. It must be remembered that railways are practically a monopoly, and that in Ireland there is really no such thing as competition. The country is divided up among four or five railways, between whom there is a sort of understanding that they shall not interfere with one another. The result is that the public have to suffer. These monopolistic powers are granted by Parliament upon the distinct understanding that the public shall be served, but in my view the Irish railways do not serve the public. The practice is to give preferential rates to all kinds of foreign importations and to have high inland rates. The manufactures and industries of Ireland are handicapped by these high inland rates, while those who import goods enjoy low rates and better facilities. The evidence given before the Commission showed that goods from Newbridge, a short distance from Dublin, were brought round to Dublin via Waterford. I, myself, had a parcel of perishable goods which, not being instructed to be sent via Holyhead, was sent round via Waterford, and arrived in two days, instead of within a few hours. That sort of thing ought not to be permitted. It may be alleged that there was nothing wrong in it, but sometimes it means considerable loss and inconvenience to the people concerned. Owing to the difficulties under which we labour in the discussion of Railway Bills. I think that a little latitude ought to be allowed to us. The Great Southern and Western Railway control an enormous, area of Ireland, particularly since, under a Bill passed some time ago, they obtained a further large slice of territory.

    1463
    Dublin undoubtedly has suffered. I suppose I should be ruled out of order if I tried to bring something in in regard to the Dublin Industrial Development Association and some concessions which they desired to secure from the Great Southern and Western Railway. But I will take my chance.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I may put the hon. Member out of his doubt at once on that point. I do not think that that would be relevant. If, however, his point is that traffic which ought more properly to go via Dublin is being diverted by the Fishguard and Rosslare route, that would be in order. That is relevant to the Fishguard and Rosslare Bill, and the hon. Member is entitled to deal with it.
    Mr. FIELD: That is the point. Under the circumstances, I think it would be reasonable that this Bill should be deferred for three or six months, in order that a conference might be arranged and an amicable settlement arrived at. Seeing how hard it is to get round points of Order in dealing with these Railway Bills, it is difficult to deal with matters which affect practically the whole community. The prosperity of the country depends to a very large extent upon railway facilities. One word more and I have done. I agree with my hon. Friend here in regard to the examinations, but I do not intend to pursue that matter further because other hon. Members have it in hand. There is another question that I think ought to be referred to in this discussion, and that concerns the railway strike which took place last year. Unless my information is incorrect, I understand that, following the strike, correspondence took place with the directors of the Great Southern and Western Railway, and endeavours were made towards an amicable settlement. We understood that there was to be no victimisation of the men. As a matter of fact, there has been victimisation. Since that time wages have not increased according to promise, and various other things have occurred which have caused friction between the men and the directors. In addition to that—and this, I think, comes at least within the purview of this discussion—the Arbitration Courts which were to be set up have not been set up.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going beyond the scope of the discussion which relates to the Fishguard and
    1464
    Rosslare Bill. Where is the connection between the Bill and the point he is making?
    Mr. FIELD: I think it will be shown by a Member who will speak subsequently that a portion of the railway under the Bill is under the control of the Great Southern and Western Company. That being so, I think, of course, whilst I respect your ruling that it is a matter of fair comment in a Bill of this kind.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that is so, because, according to the view of the hon. Member every employé employed by the Great Western Railway might take the opportunity of having his grievances aired in connection with this Bill. That is a reductio ad absurdum of the position.
    Mr. FIELD: The Great Southern and Western Railway Company are practically partners in this concern. That being so, I cannot understand why we should be ruled out of order.
    Mr. SPEAKER: These are separate undertakings. It is perfectly true that the Great Southern and Western Company may have a considerable holding in the Fishguard and Rosslare line. So have the the Great Western. But the Fishguard and Rosslare line is a separate undertaking, and in my opinion this is an occasion to consider grievances in relation to the Fishguard and Rosslare line. On a future occasion the house will be very glad to hear the hon. Member speak on a Great Southern and Western Bill, or any other.
    Mr. FIELD: I will conclude, then, by making the suggestion that this Bill be deferred to such a time as may afford an opportunity for a conference between those opposed to the Bill and the railway company, so that some amicable arrangement may be come to that will be to the advantage of the parties concerned. For, after all, even railway companies cannot afford to fall out with their customers. I trust the suggestion will be adopted, and I beg to second the rejection.
    Mr. O'SHEE: With a long acquaintance with the history of this company and as a Member of the hybrid Committee which passed the original Act in 1898, may I draw attention to that Act? That Act—the principal Act in this case—Section 89, declares that—
    "Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act the principal directors of the

    1465
    company shall be seven, of whom four shall be directors of the Great Western Railway and three directors of the Great Southern and Western Railway … such directors shall be nominated as soon as practicable after the passing of this Act by the directors of the two companies. …"
    That provision of the Act has been altogether broken and neglected, because it is a fact that the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland alone controls the working of this railway line from Fermoy to Rosslare. No tickets have ever been issued in the name of the line: the tickets have been issued by the Great Southern and Western Company. The employés on the line from Fermoy to Fishguard are interchangeable with the employés on the other parts of the system. For instance, at the present time it is proposed to transfer one of the stationmasters in Tipperary to another part of the system. The staff are moved about in a similar way. The working of this small line is now done exclusively by the Great Southern and Western Company who claim to have exclusive control of the working and management of this line in Ireland. The hybrid Committee in 1898 went out of its way to insert a provision in the Act that that should never take place. Their Report, which I have here, was presented to this House by the Chairman, Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth. Clause 14 says:—
    "That the board of directors of the whole undertaking shall consist of four Great Western directors and three Great Southern and Western directors so as to secure permanently a controlling voice for the Great Western in the railway system from Fermoy to Cork. …"
    It was only on account of that special Report made by the Hybrid Committee to the House that the original Act got its Third Reading. I would call the attention of the House to the history of that proposal. The then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Hanbury, made a speech on the Second Reading on 3rd May, 1898. He said:—
    "I should have thought everybody would have been of one mind as to the fact that it would be of great advantage to the South of Ireland to get a company like the Great Western, and on the other hand, with regard to the Great Southern, what we are anxious to do is, knowing they are the owners of the present route to Dublin, to prevent them having an absolute command of both routes."
    And it was in consonance with that view expressed by Mr. Hanbury and a the
    1466
    evidence taken by the Hybrid Committee, which sat for about six weeks, and of the special Report made by it to this House, that Section 89 was inserted in the Act. I say that Section has been flagrantly broken by the arrangement which has since been made between those two companies. Whereas the Great Western has nominally four directors, as they still have, because I looked up the Stock Exchange Book, and I find that they have nominally four and the Great Southern have only three, notwithstanding that fact, in essence and in fact—and it is claimed by the Great Southern and Western to be the fact—the Great Southern do manage and control the line from Fermoy to Rosslare, which is the only railway line belonging to this company in Ireland. Though my mind has not been directed to the considerations which have appealed to the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin (Mr. Field), undoubtedly the intention of Parliament was that the Great Southern should not have control of the line from Fermoy to Rosslare, but that the Great Western should have the preponderating voice, and that they should have control by a majority on the board of directors. The fact that the Great Western are not exercising that control has given rise to all the complaints with regard to this Bill. The Great Western Company has a better reputation in Ireland than the Great Southern Company. Unfortunately the Great Southern Company had been managed by a gentleman who did not quite understand how to manage a railway line in Ireland, and he, we are glad to know, has been transferred to England, from whence he never should have been taken. At the present, I am glad to say, an Irishman is managing the Great Southern Company, and, I think, if the present general manager of the line got a free hand, it is possible that we would not have as many complaints to make as we are making on this occasion. The general manager of the Great Southern was the general manager of the line from Fermoy to Rosslare, and he managed it, not under the direction of the Board which was constituted under the Act of 1898, but under the direction of the Board in Dublin, on which the directors of the Great Western are not represented at all.
    The strike which took place in Ireland more than a year ago affected the Rosslare line is Ireland as well as the rest of the

    1467
    Great Southern, and the men there went out in sympathy with the men in other parts of the system, and we say with regard to the action of the Great Southern, which really controls these men—I cannot blame the Great Western, because they have no responsibility for the consequences of the strike or the result—but the effect is felt over the whole line at the present, and the men are dissatisfied. There is an undercurrent of friction and irritation resulting from that strike, and I fear the consequences of that state of irritation, unless the new general manager is able to allay them, will be that we may have a strike again in the near future. What has happened since that strike? The present general manager was not then in office, but what I may call the blacklegs—that is what the trade unions term them—who came in and took the places of the men who went out on strike, and the men who remained at work and did not go upon strike, have all been retained by the company. Not only that, but the men who remained at work and the new men who came in have been promoted, without doubt by favour, by reason of their attitude during the strike, over the heads of more competent men who had gone out on strike, and it is that fact that has caused the greater part of the irritation. Wherever you come across a man who remained in the employ of the company during the strike you will find that man has been promoted over the heads of far more competent men. No doubt the company claim to have taken back 96 per cent. of the men that went out on strike. It is a grievance that they did not take back the other 4 per cent., but the greater grievance is that the men who were taken back are not getting fair play. They are not treated fairly as compared with the men who remained at work for the company during the strike.
    What has happened with regard to wages on the line from Fermoy to Rosslare, and what I say in regard to them applies also to the men on the whole of the Great Southern system. They are in the same position as the men in the other part of the system and under the control of the same managers. These men have got an advance in wages since the strike of 6d. per man per week, that is a penny per day, and, of course, that is more irritating to the men than otherwise, because their demand was a far greater demand than 6d. per week. The 6d. per man was
    1468
    imposed all round; it was given to the man earning 20s. a week as well as to the man earning 13s. or 14s., but the company, in order to find this 6d., increased the fares. They put up the fares for market tickets, and market tickets are a very important institution in Ireland. It means that on Saturday or some other day people are induced to come in to the large market towns, and these market tickets are nearly one-third of the local passenger traffic carried on in the neighbourhood of these market towns, but these tickets have gone up, and season tickets and excursion tickets were also raised. The excuse for raising these fares was that they were giving this increase of 6d. per man per week to the employés. I say that what the company derive from the fares they have raised is considerably in excess of this miserable sum of 6d. per man per week. My grievance under Section 89 of the Act of 1898 arises on this point, because if the Great Western really managed and controlled this line from Fermoy to Rosslare we should never have had that strike at all on that portion of the system. It would have been a separate system, worked separately and independently from the Great Southern system, and it was on the Great Southern system that the strike originated. If it had not been that these men were under the same employer there would not have been any strike on the Rosslare line, because the Great Western directors, being in control of the line, would have treated the men more fairly than they have been treated by the directors of the Great Southern and Western Company. As regards competitive examination, when this Bill comes back I intend to move an Instruction that this system should be applied, and that all clerkships should be filled up by a system of open competitive examination. The Great Southern Company now send the clerks they appoint to this line, and they are really appointed under the system in vogue on the Great Southern system, and they are men who come from the Rosslare line as a result of examination held by the Great Southern Company, and this shows that my indictment as to the way this line is managed by the Great Southern Company is correct. It is contrary to the intention of the Act of 1898 and to the intention of Parliament stated in the paragraph which I read in the special Report of the Chairman of the Hybrid Committee. It is also contrary to the speech of Mr. Hanbury on that occasion, and besides

    1469
    that it is contrary to the intention that the Great Southern system should work or manage this line in Ireland, and until they fulfil the provisions of the principal Act by carrying out Section 84 and give the effective control of that line to the Great Western Company they ought not to get any facilities from this House for the passing of another Bill.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: When the hon. Member got up I was in hopes he was going to speak in favour of this Bill. He represents a constituency which is comparatively close to Rosslare, but as he did not speak in support of the Bill, I find myself compelled to say a few words on behalf of the Rosslare Company. I do not think it would be fair to the company, and it would not be putting the matter in its proper light, if it was to go forth that the Rosslare Company had not got a single champion in this House. I hope I shall be able to show from the statements which have fallen from the lips of hon. Members below the Gangway that the Great Southern and Western Railway and the Rosslare Company are in the right. The hon. Member informed us that if the Rosslare Company had not been to a certain extent under the control of the Great Southern and Western Company there would never have been any strike in connection with the Rosslare Company. He told us that as a result of that strike the men had had sixpence a week added to their wages. That may not be a large sum, but I think we should all be very glad to have that amount added to our weekly income. Having admitted previously that there would have been no strike, and that these people had no grievance, I do not see that they have very much ground to complain if after the strike they find themselves sixpence a week better off than they were before.
    Mr. O'SHEE: What I complained of was that if the Great Western Company had had control of the men they would have been treated more fairly than they have been by the Great Southern Company.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: My case is a concrete one. Here is a number of men who would not have struck if they had not been associated with the Great. Southern and Western Railway, and we are entitled to assume that they had no grievance. They did strike, and at the end of it they came out sixpence better off than at the beginning. Therefore I say that they have no very great grievance. [Laughter.] Hon.
    1470
    Members opposite laugh, but I should like them to show that the position after the strike was worse than it was before it. We have been told that the men on the Rosslare line have not been fairly treated by the Great Southern and Western directors, but I believe those directors absolutely deny that statement, and the hon. Member who made the statement has brought forward no evidence in support of his assertion. A complaint has been made that some of the strikers were not employed again by the company after the strike was over. Everybody in Ireland knows that one of the conditions upon which the strike was settled was that certain of those men who took part in the strike should not be taken back in the employment of the company, because the strike was undertaken for no reasonable cause whatever, and it broke down, which was certain evidence that it had not behind it public opinion. The railway company, I think perfectly rightly, settled the strike by agreeing to take the bulk of the men back in their employ on the understanding that certain ringleaders should not be taken back. Whether they were right or wrong is a matter of opinion, but it is unfair to try and upset this Bill because the Great Southern and Western Railway took that course, or because those were the conditions under which the men came back to work. The hon. Member who has just spoken complained that the Rosslare Railway is under the control of the Great Southern Company, but admitted that the terms of the Act of Parliament were carried out by there being four directors of the Great Western Railway of England on the board. If that is so, then I think we have no right to ask for anything further, and we ought to assume that those four directors who have the preponderating voice think it proper to allow the Great Southern and Western Railway to have the management of the line in their hands, and Parliament has no right to find fault with that. I do not think anything which the hon. Member has brought forward has shown that the original Act of Parliament has been departed from in any way. Let me refer to the subject which was raised by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin (Mr. Field). He made one very significant admission in his speech which carries us a very long way in this controversy. He said very truly that the prosperity of a country depends very

    1471
    largely upon its railway facilities. Before the Rosslare line was instituted all the traffic from the South of Ireland had to pass via Dublin or further north. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is well known that the other routes which were in existence at that time got their fair share of cross-Channel traffic, and I do not see how the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin can make out that the facilities in the South of Ireland are worse off now under the new route which has been opened via Rosslare and Fishguard.
    Mr. FIELD: I said I had no objection whatever to greater facilities being provided in any particular district, but I objected to goods traffic and passengers being diverted from the shortest route in order to please a particular railway.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I was struck with the hon. Member's remark, and he clearly said that the prosperity of a country depended upon the railway facilities.
    Mr. FIELD: Yes.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: And that the further means of carrying goods from Ireland to England provided by these two companies gives extra facilities—
    Mr. FIELD: I agree.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: And therefore makes for the prosperity of the country as a whole. The hon. Member referred to the diversion of traffic from its natural geographical direction. I am informed that 97 per cent. of the traffic of the Great Southern and Western Railway is actually consigned by a particular route by the consignor. There is, therefore, only 3 per cent. of the entire traffic over which they have any discretion, and of that 3 per cent. I am informed that half is governed entirely by the place of destination. If goods are sent from Cork to Northumberland in England, they are obviously and properly sent via Dublin. It would be ridiculous to send them by the other route. On the other hand, if they are consigned from Dublin to Bristol, they are invariably sent by the Rosslare and Fishguard route in preference to via Dublin and Holyhead, because that is the natural route. According to the information which has been supplied to me, which I understand is accurate, there is only 1½ per cent. of the entire goods put into the hands of the Great Southern and
    1472
    Western Railway over which they have any discretion whatever as to the route by which they shall be sent. That is a very small percentage of the entire traffic, and, seeing that the company have been at very great expense in starting this new route of Fishguard and Rosslare, which I have always understood from my friends in the South of Ireland has been looked upon as an immense boon, I think it is not unreasonable, where it is equally convenient, that they should send goods by Rosslare and Fishguard rather than by Holyhead and Dublin. There are points which might properly be dealt with in Committee, but I submit that nothing whatever has been put forward by any hon. Member below the Gangway which ought in any way to prevent hon. Members from giving this Bill a Second Reading.
    Mr. HUDSON: I was astonished to hear some of the statements which the hon. Member for Antrim (Mr. C. Craig) seemed to put forward authoritatively with regard to the strike which took place in Ireland in 1911 and the agreement as it affected the Fishguard and Rosslare Company. I think he had not carefully examined this matter or he would never have made the statement that an agreement was come to at the termination of the strike to leave 10 per cent. of the men out of employment.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I said that it was a condition, or, at any rate, that it was perfectly understood, that certain strikers would not be taken back into employment, but I never said "10 per cent." or specified any percentage.
    Mr. HUDSON: I accept the hon. Member's correction with regard to the number, but I again challenge him on the statement that anyone was to be left out. I may say, for his information, that while I was not there at the commencement of the strike, I was there at the end of it, and I had a great deal to do with the settling of it. Consequently I know the circumstances under which it was settled. It was a condition that 90 per cent. should at once resume work, leaving the other 10 per cent., without any definite statement, to be employed as they could find room for them. The great complaint on the part of the men in Rosslare and the immediate district has been that the company did not fulfil the first condition, to at once reinstate 90 per cent. of the men. It has been

    1473
    complained that even the best men have been seriously victimised since the strike. It is quite true that there is an interchange of employés at Fishguard, Waterford, and even other centres; and, while the Fishguard and Rosslare Company have direct control over the Rosslare working, the whole influence is dictated, as has been already said, from Dublin. We want this company to at least carry out the agreement as honourably as we could expect the men to do, and when we know that they have seriously violated an agreement, the House ought to seriously pause before allowing them any further power whatever. The hon. Member for Antrim said that the men had got 6d. a week advance as a result of the strike. They did not get is as a result of the strike.
    Mr. C. CRAIG:I took my facts from the hon. Member below the Gangway.
    Mr. HUDSON: It is quite true they have it now, two years after the strike. There is a wonderful difference in that. Many of them got what is known as an Irishman's rise: they received less wages than before, and the company saved a considerable amount of money by depressing the wages during the first year which followed the strike. I should like the House to bear in mind another consideration as regards this Fishguard and Rosslare Company. They are really under an obligation to this House to carry out the findings of a Royal Commission that was set up in 1911. That Commission recommended that Conciliation Boards should be applied in an amended form to the railways of the United Kingdom. Let me point out the inconsistency of this particular company. On the Fishguard side they do carry out this particular recommendation of the Royal Commission; on the Rosslare side they do not. I quite admit that the influence comes from another company, but we are now dealing with a company which is applying for further powers under the name of the Fishguard and Rosslare Company, and it is quite logical to draw the conclusion that these companies, having ports on each side of the Channel, are one company for the purposes of the Bill, which should not be allowed to go through unless they are favourably prepared to carry out that obligation.
    But there is something worse even than that. They never carried out, in a reasonable and logical form, the scheme which was set up in November, 1907. Had they
    1474
    done so they and the other companies in Ireland would never have had a strike. I may be twitted by some who will say that this was not the actual cause of the strike. But it is the actual cause of much irritation in the minds of the people. It does not matter very much what is the immediate question upon which you get the outburst of industrial war. The most important question is, What is it that causes the irritation in the minds of the men? think that those in charge of this Bill, speaking for the company, ought at least to recognise that it would be very much to their advantage—as well as to the advantage of the general community—to see that this particular scheme for the purpose of building up good relations between employers and employed is observed and carried out in a reasonable and proper spirit, giving the men a proper outlet for the grievances that exist. The system of oppression and trying to keep down every desire to formulate the grievances of the men is sure, sooner or later, to bring about a result such as we had at the end of 1911. How can they explain their failure to carry out a measure very seriously recommended by this House after the national strike in 1911, and which should afford the machinery to obviate all irritation between one side and the other? How can they reconcile their attitude, when they only apply that system on one side of the Channel and resolutely refuse on the other side of the Channel to negotiate with the men? For these reasons I can assure hon. Members from Ireland that, if they press this matter to a division, I shall vote against the Bill. It is desirable the House should take a firm stand upon this question. You cannot expect to get industrial peace if you are to have this autocratic Government and this unreasonable attitude on the part of people who ought to do their share, in order to discuss with the men, at a round table conference, all those matters which must naturally arise from time to time where large bodies of men are employed.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: This Bill affects my Constituency. It is evident that, by a combination of the Labour Members with the Irish Members it is about to be rejected, and I wish to give the reasons which animate me in voting for it. I quite agree that there is a just grievance against the railway company in Ireland in respect of the strike. In the little town of Mallow alone, no fewer than twelve men were

    1475
    victimised, and I am sorry to say they were also deserted by the Trades Union at whose instance they sacrificed themselves. But that occurred when the company was under a very high-handed and foolish manager. I am glad to say that he has no longer anything to do with the company. His entire connection with it, in my opinion, spelt mischief if not disaster to the company. An entirely new state of things now exists. A new manager has been brought in, a man with sympathy for the men, a man with consideration for his fellow men, and I am not without hope that, under this new system, having got rid of a foolish tyrant and having put a Christian gentleman in his place, an entirely different state of things will be created. It must be remembered that thousands of Irishmen came out purely in sympathy with the English strikers, not only on this but on many other lines. They were the best men I have ever known, men with ability enough to hold any position in this land or in any country, and they have been left to suffer. They did not get the help they might have expected from some hon. Gentlemen opposite. Be that as it may, let us consider what this Bill proposes and why I support it. It is a Bill which has no other raison d'être than the deepening of the harbour in Wales. The only provision affecting Ireland is that it enables an Irish company to subscribe to the deepening of a Welsh harbour. It is very hard indeed, except by your kind indulgence, Sir, for which I most heartily thank you, to make relevant all those matters with which we should like to deal, and for the discussion of which this Bill has been a small safety valve. The ruling from the Chair makes it impossible for us to adequately discuss that matter, therefore I am bound to look at the Bill purely from the point of view that Fishguard Harbour is to be deepened and extended. What advantage have we to gain from that? That a better and more suitable line of steamers plying to our country and dealing with the traffic and passengers particularly in the South of Ireland is to be created, a line which will carry animals without suffering and men without discomfort. This applies entirely to the South of Ireland.
    I do not see how any Gentleman connected with Ireland can object to better facilities being afforded. I quite agree with what the hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division (Mr. Field) has said,
    1476
    that the opening of this line has undoubtedly affected Dublin. Every competitive line you create must affect some other line. If you want to see that, you have only got to go by the quarter past ten train at night, by the excellent service from Euston of the London and North-Western Railway. You find that the Rosslare line has to some extent drained and tapped the service which plies to Dublin. That was inevitable. This House supported it, and, what is more, on the faith of the support of this House, the Great Western Company—against whom we not only had no grievance but to whom those connected with Cork owe a great debt of gratitude—because the Great Southern Company refused to construct a bridge across the Lee to connect the system with the North, put their hands into their pockets and constructed this bridge and thereby connected the South of Ireland with a railway system with the northern parts of the country. We must not forget, whatever grievance we have against the Great Southern Company, that this is a Bill under which the Great Western Company of England is far more deeply affected than the Great Southern Company. I do not think the Great Southern Company cares three straws whether this Bill passes or not. I will tell the House why. For every mile of advantage they would get if this Bill passes, it will be far better for them if they continue the Dublin route, because they get a longer mileage. So far from trying to starve the Dublin end of the traffic, I am of opinion that the Great Southern Company were coerced by the Great Western to give further facilities on the Rosslare side. As regards what the hon. Gentleman for West Waterford (Mr. O'Shee) has said, I think so far as affection is concerned, he is entirely mistaken. The Great Western Company appoints four directors to control this line, and the Great Southern only appoint three. So far from there being brotherly affection between these two companies as the hon. Gentleman suggests, I believe the correspondence between them is largely fiction. These four gentlemen assert their views and carry out their policy, and it is the Great Western policy and not the Great Southern policy they carry out. The view that is taken that this line is being worked by the Great Southern and milked by it for its own purposes against the Great Western, is to my knowledge absolutely without foundation.

    1477
    It is justly said that this company did not carry out its undertaking to construct the line from Fermoy to Cork. We complained of that during the last seven years, but we got very little assistance from those who might have helped us on the point. What did we do? I, by questions in this House, practically fined the Great Southern Company £80,000 for that dereliction of duty. We got the company to refund the £70,000 or £80,000 which they were to have got from the Government. We fined them that amount by compelling them to refund it to the Treasury, for we had a bargain with the Treasury to grant that sum to induce the Great Southern Company to construct this line. Before we tempted the Great Western to make this line, I remember that so long ago as 1887, when Mr. Goschen was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he empowered us to go to Paddington to canvass the Great Western directors and beg of them to make this line, with the promise of a large financial subsidy. Now, because we have a crow to pluck with the Great Southern, which undoubtedly we have, we are trying to prevent the Great Western Company from putting their money into our country by endeavouring to make a better harbour for the accommodation of Irish traffic and the Irish public. That would be most unjust to that company, against which we have no grievance. From my recollection of the railway strike in this country, I think I am right in saying that the first company which came forward to promise a minimum wage of £1 a week was the Great Western Company. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I thought it was one of the first to give some betterment in the wages of the working men. However, I resume the whole case by saying that this is a Bill purely for the purpose of deepening a Welsh harbour to accommodate Irish traffic. It has no connection whatever with Ireland beyond allowing an Irish company to advance money for that. On the ground that it is a beneficent Bill, I give it my support.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The hon. and learned Member who has just sat down made a very interesting statement, assuming that there was a combination existing between the Nationalists and the Labour Members to defeat this Bill. One can only comment that, judging by the speech of the hon. and learned Member and that of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. C. Craig), there
    1478
    has apparently been a combination to see that it is not defeated. In any case, so far as we on these benches are concerned, we are not the least concerned as to associating ourselves with anybody, for we are primarily concerned in doing what we believe to be in the best interests of those we represent, and whether it be with Nationalists or Conservatives or any other Members, we are going strictly to carry out that policy. I want to reply at once to a very serious indictment made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He said that while he had nothing but condemnation for the management of the Great Southern and Western Railway in their conduct of the strike, he wanted to remind the House that the twelve men who he says were victimised were also deserted by their trade union. There is one simple answer to that—it is not true. In the first place, this strike was brought about by the Irishmen themselves, badly led and following bad advice, and were it not for the stupidity of the Irish management it would have been settled in a day. Before our executive left London we sent a telegram to the managers of the Great Southern and Western of Ireland, and said, "We are leaving England with a view of trying to effect a settlement. Will you meet us, and help us with that object?" They not only refused to acknowledge the telegram, but they point-blank refused to make any effort to assist them, not for the purpose of spreading the strike, but actually for the purpose of finding some means by which these men could go back to work. With regard to the desertion of the men, is the hon. Gentleman aware that this English trade union paid £11,000 to these Irishmen who struck? Is he aware that at this moment they are paying them 15s. per week? Where was he when we on these benches asked the Government to take their stand in assisting us to compel the railways company to do justice to these men? He went into the other Lobby, and not with us. But let us take the speech of the hon. Member who said he spoke as the champion of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company—the other party to the combination.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: What the hon. Member describes as the other party to the combination did not use the language attributed to him.
    Mr. THOMAS: I took the words down. The hon. member said he antici-

    1479
    pated that the hon. Member who preceded him was going to support the Bill, and, seeing that he did not, he did not want it to go forward that there was no champion. He said, speaking as the champion of this particular company, he desired to emphasise the good management of the company.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I never said that.
    Mr. THOMAS: I think the hon. Member is not quite sure what he did say.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: May I draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the statement that he repeated was quite different from the first statement he attributed to me? If he will now give a second version of what I said it will probably be the correct one.
    Mr. THOMAS: I repeat that the hon. Member went on to say that he considered that not only did the Great Southern and Western management carry out their side of the settlement, but he considered that they were magnanimous.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I never said anything of the sort.
    Mr. THOMAS: In any case I will leave it at this, that any Member of the House, no matter on what side he sits, or what interest he represents, whether he be a railway director or shareholder, or any other employer of labour, who knew the history of this unfortunate business, could say one word in defence of this particular company. I said the strike was altogether wrong, but do not let us forget that at that moment hundreds of the people who the hon. Member said got 6d. a week advance were getting 13s. and 14s. per week. Whatever might be said of the merits of the strike, I have nothing but commendation for the man who says "I will not work for 13s. a week." When you remember that there were men who lost their lives in consequence of that dispute and men who are in lunatic asylums to-day, and when you remember the cruel and miserable manner in which this company prostituted their power, it is a shame and a disgrace to any employer of labour, I want to ask the Government what is their position in connection with this Bill. It is very well to say that all the grievances of the men and all the matters which have been discussed are foreign to the real objects of the Bill. That may be perfectly true, but the real point that we have to
    1480
    consider is this: Here is a company coming to this House for additional power, and we have to see whether their past record justifies us in giving them that additional power, and I say that the whole history of the Great Southern and Western Company shows that they are not fit to be entrusted with further power. The Great Western know perfectly well that I have never hesitated to say I appreciate in no small measure the splendid manner in which they are trying to give effect to this scheme, but if they have a representation of four as against three, they are not exempt from blame if they allow this thing to go on.
    I come back to the position of the Government. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a pledge that when this strike was settled and the conciliation scheme was set up, whatever the findings of the Royal Commission were, if legislation was necessary, legislation would be introduced. It was on that understanding that we, as representing the men, settled that dispute. The Government the other day recognised the position of the Irish company by accepting an Amendment striking Ireland out of the provisions of the Railways (No. 2) Bill. Now we are dealing with a joint line. As my hon. Friend has already pointed out, you are going to have the anomaly that the Fishguard men will be working on a railway practically controlled by the Great Western management and under Great Western conditions. They are doing so to-day. They have a Conciliation Board, and they will be bound by any agreement arrived at by that Board, but the men employed by the same company and doing precisely the same work, because they happen to be employed at Rosslare instead of Fishguard will be denied all the advantages which their brethren at Fishguard enjoy. I submit to the hon. Gentlemen who will speak in support of this Bill—Gentlemen who have done their best to give effect to the Conciliation Board's scheme—that they should recognise their responsibility in the matter. They are in a majority on this Board, and, while they cannot compel the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland to have a Conciliation Board for the whole of their employés, they can, so far as they are interested in the working of the line at Fishguard, require that the men should be under the same conditions as those at Rosslare and vice versâ. They ought to go further, and say that while the Great

    1481
    Southern and Western may have claimed a victory over the men in the unfortunate dispute, it is not for them, because of that victory, to prostitute their powers. Let them recognise that now is the occasion for them to be magnanimous. There is a feeling in the mind of the men on the Great Southern and Western Railway that they are not receiving justice. Though they were defeated on that occasion it does not tend to good feeling that the present state of things should continue. Unless there is some guarantee given on the lines I have indicated—it is not too much to ask that guarantee—I will join with my hon. Friend and go to a Division. If, on the other hand, a guarantee is given, I hope that this Debate will tend to a better feeling between the men and the companies, and if that should be the result I feel sure that no one will regret this discussion.
    Mr. BALDWIN: As no director of the line in question is present in the House to-night, I as one who stands in the position of foster father, being a director of the Great Western Railway, may be allowed to say a few words. Most of the points have already been answered by my hon. Friends. There was one matter referred to by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin (Mr. Field) with respect to which I think I can put him right in a moment. He complained that he despatched a parcel of perishable goods which took two days to reach its destination. If he will mark on his parcels the route by which he wishes them to be conveyed they will reach their destination in time.
    Mr. FIELD: I did not say that I despatched the parcel myself. I gave the information which had been communicated to me. Even a railway director may make a mistake.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I thought the hon. Member said he despatched the goods. He may give my advice to his friend who sent him the information. The hon. Member for West Waterford (Mr. O'Shee) and the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), although their speeches were very different in manner, touched upon the same point. I think they were labouring under a similar misapprehension. The gist of their complaint was that the Great Western Railway has not the management of the line on the Irish side. I should like before answering that point to say with what immense pleasure I sat
    1482
    here and heard all the kind things which were said of the Great Western Company. Long may the Channel roll between Ireland and England if it continues to lend such enchantment to the view. The Great Western Railway Company have no option in the matter of the regulation of the railway on the Irish side, because it is distinctly laid down in the thirteenth Sub-section of a Schedule in the Act of 1899 how the undertaking on the Irish side is to be worked. It seems to me, therefore, that a great deal of what was said on that point falls to the ground. As to market and season tickets, what was said by the hon. Member for Wrest Waterford was beside the question. The Fishguard and Rosslare Railway Company have no power over the Great Western Company, or the Great Southern and Western Company, which would enable them to alter the rates for tickets. The hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Hudson), naturally and properly from his point of view, devoted the whole of his speech to the recent strike in Ireland. I confess that I came here entirely unprepared to deal with the question, no one having given me any intimation that it was to be raised. I cannot see how the question of the strike on the Great Southern and Western Railway affects this Bill promoted by the Fishguard and Rosslare Company.
    Mr. THOMAS: I did not saw the Great Southern and Western Railway. I said the strike of the men on the Fishguard and Rosslare line.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I was going to say that, unless I am incorrectly informed, the Irish railway companies were not a party to the strike settlement to which the hon. Member alluded, and consequently I do not think the charge of bad faith lies against the Irish railways, but if there is a charge of bad faith I would remind the hon. Member that the agreement was only come to about fifteen or eighteen months ago. He must remember that in Ireland they are twenty-five minutes by time behind this country, and you cannot expect people in an agricultural country like Ireland to act with the same celerity as the people in a business country like this.
    Mr. THOMAS: I can assure the hon. Member that I do not forget that so far as the railway companies are concerned.
    Mr. BALDWIN: The hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) told the House what this present Bill is. It is

    1483
    a Bill promoted by the Fishguard and Rosslare Company, and is solely for the purpose of raising money to repair the damage done in Fishguard Harbour during the gales in this exceptionally severe winter, to make certain alterations in the harbour in the way of dredging, to provide additional breakwaters, and to improve and consolidate the service that runs between England and Ireland by that route. I would remind the House that the only result of rejecting this Bill to-night would be to imperil the service between England and Ireland to this extent, that if the damage is not repaired, if the harbour works are not strengthened, and if we have another winter with gales of such severity as we had last winter, it is quite possible that the service might be impaired, or for a time the traffic between the two countries, which hon. Members are just as anxious as I am to improve, would be interrupted.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): I shall not attempt to go into the merits of the controversy which have been raised this evening, but I may venture to suggest to the House, from the Board of Trade point of view, that the House should take a strictly business view of the Bill at this stage. The most important speeches that have been made have reference to an old quarrel—a strike in 1911. They were animated and interesting, but I do not gather they had any bearing on the real merits of the Bill now before the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hudson), I understand, has a difficulty in forgetting his experience at that period. Even that difficulty should not stand in the way of his considering this Bill on its merits. It is a Bill the effect of which will be to employ labour on the Welsh harbour, the result of which will be to maintain and extend the facilities for intercourse between Ireland and England. To neither of these objects can any of my Friends below the Gangway have any objection.
    Mr. THOMAS: This is the first time we have had a chance to attack the policy of this company, when they are asking for further power.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Having had that chance, and used it so effectively as they have done to-night, my hon. Friends may now be in the position to allow the Bill to
    1484
    go to a Committee. I have listened very carefully to all the grievances which have been urged, and, apart from the old strike, the grievances do not seem to be at all serious enough to justify delaying this Bill. I understand that it is not disputed that the management of this railway company has now entirely changed. Surely, then, even the argument upon the strike—
    Mr. HUDSON: I do not think that is so.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I think that my hon. Friend is in error as to the facts. The management has changed.
    Mr. HUDSON: That refers to the Great Southern and Western Company, but not to this particular company.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: It does not appear, at all events, that whatever grievances existed at that period, which were connected with that strike, are in operation to-day. I think that my hon. Friends, who, speaking on behalf of the railway men's interest, have fully utilised their opportunities, do not suggest that delaying the Bill can do any particular good to the interests which they wish to protect, and that it is not too much to suggest that the House should allow the Bill to go to a Committee.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. BOOTH: I do not follow the argument of the Secretary to the Board of Trade. This is the one chance the House has not merely to speak our mind, but to show it in the Division Lobby. If directors of railway companies know that we shall be content always just to voice grievances, and still give them their Bill, they will not mind in the least an hour or an hour and a half debate. The suggestion that there has been even a change in management is really very weak. It is the old familiar argument that when a licensed house has repeatedly broken the law and there have been repeated convictions, the owners go before the Court and say, "We have just appointed a new manager, and therefore all is well." Magistrates have refused to fall in with that view, and have insisted on taking into account the character of the house. I do not know that I have ever voted against a Railway Bill since I came into this House. I always rather lean to the development of industry, as being in business myself, but having listened very carefully to the Debate, I think that a strong case has been

    1485
    made, both for the men in the locality and for the labour men. I came into the Debate with a perfectly unbiassed mind, but there has been no complete answer, and if directors are ever going to have a sharp lesson from the House I believe that a very well-deserved occasion presents itself now.
    Mr. CULLINAN: I think that the statement made by the Secretary for the Board of Trade is most unsatisfactory. An appeal was made by the hon. Member opposite for a guarantee to this House that the Board of Trade should interfere to remove the grievances of which the men complain on the Great Southern and Western system. If the representative of the Board of Trade had displayed any sympathy whatever with the claims made by the representatives from Ireland, and by hon. Members opposite, who represent the trade unions, it would go very far to conciliate their view, but I must protest against his reference to this opposition to-night being due to the result of a recent strike.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I did not say the opposition. I said that the most impressive speeches made to-night had reference to that.
    Mr. CULLINAN: The strike emanated from the grievances under which the men laboured on the Great Southern and Western Railway. Since then, to my own personal knowledge, the greatest dissatisfaction exists among the employés on the Great Southern and Western Railway, and if we had anything like sympathy from the representative of the Board of Trade in dealing with that matter it would be a most pleasant thing to ask us to walk into the Lobby to support his suggestion. The complaints against the management of the Great Southern and Western Railway have been very great in my Constituency. The Great Southern and Western Railway Company go in for economy. They go in for increasing the rates for week-end tickets, and season tickets, in order to make up the sixpence they pay the men, and at the same time they have gone in for considerably reducing the staff. Great complaints have been made by traders as to the inconvenience which they have suffered, and in those circumstances I must protest against the reference of the representative of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. J. W. WILSON: If this Bill is defeated in this House, it will be on account of details of management of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland, who are not represented as promoters of this Bill. The promoters of this Bill have to do with one of the routes across the Irish Channel, the spending of money at Fishguard. The Great Western Railway, either individually or as a board, have no actual voice in the management or conduct of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland; neither have they power to take over the management of this short piece of line out of the hands of the management of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company. As far as the Great Western Company of England are concerned, they must stand or fall by the decision of the House in this matter. As far as their influence does go in indicating what the contractors, the Great Southern and Western Company, who are contractors for working this short piece of line from Rosslare, may do, as far as the Great Western Company is concerned, I have no doubt that they will take notice of what has been said in this House by hon. Members from Ireland. Further than that we are not able to go, except to emphasise the fact that this is a Bill for restoring damage that has been unexpectedly done in Fishguard Harbour, and which it is found necessary to repair. If the Bill is thrown out, the railway company themselves cannot be responsible for further consequences.
    Mr. FFRENCH: If this Bill goes to a Division I shall feel myself constrained to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I have this day received a resolution passed by the Wexford County Council asking that the boat should be kept on the Rosslare service for the conveyance of live stock to this country. Previous to the taking over of the Rosslare Company by the present company there was a boat on the Rosslare service which made a trip to Liverpool and to Bristol once in each week, carrying live stock, and it was generally understood, and I believe it was part of the bargain, that the present company should keep on this service. Although resolutions have been passed over and over again by public bodies the company has taken no notice of them, and, therefore, on behalf of my Constituents I feel constrained to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

    Division No. 39.]

    AYES.

    [10.8 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir George

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks.)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Boyton, J.

    Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Hohler, G. F.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Mildred

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Cassel, Felix

    Maclean, Donald

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Clough, William

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Waring, Walter

    Cripps, Sir C. A.

    Manfield, Harry

    Webb, H.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Middlebrook, William

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Fell, Arthur

    Mount, William Arthur

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Whitley, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Newman, John R. P.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Glazebrook, Capt. P. K.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Grant, J. A.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Greene, W. R.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. J. W. Wilson and Mr. Baldwin.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Gretton, John

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Adamson, William

    Hackett, J.

    Muldoon, John

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Hancock, John George

    Munro, R.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Neilson, Francis

    Arnold, Sydney

    Hardie, J. Keir

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Barnes, G. N.

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    O'Dowd, John

    Barton, W.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Grady, James

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hazleton, Richard

    O Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Malley, William

    Boland, John Pius

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hinds, John

    O'Shee, James John

    Brace, William

    Hogge, James Myles

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Radford, G. H.

    Clynes, J. R.

    Joyce, Michael

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Keating, Matthew

    Reddy, M.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Kelly, Edward

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Crooks, William

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cullinan, John

    King, J.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Davies, Timothy (Louth)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Delany, William

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Rowlands, James

    Devlin, Joseph

    Leach, Charles

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Doris, William

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Duffy, William J.

    Lundon, T.

    Sheehy, David

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Shortt, Edward

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Smyth, Thomas F.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Snowden, P.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Meagher, Michael

    Sutton, John E.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim)

    Thomas, James Henry

    Gill, A. H.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Molloy, M.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Gulland, John William

    Morison, Hector

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 133.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Wing, Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Field and Mr. Hudson.

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to; Second Reading put off for six months.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1913–14.

  SUPPLY.

    BOARD OF EDUCATION.
    Postponed Proceedings resumed on Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,260,311, 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, 1914, 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. WHITEHOUSE: I can express almost in a sentence the principles for which I have been speaking earlier in the evening, and the views which are held by those Members of this House with whom I act on this question, and for whom I am speaking to-night. We ask that there should be no further tendency to crystalise separate systems of education for separate sections of society, we ask that elementary education should not be regarded as a system complete in itself, or as a system on which to fit a coping-stone of the higher elementary school or so-called evening classes. We ask that the curricula of the elementary schools be complete from the restrictions at present imposed not only by the Elementary Education Acts but by the code drawn up and sanctioned by the Board of Education. We ask that those restrictions having been removed that a harmonious system of elementary education linked with secondary education should be evolved. We ask that secondary education should be greatly extended.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: May I ask who are "we"?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman did not do me the honour to listen
    1490
    to my remarks earlier. I have already answered that question. We ask that elementary education should not only be greatly extended, but that it should embrace all forms of further training and education suited for children of the elementary school age. Finally, we ask that elementary education be regarded as the first stage of the educational highway, and every child leaving the elementary school should pass along that educational highway in some secondary institution and should be given further education, training, and development appropriate to his gifts and to his future walk in life.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I venture to ask the Committee to turn aside from the general question of public education and to devote their attention to the state of affairs at Bristol University. This afternoon the right hon. Gentleman in his statement said that universities had some hesitancy in accepting public money because they were jealous of control, and he expressed a desire to avoid giving them any grounds of suspicion by taking care in no way to interfere in their internal administration. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity of helping, some of these new universities by enabling them to free themselves from local interests when they become too insistent. I will very briefly put forward a few facts which I think may be held to justify an inquiry into the state of Bristol University. At the present time that institution is in the enjoyment of an annual Grant of £9,450. This, I think, fully entitles the right hon. Gentleman to take steps to find out how the money is being spent. Under Section 2 of the Charter the Crown is a Visitor, and the Lord President might be induced by the right hon. Gentleman to move for a visitation, and to inquire into the unsatisfactory state of affairs, as to the existence of which I think I can show a very strong primâ facie case. The Charter of Bristol University was granted in 1909, and the four years which have elapsed have been very stormy. There has been continual friction, and the episodes which have taken place point clearly to some defect in the system of government. I think that the probable ground of the trouble has been the very unusual powers enjoyed by the council,

    1491
    which is an entirely non-academic body. In other universities degrees are granted by the assembly of graduates, whether it be called the congregation or convocation, or, as in the case of Bristol, the senate; but in the case of Bristol a non-academic council, consisting largely of members of no university experience whatever and of no qualifications from the point of view of learning, grants these degrees. There is nothing whatever to prevent its amending the examiners' reports and lowering the standard of learning for which the degrees are granted. In the case of medical degrees, such a power in the hands of a non-academic body might become a real public danger.
    The council has been extremely generous in the granting of certain classes of the degrees. In consists of thirty-three members, and it has voted honorary degrees to no less than fifteen of its own number. In October of last year it gave sixty-three honorary degrees, a large number of which were to local celebrities of no academic distinction. There is a great deal of local comment on the fact that eight degrees have been bestowed on members of the Bristol education committee, one of whose duties it is to recommend to the Bristol City Council the amount of money which it shall grant to the university. I am only surprised that the right hon. Gentleman himself has so far escaped an honorary degree of Bristol University, in view of the fact that the Board of Education makes it a large Grant of nearly £10,000 a year. More serious than these comic opera degrees is the position of the teaching staff. I understand that the Advisory Committee on University Grants has recommended that the professorial tenure should be, not for a limited period or during the pleasure of the appointing body, but for life. It is only so that you can get that independence which is necessary for satisfactory academic work. At the present time Bristol University professors are subject to two years' probation. They then hold office subject to a standing order of the council. Teachers and half-time lecturers, other than professors, hold their appointment on a three months' tenure, subject to annual appointment. This insecurity of tenure is doing very serious harm to the university. There have been so many cases, either of dismissal among the staff, or threatened dismissal, that an atmosphere of suspicion has been created, which has made it
    1492
    impossible for the university to obtain the services of the best men. I will only deal with one case as an instance, that of Professor Cowl. Prior to the creation of a university, Professor Cowl was a professor in University College, Bristol. In 1906 he became hon. organising secretary of the movement to bring about the creation of the university. With the establishment of the University of 1909, he was made professor of English literature in the new organisation. After the first session, in spite of the strong protest of the academic body, which I believe under Statute, is the right body to control such matters, he was dismissed. There was very strong feeling occasioned owing to the fact that he was given no hearing whatever. It was stated that he was dismissed because the standard of learning in his department was too high, and it was desired to attract weak scholars.
    That view of education has been strongly condemned by the Advisory Committee, which supports the right hon. Gentleman. I believe the real truth is that the professor was dismissed owing to local spite, and the fact that he had inevitably raised antagonisms in pursuance of his duties as hon. organising secretary of the university movement by opposing certain amalgamation schemes brought forward by the Merchant Adventurers' College and by University College. When a new professor was to be appointed, the senate, by an overwhelming vote, recommended that Professor Cowl should be chosen, but, as usual, the non-academic council overrode the recommendation, and appointed a candidate who had only received one vote in the Senate. There was so much indignation that the council created a special Research Chair, with no duties attached to it, and with a two years' tenure to keep Professor Cowl quiet. If Professor Cowl was fitted to hold this Research Chair, he ought not to have been dismissed from the Chair of English Literature; if he was rightly dismissed, why was nearly £1,000 wasted in paying him a salary for two years for a Chair which had no duties? I think that the action of the council was an admission of the injustice of Professor Cowl's dismissal. I have only dealt with Professor Cowl's case amongst several others because I think it is a typical symptom of the disease which infects the University government. The fact that the Council, whether right or wrong, have by their subsequent action in effect had to admit what

    1493
    they did, shows that they are quite unrepentant, and justifies us in pressing strongly for some form of inquiry. The matter of degress and the matter of professional tenure are only two symptoms, and the general trouble which affects the University. There are many other symptoms, such as disquieting statements as regard advertising and the allocation of contracts; the general treatment of the Academic body, Convocation and Senate by the Council. All their recommendations are over-ridden, the Council takes practically everything into their hands. I do not propose to enter into these matters, although, under the Statute, I think it is very doubtful whether the Council have not exceeded their powers, because the Senate are charged under Section 17 with sending recommendations to the Council for the election of professors and readers and lecturers, etc. They are also to make recommendations to the Council as to the removal of any professor or teacher and the appointment of any other teacher, and they are to recommend to the Council the names for honorary degrees. Now as all their recommendations are consistently ignored, I think there is something wrong with the general system of government, whereby the Conned takes no notice whatever of these provisions of the Statute.
    I think I have shown there is a primâ facie case for inquiry, and learning the cause of the strife and the atmosphere of parochialism. Possibly, if the right hon. Gentleman would grant some form of inquiry he would enable the University to shake itself free from those local shackles which is throttling its life. An inquiry is necessary into the state of Bristol University on public grounds. The Lord Chancellor has foreshadowed in a recent speech the creation of more civic universities in connection with education. Surely, if we are to have a few more universities on the lines of Bristol, before they are created the Government ought to be in possession of any information to be obtained from Bristol in order to profit by recent experience and mistakes. The right hon. Gentleman has refused to refer the matter to his Advisory Committee. I understand that it is not in his power to move for Visitation, but if he can take neither of these two courses, I at least ask him to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the whole subject, and I do so
    1494
    in the interest of the university, so as to enable them to put their house in order.
    Sir W. HOWELL DAVIES: The subject which has just been brought before the House by the hon. Member has been before it on several occasions in the form of questions. These questions have been very well organised and very well prepared, and behind the whole thing there appears to be a good deal of spite. No question such as we have heard ever arose at all as long as Professor Cowl was in receipt of £400 a year occupying a sinecure office, or practically a sinecure office, and it all began because he was not continued upon the professorial staff. It is not true to say that Professor Cowl ever was a recognised professor of Bristol University. He was a member of the University College staff, and when the university was formed, there was a surplus of professors because there was an amalgamation of University College and Merchant Adventurers' College, and it was necessary that the council should exercise their wisdom in the selection of professors on account of this surplus. It is quite true that the senate recommended that Professor Cowl should be appointed, but the council did not appoint him. I am not here to say for what reason.
    Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: Have they not told you the reason?
    Sir W. H. DAVIES: No, I do not know the reason, but the decision was arrived at unanimously. The decision of the council upon the case of Professor Cowl was arrived at unanimously. Personally, I have no reason to say anything against him, but I know that a great many allegations have been made and a good deal of bad blood has been engendered. Those allegations have been repeated over and over again, and I am informed that they are absolutely untrue. There is no dispute between the professors and the teaching staff and the council. We have been told that many of the professors have had complaints made against them, and that they are under consideration. I am informed by the Vice-Chancellor that no complaints have been made against any of the professors, and that there is no feeling existing between the staff and the council. Charges have been made with reference to the conferring of university honours, but I am assured that they have been conferred in recognition of educational services rendered. I do not know why all this unpleasant criticism has been made, because the Bristol University is

    1495
    trying to do a great work, and it has tried to spend the money voted by Parliament to the best advantage. During the last twelve months this university has had large sums of money given to it, and no less than £188,000 has been contributed for the extension of its buildings. As one of the Members for Bristol, I am naturally jealous of the honour of the Bristol University, and we are anxious to make the best use of this institution we can. Surely this House is not going to compel us to employ more professors than we need.
    We are endeavouring to utilise the funds voted to us from the Consolidated Fund, from the rates of the city of Bristol, and our income from investments, to promote the best interests of the students who come there. I was surprised that a person like Professor Cowl has been able to find so many Members of Parliament ready to take up his case, and put their names to questions of a very doubtful character, and I am convinced that the majority of the charges which have been made are both unjust and unfair to the university. The hon. Member for Hoxton (Dr. Addison) put a question to-day with reference to the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Bristol. It implied that there were a number of professors employed by the university who were receiving £150 and £120 a year, who had solicited an increase, which had been refused in consequence of the lack of funds of the university. The assumption was that the Vice-Chancellor had had his salary increased, whilst the others had received no consideration. As a matter of fact, the Vice-Chancellor receives £1,750 salary, which he had at the beginning and it has not been increased. Therefore, the suggestion in the question is a very unworthy one. I say that all the charges that have been made in the questions that there is disturbance and unrest amongst the professors of the college are not true, and they ought never to have been submitted to this House. They show that behind all this there is a lot of ill-feeling and spite. We are endeavouring to do our work and to fulfil a great function, and I am quite satisfied, if Members of this House leave the Bristol University alone, that we shall fulfil all the work for which that university has been founded.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I wish to say a word or two as regards the case of Professor Cowl, because one of greater hardship and injustice was never brought before the attention of this House. I ven-
    1496
    tured the other day for the first and only time to put a question to the President of the Board of Education upon this subject, and the hon. Member who has just sat down thought it becoming to insinuate that I was putting the question in the interests of Trinity College, Dublin. It is quite true that Professor Cowl is a constituent of mine and a distinguished student of Trinity College.
    Sir W. H. DAVIES: I made no charge against or reflection upon Professor Cowl.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I am not saying that the hon. Member did, but that he insinuated my interference was due to the fact that this gentleman was a graduate of the University of Dublin. I am proud of that fact. That was the exact reason why I interfered. I believed that a great hardship had been inflicted on one of my constituents. I should have thought that it was my primary duty, if an injustice of that kind had been done to a constituent of mine, to endeavour as far as was in my power to obtain justice for him, and that in so doing I should not be subjected to any sneer from the hon. Member, who, I suppose, has got one of these honorary degrees.
    Sir W. H. DAVIES: That is a very unworthy taunt.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: The hon. Member is very fortunate, because I think most of his colleagues got one. Personally, I think he is to be congratulated that he did not. After Professor Cowl left Trinity College, where he obtained his degree with all possible honour, he was employed in the Birmingham University, and then he was selected and actually put upon the Board to frame the new University for Bristol. After they had completed their labours, and the University constitution had been framed, the authorities of the day selected him for the post of Professor of Literature. He held that post and discharged his duties without complaint, and then suddenly, in the year 1910, after he had been for over a year discharging these duties, and in receipt of the emoluments attaching to the office, he was deprived or his professorship, and he has never been told why from that day to this. If there were any complaints against him, he has never heard them, and he has never had an opportunity of meeting them. Up to the present moment he is absolutely ignorant of the reasons for his dismissal. He has never received even the courtesy of

    1497
    any information on the subject. The extraordinary thing about it is that the hon. Member who has got up to pose as the representative and the champion of the Council of the University, and who speaks of them as "we," does not himself know why he was dismissed.
    Sir W. H. DAVIES: I did not say he was dismissed. He was not appointed.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: That is to say that the hon. Gentleman knows nothing about the case. He knows as little about the appointment as he does about the reasons for dismissal. Mr. Cowl was appointed in 1909, and he was not dismissed for a year afterwards, in 1910, after the university had been in existence for a full term. So that for a full term he held office in the university and received his pay. He was then dismissed without explanation, without rhyme or reason. The hon. Member for Bristol (Sir W. Howell Davies), who represents one of the Divisions of that city and speaks for the university as "we," has admitted that he cannot tell us why he was dismissed, nor why the council of the university overrode the unanimous recommendation of the senate to reappoint this gentleman. Has he ever inquired? It would be interesting to know if he has, and, if so, to know the result of such inquiry. If he failed to make inquiry the reason is obvious. What have they done? In 1910, in order to close his mouth, he having threatened legal proceedings, they actually proceeded, at the expense of the university, to found a Chair of Research, with no duties attached to it, and since then he has never lectured or taught for one hour, and yet he has received since 1910, out of public money devoted to education, £400 a year for doing nothing. The hon. Gentleman opposite has no explanation of that. The explanation is that they know that they have done a gross injustice, but there is no reparation, and that is my reason for bringing this matter before the House and of those who are responsible for the administration of this public money. The gentleman is a stranger to me beyond the fact that he is a Constituent of mine. He is a very distinguished graduate of Trinity College, Dublin, and his character and competency are vouched for by leading men at Oxford, Cambridge, and Man-chester. I have received an extraordinary and voluminous amount of testimony to the ability and the qualities of this gentleman, and yet here he is to-day—
    Mr. KING: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give us the names of those gentlemen?
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I will give them to the hon. Member if he wants them.
    Mr. KING: I do.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: There is Mr. Sonnenschein, Mr. Macneile Dixon, Professor Bury, and many leading professors and teachers in Trinity College, Dublin, all of whom vouch for his ability and standing. Yet the hon. Member who speaks for Bristol, and has taken upon himself, with a voluminous brief, the advocacy of the cause of Bristol University, has to stand up and tell us he has not the faintest knowledge of why they dismissed him or why they refused to reappoint him when that was unanimously recommended by the Senate. It is a strange state of affairs, and it shows that there is ground for demanding an inquiry. I know that the resources at the disposal of the hon. Gentleman on the bench opposite and of his Department are limited as regards inquiry, but I know of nothing to prevent one of two courses, either to recommend His Majesty in Council to have a Visitation to inquire into this matter and have the whole trouble investigated, or to ask a Committee of this House to investigate, not only this case, but several other cases similar to it. Because the case of Professor Cowl is not an isolated one. There are other Professors whose existence was threatened, and whose position was only saved by the intervention of the heads of their colleges at Oxford. I know of other two cases. The professors are in a state of revolt; there is no security of tenure, they are dissatisfied, there is eavesdropping, tale bearing, and friction throughout the entire university, and that must be fatal to it, and injurious to the course of education. I think with regard to the case of Professor Cowl, when the advocate of the university is not in a position to give any explanation of his dismissal and cannot explain why the Council did not re-appoint, him, that the demand for an inquiry is irresistible.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): I am particularly sorry that there should have been such a long interruption of this Debate by a Private Bill—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why did

    1499
    the Government put it down?"]—because this Debate has been livelier than usual, and more than is usual on the Education Estimates we have got off the track of smaller criticisms. Before I sit down there are one or two things I want to say, specially with regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour). With regard to one or two smaller points which have been raised, let me say, first, with regard to the short Debate to which we have just listened, that I am afraid my right hon. Friend cannot depart from the position he has had to take up with regard to this quarrel in Bristol University. He takes no part in the affair. The attitude he has to adapt is that he cannot interfere in the domestic affairs of the university. He considers himself bound to see to the general efficiency of the university if it is to receive the Grants, but beyond that he does not feel himself able to go. One of the things the House is most anxious that the Board of Education should not do is to interfere in detail with the local powers of education authorities of all kinds, and of all authorities the universities would be the very last with whom we ought to think of interfering. If the time comes when the State has to work more intimately with the universities and give them more public money, it will not do for us to assume an intimate interference in their local affairs. This is a case in which my right hon. Friend will probably have the support of the Committee in not interfering on either side.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGE: Why do you interfere with the Scottish universities?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The Scottish universities are not under our jurisdiction.
    Mr. HOGGE: The Treasury do.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I am dealing with the policy of the English Board of Education. I should like to refer to one or two of the arguments brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London in the interesting speech he made earlier in the day. He criticised the speech of my right hon. Friend on the ground that it was too optimistic, and that, in view of promised legislation, he ought rather to have dealt in the defects in our educational system, if such existed. I think my right hon. Friend probably had in view the fact that he was dealing with administration under the law as it exists.
    1500
    If the Government undertake any legislation in connection with education, one important thing for the House to consider is whether the Department which will have to undertake that administration of the new law affords an efficient and sympathetic machine for carrying out any such new legislation. I think my right hon. Friend was right in saying that the work the Department was doing was successful under the present law.
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to complain that the Department is apt to act bureaucratically in its relations with local authorities, and he referred to various matters, such as the enforcement of building regulations, in which he thought we were too hard and fast in our methods of dealing with local authorities. The more share I have in the administration of this Department the less I think the administration can be called bureaucratic in a narrow sense. I will take what the right hon. Gentleman referred to, that is to say, our pressing the local authorities to improve their school buildings. We have not dealt severely with local authorities. We have tried persuasion, we have got, in almost every case, now agreement with the local authorities throughout the country as to the rate and the way in which they shall improve their buildings. Then if you take our administration of secondary schools in the Department, the narrow action of a bureaucracy cannot be pointed out in any sense. At present we constantly hold throughout the country inspections of secondary schools, where we send down large numbers of inspectors. These inspections are welcomed, and owing to them we find that the managers of the secondary schools are constantly adopting our recommendations, constantly improving their curricula, constantly adopting new ideas, and one of the things which we are constantly impressing upon the managers of secondary schools is the low scale of assistants' salaries in secondary schools. If the work of our Department is viewed in the proper light it will be found that what interference there is with the action of local authorities is interference which stimulates education and raises the standard of education, and that we are not constantly persecuting the local authorities to undertake things which they really cannot afford to undertake.
    The chief refrain in this Debate has been that more money is needed for education,

    1501
    and the appeal in all the speeches, notably in the very interesting speech we have heard from the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Hibbert), was that our Department ought to do its utmost to obtain more money for education. I think my right hon. Friend has not shown himself slack in that respect. I will give the House the amount which he has obtained from the Treasury during his very short tenure of office. He has got £10,000 to work the Choice of Employment Act, £60,000 in aid of the local authorities for medical treatment, which has risen this year to £80,000, and will rise further, he has got for the Imperial College of Science another £10,000, he has increased the University Grants for their technological work by £12,000, and he has got pensions for teachers—a sum of at least £200,000—and there will be an equivalent sum which will enable the secondary teachers to get as effective treatment as the elementary teachers. There is no definite sum laid down, but it will be on the same basis. In view of what he has done already it will be clear to the House that my right hon. Friend can be trusted to do his very best to get more money for education, for we know, if anyone knows, that if we are to reach out in different directions to improve our education system the one thing which we must have is money, and in the long run, after all, it is not we in this Department who will find that money; it is that public feeling which can be aroused by the activity of Members of this House as representatives of the people in representing the present views of the people and in pressing them to demand further money for education. You may rely on this Department doing what they can to obtain further money for this great object.
    It being Eleven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair, to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
    The Orders for the remaining business were read and postponed.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION (REPORT).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  11.0 P.M.
  Mr. KING: I feel it my duty to protest against the way in which the Education
  1502
  Estimates have been put down for discussion to-day. In order to understand and discuss this Vote adequately we ought to have had more than two days for considering the Report of the Board of Education. In the Pink Paper issued on Friday, that Report was notified to us as being ready to send out. Most Members like myself take a week-end holiday and do not look at Parliamentary Papers until Monday morning. I sent then for the Report of the Board of Education, and I got it on Tuesday. Therefore I have only had two days to study the Report. I very much doubt whether any Gentleman who has during the course of the Debate illuminated the House with his opinions, has studied the Report at all. At any rate, I very much doubt whether they have given so many hours to it as I have done. Therefore, in the first place, I very strongly criticise the action of the Government in putting this Vote down for to-day, and, in the second place, I criticise still more strongly the action of the Opposition in asking for this Vote to be put down. They know very well that there are many abuses in our educational system revealed by this Report which are entirely due to the Act of 1902, and it is because they are afraid to face the issue and afraid to move the reductions of the Vote which they put down on the Order Paper that they asked this Vote to be put down at short notice, and with a cowardice which, I say is contemptible they run away. In the course of the very interesting speech of the President of the Board of Education, he made an attack upon myself. It was quite nicely made, and quite decently phrased, but of course it was based upon information supplied to him by the Gentlemen whom we saw in that Gallery there. Where are they now? I gave them fair warning that I was going to raise this matter, and now that they have ran away I hope that the President will have it out with them to-morrow in the Board of Education.
  The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member should only attack persons who can defend themselves here. He can criticise the President.
  Mr. KING: Pardon me, but with all due respect to the Gentlemen who ought to be in the gallery, I was not attacking them. I was only intimating what I felt. The point of the charge levelled against me by my right hon. Friend, was that in the course of a number of questions which I

  1503
  have put to him, I had tried to raise the suggestion that he was not giving to the children of this country the proper accommodation in schools which they have the right to demand. That is a very serious matter, because I have gone into the question for a good many months past, and I have come to the conclusion that there ought to be at least half a million more children in the schools in England and Wales than there are at present.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it permissible for an hon. Member to continue the Education Debate after Eleven o'clock?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite entitled to criticise the action of the Government.
  Mr. KING: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has raised this point, because he can now continue the criticism after I sit down. I want the right hon. Gentleman here to realise how serious this matter is. I have been on a Select Committee since eleven o'clock this morning, and I should not attempt to keep the House and myself here if I did not feel that this was a matter of educational importance. But I would strongly urge that when the Education Act of 1902 came into force there were at once a large number of miserable schools handed over to the local education authority. Some of those voluntary schools were absolutely incapable of being used any longer.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present—
  Mr. KING: I cannot proceed with my argument without expressing my deep gratitude to this crowded House, and for the support it has shown me on this occasion. I was saying that ever since the operation of the Education Act of 1902 there has been a deficiency of accommodation all over the country, greater in some places than in others, but a growing deficiency of accommodation in the great centres of population. The deficiency of accommodation at the present time is really serious. I have got a long list here, but I am not going to read it all to the House. I am going to point out, however, that in certain large towns in England the schools are crowded to such an extent that there are in some places as
  1504
  many as 70 per cent. of the children who are in overcrowded schools. Overcrowded schools mean inefficient teaching, bad air, greater danger of consumption, and of epidemics, and, in fact, overcrowded schools are taking away the right of the child to a decent place and decent teaching in school. It is all very well for my right hon. Friend and the Government to boast that they have increased the efficiency of schools by saying they are on a 10-ft. square basis when they overcrowd the schools. If you have schools on the 10-ft. square basis and then overcrowd them, it reduces them to a 7-ft. or 8-ft. square basis. In Liverpool 20 per cent. of the children are in overcrowded schools. In Manchester it is the same. In Birmingham it is still worse, where a quarter of the children, 25 per cent., are in overcrowded schools. In Warrington it is still worse, 36 per cent. Then there is Bootle. I wish the Leader of the Opposition was here to know how little the authorities in his constituency value proper education for the children. Thirty-seven per cent. of the children there are in overcrowded classrooms. In Dover, which is reported by another hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench, it is the same. I am sorry to say there are several cases where it is higher. I see, by the way, that in Oswestry, and I dare say the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bridgeman) thinks he is a great authority on education, but in his constituency 57 per cent. of the children are in overcrowded schools. That is perfectly true. If not, am I not to believe the official figures of the Board of Education? I believe them even more than I believe my hon. Friend opposite. In Devonport 45 per cent. of the children are in overcrowded schools, and in Tottenham 70 per cent. I could give the House a great number of other cases. My right hon. Friend wants the Committee to believe, in the mild attack he directed against me, that he has been doing his best. His best can be bettered. Nobody knows what he could do with this support of a strong, determined bench behind him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope he realises from those cheers that the true-hearted feeling, if not of the Front Bench opposite, at any rate of the Liberal party, is in favour of the good old principle of Mr. Forster, "A school place for every child and every child in its place." That in my young days was the principle of education of the Liberal party. I am afraid it is forgotten to-day.

  1505
  I want it to be revived. I am here to-night to remind the right hon. Gentleman of his obligations. Let me just read to him a very old but very fine expression of the right of the children of England to free education in proper, decent schools. It is from a circular issued twenty years ago, when the Free Education Act was passed, and by the Conservative party that passed it:—
  "Every father and mother in England and Wales has a right to free education, without payment or charge of any kind, for his or her children between the age of three and fifteen."
  What did the right hon. Gentleman say in the course of his speech? He told us through the efforts of the Board of Education they have reduced the children under five by 45 per cent. Why? Because he has taken away by his Code the right which was acknowledged to have been given by Statute, even by the Conservative party, of every parent to say, "My child is three years of age. That child can go into school if I like." The right hon. Gentleman, following the extremely bad lead of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, has allowed the local authority to decide when the children may or may not come in, and he has taken away by his Code a right which undoubtedly exists by Statute. That is well known. I see Members on the Front Bench nodding among themselves; they know perfectly well that I am right, as I always am on the subject of education. I may sometimes make mistakes in this House, but never upon educational subjects. I want to appeal in all earnestness to the right hon. Gentleman to ask the Prime Minister to give us another day for the discussion of the Education Estimates. We were asked to-day to settle the fate really of £14,000,000, because £5,500,000 were included in the Vote on Account. We ought to have more than one day for such a big sum as that.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Hear, hear.
  Mr. KING: I am glad that the Opposition Whips agree, because the matter rests with them. If they ask the Government to put down the Education Estimates again it will be done, and I shall be eternally grateful to them if they make the demand. This vote ought not to be carried—and it will not be, except under the Closure, as long as I can speak about it—without a fuller and a better discussion than we have had to-night. We have had delightful experiences this evening. We have had one of those delightful, airy, and
  1506
  totally irrelevant speeches from the late Leader of the Opposition, to which we all listened so gladly. How delightful it was to us on this side to hear his attack upon the principle of competitive examination, when all the while sitting by his side was his present Leader, who has been attacking the Government because they make appointments by anything else but competitive examination. [Laughter.] This is not a laughing matter. It is too important. It is also too important to be guillotined without proper discussion. I should like to go on a great deal longer, but will refrain. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will indicate, if not his ability to comply, at any rate that he bears me no more ill-will than I bear him.
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: Some of the statements of the hon. Member were entirely erroneous, in spite of his assertion that every statement he makes on education is correct. But I wish to join in his appeal to the Government to give us another day for the Education Estimates. The allegation is often made that this country does not care about education. We have had a Debate to-night which by general admission has been the best Debate on education that has taken place for some years. Yet into the midst of that Debate there has been thrust a discussion about Irish railways, which had nothing whatever to do with education, but it curtailed the time available by two hours. I do not think that is fair. There is a large number of Members who want to speak on this subject. There are a great many subjects of educational interest. We know that the whole of our educational system is to be put into the melting pot, and it is not fair treatment of the House for the Government to put down the Education Vote, give us only one half-day, and then to split that in half by putting down a private Bill.
  Mr. BOOTH: That is not the Government!
  Mr. BARLOW: Excuse me, it is the fault of the Government.
  Mr. PEASE: I believe that this private Bill was put down a long time before it was suggested that the Education Vote should be taken to-day.
  Mr. BARLOW: As to that, I do not know, but I do know that it is in the hands of the Government to give more time. I hope very much that they will do so. I made the same appeal—or, at any

  1507
  rate, it was made from these benches—last year. The Government gave us an assurance that they would do their best to give us another day. That assurance ended in smoke; at any rate, we did not get that day. I do press that matter very strongly, seeing that, as I believe, there are many Members on both sides who wish to speak on this subject. I hope the Government will give consideration to this matter, and see if they cannot give us more time.
  Mr. PEASE: I would be the last man in the House to try to stop the dis-
  1508
  cussion of the Board of Education Estimates, and if a real desire for another day is put forward in the usual way I certainly shall raise no objection at all. I welcome criticism from whatever quarter it comes. Debates in this House often give me certain suggestions, and certain points are made which are useful to the Board of Education. If it is the wish of the House to have another day I shall certainly raise no objection.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned at Twenty-eight minutes after Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  EMPLOYED PERSONS (AGED).
  EMPLOYED PERSONS (AGED).
  Pleuro-Pneumonia Account.
  Pleuro-Pneumonia Account.
  Income Tax.
  Income Tax.
  Consols (Dividends).
  Consols (Dividends).
  Unlawful Assembly (Conviction at Limerick Assizes).
  Unlawful Assembly (Conviction at Limerick Assizes).
  Royal Irish Constabulary Fund.
  Royal Irish Constabulary Fund.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Union Hospitals (Ireland).
  Union Hospitals (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Castledawson Case (Depositions).
  Castledawson Case (Depositions).
  Lunatics (Ireland).
  Lunatics (Ireland).
BRITISH ARMY.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE.
  ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
  ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
  MILITARY CLOTHING.
  MILITARY CLOTHING.
  Royal Small Arms Factory.
  Royal Small Arms Factory.
  Oxford City Police Court (Hindering a Tramwayman).
  Oxford City Police Court (Hindering a Tramwayman).
ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
  PROPERTY TRANSFERRED.
  PROPERTY TRANSFERRED.
  Cattle Testing Station (Scotland).
  Cattle Testing Station (Scotland).
  Lairage Accommodation (Scotland).
  Lairage Accommodation (Scotland).
  Live Stock (Anglesey).
  Live Stock (Anglesey).
  Carriage of Cattle (Railway Charges).
  Carriage of Cattle (Railway Charges).
  Swine Fever (Administration).
  Swine Fever (Administration).
  School Children (Medical Inspection).
  School Children (Medical Inspection).
  Inshore Waters Scotland (Trawling).
  Inshore Waters Scotland (Trawling).
  Small Holdings (Scotland).
  Small Holdings (Scotland).
  Development Fund.
  Development Fund.
  Bovine Tuberculosis.
  Bovine Tuberculosis.
  Post Office Savings Bank (Depositors' Books).
  Post Office Savings Bank (Depositors' Books).
  Telephone Service.
  Telephone Service.
  Parcels Post (Rural Districts).
  Parcels Post (Rural Districts).
  Central Telegraph Office.
  Central Telegraph Office.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS BILL. [H.L.]
  Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
  METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  WIMBLEDON AND SUTTON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  The Lord Sanderson, Chairman of the Select Committee, reported that the Lord Grantley was not present this day; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Ramsay (E. Dalhousie) be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Grantley; read, and agreed to.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the following Bills ought to be dispensed with:
  Arigna Valley Railway. [H.L.]
  Arundell Estate (CloSing of Arundell Street and Panton Square) [H.L.]; and
  Leeds Corporation. [H.L.]
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  London County Council (Tramways, Trolley Vehicles and Improvements) Bill
  ought to be dispensed with subject to the omission therefrom of Tramways Nos. 2, 4, 4a, 5, 5a, 6, 8, 8a and 8b, and to the consent of the Hampstead Borough Council in respect of Tramway No. 3a being proved before the Committee on the Bill.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for a Bill in reference to the Superannuation Fund by the
  Midland Railway Company
  ought to be dispensed with and leave given to introduce the Bill:
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petitions for additional Provision in the following Bills:
  London and South Western Railway [H.L.]; and
  Lothian Railways [H.L.]
  ought to be dispensed with and leave given to the Committee on the Bills to insert the additional Provisions:
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  City of London (Celluloid Regulations) Bill
  ought to be dispensed with subject to the omission of Clauses 7 and 8 from the Bill:
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for additional Provision to the
  London County Council (General Powers) Bill
  ought to be dispensed with subject to the omission from Part II of Clauses 8 and 9:
  And that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Ely Valley Gas and Electricity Bill.[H.L.]
  ought not to be dispensed with.
  Read, and agreed to.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:
  Arigna Valley Railway.
  The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

  LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 17th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.

  ARIGNA VALLEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at Four o'clock, till To-morrow, Two o'clock.