Sitting of 18 July 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (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 Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
River Glen Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Hornsey Gas Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
North British Railway Bill (by Order),
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1916.
Copy presented of Summary of Cases dealt with by the Advisory Committee up to the 2nd June, 1916, inclusive, and of the Recommendations made therein [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1877.
Account presented of Receipts and Payments under the Act during the year ended 31st March, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 101.]

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Report on the Recent Development of German Agriculture, by
818
T. H. Middleton, C.B., Assistant Secretary, Board of Agriculture and Fisheries [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

ARMY (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
Copy presented of Scheme made by the Army Council for the establishment and constitution of an Association for the county of Ayr, under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
CHAMBER OF LONDON.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Annual Accounts of the Chamberlain of London for the years ending 31st December, 1915, and 31st March, 1916 [by Act].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    BELGIAN FOOD SUPPLIES.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can state the approximate amount of supplies produced in Belgium which has been consumed in that country by the occupying troops or removed to Germany for the use of the enemy; and whether he is aware that the policy of importing foodstuffs into that country from overseas, in the form of relief, is adding directly to the amount of native Belgian supplies available for and consumed by the enemy?
    The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): No Sir, I am afraid that I can give no estimate which would be of any practical value. The answer to the last part of the question is, to the best of my belief, in the negative.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Have not native Belgian supplies been utilised by the Germans for their own purposes, and therefore are not these supplies indirectly helping the Germans?
    Lord R. CECIL: I believe that that is not so now.

    GREECE.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he will state the terms of the last Allied Note to the Greek Government; and whether he can give any information as to the exact nature of the Greek reply and the extent to which the demobilisation of the Greek Army has been carried out?
    Lord R. CECIL: My hon. Friend will understand that His Majesty's Government cannot lay Allied Notes before Parliament except after consultation and in agreement with their Allies. It is also undesirable, as a rule, to make public statements in detail about mobilisation or demobilisation of Armies. It will perhaps be sufficient for my hon. Friend's purpose to say that relations with the present Greek Government are regarded as satisfactory.

    MILITARY SERVICE

      ELIGIBLE BRITISH SUBJECTS RESIDENT ABROAD.
      Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government has demanded of the French or Italian Governments that British subjects of military age resident in France or Italy, respectively, should be returned to this country in order to undergo military training here?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): His Majesty's Government is at present discussing with the French Government the question whether it is possible to take measures to make the Military Service Act applicable to unattested British subjects of military age resident in France. No communication has been addressed to the Italian Government.
      Mr. KING: Is it intended to address a communication to the Italian Government, so that all the Allied countries may be on the same basis?
      Mr. FORSTER: I think that is being considered.

      TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS.
      Colonel YATEasked whether a man who had completed twenty one years' service and earned his pension before the War, and who rejoined for the War in response to the call for experienced noncommissioned officers, is deprived of his pen-
      820
      sion on rejoining, and in the event of being wounded and incapacitated the pension he had formerly received is deducted from the amount due to him for his wounds in the present War?
      Mr. FORSTER: Such a man is not deprived of his pension on rejoining but draws it with his pay. He is not granted a disability pension in addition to his service pension but draws whichever is the greater.
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for War whether men in the 1/6th Devon and other Territorial regiments who were serving in the forces for the relief of Kut, and who, although time expired, patriotically volunteered to continue until the operations were concluded on the promise being made that they should be sent to India immediately for their discharge, are now under the Military Service Act detained in India, while others who being time expired did not volunteer to continue in the Kut Relief Force operations have since been returned to England; and, if so, whether the former class will also be returned home and be engaged in military service in the United Kingdom?
      Mr. FORSTER: As I informed my right hon. Friend on the 13th July, I do not think that present conditions will admit of the men to whom he refers being brought home for service in the United Kingdom. I am informed that there is no record of any promise having been made. It is obvious, however, that the position of men who became time expired before the passing of the second Military Service Act, and were sent home, is different from that of those who have, since the passing of the Act, reached the date on which, but for the existence of the Act, they would have become time expired, and who, on account of the operation of the Act, have been retained in service where they are. Such differences are, I fear, inevitable when general alterations of conditions of service are introduced.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Was there not a promise given to these men that if they volunteered to continue, after the operations were over they should be sent home?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am informed that no such promise can be traced.

      PUBLIC MEETINGS.
      Sir W. BYLESasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that during

      821
      the afternoon of Tuesday, 4th July, 1916, a number of Colonial and other soldiers were making inquiries as to the place at which a meeting to consider the administration of the Military Service Acts was to be held by the City of London branch of the Independent Labour Party, and to which public attention had been drawn by a question addressed to the Home Secretary on the 3rd instant by the hon. and gallant Member for Wednesbury; and if, in view of the part which the military have taken in preventing or breaking up this and similar meetings, he will state what steps he is prepared to take to prohibit members of the Army from interfering with the rights of civilians in the matter of free speech?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am not so aware. The hon. Member's question seems to suggest that orders should be issued to soldiers on pass or furlough prohibiting them from committing acts which, under certain circumstances, would be offences under the civil law, to which they are fully amenable. The hon. Member will doubtless realise that such a course cannot be followed, and, if he will refer again to the answers given regarding this matter, on the 3rd July, he will see that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stated, in reply to the hon. Member for Hanley, that the usual steps would be taken in regard to this meeting. The meeting, for some reason with which I am not fully acquainted, did not take place then, but I feel sure that my right hon. Friend's statement will continue to apply even should it be found expedient to defer the meeting still further.

      3RD BATTALION KING'S OWN YORKSHIRE LIGHT INFANTRY.
      Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for War, concerning the treatment of William Henry Scott, described in the Army records as Private Scott, No. 27054, G Company, 3rd Battalion King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, who attested on 10th December last, was medically examined on 13th December following, and was rejected, whereupon he duly returned his 2s. 9d., was afterwards called up and his rejection paper, which he then and there presented, was torn up in his presence and he was sent straight into the Army on the same day, whether he intends to take any action in regard to the case?
      Mr. FORSTER: A report has been called for on this case. When it has been re
      822
      ceived my Noble Friend the Under Secretary of State will, with the hon. Member's permission, send him the results by letter.

      CLIPSTOWE CAMP (ROYAL ENGINEERS).
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for War if men who are attached to the Artisan Works Company, Royal Engineers, Clipstowe Camp, are being sent abroad as tunnellers; if these men joined on the understanding that they were to be employed at their respective trades at home; if the ages of the men who are to be sent abroad vary from forty-one to fifty-eight; will he explain why these men are being sent abroad; and will steps be taken at once to keep men of the ages stated on Home service?
      Mr. FORSTER: So far as can be traced no men enlisted for the Artisan Works Company, Royal Engineers, have been, or are being, sent overseas as tunnellers. It has been ascertained from Clipstowe Camp that the men for the Artisan Companies were enlisted for general service. The age limits were fortyone to fifty.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for War if Mr. Bonar Thompson, a conscientious objector, who was tried by court-martial at Aldershot on 29th June and sentenced to fifty-six days' imprisonment, has been sent to the military part of Wormwood Scrubs Prison; and, if so, why has the Army Order of 25th May not been acted upon in this case and Mr. Thompson sent to a civil prison; and will the War Office at once see that Mr. Thompson is so treated and, as his case is one of undoubted genuineness, will he be considered under the new scheme recently announced by the Prime Minister?
      FORSTER: This man was handed over to the civil prison authorities at Wormwood Scrubs in accordance with the Army Order referred to by the hon. Member. I am informed that his military equipment was brought back to Aldershot by the escort, and I have ascertained from Wormwood Scrubs Prison that Private Thompson is treated in all respects as a civil prisoner
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Would the hon. Gentleman make some reference to that part of the question which asks whether the case of Mr. Thompson will be treated under the new scheme?
      Mr. FORSTER: The case has been considered under the new scheme.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board what action he has taken upon the complaint addressed to him by Mr. Herbert Wood, of Teddington, in regard to his treatment by the local tribunal at Teddington and by the Appeal Tribunal at the Guildhall, Westminster, where in both cases he was refused an opportunity to state his case, and where his offer to take alternative service was not allowed to be put, although his conscientious objection was admitted by the decision to give him noncombatant service; and, seeing that this man refused the offer of his employer to pay half his salary while with the Colours if he would join up, for which refusal he was instantly dismissed, thus proving the genuineness of his objection, will he have this case reviewed with the object of considering the offer of alternative service?
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): I am informed by the Appeal Tribunal, with whom I have been in correspondence, that they do not admit the correctness of the statements made by Mr. Wood. They say that the appeal was heard upon its merits. It is open to Mr. Wood to apply to the tribunal for a rehearing, subject to the consent of the Army Council, if he has joined the Colours.

      NATIONAL VOLUNTEERS.
      Mr. JOWETTasked what will be the rates of pay for separation allowance to which National Volunteers will be entitled' if they are called up for service?
      Mr. FORSTER: Those members of the Volunteer Force who may be called up for actual military service under paragraph 17 of the Volunteer Act of 1863 will be given the same rates as Regular soldiers.

      DUAL NATIONALITY.
      Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether (1) he will institute separate tribunals of men intimate with the various nationalities to consider the cases of allied citizens of France, Italy, Russia, Portugal, and Japan who being of military age are now to be deported to their various countries; and (2) whether he intends to establish appeal as well as local tribunals to hear the cases of aliens to be deported to allied countries; and whether he will use his powers under the Defence of the Realm Acts and regulations to compel the attendance of aliens before the tribunals which will decide their cases?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The answer is, as I informed my hon. Friend a few days ago, that details of the scheme are now being worked out. I cannot anticipate the conclusion of the matter by statements on particular points which are under consideration. Meanwhile I deprecate the use of phrases calculated to lead to the misconception that the subject of an Allied State is liable to deportation merely because he is of military age.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that none of those persons shall be deported till they have had an opportunity of appearing before one of these tribunals?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, that is the plan I have always had in view.
      Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware there are men now under threat of deportation although the tribunals have not yet been set up?
      Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir, I am not aware of that.
      Mr. KING: May I privately give the name of one such person to the Home Secretary?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I should be very glad of the name.

      RESIDENCE IN IRELAND.
      Mr. REDDYasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that J. D. Ayres Mathers, of Delanes, Nairn, and at present at Falty Moor, Ballinasloe, left Scotland with a view to avoid serving in the Army; and what steps it is proposed to take to compel him to do his duty to his country?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I understand that Mr. Mathers has been ordinarily resident at Failtia, Ballinasloe, for the past twenty-five years.
      Mr. REDDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man has never lived in Ireland for six months at any time?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The only information that I have is that which I have given to the hon. Member.
      Mr. REDDY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take independent evidence and make this man do his duty?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I shall be very glad indeed to consider any acts the hon. Member may be good enough to send me.
      Mr. R. MCNEILL: Are there any other persons at Ballinasloe who are equally neglecting their duty?

      CHAIRMEN OF TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND).
      Mr. WATTasked the. Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the fact that in many districts in Scotland factors of estates and solicitors take part often as chairmen in the work of tribunals under the Military Service Act; that these men not infrequently propose and influence the exemption of their tenants and clients in order that the rents may be secured and the solicitors' clientele preserved; and, if so, will he issue a circular putting a stop to this practice?
      The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): The reply to the first portion of my hon. and learned Friend's question is in the affirmative, and to the second portion is in the negative. The suggested circular is, therefore, in my opinion, unnecessary.
      Mr. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that many men on these tribunals have interest in the cases that come before them? Does he think that right?
      Mr. MUNRO: I understood that the question put by the hon. Member was whether the attention of the Department had been called to this matter, and my answer is that it is not the case. I invited my hon. Friend last week to give particular cases to enable inquiries to be made.

      LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
      Major NEWMANasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the case of Arthur H. Godfrey, at present attached to the 18th wing Royal Flying Corps as a volunteer; whether he is aware that Godfrey, who is at present carrying on single handed a dental business which he purchased in 1911 and has dependent on him a wife and two young children, and latterly, since the death of his brother at the front, a mother, aged seventy-six, appealed on 12th July to the Paddington tribunal, and his appeal was dismissed; and whether, having regard to the facts above stated, the Local Government Board will suggest to the Paddington tribunal that it is not the intention of the Government to refuse exemption to men carrying on a business single handed, and with dependants who will suffer should the business be closed?
      Mr. LONG: The proper course to be taken by an applicant who is aggrieved by the decision of a local tribunal is to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal.
      Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Minister of Munitions whether the chairman of the East Kent Munitions Tribunal at Canterbury repeatedly refuses to allow trade union officers to put the case to the tribunal on behalf of their members; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made with a view to the Munitions Act being properly and fairly administered?
      Dr. ADDISON: I am informed by the chairman that the facts are not as stated by my hon. Friend, but if any specific instance is given I shall be happy to make inquiries. As he is well aware, the Ministry welcomes any proper assistance of trade union officials in connection with cases coming before tribunals.

    OFFICERS ON LEAVE (RAILWAY ARRANGEMENTS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, considering that young officers in uniform are compelled to travel first class when they would be able to travel third class in plain clothes, he will reconsider the recent order limiting the issue of Army Forms O 1799 and O 1800 entitling officers and other ranks, respectively, to return tickets at single fare when proceeding on leave?
    Mr. FORSTER: I fully appreciate the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend and its importance to the officers concerned. The order to which he refers is, I think, that promulgated in Army Order 102 of 1916, and, as I indicated in a reply given on the 4th May to the hon. Member for the Devizes Division, the concession had been interpreted more widely than was justified by the arrangements made with the Railway Executive Committee. There are difficulties in arranging a further concession, but the matter is receiving consideration.
    Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman inform me what the result of that consideration is?
    Mr. FORSTER: When a decision has been reached, certainly.
    Mr. REDDY: Would their mothers allow. them to travel third class?

    ROYAL ENGINEERS (CAPTAINS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the question of granting the temporary rank of major to captains of the Royal Engineers of fifteen years' service and upwards who are now commanding field companies?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir; I can say that this question is being considered.
    Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman let me know the result of that consideration?
    Mr. FORSTER: Certainly.

    INFANTRY REGIMENTS (TRANSFERS).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that anxiety exists among men of the Royal Field Artillery at North Camp, Ripon, as to the transfers now going on to Infantry regiments; and whether, having regard to the fact that many of the men volunteered eight to twelve months ago choosing and being posted to the Royal Field Artillery, will an assurance be given that if transfers be necessary it will not apply to men who have been in training with Royal Field Artillery batteries for a reasonable length of time?
    Mr. FORSTER: The instructions issued cover the point raised by the hon. Member. The number of men ordered to be transferred from Artillery to Infantry will be selected from amongst the latest joined recruits.

    MILITAKY HOSPITALS (MASSAGE).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that, although the examination that the members of the National Association of Trained Masseuses and Masseurs have to pass is of a higher standard than that the members of the Almeric Paget Massage Corps have to pass, the members of the first named association find it almost impossible to get employment in military hospitals; and whether, in view of the demand for the services of these people and to help so far as possible the sufferings of our soldiers, he will give the same recognition to this association as is given to the Almeric Paget Massage Corps?
    Mr. FORSTER: The information in possession of the War Office does not confirm the statement made in the first part of the question. When the association originally asked that their diploma might be recognised as qualifying its members for work in military hospitals, it was found that the amount of instruction given to the members was not equal to the minimum required by the schedule of the Almeric Paget Massage Corps. The standard of instruction has, I understand, subsequently been brought up equal to that of the Almeric Paget Massage Corps. I may, however, inform the hon. Member that arrangements have been made for an official inspection of the schools connected with the association at an early date, and until the results of that inspection are available it is not possible to make any statement on the point raised in the second part of the question.
    Mr. WILSON: Will the hon. Gentleman let me know the result of the inspection?
    Mr. FORSTER: Oh, yes.

    RECRUITS (VACCINATION AND INOCULATION).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the instructions to recruiting officers, mentioned in Lord Kitchener's last letter to an hon. Member of this House, dated 6th June, 1916, namely, that recruits having a conscientious objection to vaccination and inoculation shall not be coerced by any means into submission to such operations; if these instructions were conveyed to recruiting officers in Ireland; and, if so, why that privilege is denied to Irishmen voluntarily offering themselves for enlistment, and such men refused permission to attest until they have answered the question of their willingness to submit to those operations in the affirmative; and if he will state whether the Government will respect the last wishes of Lord Kitchener on the question of vaccination in Ireland as well as in Great Britain?
    Mr. FORSTER: The current instructions of the Army Council are to the effect that men may, if otherwise eligible, be accepted for enlistment even though on attestation they decline to be vaccinated. I need hardly say that these instructions apply to Irishmen just as much as to anybody else. The War Office are not aware

    829
    that men have been refused enlistment solely on the ground of refusal to under take the obligation to be vaccinated, and if the hon. Member will be good enough to furnish particulars of any specific instances of the contrary with which he is acquainted immediate inquiry will of course be made.

    SMALL HOLDING COLONIES BILL.
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if any negotiations have been entered on or commitments undertaken in anticipation of the passage of the Small Holding Colonies Bill; and, if so, will he inform the House of any such negotiations or commitments before the Committee stage is taken?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): As I stated on the Second Beading Debate, no commitments have been undertaken, but negotiations have been entered into with the Crown with regard to a property in the south of Yorkshire, and negotiations are pending with a private owner with regard to a property in Gloucestershire. This has been done so that if the Bill passes vacant possession may be secured at an earlier date than would have been the case if no preliminary work had been done in anticipation of the passing of the Bill.

    RAW COTTON (SUPPLY).
    Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the anxiety in Lancashire as to the supply of raw cotton; whether he will consider immediate steps further to encourage the growth of improved qualities of cotton within our own Colonies; and further assist organisations engaged in this work of national importance?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): Yes, Sir, I am aware of the views which have been expressed on this subject, and I shall be glad to give careful consideration to any proposals that may be put before me for the further development of the cotton growing industry in the Colonies.

    SEYCHELLES ISLANDS (SALE OF SPIRITS).
    Sir G. TOULMINasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the recently adopted policy of the Governor of the Seychelles Islands providing for the importation and retail sale of spirits by the Government of the islands; whether he has received a memorial from certain planters and other inhabitants of the islands protesting against the said policy in the interests of the coolies on the plantations; and whether he will accede to the prayer of the petitioners and secure the abandonment by the Government of the Seychelles Islands of the policy of importing and retailing spirits?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Governor's action was taken in consequence of a prolonged attempt by merchants to resist an increased import duty on liquor and other articles, and it had my full approval. The Government has arrived at an agreement with the importers, and has ceased to import and retail liquor.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information as to the total number of prisoners of war now in the hands of each of the Allies and of the enemy?
    Mr. FORSTER: It was stated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, on the 15th May, in reply to the hon. Member for North Somerset, that the War Office could not regard it as part of their duty to make any statement as to the numbers of officers or men the enemy might have captured from any of our Allies individually or from them all collectively. That statement holds good and applies also to the question of prisoners taken by our Allies as well as those taken from our Allies. As regards prisoners taken by His Majesty's Forces in the various theatres of war, I may inform him that the number of combatant prisoners of war is 21,535, of whom 458 are officers. In addition to this there are a number of prisoners recently captured who have not yet reached this country.

    65TH LOWLAND DIVISION.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of men from Yorkshire and Durham have been attached recently to the 65th Lowland Division, which is composed solely of Scottish regiments; will he say what percentage of these men from Yorkshire and Durham have been declared physically fit for foreign service; and what was the percentage of the division so fit before these men were attached to it?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am aware that the division mentioned has had recruits posted to it from another area to make up its establishment. The military authorities are fully alive to the desirability of preserving the national—and even the county—spirit; but there are cases, such as the one mentioned, where this desire has to be subordinated to the good of the Army as a whole, but every effort will be made to keep men for them. It would not, I think, "be in the public interest to give the information asked for in the two latter parts of the question.
    Mr. WATT: May we take it from that reply that the percentage of fit men for foreign service has been reduced?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, I do not think my hon. Friend need deduce that.
    J. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman: aware that the Yorkshire and Durham men have been specially mentioned in various connections, and are they not fit to join any regiment?
    Mr. WATT: No!

    EDUCATION (IRELAND).
    Captain DONELANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the annual Grant for last year was withheld by the Irish Intermediate Education Board from St. Laurence's secondary school, Bray, county Wicklow, because one of the pupils came in after 1st October, 1914, all other conditions having been fulfilled, while similar schools in Great Britain were not penalised for causes due to the War; and whether the Irish Intermediate Education Board propose to provide a secondary school for the boys of Bray, a town of over 8,000 population, if the present school is closed down?
    Mr. SAMUELSt. Laurence's secondary school, Bray, was ineligible for Grant m respect of the year 1914–1915 as it did not come within the definition of a school as laid down in No. 92 of the rules for 1915 of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland. The Board have no power to depart from their rules, and their functions, as prescribed by Statute, do not extend to providing schools.
    Captain DONELANWill the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last paragraph of the question?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have: "their functions, as prescribed by Statute, do not extend to providing schools."

    TEMPORARY ALIEN OFFICERS.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that some of the men who are acting as temporary alien officers at the Tilbury and London docks are being paid at the rate of from £250 to £300 per annum, with a subsistence allowance of 8s. per day and first class railway fares, while others are being paid at the rate of 10s. per day and have no subsistence allowance or railway fares, and that some of these men are transferred to places a long distance from their homes but receive no extra allowance; and whether he can see his way to make an extra allowance to men sent from their homes, or that only men who are in receipt of the higher rate of pay and allowances be sent to places at a long distance from London?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No officers of the kind mentioned are allowed first class railway fares, and the differences as to pay and allowances are due to the fact that some of the officers are in the permanent Government service, and have been seconded or lent for the work in question, and their emoluments are those to which they were previously entitled. The lower rate of pay was accepted by the other officers when engaged for the work, and there is no proposal to send any officer to a distant place unless either the terms of his engagement involved employment in such a place or he is willing to go.
    Mr. WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these men have already applied for extra pay when asked to go to Cardiff and other places?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That may be so.

    DRESDNER BANK.
    Mr. GEORGE FABERasked the Home Secretary whether the Dresdner Bank in London is being wound-up by the Government; whether any German or Austrian enemy aliens and, if so, how many have been employed there since the winding-up began; and whether any are employed there now?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The London branch of the Dresdner bank is allowed to continue under the supervision of Sir William Plender in order to windup certain business. On the 13th August, 1914, there were twenty-three alien enemies employed at the bank; by the 26th of June last the number had been reduced to four. Only one alien enemy is now employed there, and probably it will be possible in a short time to dispense with his services.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Have these men been interned, or are they going to be?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Of the four that were employed a few weeks ago two have been interned, one is still allowed to remain for the time being, whilst the case of the fourth is under consideration.
    Mr. BUTCHER: When is the winding-up of this bank to be completed?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That question should be addressed to the Board of Trade.

    SCOTTISH BANK NOTES.
    Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that Scottish bank notes have a charge on them in London, even by the banks there that have issued them, in exchanging them for Treasury notes; whether he is aware that it is the Bank of England that enforces this charge to be made; and whether he will take steps by legislation or otherwise to secure an alteration in this now that Treasury notes are in such large currency?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): In reply to the first part of the question, I am aware that a charge is usually made for cashing Scottish bank notes outside Scotland. As regards the second part, the answer is in the negative. As regards the third part of the question, I am not prepared to ask Parliament to make any change in the existing law under which Scottish bank notes are not legal tender outside Scotland.
    Mr. WATT: Is not my right hon. Friend too much in the hands of the Bank of England; has he got an overdraft there?
    Mr. HOGGE: My right hon. Friend must not try to get 20s. 6d. from a Scottish bank!

    INCOME TAX (PAYMENT).
    Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has observed that by Section 141 of the Income Tax Act of 1842 £4 per cent. was provided to be allowed on the prepayment of Income Tax, and that by Section 10 of the Revenue Act, 1889, this discount on prepayment of Income Tax was reduced to £2 10s. per cent.; whether any alteration in this latter rate of discount has since been made; and, if not, if it is of any advantage to the Treasury to obtain early collection of Income Tax, if he will consider the advisability of altering the rate of discount to some rate more nearly in accordance with the rate the Treasury have to pay for the issue of Treasury Bills and Government loans?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am aware of the provisions of Section 141 of the Income Tax Act, 1842, and Section 10 of the Revenue Act, 1889. No alteration in the rate of discount has been made since 1889, and I do not think it is desirable to make any alteration at present.
    Mr. PETO: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give me an answer to that part of the question that asks whether it would not be an advantage to the Treasury to secure the earlier collection of Income Tax and other taxes?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Of course, the Treasury wishes the punctual collection and payment of all taxes, but, considering the amount of pressure thrown upon the staff at the present time it would not be an advantage to have to make special accounts for small amounts.
    Mr. PETO: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that 21/2 per cent. discount is likely to secure his object when 41/4 can be obtained from Treasury Bills?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If the amount is a large one, Treasury Bills will be used as an instrument for investing money.

    DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

      Miss ELLEN RYAN'S INTERNMENT.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Home Secretary whether, in regard to the case of Miss Ellen Ryan, now detained in Lewes Prison, in connection with the rising in Dublin, one of the charges is founded on the terms of an invitation to a Carrickcross picnic written by her containing a travesty of military terms, such as mobilising, fully charged; whether there are serious grounds for any other charge; and whether, when the police discover the character of the Carrickcross invitation, Miss Ryan will be liberated?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The Advisory Committee, after personally hearing Ellen Ryan, and carefully considering the evidence against her, including the letter referred to in the question, have recommended that her internment should be maintained. The case is a serious one, and I cannot agree to her release.
      Mr. LYNCH: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the detention of this young woman is really contrary to the Defence of the Realm Act as tending to bring ridicule on the King's Regulations?
      Mr. SAMUEL'Sreply was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
      Mr. KING: Has she had the promised statement of the charge against her, which promise was given by the Home Secretary some time ago?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir.

      MATHERS ESTATE, COUNTY GALWAY.
      Major NEWMANasked the Home Secretary whether he has any further news as to the conflicts between the police and public on the Mathers estate, county Galway; and whether the troops that were asked for have arrived and are assisting to restore order?
      Mr. SAMUEL: There have been no further conflicts since the 4th instant on the estate in question. The troops have arrived and disorder has ceased. I understand that a settlement of the agrarian trouble has practically been arranged between the parties concerned.

      MARTIAL LAW.
      Sir W. BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether the necessity will arise on the abrogation of martial law in Ire-
      836
      land for legislation indemnifying those administering martial law from the liabilities which their acts may have entailed; and whether such legislation will be introduced at an early date?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith);I would refer my hon. Friend to the written answer to a similar question given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the SolicitorGeneral to the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone.
      Sir W. BYLES: How long is it intended to keep Ireland under the heel of the soldier?

    MOTORING ACCIDENTS (RECKLESS DRIVING).
    Major NEWMANasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the number of members of the police force at present employed in trapping motorists, especially in the neighbourhood of London; and whether, since members of the force can be safely detached from their ordinary duties for this purpose, he will consider the desirability of those of them who are of military age being employed in the Army, and those above military age in setting free for military service a member of the force at present engaged in ordinary police duty?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply to the hon. Member for the Ross Division on the 9th May last. No more police are employed upon this duty than are required to provide a check upon reckless and dangerous driving. If the hon. Member had before him the figures of fatalities and accidents caused by motor vehicles in the streets, he would appreciate the necessity for tightening rather than slackening this control.
    Major NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that outside London there is a great deal less motoring than there used to be, and, therefore, the same number of traps are not required outside London as inside perhaps? I am speaking about the weekend motorists.
    Mr. REDDY: Why should these policemen be called away from their duty of preventing motorists from breaking the law, when there are men in this House receiving pay as soldiers who should be at present doing their duty? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman also whether exemptions are allowed in the French Army to so-called officers?

    MUNITIONS.

      WOMEN'S WAR PROCESSION.
      Mr. KINGasked the Minister of Munitions whether he has offered, or proposes to offer, any assistance, financial or otherwise, to the organisers of the women's war procession to be held on 22nd July in London?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): The answer is in the negative.
      Mr. KING: Arising out of that reply, which was inaudible, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the organisers of this demonstration publish every week attacks upon the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

      NATIONAL FACTORIES.
      Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Minister of Munitions how many Government munition factories there are now in full working order, including those brought into existence since the outbreak of war; and whether the output in quantity, quality, and cost compares favourably in each respect with the output from controlled establishments?
      Dr. ADDISON: It would be inadvisable to give the actual figures, but a large proportion of the Government munition factories are in full working order. In regard to the second part of the question, I can only say that in many cases the output of the national factories is of a highly satisfactory character in all the respects mentioned in my hon. Friend's question.
      Mr. W. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that all the factories running under Government control at Blackburn are working at full capacity, and that he is gotting the full quantity of shells and munitions?
      Dr. ADDISON: That does not follow. It depends entirely on the quality and character of the machinery, and many other things.
      Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many of these controlled factories the machines are not working at full capacity and many are standing idle, and that a statement in the papers this morning is very detrimental to some of the controlled factories in Blackburn?
      Dr. ADDISON: I am aware of all kinds of statements. It depends upon what munitions it refers to.

      LABOURING WORK, SHEFFIELD.
      Mr. T. WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the officials of Labour Exchanges are informing men of military age who have been engaged on work for the Government that before they can be engaged or sent to other work for the Government they must get the sanction of the recruiting officer for the district; and whether this is done with the sanction of his Department?
      The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): There is no general requirement of this kind, but the condition mentioned by my hon. Friend is attached to certain vacancies for labouring work at Sheffield, in which it is desired to place attested married men in Groups 44 to 46. The applicants must be physically fit for heavy work.
      Mr. WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whatever age these men are, whether forty-one or twenty-one, they are told that they must have the sanction of the recruiting officer of the district before they can be engaged?
      Mr. HARCOURT: This was the case of attested married men of the particular class I have named.

    NERVE-SHAKEN SOLDIERS.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Prince of Wales's National Relief Fund has voted £10,000 to Lord Knutsford's hospitals for nerve shaken officers so that such cases may be treated apart from lunacy asylums and lunacy administration; and whether the Government will provide the necessary funds so that nerve shaken soldiers and sailors may be similarly treated apart from asylums?
    Mr. FORSTER: This question is, I think, based upon a misapprehension. Soldiers suffering from shock are treated in Military War Hospitals under the control of the War Office, and the arrangements made for these cases have been pronounced highly satisfactory by various independent and competent judges.

    LANDS (GOVERNMENT PURCHASE).
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked whether, in view of the instructions given in or about March, 1914, as to the keeping of a record of the approximate area, the annual value as adopted for the purposes of rating, and other particulars as regards all lands of which the purchase is effected or facilitated out of moneys provided by Parliament, such a record has been kept in respect of all lands so purchased both before and during the War?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer is in the affirmative.

    NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime, Minister whether he is aware of the injustice being done to Irish national teachers caused by their salary being paid quarterly; and if he will take steps to see that their salary will in future be paid monthly?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I regret that I can add nothing to the reply I gave on the 6th instant to the question on this subject of the hon. Member for West Clare.
    Sir E. CARSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is really a question of the very gravest importance, and that these people look upon it as a great hardship that for a mere clerical matter they are put to the very greatest inconvenience in trying to live by the way their salaries are paid to them at present?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I know there is a great deal of feeling on this matter among teachers. I wish it were only a clerical matter, but it is a Treasury matter, because to change the method of payment would involve bringing fourteen months into one year. If the teachers could suggest any practical scheme I should be very glad to forward it to the Treasury, and I am sure they would consider it with every desire to arrive at a satisfactory result.
    Sir E. CARSON: Considering the fact that a great many people have been getting a war bonus, might not the right hon. Gentleman do this comparatively small thing for these teachers, who are finding very great difficulty? Of that I can assure him.
    Mr. J. REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some little time ago the teachers put forward a scheme which was approved by Mr. Birrell when Chief Secretary for Ireland, and it was turned down by the Treasury?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, I believe it was found to be not acceptable to the Treasury.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep an open mind until he receives a deputation in a day or two?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I was not aware that I was to receive a deputation.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I will consider that.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.

      REFEEENDUM.
      Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the constitution of the convention of Nationalists that was recently assembled in Belfast to consider and approve of the proposal to bring the Government of Ireland Act into operation for a part of Ireland; and whether he will follow the precedent of the Scandinavian kingdoms and allow Ire land to decide by Referendum whether she is willing, after the actual proposals have been published in the form of a White Paper, to accept the proposal for self government therein set out?
      The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question I know no more than what has appeared in the public Press on this subject; I do not think that it would be possible to adopt the suggestion contained in the last part of the question.
      Sir E. CARSON: May I ask the Prime Minister whether there is anything to prevent the hon. and gallant Member going and holding a meeting himself?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Nothing that I know of.

    GERMANS HOLDING BRITISH HONOURS.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Prime Minister how long His Highness Prince Albert John Charles Frederick

    841
    Alfred George of Schleswig-Holstein, major a la suite Leib Garde Hussaren (Germany), now in arms against the Sovereign and people of this Empire, is to be retained in the possession of the honours of G.C.V.O. conferred on him in 1897, and G.C.B. conferred on him in 1900; and on what grounds, when other traitorous personages have been expelled from British Orders of knighthood, an exception has been hitherto made in this case?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I find on examination that this is by no means an isolated case, and, before any action of the kind suggested by my hon. and learned Friend is taken, there must be a general consideration of the whole matter.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the Prime Minister under any confusion of thought that the House could pass a measure in five minutes, and, if that is the feeling of the House, will he take an opportunity to introduce a Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It does not require legislation.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Then why do you not act?
    Mr. MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last few days a person has been degraded from the Order of Knighthood, and may I ask why there is one law in the case of homemade traitors and another law in the case of German made opportunists?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have said this is not an isolated case, and that the cases must be considered as a whole.
    Mr. MacNEILL: As the cases for the Knights of the Garter are regarded as a whole, what difference is there in this case and the case of Casement?
    Sir E. CARSON: Is it not a fact that the person mentioned here was in the German Army for many years before the War broke out?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes; he is a German subject.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: In view of the fact that there has been two years to consider this matter is there any hope that it will be dealt with before the War is over?

    COAL PRICES.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is
    842
    now in a position to make a statement as to the steps he proposes taking to regulate the price of coal; and whether he will consider the desirability of substituting the average prices of each quality of coal for the standard instead of the corresponding price?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a definite statement.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Can he say when?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I will let the hon. Member know.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a resolution from the Tralee Urban Council complaining that the price of coal there is 55s. per ton; and, seeing that this price will make it impossible for the poor to have fires during the coming winter and will affect the price of gas, whether he will take steps to provide a steamer which would occasionally bring coal to Tralee at a reasonable freight?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have received the, resolution to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I will see whether anything can be done, but it must be remembered that the shortage of tonnage is general, and it is not possible to secure specially low rates of freight for any particular locality.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that in Kerry, as in other Munster counties, the average wages the workers get in towns is only 22s., and in the rural districts 15s. or 16s.; and how does he expect them to pay 55s. or 60s. a ton for coal to keep their hearths warm?
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that these are very exceptional circumstances, and that exceptional measures should be provided?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir; I do take that into consideration.

    BRITISH PETROLEUM COMPANY.
    Major HUNTasked what portion of the profits of the British Petroleum Company for the years 1914 and 1915, respectively, represents the profits earned by that company in the distribution of Shell

    843
    motor spirit; and whether the profits on the sale of this spirit for the year 1915 amount to nearly £150,000?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think it is desirable to publish details of the source of the profits earned by the British Petroleum Company, Limited, particularly where the information also concerns the business of other companies or traders.
    Major HUNTasked whether the directors of the British Petroleum Company are not, with the exception of Messrs. Kean and Colt, representative of the Russian, French, and Belgian under takings, who claim that the beneficial interest in almost half the shares in the British Petroleum Company and the Petroleum Steamship Company belong to them; and will he say what interests Messrs. Kean and Colt represent in these companies?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Mr. Kean claims that he represents Russian and French interests in the British Petroleum Company, Limited. Mr. Colt was elected a director at a board meeting held in June, 1915, at which Mr. Kean, Mr. Olsen, representing Russian interests, and Mr. Braun, representing French interests, were present, so that Mr. Colt appears also to represent Russian and French interests.
    Major HUNT: Was it not a company under German control before the War?
    Mr. HARCOURT: That I do not know.
    Major HUNTasked what profits have been earned by the British Petroleum Company and the Petroleum Steamship Company for the year 1914, in addition to the dividend of £69,203 8s. and £36,258 4s. paid to the Public Trustee; and whether he will give the amount of profits of these two companies for the year 1915, without "waiting until it is determined what part of the profits will be paid to the Public Trustee?
    Mr. HARCOURT: For the year 1914 the profits earned by the British Petroleum Company and the Petroleum Steamship Company, in addition to the dividends of £69,203 8s. and £36,258 4s. paid to the Public Trustee, were £11,951 and £3,139 respectively. The profits of the British Petroleum Company for the year 1915 were £305,952. I have not yet received particulars of the accounts of the Petroleum Steamship Company for the year 1915.
    Major HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether all the profits are not paid to the German account although the Russian, French, and Belgians share almost half; and, if so, could he say why this is so?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir, I could not say without notice.
    Major HUNTasked whether an inquiry has been made by the Advisory Committee appointed by the Board of Trade as to the advisability of prohibiting or winding up the businesses of the British Petroleum Company, the Petroleum Steamship Company, and the Home light Oil Company; and, if so, when was the Report received from such Committee?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The Advisory Committee have inquired into the cases of the British Petroleum Company, Limited, the Petroleum Steamship Company, Limited, and the Home light Oil Company, Limited, and their Report advising that for special reasons it is inexpedient to prohibit or wind up the businesses of these companies was received on the 19th April.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Can the reasons why the Advisory Committee arrived at that decision be made public?
    Mr. HARCOURT: On the ground of getting into existence an extensive organisation for the distribution of petroleum and petrol.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Are steps being taken to sell the shares held by the German shareholders?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member ought to give notice of a question of that kind.
    Major HUNTasked whether the Board of Trade intends to permit the British Petroleum Company, the Petroleum Steamship Company, and the Home light Oil Company to continue to make profits in Great Britain during the War for the benefit of the German shareholders?
    Mr. HARCOURT: It must not be assumed that German shareholders will derive any benefit from the profits earned by the companies referred to during the War. The profits which would have been paid to the German shareholders are handed to the Public Trustee, and the application of the money in his hands will be determined in accordance with the Trading With the Enemy Acts.

    NESTLES AND ANGLOSWISS MILK COMPANY.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to advertisements issued by the Nestle and Anglo-Swiss Milk Company in Germany repudiating the suggestion that the organisation is an English company and stating that the company is constituted with Swiss capital, with establishments in Germany where the company employs all German raw materials, coal, sugar, wood, etc., and where salaries are paid to German workmen, and stating also that the amount of their purchases of German products considerably exceeds their sales of condensed milk in Germany; whether the English branch of the company in question is supplying goods to the Admiralty and the War Office Contract Departments; and whether any steps have been taken to ensure that such goods are not the produce of an enemy country?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The attention of the Board of Trade was drawn some time ago to the advertisement in question, which was, I understand, issued by the manager of one of the company's factories in Germany. The company is a Swiss concern, and I am informed that its interests in enemy countries are relatively small, nearly the whole of its output being produced in the United Kingdom or in neutral countries. The goods supplied by the company before and since the War to the Admiralty and War Office are made at the company's factories in England or America.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Are we to understand that the statements in the issued advertisements are incorrect?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir; I think they are not incompatible with the facts which I have stated.

    ENEMY FIRMS
    Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has inquired into the constitution of the firm of W. Lang, 97, Hop Exchange, London, S.E., who purport to manufacture cream separators in Sweden; and is he satisfied that this firm is not directly connected with German industry?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The attention of the Board of Trade does not appear to have
    846
    been directed to this firm. Inspectors have now been appointed, and on receipt of their report I will communicate with the hon. Baronet.
    Sir R. COOPERasked if the firm of M. J. Oppenheimer, bristle merchants, of 88a, Leaden hall Street, E.C., is in process of being wound up; and, if so, can he say that recent consignments which this firm has made to America and sales of bristles in this country are composed solely of material in stock at the time the winding up order was made, and that this firm is being wound up as speedily as is practicable?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir; the firm in question is being wound up under an Order of the Board of Trade. It is understood that outstanding contracts may necessitate some prolongation of the winding-up, but the Board are in communication with the Controller, in the hope that means may be found to minimise any such delay. Subject to this there is no reason to doubt that the winding-up is being proceeded with as expeditiously as practicable. Meantime, certain small purchases have been made by the Controller for the requirements of customers who are making large purchases from stock, but the winding-up is in no way prolonged by any such transactions, and they have only been authorised on that condition.

    PETROL SUPPLIES.
    Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that many people are unable to let their houses in rural districts for the months of August and September owing to the uncertainty of petrol supplies; and whether he can now make a statement regarding the plan to be adopted for regulating supplies and the probable percentage of normal consumption which will be available in those months for trade cars and private cars, respectively?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have no special information on the point raised in the first part of my hon. Friend's question, but I fear that from the beginning of next month it may be necessary for a time to restrict, by a system of licences, the supply of petrol for the use of trade cars by some 40 per cent, of the supplies

    847
    desired. In the case of private cars the amount of the restriction will certainly be greater.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in addition to limiting supplies, the Board of Trade or the Controlling Committee will undertake to see that the supplies to which people are entitled are made available?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I can only say that supplies will be distributed to those who have a right to receive them.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that if he were to place one steamer of 15,000 tons capacity at the disposal of the various enterprises concerned there would be enough petrol for everybody?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Perhaps my hon. Friend would provide us with a steamer.

    PARCELS FOR TROOPS (POSTAGE).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the effect on the parents and relatives of troops at the front of the rates of postage charged upon small parcels containing such articles as underclothing and writing materials," whether, in the event of the contents being declared, parcels containing certain articles can be sent free or at a lower rate of postage; and whether he will issue a schedule of all such articles as may be sent free or at a lower rate of postage?
    The POSTMASTERGENERAL (Mr. J. Pease): I regret that it is not practicable, in view of the vast and growing bulk of the parcel mails now over 780,000 parcels per week for the Expeditionary Forces, and of the importance of preserving regularity and rapidity in delivery and of the difficulties of providing adequate transport both in this country and abroad, to make any reduction such as that suggested by the hon. Member in the rates of postage on parcels for the troops abroad.

    CASUALTIES IN ROYAL NAVY (HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION).
    Sir A. WILLIAMSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether after the Battle of Jutland wounded men landed at a naval base in the North were
    848
    sent by rail to hospitals at Haslar and Chatham; whether a number died on the long railway journey; whether he is aware that on the day in question there were at least fifty beds vacant and held at the disposal of the military authorities within a short distance of the same naval base; and whether he will endeavour to make arrangements with the War Office to obtain temporary use of their unoccupied beds at the nearest suitable hospitals should such an emergency recur?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The condition of all the wounded landed after the Battle of Jutland was carefully examined, and only those men were sent away by rail whose condition justified that procedure. It is not the fact that any of them died, nor is it believed that any of them suffered injury. The arrangements made by the Admiralty would have enabled them, had they thought it desirable, to have accommodated a larger number of patients in the neighbour hood of the landing places than were actually wounded. There was, therefore, no emergency, as my hon. Friend seems to suppose. The policy adopted was adopted deliberately by the Medical Department of the Admiralty, partly in the interests of sound medical administration, partly for the convenience of men who preferred to be near their depots and their homes.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: May I ask if there is any arrangement by which wounded sailors can be sent to hospitals where beds which are reserved for the Army are empty? Is there any working arrangement between the two Departments?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have not the slightest doubt that complete harmony exists between the two Departments, and so far as these men are concerned there may be complete confidence in the Medical Director-General and his staff.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an official at the Admiralty went to a hospital and asked whether the beds were reserved for the Army, and when they said they were, he went away again?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware of it; but I will look into it. That does not affect this particular case. Every possible care is taken and there is no reason to complain in any way whatever.

    INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for India if a Regulation has been published that no man who has made a claim for exemption from the Military Service Act on the ground of conscientious objection to military service will be allowed in future to enter the examination for the Indian Civil Service; if so, by what authority such a Regulation has been made and on what grounds is it justified; and by what legal power is this penalising of a man for acting under the provision of an Act of Parliament authorised?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): Yes, Sir. The Regulation has been made in pursuance of the powers conferred upon the Secretary of State for India in Council by Section 97 of the Government of India Act, 1915. It is justified by the fact that a person who has moral objections to the use of force by the State in any circumstances could not perform all the duties that may be required of members of the Indian Civil Service, who are responsible for the maintenance of order.

    ARMY PROMOTION.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the number of cases in which Territorial officers who have not left England have been given temporary rank higher than that of senior officers who have been more than a year at the front; whether such officers lose their temporary rank and get reduced pay if they are transferred to the battalions on foreign service; and, if so, whether he will endeavour to rectify a system under which the promotion and the pay are in ratio to the experience and the risk?
    Mr. FORSTER: This is a matter of some intricacy, which can hardly be dealt with fully in answer to a question. I will, therefore, with my right hon. Friend's permission, send him a copy of a War Office letter which states the matter clearly and in detail. I may say, however, that promotions to complete establishment of units at home are only temporary, and that when an officer holding temporary rank at home goes out to join a unit with an Expeditionary Force, his rank is readjusted according to his precedence in the unit he joins. I cannot accept the state-
    850
    ment in the last part of the question as a correct description of the system followed.
    Sir JOHN JARDINE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether subalterns in a Territorial battalion in this country, who when the War began did not volunteer for active service but found employment at home, are sent out as captains to the battalion in the campaign, say, in Mesopotamia, with the effect that they take precedence in rank over subalterns and captains who may for a year or more have undergone the usual dangers and hardships of war?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think I had better also send my hon. Friend a copy of the letter which deals with the whole question.

    ARMY PROMOTION.

      Postal Arrangements (Cahirciveen).
      Mr. BOLANDasked the Postmaster-General whether he has now considered the representations made to him by the hon. Member for South Kerry on 24th June, with reference to the postal deliveries at Cahirciveen; and can he state what alterations have been made with a view to meeting the general convenience of the locality?
      Mr. PEASE: I have considered the representations referred to, and I have restored the old hour of 5.30 p.m. for the second postal delivery at Cahirciveen.

  MESOPOTAMIA AND DARDANELLES CAMPAIGNS.

    STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I have postponed, with the leave of the House, during the last few days several questions which have been addressed to me with regard to the presentation of Papers on the subject of the Dardanelles and Mesopotamia. I propose now to answer those questions. In regard to the Dardanelles, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Bonar Law), I think in the discussion on the Motion for the Adjournment for Easter,

    851
    undertook to present Papers on the subject, but in promising to lay those Papers my right hon. Friend made two limitations, namely: First, that there might be documents of so confidential a character that they ought not to be published; and, next, that it might be necessary to withhold some of the Papers which might give information useful to the enemy in regard to operations which are still in progress. My right hon. Friend made his statement after consultation with me, and with my full authority. Until the Papers were actually and carefully gone through from beginning to end, it was impossible to judge how far the observance of these limitations would detract from the comprehensiveness of the information to be published. Much time and trouble, which could with difficulty be spared from the business of the War, have been given to the task. The three Departments concerned, namely, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Foreign Office, were each asked in the first instance to make a compilation of its own Papers. The result of the examination of these documents in these Departments has been to enable the military and diplomatic advisers of the Government to inform the War Committee that they are unanimously of opinion that the publication at the present time of Papers could not be made, consistently with the reservations laid down by my right hon. Friend, without omissions so numerous and so important that the Papers actually presented would be incomplete and misleading. The Government, therefore, feel that the presentation of these Papers must be postponed, and they trust that the House will agree with them that the pledge to publish them cannot for the moment for those reasons be fulfilled.
    In regard to Mesopotamia, the collection of Mesopotamian Papers was prepared in the India Office and circulated to the Departments concerned for examination. After carefully examining the Papers, the Army Council are strongly opposed to their immediate publication.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: For a very good reason.
    The PRIME MINISTER: On the ground that such publication would furnish the enemy with information which would be of value to him under existing conditions, and it is the opinion of the Military
    852
    General Staff that the publication would prejudice the success of the operations now going on in Mesopotamia, so that the Government feel bound to accept the advice, and trust that the House will see very good reason for doing so. I do not wish to leave the matter there. The operations in Mesopotamia have excited, and are exciting, widespread, and I think legitimate, interest and anxiety.
    Sir E. CARSON: We never hear anything about them.
    The PRIME MINISTER: There are two main points which appear to be, and I think legitimately, subjects of comment and criticism. The first is the object and wisdom of the campaign itself, and particularly of the advance upon Bagdad; and the second is—and I think that much more immediately preoccupies people's minds—the manner in which the campaign was conducted.
    In regard to the first point I would only for the moment say this, that, important from the political point of view as the campaign in that particular aspect undoubtedly was, from first to last, political has never been allowed to override military considerations. Every step that has been taken has been taken by the Government on the consentient advice of all its military authorities. With regard to the second point, the actual conduct of the campaign, there have undoubtedly been and are incidents which arouse anxiety and doubt as to whether the best means have been adopted to secure the end in view. In particular, I think the points which exercise public attention have been the medical provision for the sick and wounded, and to some extent perhaps the provision of proper food for the troops, and still more important the question of transport. All these points, I agree, are points which invite and deserve debate, and I am going, before I sit down, to make a proposition on the subject. I should like to say, without entering into any controversial matter in regard to the first point, perhaps the most important, that of medical provision for sickness and for wounded soldiers, that Sir John Nixon, the general who was still in command at the end of last November after the last action at Ctesiphon, in a Report made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India from Basra, said that in his opinion the medical arrangement had been quite satisfactory.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: That is not true.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am speaking of what is reported.
    Sir E. CARSON: Will that Report be published? Why the delay?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, it will be published in due time. It is a telegram to my right hon. Friend. In the months of December and January my right hon. Friend received, and so did other members of the Government, from various sources, statements of an unofficial character, which seemed to indicate a different state of things, and accordingly, early in the month of February, the Government of India appointed a Commission of Inquiry, consisting of gentlemen whom everybody admitted at the time to be highly competent persons—Sir William Vincent, General Bingley, and Mr. Redesdale, of the Red Cross here. They were dispatched to Mesopotamia, and were directed to investigate the whole of these aspects of the matter fully, with the object in particular of attaching responsibility to those, if there were any, who were answerable for the failure to make due provision in these respects. That Commission went to Mesopotamia in March, and spent something like two months in making an exhaustive examination on the spot, both at the base and at the front, of the condition of things, and their Report has now been received by the Government of India. It was made to them; we have not yet received it. The Government of India, before transmitting it here, asked, and, I think, reasonably asked, that General Sir Beauchamp Duff, then Commander-in-Chief in India, should be allowed to submit his observations upon it. In reply to a question put to them by the Viceroy, the Viceroy having asked if any immediate action was called for, on the conditions existing when they departed from Mesopotamia, their reply was that everything possible was now being done. We have not been satisfied with that. We also, at the instance of the War Office, dispatched from this country one of the most eminent of our medical officers in France, Surgeon-General O'Donnell, who went out, I think, in April. He has made a Report which shows that, in some respects, at that time there was still a shortage of necessaries, but every indication which he gave of a deficiency has peremptorily been required to be made good. Although you may accumulate stores of supplies and stores at the Base, they are of comparatively little use unless
    854
    they are sent to the front and made available for the persons actually engaged in the fighting campaign. There, again, we have had two inquiries made into the matter, the first by Sir George Buchanan, who is an expert in matters of river navigation and was dispatched early in the year by the Government of India, and I think twice has been there and has exhaustively reviewed the geographical conditions from the point of view of river transport, and the other by General Gillman, a distinguished staff officer, who was sent by the War Office here in March, and examined, not only the question of the river, but of the railway transport, and of the facilities for it and the means of accelerating its completion. The Government, I will not say they are satisfied, for they are not; but the Government are quite convinced, in consequence of these careful examinations from these different points of view on the spot, that the imperfections of transport are being largely remedied and will soon, so far as the local circumstances permit, completely disappear. It is only fair to remember in that connection that transport seems to me, if I may use the expression, the weak point, at any rate the pivot of all those various troubles that have taken place. It is only fair to remember that when this Expedition was first sent it consisted of two divisions. In consequence of what took place during the earlier months, the Expedition was brilliantly successful. I do not believe that there ever has been any military expedition which was more skilfully and ably conducted than this Expedition was during its earlier stages. But in consequence of the reverse which subsequently occurred and interrupted that success, and particularly the beleaguerment of General Townshend at Kut, the Expedition which originally consisted of two divisions was increased to seven divisions, and the urgency of relieving General Townshend was such that it was thought right—I am not sure it was at all an imprudent act—to push on the troops ahead, in advance of the transport, in the hope that his relief might be speedily, or, at any rate, timely effected. I believe it will be found, if the House examines the substance of the complaints of deficiencies connected with the transport that they are due to the fact that promptitude and rapidity of action and an enormous increase in the numbers

    855
    of men was thought necessary for the immediate purpose. I do not want in a statement of this kind to enter into controversial matter, but I thought it right to state so much in order that the House might realise that for months past this matter in all its aspects has been engaging the most careful—I may say daily—consideration of the Government of India and His Majesty's Government here at home. I agree it is desirable that an opportunity—an early opportunity—should be afforded to the House for reviewing the whole matter and of bringing out in detail, as many Members are well qualified to do, from the special information they have received or are in possession of, all the allegations that are made under the particular heads in regard to the conduct of this campaign. I would therefore suggest to the House that we might on Thursday—that is to say, the day after tomorrow—devote that day to a discussion of the matter. Of course, I am open to any suggestions that might be made on that point.
    Sir E. CARSON: Is that this Thursday?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, the day after tomorrow. I think the most convenient way is that the discussion should take place simply on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, which I shall be prepared to make at the beginning of our proceedings, so as to give the fullest possible latitude to the discussion. I hope that that suggestion may meet with the general acceptance of the House.
    Sir E. CARSON: As I understand the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, we are to have, as he said, a review of the whole matter without any Papers. May I suggest to him that we might, at all events, have the Reports from which he has quoted or to which he has referred, which might be afforded to Members tomorrow? May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: Why, when definite promises are made in this House of the laying of Papers on these matters, which are causing the gravest anxiety in the country—why those promises are made without taking beforehand the views of the military authorities as to whether or not the Papers can be given? May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that on the 1st June the Secretary of State for the Colonies made this promise and that the House has ever since been under the impression that the Papers were being prepared and would be put before this House?
    856
    May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it will be open to us, as far as we have information, on the discussion of this terrible business in Mesopotamia—it can be called nothing else; I say so deliberately from the number of communications I have had from people who are interested and their relatives; probably every Member of the House has received just as many as I have—will it be open to us to raise the question of what was the provision for armament for these people and whether they were asked to fight these battles with obsolete guns, and questions of that kind? May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: When he talks of the Reports that he has now received regarding stores and transports, whether he could not lay upon the Table of the House the information that the Government had beforehand of what would be necessary for stores and transports, because it occurs generally to the public that it is not after disaster, but before the operations that these reports upon the necessities of stores and transports ought to be made? I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there ought to have been estimates made of what would be required in these matters. May I, without wishing to go into details, say to the right hon. Gentleman—passing by the Dardanelles, which is a matter that is old and the reason why we cannot have the Papers is because it is so old a matter—that as regards this question of Mesopotamia and the way in which the operations were conducted, there are thousands of people in this country who have willingly given their sons and their relatives to fight our battles who think that the whole matter has been conducted with criminal negligence?
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention that on Thursday the question of the Dardanelles should be discussed as well as that of Mesopotamia, because it seems to me that it would be as easy to have a satisfactory discussion on rumours and on private information about the Dardanelles as it would be on the question of Mesopotamia? The right hon. Gentleman spoke of several inquiries or investigations which are being made with regard to the Mesopotamia scandal. I should like to ask him has any investigation been made with regard to the Dardanelles scandal? He told us some time ago that there could not be a proper investigation of the Dardanelles scandal because all the persons

    857
    chiefly concerned in the transaction were at the other side of the world. They are all in this country now. I believe I am right in saying that every one of them is in this country now. Why should there not also be an investigation into the Dardanelles question? Finally, let me ask him, does he think, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down think, or does the House think that any satisfactory discussion can be held in the absence of authentic information and Papers?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: At this stage I desire only to ask one question of the Prime Minister, that is the question of which I gave him notice a week ago, and which is repeated again on the Paper today, No. 47—namely, whether in regard to the Dardanelles the Papers in question, which it was pledged would be given to the House, were fully examined before such pledge was given and all necessary authorities consulted; and whether it was in his mind, when he made that statement, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies said that the Dardanelles book was now closed, and Papers might with safety be given to the public?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is rather a controversial question which had better be dealt with in the Debate.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In regard to the Dardanelles, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Lord Kitchener was consulted as to the propriety and convenience of laying these Papers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I had many conversations with Lord Kitchener on the subject. One of the great difficulties, since my right hon. Friend has introduced his name in connection with the presentation of Papers, is that the publication of these Papers is rendered difficult by the death of Lord Kitchener.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. May I press him for an answer to my question, which is a perfectly simple one—Was Lord Kitchener consulted by him before the pledge was given to the House as to the publication of the Papers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes; I said I had repeated consultations with Lord Kitchener on the subject.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: May we understand that Lord Kitchener agreed to and ap-
    858
    proved of the declaration of the Prime Minister that the Papers should be published?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I did not consult him on that particular occasion. I am sure he would have done so. I spoke to him afterwards on the subject.
    Commander BELLAIRS: May we have the Naval Dispatches in regard to the naval bombardments of 18th March, 1915, which are now sixteen months old, or do these confidential reasons also apply to the Naval Dispatches?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There again comes in the difficulty. We cannot deal with this matter in a fragmentary way.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why all letters sent to Members of Parliament from Mesopotamia have been severely censored, and why in some cases the letters have been almost entirely wiped out? I can show him some.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I was not aware of anything of the kind.
    Colonel AUBREY HERBERT: I only desire to ask one question of the Prime Minister. While it is obviously undesirable that, when a campaign is in progress, Papers should be published, will he consider the possibility and advisability of publishing the Medical Papers in regard to the Mesopotamia Campaign?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Does the hon. Member mean the Vincent Report?
    Colonel HERBERT: Yes.
    The PRIME MINISTER: We have not got it. It is still in India.
    4.0 P.M.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that the contents of that Report are public property in India, and are the subject of letters from India, and why is it not possible that a summary of the Report should be published here?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend put that question to me yesterday, and I then stated that if the facts were as suggested by him, and a Report still confidential was public property in India, it ought not to be so.
    Sir H. CRAIK: It is so.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no knowledge to confirm the statement made by

    859
    the hon. Gentleman. I think it is not unreasonable that before we come to a decision about publishing a document we should see it, and also give the Government of India and the military authorities in India an opportunity of examining and commenting upon it.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that this Report was presented after a twomonths' inquiry, which began in March? Has there not been time for remarks to be made by the Government in India?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, there has not. The inquiry itself took a long time, and the Report has not been in the hands of the Government of India long enough for them to communicate their comments upon it to me.
    Sir E. CARSON: Might I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider the question of moving the Adjournment. He might make his speech and allow us, if necessary, to make a Motion. If we have a Motion for the Adjournment, for all I know the whole time may be taken up with conscientious objectors or other individuals of that kind. I think he will agree it is not unreasonable that we should have some other way of raising the question than on a Motion for the Adjournment.
    The PRIME MINISTER: If my right hon. Friend, or any of his Friends, will put down a Motion, I will give facilities for it.
    Sir E. CARSON: I will undertake to do so.
    The PRIME MINISTER: But I cannot start until I know how I am going to be attacked. When I know that, I will reply to the best of my ability.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion regarding the desirability of having a secret inquiry into the Dardanelles operations?
    Mr. J. REDMOND: Do I understand that the Motion, if one is put down, will be of such a character that it will not preclude a discussion of the Dardanelles and Suvla Bay?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That must be left to those who frame the Motion.
    Mr. LYNCH: Would it not be preferable to hold a Secret Session, so that the whole matter could be discussed with more thoroughness and with more candour than in a public discussion?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, we have had one experiment, and I do not think it has been a great success.

  BILL PEESENTED.
  TELEGRAPH (CONSTBUCTION) BILL,—"to amend the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1915, with respect to the construction and maintenance of telegraph lines," presented by Mr. JOSEPH PEASE; supported by Mr. Pike Pease; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—

  National Insurance (Part II.) (Munition Workers) Bill,

  Marriage of British Subjects (Facilities) Bill,

  London County Council (Money) Bill, without Amendment;

  Tynemouth Corporation Bill, with Amendments;

  Amendments to—
  Hornsey Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to dissolve the marriage of Reginald Edward Gore with the honourable Nellie Viola Castalia Florence Gore (commonly called Lady Viola Gore), his now wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other purposes." [Gore's Divorce Bill [Lords.]
  And also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to authorise the construction of a reservoir by means of a dam across the Afon Ddu and the taking of water by the Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water Supply Board and by the Aluminium Corporation, Limited, for power purposes; and for other purposes." [Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water Supply Board Bill [Lords.]
  Gore's Divorce Bill [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time.
  Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water Supply Board Bill [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.— [TENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

    CIVIL SEEVICES AND REVENUE DEPABTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1916–17.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    CIVIL SEEVICES AND REVENUE DEPABTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1916–17.

      BOARD OF EDUCATION.—Class IV.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,736,732, 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, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid." [NOTE.—£5,450,000 has been voted on account.]
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. A. Henderson): In presenting my first Estimates I propose to give the Committee some idea as to how we stand after nearly two years' experience of a great War. This, in my opinion, is most important in view of the many statements which have been made regarding the comparative failure of our educational system during this great crisis. We are far from claiming that the machine is perfect or that it is free from limitations or anomalies. But we claim with a great amount of confidence that if we take our educational system as a whole, thanks to the staff of the Board of Education and to the valuable assistance of local education authorities and to the teachers, it has stood the stress and strain of what has probably been its most trying period in a manner calculated to give a great amount of satisfaction. I desire publicly to express my sincere appreciation of the invaluable and devoted services of my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and also of Sir A. L. SelbyBigge, the permanent Secretary. Unfortunately both these valuable officials are laid aside by illness, and I feel sure the Committee will join in an expression of sympathy and of hope that they may both have a speedy recovery.
      It has been suggested that widespread efforts have been made to prejudice efficiency in education by a process of unwise
      870
      economies. No doubt evidence can be produced in isolated cases in support of this contention, although the figures of the Board, and I think also the figures of local education authorities, show that, generally speaking, this is not the case. The estimated expenditure of the Board of Education for the year 1916–17 amounts to £15,186,732. This sum is less by £294,646 than the sum provided by last year's Estimates, but it is not less than our expenditure for last year. It may interest the Committee to have the expenditure of the previous five years. In 1911–12 it was £14,302,859; in 1912–13, £14,332,018; in 1913–14, £14,368,794; in 1914–15, £15,096,235—the large increase between these two years was caused by special Grants to necessitous areas—in 1915–16 it was £15,174,300; and may I repeat that for 1916–17 the Estimate is £15,186,732. The first year of the War, 1914–15, saw our expenditure on education greater than in the previous year. In the second year of the War this level was maintained, and in the third, as the figures show, we expect to do likewise.
      Let us take the case of the local education authorities. The complete Returns, I am sorry to say, are not yet available, but the figures which have come to hand go to show that in the year ending 31st March, 1916, the local authorities raised their expenditure by about £300,000. It has to be admitted that this increase is not nearly so large as the automatic rise that follows from year to year, and which, on the average, works out at about £1,000,000, nor does the increase apply to all local education authorities. We are not prepared to say that in no case has there been untimely or indiscreet economy; but, broadly speaking, the authorities have shown themselves ready to discriminate between what is essential to maintain efficiency and what can, without permanent loss of efficiency, be dispensed with or postponed. In connection with the principal economies effected, that connected with building operations is the most important. The suspension of building operations was inevitable, but, fortunately, for several years before the War great efforts have been made to improve the condition of school buildings throughout the country, and I am happy to say that the Board has no evidence that the health of the children has been adversely affected by the temporary postponement of improvements. On the other

      871
      hand, overcrowding and the temporary use of inferior premises have been inevitable. The authorities, especially in the towns, will have arrears of school building, both enlargement, improvement, and new construction, to work out when peace comes. It is most desirable that they should prepare their plans well ahead and formulate a programme which can be taken in hand as soon as the conditions once again become normal. Then there have been other postponements, such as redecoration, and there has also been economy in stationery and equipment. This is especially important owing to the rise in the price of paper. But these economies apply only so far to the fabric. As regards educational facilities, the principal economies are—first, that some evening classes for low-grade technical instruction have been shut down; and, secondly, that men students in training colleges having proceeded on military service, the colleges have had consequently to be closed down, and the remaining students, unfit for military service, have been transferred to other buildings.
      I think it may safely be said that there has only been one serious and substantial reduction in the expenditure on education strictly speaking, namely, the exclusion from the elementary schools of children under five years of age. The Board has always recognised this to be a matter for local education authorities to decide. Under proper conditions the best place for children under five is a good home, but where the mother cannot attend to the children, in our opinion they should be in a school. It has to be recognised that there has been a great increase in the employment of women in consequence of the War, and this may result in children at home in many cases being neglected. The Board strongly hope that in such cases the education authorities will not try to economise. In the case of London there is no general admission of children under five, but allowance is made where home circumstances are unfavourable. Speaking generally, therefore, in spite of the War, local education expenditure has gone up, and the expenditure of the Board has risen simultaneously. Before the War the problem of local education finance was getting very serious. Local expenditure was rising, and the Government Grant was almost stationary. The Board had its plans for readjusting
      872
      the incidence of local cost in education, involving large additional subsidies from the Exchequer. I venture to hope, and I think the Committee will agree with me, that those plans may be given effect to as soon after the War as possible.
      Coming to the Estimates in detail, I think only a very brief explanation is necessary. Under Subhead A, administration, the position is almost normal, £203,667, this year, as against £209,551 last year, a decrease of £6,284. Under Subhead B, covering inspection and examination, we have £222,578, as against £252,458 last year, which shows a reduction of £29,880. This reduction is caused mainly by the absence of inspecting officers on military service, and the consequent restriction of inspection. The reduction has also been effected by the national competition in art having been temporarily discontinued.
      Under Subhead C, I come to expenditure on elementary education. The amount stands at £12,640,528, as against £12,696,815 last year. Here we have a reduction of £56,287. We could have expected an increase due to the automatic increases in pensions and in Grants for the education of blind, deaf, defective, and epileptic children, both items of which do show an actual increase, the increases in pensions amounting to £13,963 and Grants for education of blind, deaf, defective, and epileptic children amounting to £60,000, or a total increase of £73,963. These increases, however, were more than balanced by the decreases under two heads, one being the Grants to public elementary schools based on attendance. It may be interesting to Members of the Committee to know that if they will turn to page 22 of the printed statement they will there find explanatory notes regarding all the conditions of the Grants referred to. We estimate during the year 1916–17 a decline in the attendance of children of something less than 1 per cent., involving a saving of £53,000. This decline is due to three causes, the first of which is the declining birth rate in recent years. There was a noticeable drop in the birth rate in 1911, which, of course, determines to some extent the number of children entering our elementary schools in the year 1916. The second cause is the exclusion of children under five years of age from our elementary schools, and the third cause is the extension of the employment of children at an earlier age.

      873
      On this aspect of our educational problem, namely, the employment of children at an earlier age, I feel compelled to ask the attention of the Committee as I deal with the subject in fuller detail. It may safely be said that no subject has given the Board so much concern, or caused educationists generally so much apprehension, as this question of child labour, especially its extension in agriculture. As the Committee are aware, the employment of children is no new problem. Several measures dealing with the subject are already on the Statute Book. These include, in addition to the general education Acts, the Factory and Workshops Act, 1901, the Mines Act, Acts dealing with particular trades such as street trading and public performances; also the Employment of Children Act, 1903. May I trouble the Committee with a statement of the actual position of the child under the law with regard to employment: (1) Children aged thirteen may be employed full time under the Factory Act, provided that they are entitled to fulltime exemption under the local bylaws. (2) Children aged twelve may be employed halftime under the Factory Act up to the time that they are entitled to work full time. (3) Children aged thirteen, if entitled to exemption under the bylaws, may be employed, under the Coal and Metalliferous Mines Act, either above ground or, in metalliferous mines, under ground. (4) Children aged twelve, if entitled to exemption under the bylaws, may be employed in metalliferous mines above ground. (5) Children aged twelve to fourteen inclusive may be employed full time outside the Factory and Mines Acts, if entitled to total exemption under the bylaws. (6) Children aged twelve may be employed under a system of partial exemption from school attendance in miscellaneous occupations outside the Factory and Mines Acts, if entitled to exemption under the local bylaws. (7) Children aged eleven may, in some agricultural districts of England, be employed halftime in agriculture. (8) Children attending school full time may be employed out of school hours in miscellaneous occupations, subject to the general provisions of the Employment of Children Act, and any bylaws which happen to exist.
      Sir P. MAGNUS: Does it mean children aged eleven, and not twelve?
      Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, children aged eleven and under twelve. I think the Committee will agree that it is most unsatisfactory to have children who are really eligible to attend school under laws so diversified as those which I have mentioned, and I think that one of the reforms that we ought to try to obtain as early as possible is to sweep away this state of things, and try to put the whole of the children under one uniform provision. It is estimated that at the outbreak of war considerably over 500,000 children under fourteen years of age were employed as wage earners in the United Kingdom. This works out at about one child in every twelve of those of all ages who might be in attendance at our public elementary schools.
      Having thus referred to the general question, I desire to notice the position in its relation to agriculture. It became obvious in the early stages of the War that demands would be made upon local education authorities in agricultural areas to relax their bylaws. The policy and attitude of the Government was stated to the House by the Prime Minister in statements which leave no room for doubt as to the meaning and intention of the Government. These conditions were subsequently brought to the notice of education authorities in a circular issued by the Board, which said:
      "The employment of children of school age should be regarded as an exceptional measure permitted to meet a special emergency, and should only be allowed where the authority are satisfied that no other labour is available, and in no case should children be excused attendance at school if older children, who are under no legal obligation to attend school, are available."
      The circular also went on to say:
      "In considering the available supply of labour, the authority should satisfy themselves that all reasonabl efforts have been made to secure adult labour—for instance, by applicatian to the Labour Exchanges, and especially by the offer of adequate remuneration. Every case should be considered on its merits, and there should be no general relaxation of bylaws. The employment should be of a light character, and suitable to the capacity of the child. Permission, if given at all, should be given for a definitely limited period only."
      The Board sought to impress upon the local authorities the importance of their making full inquiry into each case and the need for careful supervision over the children employed.
      Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman informs us whether these cases that he is referring to now are only in agricultural districts or did this warning apply to all cases of child employment?
      Mr. HENDERSON: I thought I had made it clear to the Committee that I was

      875
      dealing for the moment solely with agriculture. If I did not make that clear, let me say that that is the position. It was clearly the intention of the Government that the employment of children should be minimised as much as possible, and should only be approved as a last resort and under favourable conditions. May I invite the Committee to note the extent to which the employment of children in agriculture has grown owing, as it is claimed, to circumstances connected with the War. Up to 31st January, 1915, 1,400 children were thus employed in the counties, and up to 31st May, 1915, 3,800 children in the counties were thus ememployed. The number was still small, but we found great variation in local practice. Special inquiries were made in eight counties where there appeared to be ground for investigation and the Board were satisfied that there was not at that time, on the whole, excessive laxity in dealing with the question. A little later, in July, 1915, I addressed a letter to all local education authorities on the subject of wages, in which I pointed out that, apart from all considerations of humanity or fairness, it appeared to me to be indisputable that, unless a boy was worth a reasonable wage, his services could not be of sufficient use to the farmer to justify his withdrawal from school. Early this year, however, we found that the number of children employed in agriculture had risen to over 8,000, and the Board, in concurrence with the Board of Agriculture, issued another circular repeating the conditions, and drawing special attention to a new and somewhat alarming symptom, namely, the exemption of children under the age of twelve. In that circular we said:
      "The Board of Education consider it very doubtful whether children under twelve who are excused for agricultural employment will ever return to school, at any rate for an effective period, and they regard the interruption or discontinuance of the education of children at that age, whether regarded from the point of view of the children themselves, or of the general interests of the country, or of the interests of agriculture, as entirely lamentable. They have consulted the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries upon this point and are assured that the policy of that Department in the matter does not differ from the policy of the Board of Education. The Board of Education would regard it as a very grave misfortune if large numbers of children in rural districts under twelve years of age had their education permanently interrupted. The Board of Agriculture also expressed the opinion that if the women of the country districts and of England generally, took the part they ought to take in war work in agriculture, it would be quite unnecessary to sacrifice the children under twelve. I am consequently to point out that authorities in considering, in accordance with the requirements of
      876
      Circular 898, whether any other labour is available, should turn their particular attention to the question of whether the labour of women is available, and should not sanction the employment of children in any case where it appears that the work required could be performed by women."
      I desire to take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to the Board of Agriculture, especially under my late colleague, for their cooperation and valuable assistance in this matter. I would further point out to the Committee that the Board were anxious that the local education authority should retain proper control over all exemptions from their own schools. Recommendations were made to them with a view to securing that the exemptions were not to be granted by comparatively irresponsible committees. In spite of our recommendations and admonitions we now find that the number of children employed in agriculture has nearly doubled, the figures being 15,750, and I regret very much to say that 546 of these children are under twelve years of age.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Are all these cases children who are liable to attend school?
      Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, I am dealing only with those who are liable to attend school. These figures, if not alarming, are sufficient to justify the inference that the bylaws are being relaxed without that proper care and inquiry which both the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Education intended should take place in each case. It is necessary, I think, to point out that in this matter the Board must rely on the good will and progressive spirit of the local education authority. Happily, in many districts this has been forthcoming, and the exemptions have been minimised, if not altogether refused. But this only makes worse the case against the other authorities. For instance, a great agricultural county like Devon finds it necessary only to exempt 159, and this makes it more difficult to understand why Kent should find it necessary to exempt 1,668. Huntingdonshire has excused 122 boys between eleven and twelve years of age, and this is about one-fourth of all the boys of that age who have been excused throughout England and Wales. The total number of boys excused in that county amounts to 44 per cent. of the number of boys on the books of the elementary schools on the 31st January, 1914, and so far as I can judge, the schools

      877
      must be completely depleted of boys between thirteen and fourteen years of age. The Soke of Peterborough is an even worse offender. It has only 191 boys between eleven and fourteen on its registers, and it has exempted no fewer than 104, or 54 per cent. Of these twenty-two are between eleven and twelve years of age. The mischief, however, is not entirely confined to small counties. Bedfordshire has exempted 22 per cent. of its boys, Kent 9 per cent., Lincoln (Kesteven) 18 per cent., Lincoln (Lindsey) 12 per cent., and West Sussex 14 per cent. Worcestershire has exempted 10 per cent., and 143 of these children excused are between eleven and twelve years of age. The Committee, I am sure, can only regard this extension of the employment of children of tender years with considerable apprehension. None of us, I am sure, desire to ignore the national need during this grave and unprecedented crisis, but the employment of children should only be accepted when it is proved to be an imperative national need. We have, therefore, in consequence of what has taken place, addressed a strong remonstrance to the worst areas, and if satisfactory explanations are not forthcoming, we are determined to do all. in our power to prevent any further abuse of the concession which was granted under the strictest conditions only to meet a very special emergency, and I am authorised to say that if the powers we possess are insufficient, the Government will ask Parliament to extend them.
      As regards employment other than in agriculture, I am pleased to say that the position is much less serious. There has undoubtedly been an extension, but with rare exceptions the extension has been within the law. In other words, while advantage has been taken of the early leaving age which is, unfortunately, characteristic of our education, the authorities in industrial areas have for the most part resisted proposals to go below it. I may just cite two cases of what has taken place in our industrial areas. In the county of Durham a demand was made for boy labour for surface work at the mines. Conferences were held between the colliery court and the local education authority, and I am very pleased to say that it has been arranged that there shall be no general exemption and that each case should be considered on its merits with due regard to the amount of adult labour available and to the nature of the work in which the child
      878
      has to be engaged. The second illustration is supplied to me from Bradford. An agreement has been reached between the local education authority and the employers under which those employers who agree to give up the halftime system may, during the War, employ children at thirteen instead of fourteen. The Board felt that in securing the abandonment of the halftime system in the city of Bradford such a substantial advance was worth a temporary reduction in the leaving age.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Is the abolition of halftime immediate or after the War?
      Mr. HENDERSON: After the War. At the end of the War there is to be no more halftime.
      Mr. KING: How can that be enforced?
      Mr. HENDERSON: The agreement is made by the employers themselves. An employer need not employ a child halftime if he does not want to do it. If all employers agree there will be no children employed halftime, so far as Bradford is concerned. I only wish that other districts would do the same. Another item in the Vote which shows a reduction is Grants for the feeding of school children. It may be said that the boom in trade which led to the employment of school children has reduced the estimates for feeding school children from £175,000 in 1915–16 to £100,000 in 1916–17. The figures show that in 1912–13,19,500,000 meals were provided; in 1913–14, 14,500,000; in 1914–15, 29,500,000, including the first months of the War; and in 1915–16, 11,500,000, and a further reduction is expected during the year. During the first two months of the War the number of meals given rose until they reached 1,200,000 in the last week of September. The restoration of trade caused a reduction, and this has continued progressively. It had sunk to 427,000 in April, 1915, and to 157,000 in April, 1916, and it is now much below normal. On the other hand, the increased cost of food renders the actual cost of each meal larger. It will be gratifying to the Committee to know that the provision of Grants-in-Aid of meals which was first undertaken in 1914–15 has had a beneficial effect, far better food being served and greater cleanliness and more orderly habits resulting. Then it has been discovered by experience that if school feeding has to be given at all and is to have its proper effect, it must be regular. The Provision of Meals Act, 1914,

      879
      gave the authorities power to provide meals for school children during the holidays, and many authorities in poor areas especially availed themselves of this provision, with marked benefit to the children. On this topic I might inform the Committee that in July, 1915, the Board issued a pamphlet on economy in food, and asking the authorities to grant instruction on this subject. We also offered Grants to aid a course of instruction for housework. As a result, 400,000 copies of the pamphlet were distributed and a large number were sold.
      With regard to the other branch of medical service, medical inspection, there is no reduction. The amount continues at £200,000. This, with £22,000 for schools for mothers and the £100,0001 have already referred to for the provision of meals for necessitous school children, makes a total under that subhead of £322,000. School medical service includes not only medical inspection of children, but also treatment, principally of teeth, eyes, throat, and skin. Three hundred and fifty school clinics are now in existence, and seventy-five authorities have arrangements with their hospitals, and contribute accordingly. The Board have power to pay up to 50 per cent. of expenditure where arrangements are satisfactory, and the expenditure for 1915–16 reached the sum of £192,000. No doubt in recent years arrangements have become increasingly efficient. As must be expected, the effect of the War was somewhat alarming to this branch of the service. Down to March, 1915, the school medical service was practically unimpaired. By March, 1916, out of 850 school medical officers, no fewer than 300 had joined the Forces. The Board are urging the essential importance of maintaining as the minimum of treatment hitherto given and the careful inspection of children who appear to be ailing. So far we have secured this minimum standard which is of vital importance to the health of the rising generation. As the Committee can realise, substitutes being no longer available, any further release of medical officers would in some areas involve the total abandonment of the school medical service, and can only be regarded as deplorable.
      As the Committee will notice, the Grant for the training of teachers shows a reduction of £168,000, the total being £408,202 for 1916–17, as against £577,000 for the previous year. Sixty thousand pounds is accounted for by the stoppage
      880
      of Building Grants. The balance, £108,000; is due to the reduction in annual Grants caused by the withdrawal of men students for military service. In the early days of the War large numbers of students joined the Forces as Volunteers. Then the King's Appeal in the autumn of 1915, and the introduction of compulsory service, led to further depletion, so that by the end of this term all students of military age who are fit for general service will have left.
      As far back as the autumn of 1914 arrangements were made for concentrating the colleges. These arrangements, were extended in 1915, and, at the present time, out of eighty-nine colleges, twelve have been temporarily closed, and their students transferred elsewhere. This has led to a great saving of the cost of upkeep, besides setting free members of the staff for military and other service. We expect that some further measure of concentration will be necessary during the coming year. The Board's Grant is paid on the number of students in attendance, and the withdrawal, therefore, of students would have led to a serious financial crisis. The Board received the consent of the Treasury to pay supplementary Grants where necessary, to enable the colleges to meet their necessary outstanding commitments, and in the past year, for this purpose, we have paid out the sum of £15,000. The Board has given special consideration to the future of students whose course of training has been interrupted. We hope that, where possible, they will return to college and' complete their course there. Where this is not possible we have made special arrangements which the Committee may be interested to hear. First, students who have spent a year in college and a year with the forces will receive temporary certificates at the end of the War. These certificates will be confirmed after two years if the local authority and His Majesty's inspector report that the teacher's work is satisfactory. Secondly, students who have spent less than a year in college will be required to take a special sixmonths' course on their returning from the Army, and will then receive a temporary certificate, subject to confirmation, as in the other case.
      The depletion of the training colleges brings into prominence a subject which is always a matter of great anxiety to the Board, namely, the supply of teachers. Many of those who have left will not comeback. We have, therefore, to study the

      881
      number of boys and girls preparing as business or pupil teachers to enter the training colleges in a year or two's time. Unfortunately the outlook is anything but encouraging. We are not so badly off as we were in 1912–13, when the number of entrants sank to 5,232, but in 1915–16 the number was only 7,270. This year we expect it will be 1,200 less. The decrease no doubt is due in the main to the great demand there is for labour of young people in other occupations. Whatever the cause, the effect is somewhat disquieting, and brings into greater prominence one of the most important questions connected with educational reform, namely, the necessity of fixing the emoluments of the profession at a rate which will ensure an adequate supply of men and women, qualified by character and attainments to discharge their very responsible duties. This must be an essential and indispensable feature of any scheme of educational reform.
      With regard to secondary education, we cannot say that there has been any special developments, although we do report with gratification that the increase in the number of pupils in secondary schools, after a sharp drop at the beginning of the War, has been maintained and enlarged. There has been an increase in the actual amount of £57,000—that is, £37,000, being an automatic rise, and £20,000 for special Grants for training intending teachers. Naturally there has been a great development during the war period in Officers' Training Corps and Cadet Corps, a movement which the Board has always regarded with sympathy. If I do not say any more it is not for want of interest in this subject, but because the whole question is one which will have to be considered in any plans for reconstruction. At the present time the War Office, having more serious preoccupations, have neither leisure nor equipment with which to undertake serious developments on these lines. Another question which will have to be carefully studied is the question of facilities for poorer parents. The Board have been pressed in many instances on grounds of economy to reduce their requirements for free places. This they have always refused to do. On the other hand, in one or two instances the local authorities have met the increased cost by raising the fees of the fee paying scholars. In this connection I would like to call the attention of the members of the Committee to the Report on Scholarships
      882
      which has been presented by the Consultative Committee of the Board. This Report is now available for Members. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the members of that Committee, and particularly the chairman, Mr. Arthur Acland, for producing one of the most valuable and at the same time most interesting contributions to educational literature which we have had for some years past.
      May I say a word with regard to the scientific and industrial technical schools? This is found under Sub-head (f). Here we have a decrease of £62,000, the total figure being £576,000, as against £638,000 last year. The reduction here is chiefly due to the closing down of the low grade evening classes. As regards technical education, the most striking fact I have to record is the part which the technical schools have taken in ammunition work and in the training of ammunition workers. In July, 1915 at the request of the Minister of Munitions, I called upon the technical schools to develop training classes. They responded so readily that in a few months 1,700 men and women were in training, and 400 were waiting for vacancies. This has continued, and, apart from this, many of the schools, actually used their machinery for the manufacture of munition details, and others transferred their machines to munition work. Nearly all the reports I have received show that the services rendered by the schools have been of the highest possible value. What I have said of the technical schools applies in even greater measure to the universities. It is well known that they have supplied to the New Army some of their finest fighting material. Next to that, ever since the outbreak of the War their scientific staff has been occupied on special work, mostly of a very confidential and technical nature, for the Admiralty, War Office, and Ministry of Munitions. Indeed, the services they have rendered to the State during the War period have undoubtedly been of incalculable value, though not, I think, greater than the services they will render when peace comes, especially, I hope, during the period of reconstruction. There is, I believe, a growing recognition on the part of manufacturers of the importance of applying science to all industrial problems, and in the growing intimacy between the university and the industrial world I see the promise of incalculable developments in the future.

      883
      I think I ought to refer to certain matters affecting all branches of education generally. First, there is the difficulty we have experienced in consequence of the occupation of schools for military purposes, including hospitals. Schools have certain advantages for these purposes which are not shared by other buildings, such as chapels and picture palaces, the use of which is sometimes recommended. Schools are solidly built, the rooms are spacious and well-lighted, they have efficient heating, and, above all, their sanitary arrangements are good. For these reasons it was quite impossible for us to refuse the use of the schools. Arrangements were made with the War Office that they would not ask for any school except when absolutely necessary, and in return, when it was absolutely necessary, the Board could not refuse. The result of this arrangement is that, on 31st May, there were some 200 schools in occupation for military purposes. The pressure has been particularly great in certain parts of the North, where there have been large concentrations of troops. Local authorities and the Board's staff collaborated in making arrangements for continuing, as far as possible, the education of the children toy distributing them in other schools, and in some cases by what is known as the double shift system. These arrangements have been so far effective that no children remain un provided for, though in some cases the school hours of the younger children have been unavoidably reduced.
      Then we would notice the effect of the Military Service Act. The object of the Board has been to minimise, as far as possible, the inconvenience caused by the "withdrawal of teachers and students for military service. We have always been moved by two considerations—first, the necessity of maintaining the highest possible level of efficiency of schools; secondly, maintaining a supply of students for the future. With the assistance of the War Office we have arranged the following plan: Teachers and students who are not fit for general service are not being taken into the Army. Teachers though fit for general service, who are held by the local authority and the Board to be indispensable, are also retained, whether temporarily or permanently, in order to carry out the work of the schools. Students reaching the age of eighteen will be Allowed to remain at school or college until
      884
      they have completed the term, and students in scientific and technical subjects who are certified to be of special merit, will similarly toe retained on grounds of national interest.
      I must take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the patriotism of the teachers. Some 20,000 teachers are now, or shortly will be, serving with the Colours. A great majority of these, I am happy to say, have volunteered.
      Sir P. MAGNUS: Are these teachers in elementary schools only?
      5.0 P.M.
      Mr. HENDERSON: No; I am taking the teachers as a whole. There is general testimony from the Army authorities as to their efficiency Their high standard of education, physical training, and practising organisation have made them specially valuable as soldiers and officers. Local authorities, I am happy to say, have done their best to help the teachers to join the Army, and their posts are kept open for them, and in nearly every case the balance between military pay and civil salaries is toeing paid toy the local authority. The Committee must be concerned to know what has been the effect of the withdrawal from the schools of so many teachers. First, then, there has been increased employment of women. A large number of qualified women leave the profession every year on marriage, and remain available. The authorities are largely adopting the practice of placing younger boys up to eleven under women teachers. In the second place, a certain number of superannuated teachers have either returned or are allowed to remain in the profession. We also found it necessary, in view of the emergency to allow local authorities to make temporary appointments of persons possessing good general education, though without any special qualification. We have made it clear that this concession is temporary only, and must terminate after the War. It is most fortunate that improvements in recent years have given us a considerable margin on which to draw. This applies to the number of the teachers and also the size of the classes. Between 1911–1914, the number of posts for certificated teachers was increased by 9,000. There are only a few hundreds of schools out of 20,000 in which the number of qualified teachers employed even now falls below the minimum required by the Code. The maximum size of classes permitted in peace time was sixty. Some progressive

      885
      authorities like London and Bradford, were aiming at forty. The withdrawal of teachers has led to an increase in the size of the classes, but there is hardly any case in which they have been increased, I am happy to say, above the peace maximum of sixty. Naturally the withdrawal of so many teachers has thrown a very heavy burden on those who remain, and especially upon head teachers. Our thanks are due to all those who with zeal have shown their willingness to undertake the additional duties and responsibilities. The same applies to the administrative staff of the local education authorities which have also been depleted. As to my own staff at the Board of Education, before the War the Board employed 2,135, including women. Now I have to report that 542 members of our staff have joined the Colours. It is with great regret I have to announce that no less than thirty of them have already fallen. The inevitable consequence of this is that the Board has had to give up much routine work which in time of peace has proved indispensable if the machine has to be kept running with perfect efficiency, and will be absolutely necessary again in the time of peace.
      From what has been said, however fragmentary it may have been, it must be obvious to the Committee that in spite of the embargo which the present crisis has imposed upon our educational system that system is not the failure hinted at in some quarters, nor does it deserve to be spoken of in such terms of depreciation as are sometimes heard. There are two things which the War has clearly demonstrated. First, I think the War has demonstrated the general soundness and solidity of our educational system, which, in spite of heavy disadvantages, is steadily developing. The War has, I think, also shown, and the demeanour of the people has dispelled, the fallacy that education was sapping their moral strength. Such stories of heroism as that which was displayed by Jack Cornwell give striking testimony to the patriotism produced by the teaching of our public elementary schools. What the Army owes to the universities and the public schools is almost universally recognised; what it owes to the elementary schools is not so often mentioned. I have particular gratification in quoting the judgment of a distinguished officer to a former member of my staff. He says:
      " If it had not been for the discipline and influence of the elementary schools it would have been
      886
      impossible to have raised and trained the New Armies. Thirty years ago nothing of the kind could have been done."
      At the same time, the War had brought home to the people what has long been common knowledge amongst those who concern themselves with education, and that is that our national prosperity and security demand greater concentration of trained intelligence on problems of industry, of commerce, and of public administration. I have felt during the year I have been at the Board of Education that there was imposed upon us a twofold duty. The first is to maintain, as far as possible in the midst of great difficulties, the standard which had been reached before the War. In some respects it was a very high standard and in others it was low, and I think the War has demonstrated that in some respects it was almost dangerously low. Then our second duty was—and when the time comes to declare our plans for the future I think it will be found that we have not failed in it—to prepare not only for a re-conquest of any ground we have lost, but for an advance which will carry us far beyond. The Committee will remember that the late Government, under my right hon. Friend, had actually announced and were taking the first steps to effect a general reorganisation of our educational system when war broke out, and, as the Prime Minister has stated, the present Government are again instituting a general inquiry into our education. The Committee may rest assured, therefore, that the plans prepared before the War will not be wasted, but will be reviewed in the light of the experience and, I hope, prosecuted with the energy derived from the War itself.
      As part of that general inquiry we have decided to appoint Committees to investigate three branches of the subject. The first, which has already begun its work, and over which my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary presides, will investigate the whole problem of the education of young persons after the War with special regard to those who have been abnormally employed, those who cannot find advantageous employment, and those who require further training. We cannot doubt that the period after the War will bring the problem of youthful employment very forcibly before our notice. We hope that this investigating Committee will furnish us with useful information for dealing rapidly and effectively with the unforeseen problems that must undoubtedly arise. If

      887
      there is one point to which my experience, both at the Board and out of it in the Labour world, with which I have been associated for so many years, leads me to attach special importance it is this problem of the education of children between the elementary schools and the university, or, broadly speaking, those years between thirteen and eighteen. We need an extension and reorganisation of education so as to secure closer cooperation and continuity between the elementary schools and the college through our technical continuation and secondary shools. At present our children leave school too soon and those who would undoubtedly profit by further education cannot always get it, either because a suitable school is not available or because the parents cannot do without the earnings of the children. The problem of longer education and higher education, to a much greater extent than many politicians imagine, is an economic problem which cannot be solved on educational lines. This being so, we should at least endeavour to secure that when we have a capable child and a willing parent means should be found for continuing the child's education.
      That education is also a problem of character which is far too often overlooked. Then in future the teaching of science must be a greater feature of our educational system and we must secure closer cooperation between science and industry. We do not mean by scientific teaching specialisation upon any single branch, but a more scientific temper in all branches of education, in history as well as in chemistry. We mean larger facilities for scientific teaching and research, the recognition, if you will, of the claims of physical science to a position, not of exclusive privilege but equality in the curriculum of schools and as a qualification for the public service. With this in view it has been decided as a first step to appoint two further Committees to inquire, respectively, into the position of science and modern language teaching in our educational system. But if these projects for the future are to be successfully accomplished, the public generally and employers in particular must recognise the economic importance of higher education, if not on higher grounds, to enable them to have an opportunity of drawing their industrial skill and directing ability from an ever increasing supply. They must also consider whether in the past they have suffi-
      888
      ciently recognised science in its application to industry, and whether they have set a proper value on the services of scientists. We do not overlook the fact that many employers and business men have shown by their great generosity to our universities that they do appreciate the industrial importance of science, but there must be a more general recognition of the value of a larger inflow of students capable of doing, or of being permitted to do, university work. It would be to the interests of the employers themselves if, instead of trying to secure the quickest returns by employing boys of premature age, they would look for the largest returns coming from the greater intelligence of those employed.
      Educational reform is obviously a question of national finance. In this respect I would remind the Committee that the plan of educational reform announced before the War included a revised system of Grants for elementary education, for further Grants for technical and secondary education, and for the training of teachers, the cost of which would have involved some millions of new money. This scheme, as I have already hinted, was arrested by the outbreak of war. But still, Sir, I would emphasise the fact that our primary need at the moment is not, may I say with respect, a President who would be more industrious in connection with educational matters; it is not even the devising of new plans. It is a question of money—more money—and still more money. I think it may be safely said with satisfaction that this War is, at any rate, assisting in the creation of a greater body of public opinion in favour of a more liberal expenditure on education. I think it may be said, too, that the essential importance of a comprehensive and efficient system, of education to the progressive development of the national life and in the solidifying of the Empire is coming to be more universally recognised. But this spirit must be fostered and encouraged, and on no account should the nation in consequence of its expenditure on war, high though that may be, be deterred from making its proper investment in education. Not only should this be done in the interests of the nation and of the Empire, but, may I suggest, I think it ought to be done as an act of gratitude to those men who have fought, suffered and died for their country. Surely no more appropriate memorial could be raised to the memory of those who have fallen in this

      889
      War than that the children of those heroes should commence life equipped by an education that would inspire in them an undying love for their country, made sacred by their father's blood.
      May I say, in conclusion, when finance adequate to our educational need and commensurate with its importance is forthcoming, when the country recognises the teaching profession in all its branches as an essentially important part of the public service and thereby continues to attract to it the best brains, when Parliament itself determines to place education on a national and in some respects on an Imperial instead of a sectarian basis, the Committee may rest assured that we possess in our teachers today, and in the permanent officials engaged in educational administration, both national and local, a body of men and women with vision, with enthusiasm, and with capacity sufficient to make a comprehensive and unfettered scheme of education what it ought to be, a powerful and effective instrument in promoting the physical, social, and shall I say the moral life of all sections of the community.
      Sir P. MAGNUS: I think every member of the Committee will feel the force of the inspiring words with which the President of the Board of Education has concluded his admirable address, and if, in reviewing his statement, I have to make some remarks which may not be altogether in consonance with every word of his speech, I am sure he will recognise that I fully appreciate the very great efforts which he as President of the Board of Education has made in order to improve our existing system of education and to keep it on the right lines during a very critical period of our history. I think our thanks to the President are the more due, seeing that he has at the same time undertaken duties of a most onerous character, which have been of the greatest advantage to this country in the prosecution of the War. I should like to join with the President in expressing my regret that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education is unable to be present today, and equally so that the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Education, one of the most broadminded and intelligent of the permanent Secretaries which we have had for a long time, is unable to discharge his duties at the Board of Education. The remarks of the President have been very largely con-
      890
      fined, and rightly so, to the financial statements connected with the Vote that is before the Committee. He has told us that we are now spending a sum exceeding £15,000,000 of money on our education, and he pointed out directions in which some amount of economy during the past year has been effected.
      Personally, I do not think there is any reason to apologise for economy, even in the matter of the administration of our education, so long particularly as it does not in any way injure the education of those children who are at present receiving instruction in our schools. He pointed out that one of the economies effected was the closing down of some of our evening technical schools. This I regret. If it was necessary to close down any classes during the War I should think that some of the classes on literature or history or other subjects of that kind might with greater advantage have been closed down than those in which instruction was being given to young persons in the application of science to industry. I agree with him entirely as regards the possible disastrous results in some cases of excluding young children from the benefits of education, but at the same time I noticed particularly his remark that children under five are really better educated in their own homes than in any school, provided they have a mother or friend or guardian who will look after their education. He pointed out also that a sum of about £60,000 was being saved on administration, and £30,000, I think he said, on inspection. I do not regret altogether the amount of money that has been saved on inspection, because I should like the Board of Education to consider the fact that the inspectors appointed by the local authorities very frequently overlap in the discharge of their duties the inspectors appointed by the Board of Education, and I think it will be found that some part at least of that economy may be continued even after the War is over.
      As regards the employment of children under a certain age in agricultural and other pursuits, I think we shall all agree that where the local authorities have not carefully attended to the conditions laid down by the Prime Minister under which children of these tender ages should be employed, a remonstrance from the Board of Education ought certainly to be made. I am hoping, and I am sure Members of the Committee will share that hope, that children who are employed on merely

      891
      agricultural pursuits will not suffer as much as if they were employed in industrial work. The opportunities for open-air exercise which they will receive, and the possibility of coming into direct contact with the processes of nature, may not be altogether disadvantageous to them, and if only endeavours can be made when the War is over to secure to those children who have lost a year or two years of education an opportunity of attending classes in agricultural subjects, possibly the loss which they have suffered may not be as great as is generally supposed. But I do very strongly agree with the President of the Board of Education as to the desirability of some uniform provision, instead of the miscellaneous provisions which at present exist for regulating the conditions under which child labour may be employed.
      The President referred at some length to the question of elementary education, and I agree with him entirely that the elementary education of this country is not, I should say, in any respect inferior to the elementary education in very many countries abroad. I have no doubt he was referring to the important speech which was made by Lord Haldane, in another place, only a few days since. As regards that speech, I should like to say that I think Lord Haldane has rendered a great service to the country in sounding the loud timbrel and inducing people to see the importance when the War is over, and even before the War is over, of doing what we can to improve our educational system. I must own I do not agree with every word he says. I think he has a tendency to exaggerate the advantages of foreign education over that which is carried on in our own country. Personally, I agree with the President of the Board that our educational system is nothing like so bad as it is sometimes pointed out to be. As regards our secondary schools, the figures which were quoted by Lord Haldane, which were probably given to him by the Board of Education, seem to him appalling. He pointed out that of 2,275,000 of boys and girls only about 250,000 went to proper secondary schools. Of course, it is very difficult to know what anyone means by a "proper secondary school." There is a great deal of very good secondary education which is not given in proper secondary schools, and I cannot help thinking that those who minimise the amount of secondary education given in this country, do not always take into considera-
      892
      tion the benefits which young people beyond the age of sixteen derive from the splendid organisation which we possess in this country of evening instruction. The results of that evening instruction are that our artisans and workmen are certainly in no way inferior as regards their ability to those who are found in any other countries. Moreover, many of those who attend these evening classes ultimately graduate at one of our universities. Therefore, certainly the thousands of persons receiving instruction in our organised evening classes must be included amongst those who are receiving secondary education in this country. I have ascertained from a large number of distinguished educationists abroad who have visited this country that they recognise the enormous advantage which our system of evening instruction confers upon our rising generation.
      I do not know—I say it advisedly—any country which possesses opportunities for sound scientific instruction in the evening in well equipped laboratories equal to those which are obtainable in this country. When one speaks of the very large number of boys abroad—in Germany, for instance—who attend secondary schools as compared with those in this country, one is liable to forget the strong inducement which is held out to the boys in Germany to attend. It is not because of any great love of learning for its own sake, or even, I believe, from any patriotic considerations, that the parents of children in Germany make immense sacrifices in sending their boys to what we may call a proper secondary school. It is, as everybody knows, that they may escape one year's compulsory military service. I do not know whether the most pronounced educational reformer in this country would be prepared to introduce compulsory military service after the War in order to afford that special inducement to parents of children to make the sacrifice of sending those children to a secondary school! The President of the Board of Education has referred to the fact that some inducement must be held out to parents in order that the number of children sent to the secondary schools may increase. I agree with him. But I do not agree with him altogether in his concluding remark, which was that the whole question of educational reform depends upon financial considerations only.
      In this country we are too apt to think that money will do everything. Before we

      893
      spend money we ought to give that amount of thought and consideration to the necessary improvements in our education which will ensure that the money spent shall be well and economically spent. As regards the neglect of science of which we have heard so very much of late years, I should like to say this: No additional amount of money will necessarily secure improvement in the teaching of science in our secondary schools. I should like to point out the difference—and the very important difference—between the arrangements which are made for the teaching of what we may call humanistic subjects, and those which are in force in the teaching of science in our secondary schools. To this difference I certainly invite the attention of the Board of Education. For instance, the late headmaster of Rugby, who was formerly headmaster of Clifton, now has a seat in the House of Lords. I am not sure that any inducement is held out to science teachers by means of which they can attain, or hope to attain, to so elevated a position. A new headmaster has been appointed for Eton. He was formerly assistant master at Marlborough College, and he was afterwards at Shrewsbury. I am not aware that any assistant master in a secondary school, that is to say, one simply or almost exclusively engaged in teaching science has any chance of becoming a headmaster in one of our great public schools. Indeed, I do not think that at the present time there is a single Fellow of the Royal Society who is acting as an assistant master in a secondary school. In these circumstances, the President of the Board of Education will see that it is not so much a matter o£ finance as a matter of holding out inducements to eminent scientific men to accept posts in our secondary schools as science teachers. It is not that there is less science taught in our secondary schools than there is in Germany. It is, I believe, that our science is not so well taught here as there. For that reason I do hope that in any reform of our education it will be seen to that the science masters in our schools are regarded as being in an equal position to the classical masters; that they shall have the same opportunities of advancement and shall be paid adequate salaries. In this way the science teaching of our secondary schools will be very greatly improved. Moreover, I do not think it will be improved in any other way. The President has told us that the Board of Education are appointing certain Committees to in
      894
      quire into the different branches of our education, to suggest improvements, therein. The President may know that I have advocated the appointment of a Committee composed of persons altogether independent of the Board of Education.
      Mr. HENDERSON: A Committee or the Royal Commission?
      Sir P. MAGNUS: Either a Royal Commission or a Committee—and altogether independent. The question, to my mind, is whether the recommendations which these' various Committees will make will satisfy public opinion in the same way as if a Commission of independent persons, were appointed. The Board, it seems tome, do not appear to realise that what the public at the present time require is not so much a series of Committees appointed by the Board itself as an independent tribunal in which the officials of the Board shall appear as witnesses rather than as judges. The Board have done so much good work, and are doing so much good work at the present time, that I should be surprised if I thought the Board themselves were raising any kind of opposition to an inquiry in which the operations of the Board themselves might be taken into account. One of the thing we have to fear in this country, and to which reference has been made by many distinguished speakers, is that the Board of Education should have too firm a grip upon our educational activities. Many of us believe that it is owing very largely to the fetters which are imposed by the State itself upon German teachers in the schools, and upon German professors in the universities, that the conduct of the War by Germany has been attended with results so deeply deplorable. It would be fatal to any improvement in our educational system here if the Board of Education were enabled to obtain a still stronger grip upon our educational movements than it possesses at present. I was very much struck with a passage in a very able letter of Dr. Sadler, which appeared in the "Times" of Friday. Dr. Sadler asks:
      "Upon what principles shall we determine the relations (now often unwholesome) between the Board of Education and the local authorities?"
      One of the objects of an independent inquiry would be to put these relations between the Board of Education and the local authorities on a firmer footing than they are at present. We know quite well that friction has existed between the

      895
      Board of Education and certain local authorities, and, moreover, that friction occasionally exists between the Board of Education and the managers of schools, and between the Board and the governing bodies of large institutions. I cannot but think, therefore, that the Board of Education themselves should be most anxious that the inquiries which they, propose to institute should be undertaken by some body entirely independent of themselves. What we are entitled to ask in regard to these Committees which the Board propose to set up is, first, will the persons who are to compose these Committees be appointed entirely by the Board; secondly, will the meetings of these Committees be conducted in public; thirdly, will witnesses be examined, and will their recommendations, whatever they may be, be submitted to Parliament before the Board decide as to which of them they will refuse or accept? It is quite certain—I say it advisedly—that the public will not be satisfied at the present time with any hole and corner arrangements in which they have not the opportunity of knowing "what persons are inquiring into our educational system, what witnesses are being heard, and what recommendations they are making. There is one other consideration. Lord Haldane and Dr. Sadler both pointed out that time is an essential element in the consideration of these matters. I think it was Lord Haldane who said that a Royal Commission was simply an opiate. If that be so, it is no good taking the opiate proposed by the President of the Board of Education who, In setting up a large number of different Committees each dealing with a different part of the subject, is dealing out an opiate in excessive doses, for the work must necessarily occupy a larger amount of time than the proposal that I am making.
      Mr. KING: Take all the doses at once!
      Sir P. MAGNUS: Even if you take all the doses at once time will be lost. Let us consider the Committee appointed to take into consideration the neglect of science. They may exaggerate, as I believe they will, the importance of science in all our schools. Another Committee is dealing with the question of the humanities. They will possibly exaggerate the advantage of literary teaching in our schools, and so on. Afterwards these various
      896
      Committees' recommendations must be brought before a coordinating Committee which will have to consider them in relation to one another. An endless amount of time will be consumed. For that reason I do not believe, personally, that the proposal of the President of the Board of Education will meet with that general approval that he seems to consider it will receive. I sincerely hope, therefore, that this proposal of the President of the Board of Education may be reconsidered. At the present moment, what the public look for is an inquiry of a public character into our educational system. After all, we must remember that our present educational organisation has not been reconsidered for the last fifteen years. It came into existence about the year 1900 or 1902, and since then it has worked extremely well, and the country is very much indebted, I think, to the Educational Act of that period. But, at the same time, fifteen years have elapsed, and, moreover, a war has taken place in which all our ideas have undergone some change. Surely this is a time for the reconsideration of the organisation of the Board of Education itself, for the consideration of the conditions, among other things, under which the members of the Board, the officers of the Board, are appointed. Surely all these matters ought to come before an independent Committee who would take them into consideration, and, as I have said, I think the Board of Education themselves ought to be the first to desire such a comprehensive inquiry. I only wish to conclude by expressing to the President of the Board of Education my appreciation of the work which he himself has done since he has held that position, and also to thank him for the very full account which he has given of the work of the Board of Education during this critical period of the War.
      Sir JAMES YOXALL: The spectacle which the Treasury Bench presents at this moment is one with which I am very far from finding fault. That the two Ministers there should be men who have known in boyhood the grudging parsimony of a system of national education is a good prospect for the way in which this subject will be dealt with in future, and it explains to a large extent the fact that no speech from a Minister of the Board of Education, so far as I have been able to judge, for I have heard them all, has been abetter speech than the one we have heard this afternoon. It covered the ground;

      897
      it went into adequate, but not too much, detail; it dealt with the past, the present, and the future, and I beg to be allowed to congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the nature and the manner of his speech. I will also congratulate him upon the plans he appears to have laid for the immediate future. I was delighted to hear that he gave no countenance whatever to an uprooting policy—to what is called a plan of root and branch reform. I was also delighted to hear that he gave no countenance at all to those claims one sees in certain portions of the Press, and one hears from certain speakers, and which appear in certain correspondence of the Press, that we should denationalise our education and adopt a plan of education which has been in existence elsewhere. I may fairly claim to protest against any adoption of foreign methods in our own education, because I remember quite well that on the last occasion of the Education Estimates, before the War began, I joined with my hon. Friend who has last spoken to deprecate too high a praise, or, indeed, praise at all, of what was being lauded—the German system of education—and I am glad that the President of the Board of Education proposes, as he says, to extend and develop more than reorganise the system which exists. I suppose any national ideal or any national tendency of anything is the natural gowth in the nation itself. You may prune, you may sometimes graft, but it must be a thing which is racy of the soil, which arises and develops, and flowers and fruits, according to the nation itself; and I am far from wishing that in science, or any other thing of the kind, we should import into the country the methods which, in the opinion of many Englishmen who write in the newspapers, have been so successful in Germany. So far as I have been able to understand, the German professors and teachers taught patriotism as though it were an arrogant bombast; they taught language or literature as though it were a science; they taught science as though it were a trade, and they taught trade as though trading meant swindling. Any proposal to import ideals or methods of that kind into this country is one which, I think, every earnest patriot here ought strongly to condemn.
      I agree with my right hon. Friend that we must extend, develop, and, to some extent, reorganise. I agree also that extension and development in this country are almost now entirely a matter of more
      898
      money to be spent upon the school. Reorganisation may be necessary to some extent. There may be one branch of the Board of Education itself that requires reorganisation. If you are going to develop in this country a greater scope for scientific teaching, and the application of scientific teaching, then you must have in your technical branch of the Board of Education men who are acquainted with the subject and in sympathy with the subject. But I would not carry reorganisation too far. I do not sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir P. Magnus) in his desire to have a public inquiry into the system of local government in education, which only came into existence in 1902–3. As a piece of local organisation, as a. system of machinery, putting aside entirely other matters of dispute in this House, I am bound to say that the administration of education itself under the Act of 1902–3 has, on the whole, been very satisfactory.
      Sir P. MAGNUS: I did not propose to make an inquiry into the administration of the local authorities. It is the relations between the Board of Education and the local authorities. I recognise fully the work done by the local authorities.
      Sir J. YOXALL: There, I think, perhaps the relations between the Board of Education and the local authorities could be improved in one respect, and that would be by the Board of Education being a little more powerful and independent, and a little less timid towards those local authorities. I may here pass on to a point which occurred to me in listening to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He was dealing with what I feel quite sure was particularly unpleasant to him to have to mention in any guarded or official terms—the employment of child labour in this country with the countenance and with the patronage of local education authorities. He gave us some figures with regard to the number of children who, with the assent of the local education authorities, have been employed in agriculture since the outbreak of the War, and I think he quoted the figure of 15,000, and expressed a view that that was far too many. I beg him to inquire into the actual circumstances, and to discover if those 15,000 are not a gross underestimate of the fact. There are two ways of exempting children from school for farm labour. There is the open and unblushing method adopted when returns have to be

      899
      made to the Board of Education, and there is the indirect method, far more effective, which consists in not prosecuting parents or employers who make use of child labour in an illicit and illegal way, and I am very much afraid that if my right hon. Friend inquires into the circumstances—the real circumstances—he will find that his 15,000 is very much beneath the mark. Having again and again called the attention of the rural local authorities to this grave defect in their operations, he proposes to use such powers as are now possessed, or, if such' powers are inadequate, with the assent of the Government as a whole, I understand him to say, he proposes to take new powers to coerce those local education authorities into doing their duty in this matter. I would like to see him empowered to say to a local education authority, if necessary, "Very well, if you yield to the popular clamour of the farmers in your locality, and rob from those children what ought to be their birthright of, at any rate, a modicum of education from the age of eleven to the age of thirteen, we will fine you by withdrawing the whole Grant or a large portion of it."
      6.0 P. M.
      There is the remedy. It is again money that lies at the bottom of the whole matter. The demand for these children is a money matter—a sordid motive in every case—and a sordid motive which requires sordid punishment, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend that his chief weapon is to obtain power, if he does not now possess it, to withdraw from such local authorities a very large portion of their Grant. But when I listened to him in his anxiety—and a proper anxiety—lest the censures of the educational system we have heard of late should be true—when I heard him describing, on the whole, how our educational system had stood the strain, I recognised the motive, and I know the need there is, to justify the country in the eyes of those violent critics who are finding fault with everything in this country, to justify to the country that our educational system has produced a patriotic, law abiding, earnest, devoted race of men and women. At the same time, I thought in that part of his speech the light he was casting upon his subject rather resembled the struggling moonbeams—that misty light which seems appropriate to the romantic beauty of a ruin, because in ruin at the present moment a large portion of our elementary educational system is. And beautiful and
      900
      romantic as a moonlight beam may be, I am not going so far as to say that the English educational system now resembles the ruin of the university buildings at Louvain, but there is to some extent a parallel.
      We have had schools closed by the hundred. You have children by the hundreds of thousands not at school, and who will never go there again. You have your schools depleted of teachers who will never go there again because they are falling in battle, many of them, and others are dying in hospitals. The local authorities, having cut down their rates by 3d, 4d, 5d, 6d., and 7d. in the £, as many of them have done, will never impose those rates again. The excuse for getting clown the rates is the mounting up of the Income Tax, and that will remain ft years after the War, and they will say that they must reduce the local rates if they are called upon to pay so much to the Exchequer. So far from being able to get the leaving age of children increased I am afraid we shall have great difficulty in keeping up the age which was fixed before the War began. The elementary school system of this country is in ruins, and the way to remedy that and build it up again is not to send round persons prying into all these conditions and putting down on paper plans for reconstruction which can never be realised; the way to rebuild the system is to grant plenty of money, and only in that way can it be done. Take the falling off in regard to staff which the President referred to. Not only are teachers out of school with the Forces, many of them never to return, but there are scarcely any men teachers employed at the present moment, and the number will get less and less. If we proceed along the present lines you will have the whole of the elementary schools staffed by women alone. That may be an admirable thing up to six or seven years of age, but after that you want the masculine mind. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the one remedy for this is to increase the male staff and to improve emoluments which the teachers receive.
      When the right hon. Gentleman referred to the strain upon the labours of the teachers who are now left in the schools I inquired as to what his plans are during the next six weeks or so, from the middle of July to the end of August, which hitherto have been holiday weeks. What are the right hon. Gentleman's views with regard to the school holidays? The right hon.

      901
      Gentleman has been strenuous and wise I am sure in the efforts he has made for the munition workers to induce them to postpone their bank holidays again, and perhaps he will make some statement as to the school holidays, and whether he thinks the public service would be helped by keeping the schools open during those weeks. I know the right hon. Gentleman has earned a right to speak upon this matter, and I hope before the Debate is over he will express to the Committee, and through the Committee to the country, his views upon that point. I would beg my right hon. Friend to continue in the path he has adopted of demanding more money for the needs of elementary and secondary schools and appointing his Committees with wisdom and not overloading them with duties. That is a wise and proper way to proceed, and I am glad to see by his speech this afternoon that he is proceeding upon lines which will help us to build up the ruins of our educational system to the footing on which it stood before the War, as soon as the War is over.
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I am certain the Committee will agree with me when I say that one of the most important parts of the interesting speech made by the hon. Member opposite (Sir J.Yoxall) was the somewhat exaggerated, but nevertheless substantially true, statement that a large part of the elementary education of this country is at present in ruins.Ithink we might very well begin on that assumption and see what it means. There is a very considerable temptation to discuss details about the action of the local education committees both regarding children and teachers, details regarding teachers who have come into adverse contact with military authorities, who have been taken away from the schools and sent into the forests and fields to fell trees and cultivate land while their places have been taken by incompetent people very often not belonging to the teaching profession at all. But we are faced with a very much more difficult problem than these things now. There is an attempt going to be made—it has been referred to several times in the Debate this afternoon, and we shall hear a great deal more of it as days go by—to make ·our education more practical, and by that is meant that our schools are to be made more the adjuncts of our workshops than they have hitherto been. We had that
      902
      voiced in another place not very long ago, and if we start to rebuild our educational system and to make our new developments in educational policy in that sort of way and in that frame of mind, and approach our educational problems in the frame of mind in which we approached our economic problems at the Paris Conference, so far from improving our education and industry we are going to seriously damage both.
      I begin with the elementary school. There is nothing that is more misleading, or which leads us into a more deplorable culdesac than confining our attention to secondary schools, technical schools, and university schools. If there is any deplorable thing which is a clearly marked failure in our educational system to-day it is at the bottom. I do not blame anybody for this, and I do not think anybody ought to be blamed for it. At a time when religious and moral convictions and the social cohesive forces were all undergoing a very severe testing, as they have been doing since 1870, I doubt very much if any educational system could have been completely successful. Since 1870 we have been experimenting with certain books, certain subjects, and a certain organisation of schools and teachers, and although I have not associated myself with those who have asked for a Royal Commission, because I do not think it would be wise, I think that no greater service could be done to education now than that an impartial and able inquiry should be conducted into the whole of the results of our elementary education, and its position in a complete unity of an educational system beginning at the elementary schools and finishing at the university. I am certain that we have far too much subdivision between elementary education and secondary education, and there has been nothing in my time which has done more damage to elementary education than the unfortunate attempt to skim off the cream at the top and send the smart boys to another set of schools—I do not care whether you call them schools for higher elementary education or secondary schools.
      During all these years, when everybody has been talking about the superiority of German education, I have repeatedly said that I detest the German system. I have always said: look at home first and build up from your own national experience rather than go to Berlin and copy methods from the Germans. If you want to go for a good example I think you had better go

      903
      to Scotland. In the Scottish education system nothing has been proved more conclusively than this, that if you differentiate your elementary education from your secondary education you are starving your elementary education and taking away the foundation for a successful secondary education. I do not know what success has attended the policy of recent years when we have more and more proceeded in the direction of starving elementary schools by withdrawing the most promising school children and handing them over to secondary schools. I hope in the rebuilding which is about to take place we shall have the courage and wisdom and sagacity to retrace our steps in that direction. From the point of view of the teacher this is very important. There is a class of teacher who unfortunately is almost now disappearing. I happen to be one of those who was blessed by coming under the influence of the old type of Scotch teacher known as the Scotch dominie, and I owe much to his methods and the encouragement he gave me. To the Scottish agricultural labourer the old-fashioned dominie held out a helping hand, but I am afraid that that type of schoolmaster has gone, and if he has not gone, he is going. I wonder how far our education departments have ever regarded the disappearance of that man as a problem, or how far they have considered that it was their duty to train teachers so that they could take that man's place. They will never replace the old' Scotch schoolmaster if they give him an elementary school to teach in and take his best boys away when they reach the higher standard of elementary education. The whole secret of that man's success was that he always had some boys going to the university after they left his school. The unfortunate developments in Scottish education recently is the result of this fine subdivision, which is admirable on paper but is totally valueless, by which no single schoolmaster and no single instructor can possess himself of the pride of producing a boy who has been of some use in the world after he has passed through his hands.
      There is a fundamental point on which I somewhat disagree with my hon. Friend (Sir J. Yoxall). Perhaps, as a matter of fact, we do not differ in substance, but I disagree with the way he put it. I do not believe that you are going to
      904
      produce a good education system founded, on money considerations alone. I do not think my hon. Friend meant that either, but he expressed himself in such a way as to somewhat lend himself to misconception on that point. Certainly money is required. Your teacher must be better paid, he must be better looked after and, above all, your teacher must have more social honour given to him than he has hither to received. If you are going to produce qualities as well as quantities as regards pupils, then you must put something else on an equal footing with money and bring to the training of these men those subtle influences which make them proud of their work and make them feel that they are themselves educated men apart from their work of educating others. You will never do that by the present system.
      With regard to elementary education, I should say that English education has one very characteristic and deplorable fault. It has never tapped the brains of the rural districts. It has failed to do that. The characteristic of the Scottish education system is that it has always tapped the brains of its parish. There may be exceptions, but taking the whole I think that is the case. This fault of the English system is particularly due to the unfortunate religious controversy. Coming from Scottish schools into English schools, we find at once a new atmosphere created by that, controversy. When you have the schools subordinate to the church, however liberal the church may be, you cannot get the same free educational atmosphere in those schools as you get in the schools that are not subordinate to the church, and where the schoolmasters are freely chosen on account of their purely educational qualities, without any other considerations. That, however, is not the point I was going to make. The point I wish to make is that the problem of tapping the rural brains is the fundamental one, and is going to be essential to the struggle of this country in the future. You cannot depend upon your town brains. You must get the fresh, vigorous, and to a certain extent the grosser brains, that are able to do heavier work with more continued application than the somewhat attenuated and finer brains which you get through two or three generations in the towns. You must make the rural school a part of the large social amenities of life. In a large town you can almost afford to have a low-grade elementary school, because facilities for higher education are so great that if by

      905
      hook or crook you can bridge the little gulf between the poorer elementary school and the secondary school, with a little trouble during that bridging time, the ascending pupil can at last take his place in the world.
      The country school, however, is very often the final school, even with a good system of education. So far as intellectual contact between the country and the big outside busy world is concerned, it must come from these schools. Now, these are precisely the schools to which your poorer teachers gravitate. That is a problem the Board of Education ought to solve. These teachers are poorly paid, the committees are not always the best, and the people with whom they have business relationships are not always the easiest to get on with. Moreover, if they have children, they think they are sacrificing their children's future far too much by remaining in these country districts, than if they can possibly obtain an appointment in towns like Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, or London, they do so. There is the problem staring us in the face. How are we going to put this better type of teacher into these country schools—teachers such as we have put into the schools in the large towns which are more common, more numerous, and better backed up by other institutions. That problem has not been solved. It has not been very much considered; at any rate, I have not come across anything which showed that it was being considered. If we are going to build up our education system in the future as we ought to do, undoubtedly that problem must be solved. I come to the next problem. When .you have put your elementary education on a sound footing, then and only then are you able to take advantage of secondary and university education. Some years ago, when I was a member of the Technical Education Board of London, when we were laying the foundations of that system which is now in full working order, we constantly found that one of the great obstacles to the successful working of the mono technics and polytechnics which were established was that the elementary education of the pupils had been so much neglected. Let us get our elementary education right and then go on.
      Sir P. MAGNUS: It has enormously improved.
      Mr. MACDONALD: I know we have enormously improved it since then. I hope that someone talking ten years after me,
      906
      as I am talking now ten years after the time of which I am speaking, will be able to say it has been enormously improved during those ten years, because nothing less than that ought to satisfy the nation. When we come to the technical and scientific side, I hope the Board of Education will not encourage those scientific gentlemen who are presenting petitions at the present time, practically telling us to clear the humanities out of our schools—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, they are not!"]—and who have the idea of turning education into the teaching of science which is not scientific. I should not mind if it were science scientifically taught, but, if some of these statements which I have read are accurately worded, they have not even that conception of teaching science. To urge the teaching of science for the mere purpose of producing a chemist, who is to enter a workshop to invent new dyes, is not carrying out the principles of a scientific education. It is merely a technical education, and it is the most absurd proposal anybody posing as an educationist has ever made to an Education Department. The facts are all wrong. They tell us that we lost our dyeing industry because we had not enough chemists and because our scientific education was not sufficiently good to enable us to carry it on. Those are not the facts at all. We lost our dyeing industry because our manufacturers did not employ the chemists turned out by our educational system. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I have a statement made by Sir James Dewar. Nobody will dispute his authority on the subject. He said:
      "The first makers of coal tar products did not encourage good men to enter their works. The salaries offered were insufficient, the laboratory equipment was limited, the opportunities for research were not favourable. Suitable men were available, but the manufacturers would not employ them. There is no doubt that this industry could have been maintained here, had the manufacturers adopted the same process as in Germany."
      I also happen to have had the pleasure of the acquaintance of Sir William Perkins, who discovered the process, and also of Sir Robert Pullar, who was a very respected Member of this House and who very often told me of interesting pilgrimages he had made round Lancashire and the dyeing districts of Yorkshire and the turkey-red dyeing districts of Glasgow with Hoffman himself, when they tried to persuade manufacturers to employ men whom they named—chemists who, they said, were qualified to assist them in their work—and appealed to them to use the dyes and to use industrially the scientific

      907
      researches that had been successfully accomplished. Sir Robert Pullar always ended his description of those pilgrimages by telling me how heartbroken he was at the end, and how he had to give up all hopes of British manufacturers using the synthetic dyes. That was the reason why we lost our dyeing industry. Take the manufacture of scientific glass, in regard to which the case for our education is not so rosy as it is in the dyeing industry. You have in London an exhibition of glass made by a King's College professor since the War. There is no earthly reason why that glass should not have been made before the War if we had had sufficient industrial activity, enterprise and vitality to encourage the experiment. At all events the scientists who make that glass were not made after the War. I emphasise that point, not because I am at all satisfied with the present condition of scientific training in this country, but because that side of the matter ought to be stated as against the other, and in order to appeal to the Board of Education not to abandon what scientific training is being given, but to be careful not to degrade it and deteriorate it until it becomes a mere adjunct of the workshop. Science must be part of a liberal education. It cannot be an education standing apart by itself. It does not matter whether a man is going to be a parson or a chemist; if he does not know a good deal about things he does not use in his industry, he is neither a very efficient parson nor a very efficient chemist. The whole aim of our reconstructed education should be not merely to make people able to do certain things, but to develop them all round, so that they are really liberally educated men, able to do these things on account of their general knowledge, and not particularly because of special training.
      Take the question of art. What is the position in Germany? Those who have been to German exhibitions of handicraft must have been struck by the enormous improvement in German art and with its underlying vitality and force. You see it in the architecture in Berlin. In many cases they succeed most delightfully in showing beauty and vitality, and there is no example of art more interesting than recent developments in printing. If you went to a German printing exhibition you would have to admit that within the last ten or twelve years the German improve-
      908
      ments in the art of printing—the designing of the lettering, and so forth—were simply enormous. It was all ours. If you take the German letterpress design you see the hands of two of our masters in it—the first William Morris, the second Emery Walker, whose improvements of printing types are known so well. Here you have it again. You could not get our printers to do it. You could get no revolution in the output of books in this country from the printing side. In Germany you get it, and it has been a perfect delight to handle some of the books printed in Germany immediately before the War. But they borrowed the art from us, and therefore it is simply a case of our own manufacturers and producers not having the energy and the foresight and the nimbleness of mind and taste to adapt themselves constantly to new conditions, and to take into their industries all the new movements of invention and design available to them. Therefore we ought to take an optimistic view of our past in this respect, and not a pessimistic view. We do not require to copy here German methods at all. We only require to go straight ahead upon our own; lines, and to remember that as soon as the humanities go out of education then education ceases to be education altogether.
      I should like very much, if the Committee would allow me, to refer to one other point and that is universities. It is much too big a subject, and I cannot trespass on the time of the Committee to say much about it but I lay down this principle, which I am certain will be regarded with approval, that our system of education must be a unit right from the bottom rung of the ladder up to the top. If there is any break in it, any difficulties, or differences, or any hiatus, they ought to be eliminated as soon as possible. There is one thing about the English university which is in many respects the curse of English culture, and that is that it has never represented the nation. It has been a thing apart. It has never represented the struggling, hard, acquiring life of the nation. It has got for itself almost exclusively, quite exclusively till comparatively modern times, men of leisure, middleclass men, men above the middle class, and even now it is a little bit pathetic to those of us who value the universities, and very properly always will value them, regarding them from that point from which the uneducated, those who feel their deficiencies,

      909
      always regard these and other institutions that they would have liked very much to be able to attend in other circumstances—it is a little pathetic when we see working men going up to Oxford or Cambridge, and gradually drifting away from the simple, democratic, spirit which they had when they went there. So many of them give one the impression you get in reading a novel like George Gissing's "Born in Exile." They go away, and go into exile. They have never accepted in their new position for some reason or another, and they never can come back to their own fireside and feel at home. While that is true of the two old universities in this country, there must be something very wrong somewhere in our educational system, and I hope that in this respect the Board of Education will take a favourable view of a Royal Commission. I hope that a part of the programme of educational reconstruction is that we will have a Royal Commission inquiring into university education in this country. That was the view of the late Canon Barnett, who has worked so much for education, and whose love for it will always be a memory to those of us who came into personal contact with him, and I hope his great desire that a Royal Commission should inquire into Oxford and Cambridge with the idea of making those universities the embodiment of the whole life of the people, and of using the educational facilities of those universities so that every boy and every girl who has the ability can make use of them, on the old Scottish University style, will be realised, and that a Commission will be issued for the purpose of doing that.
      I am afraid I have been general. I feel this is a time for generalities. I feel that in stretching out into the new time that is ahead of us, as the War has reconstructed and recreated Europe just as though a huge earthquake had redistributed the apportionment of land and water, and of plains and hills—for that is going to be the effect of the War on the social life of the people of Europe—in those circumstances it is not enough to say what you are aiming at, but you must have a clear idea of where you are starting from; and, consequently, before we begin to consider aims, we ought to survey the past and see where we stand, and, from the knowledge of where we are, begin our pilgrimages into the future. I therefore suggest, first of all, that the
      910
      Education Department itself should consider its own reorganisation, and I do that for many reasons, though I mention only one. The Education Department is not, in its present state of organisation, a good Department for dealing with elementary education. The Education Department is far too much a university organisation. Its paper knowledge is admirable; its practical knowledge is very defective. It is still too weak on its elementary side, which requires infinite experience. It is not enough to put down elementary schools on paper, and apply some fine ideas as to their working: you want to know your teachers and your children, the families from which they come, and, with that fullness of knowledge in your mind, set your Education Department in order, and devise your education scheme, and set it working, not through gentlemen who are all, or nearly all, university men, but through the masters of elementary schools, who know more, and, indeed, have forgotten more, about elementary education than any of the inspectors ever knew in the course of their lives. Then the next thing is teachers. The training of teachers, and the status of teachers, must be reconsidered for the purposes, of the change. I hope we will restore width and liberality of education in our primary schools, and that we will resist the temptation to pursue, and undo a good deal of the evil that has been done by, the differentiation between primary and secondary education. I hope we shall link up every grade with adequate systems of scholarships, and that we shall draw upon the Exchequer for the money required. But when we do that we must remember that a system of scholarship is not alone adequate, that the education ladder is not to be a ladder up which selected individuals are to walk, but that the idea should be that education should raise the whole mass up to higher and higher levels of efficiency as time goes on. Then in every system of schools, however technical they may be—and there are splendid French models for this—we should keep the atmosphere of a liberal education, and tone down those materialistic and utilitarian ideas which have been the curse of every educational system of which they have taken possession. Finally, I hope we shall be able to open the university doors, not only by scholarships, but by cheapening the cost of

      911
      education in the universities as has been over and over again recommended by Commissions and educational experts, so that the university really will become the gathering place, the great spiritually democratic gathering place, of the talent and the genius of the nation.
      Sir HENRY HERBERT: Let me first of all congratulate the President of the Beard of Education on the admirable speech he made today. He explained his annual Budget so well that he has left very little for us to say. I notice, however, that the pensions to teachers are increased by £13,963, and I am exceedingly glad to see that, because I know no body of public servants deserves better of us than the school teachers. I regret very much indeed that it has been necessary to reduce the Grants for medical inspection. The experience in my own county teaches me that it is impossible to spend too much money on this. In the first place, the expenditure on school children is very small, and I know that the feeding of school children in Lancashire has dropped to a minimum. With regard to the staff, which before the War amounted to a total of forty-six, I see that in consequence of enlistment, both of our doctors and also of our nurses, it has been cut down to five doctors, nine nurses, and three clerks, three of whom are only temporary. I regret this very much, because I do not know any measure which has ever been passed by this House which has been productive of so much good as the medical inspection of school children, and I am afraid that we shall feel the effect of these losses of our doctors and our nurses in the future. With regard to the Estimates themselves on the secondary side, the principle point on which I should like to lay stress is the big general question of the improvement of the whole organisation of technical instruction, which I do not think we can too often press on the attention of the Board. I think a system which permits 70 per cent, of our children of thirteen years of age to escape all educational examination is one which calls for redress as soon as that is possible. It was bad enough before the War, but certainly, in view of the enormous competition we shall have to face after the War, it is necessary that attention should be paid to it now. I well remember when sitting on the Consultative Com-
      912
      mittee to the Board of Education that the question not only of evening continuation schools and classes was raised, but also the question of examination referred to in the House today, and I have always been surprised that the recommendations made in that very exhaustive Report have not borne greater fruit than we know to be the case.
      We went very fully into the question, and I am only sorry that our recommendations with regard to the halftime system, and also with regard to compulsory attendance at evening continuation schools, have not been brought before this House in a practical manner. The Board to-day are reducing their total expenditure on technical work by £62,000, or by about one-tenth. I know the official explanation. It is, of course, that there has been a diminution during the last Session in the amount of instruction given, and therefore under the present Regulations the payments must also naturally diminish. Though it is singular that the diminution of attendance in my own area last year, with 42.202 students, only amounted to something like 357, showing, of course, that it is not common to the whole of the country. This reduction of £62,000 seems to be indicative of the Government's general attitude, and I differentiate between the Government and the Board of Education, because I do not think we all realise that the Board of Education cannot do everything they want to do. There is always the Treasury to be reckoned with, and in this particular case there is sometimes the Local Government Board also.
      I will give you an instance now from my own county. We have been almost bombarded by different Departments of administration to economise, and we have economised to the extent of something like £12,000 on the secondary side of our education. That was not sufficient for the Local Government Board. I dare say it will be within the knowledge of every Member of this House that the county authority cannot spend more than 2d. in the £ on secondary education without the consent of the Local Government Board. The amount to which we were committed for higher education was 3 9–16d. We accordingly applied to the Local Government Board for permission to expend this money. After a great deal of negotiation—it is not yet ended—we were told that we could have permission to spend 3 9–16d. in the £ if we were prepared, in addition to

      913
      the £12,000 we had saved, to effect a further economy of 1–16d. in the £, or £2,225. Here is a case, therefore, in which a Government Department have practically compelled my authority to economise to an infinitely greater extent than we wanted to do or than, in my opinion, it was wise to do. I hold economy in education to be about the last economy which ought to be effected, and I hold that not only ordinary technical instruction, but also agricultural instruction in my county has had to suffer because the Local Government Board insists on our saving more money. I am very glad to see from the Estimates that the Grants for secondary schools have been increased by £56,600.
      It seems to me, as the result of my own commercial experience, that the ideal education which we ought to give in our secondary schools is that which will thoroughly equip the boy or girl for the trade or profession he or she intends to follow. I believe, speaking of the humanities, that Latin is essential, for it is the foundation of our language, and without some knowledge of it it is difficult, of course, to grapple with Continental languages; but for a student to take Greek—the time for which would be much better employed in the study of modern languages and science—is, in my opinion, a wicked waste of time so far as the commercial man is concerned. Then, again, time is a very great factor. The leaving age in all but the public schools in this country leaves very much to be desired, and it therefore becomes imperative that the nonessentials should give way to the essentials. I have had some experience of the leaving age in our secondary schools, and I find that out of thirty odd secondary schools in my own area that the school life over twelve in only two schools exceeds three years for1 boys, and in seven schools it is under two and a half years. Our schools are perfectly up to date. They have cost anywhere between £10,000 and £22,000 each. They are adequately equipped and splendidly staffed. In two schools only is the leaving age over sixteen; in one it is seventeen; in twenty-nine it is under sixteen; in thirteen it is under fifteen; and in two it is only fourteen and a half. We have the lowest fees in England. We charge in our secondary schools only £3 3s. per annum, and we have something from 32 to 33 per cent. of free places. Therefore, I naturally ask, why do children leave so early? A great deal has been said about the facilities that ought to be
      914
      given to children of poor parents. You cannot give them very much greater facilities.
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the students who secure free places are those who leave early? Is it not his experience that they stay longest?
      Sir H. HIBBERT: It is certainly my experience that they stay longer, but then they not only have free places, but they are allowed a bounty for books, free travelling expenses, and £5 per annum in the three and subsequent years in order that children of poor parents may not be ashamed by not being able to dress as well as the other students. I say, therefore, that there is every inducement in our schools for children to remain. Why do children leave so early? A great many reasons have been given today, but I do not think anyone has yet touched the spot. I am going to try. I make bold to say that there never was a period when education was more necessary than it is today, and when people who have seen the defects of our education are so ready to abuse the Board of Education and the local education authority. Someone today, I think the President himself, said that it was a question of money, more money, and still more money. Money is a very useful thing with which to go to market, but money will not do everything. An hon. Gentleman opposite spoke of the superiority of the Scottish educational system. It is not the superiority of the educational system in Scotland which makes the Scottish people better educated than similar classes of people in this country. It is the Scottish people themselves. They have a real enthusiasm for education which does not obtain either in England and Wales or even in this House. We have got the people to blame, and until you educate the people of this country as you are trying to educate their children you will never get value for the large amount of money you are spending on education.
      I have spoken about the duration of school life in the secondary schools. I have exactly the same complaint to make about the duration of school life in the technical schools. I do not believe that our system, either of elementary, secondary, or technical education is behind the education of any other country, but here is some rather useful evidence. In my own area there are 42,202 individual scholars in our technical schools, and, as I have said before, the

      915
      number is only 357 less than last year. What are these scholars doing? I find that 14,488 of them take only one subject; 3,673 take two subjects; and 1,151 take three subjects. Then, again—and this is infinitely more important—whilst 5,214 take the first year preliminary technical course, they dwindle down in the second year to 2,033, and, if you take the preliminary commercial course, which is a very favourite course in my own county, you find that the 2,723 in the first year have dwindled down to 1,627 in the second year. What is the educational result? It is a mere smattering of knowledge and a waste of time.
      We have been told from these benches that the boys are too tired to go to these schools at night. I have had very considerable experience in education, extending now over pretty nearly forty years. I instituted the first technical school in my own place, and I do not hesitate to tell the House that the boys who walked three miles to my school after a hard day's work, and did it twice or three times a week, and walked back again, are the men who have made their mark. There never was a period in the history of this country when it was more possible for a boy to rise from the bottom to the top. I am speaking commercially. The whole history of Lancashire proves that; but it is the triers who do it. It is the boys who are prepared to foreswear pleasure in order that they may educate themselves, who have got on and who are the backbone of the cotton spinning and cotton manufacturing industry of Lancashire.
      7.0 P.M.
      There are just two other points to which I wish to allude. The first is the desirability of the Board placing greater emphasis on the teaching of physical training in all types of schools. In evening schools where I think its wider introduction would be very beneficial, the present rate of Grant is very much lower than it is for any other subject. As a matter of fact, the Board during the last few years has shown an increasing interest in this subject, but they might be urged to do still more, and I think that if any argument were wanted in order to enforce the opinion that physical training was more necessary in our schools it would be found in the great number of rejections in the Army, in the enormous improvement in physique of men who have enlisted, owing, at any rate, partly to physical drill,
      916
      and in the vital necessity of using every means to bring health and strength to the coming generation. The other point is in regard to the encouragement of research in technical schools, especially the larger ones. It is understood that the Board has some scheme for aiding the more important schools to carry out research in matters relating to the application of science to industry. Some indication of this is given in a speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Lewis), speaking at the Stanley Technical Trade School, South Norwood, in February this year. A most admirable speech it was. He said:
      "It may be of interest if I quote some passages from the Board's regulations for these schools. A junior technical school is described in the Regulations as 'a school organised as part of the system of higher education and providing a continued full-time education under school conditions for pupils from public elementary schools in preparation either for artisan or other industrial employment or for domestic employment.' The Regulations go on to say that 'the curriculum of the school must provide for the continuance of the moral, intellectual and physical education given in the public elementary schools. Practical work under the charge of teachers with actual workshop experience must form a prominent feature in the curriculum, while visits to works, museums and other places connected with the subjects of the school course may form part of the instruction."
      Then he goes on to say:
      "The reports which the Board have received from their inspectors and the opinions of prominent employers of labour indicate that, these schools are playing a most important part in the educational machinery of the country, and there are indications that this type of education is one which is peculiarly fitted to the conditions existing in this country."
      I merely mention this and make this rather long quotation to call attention to the fact that the Board has reduced this Vote from £22,000 to £16,000, which I think is a mistake. I wish to thank the Board for the scheme to simplify the payment of Grants for technical schools and classes based on the number of hours of instruction given instead of, as formerly, the number of attendances made at the classes. The proposal involves the payment of a block Grant in view of Grants assigned to each school. This scheme tends to diminish the loss which authorities would otherwise suffer from a decreased number of students in the more advanced classes.
      Mr. GORDON HARVEY: I will not follow the hon. Member in his very interesting speech concerning the details of education. I did once think of putting down a Motion to reduce my right hon. Friend's salary, but the House having unexpectedly risen, I failed to find an opportunity. It would only have been to stimulate him and not to deprive him of money

      917
      so honourably earned. Indeed, I hope he will long occupy the position he now fills. I am quite sure he is quite competent to do it, and I should like to see him there for a long time, for this reason amongst others. For the first time this great position has been filled by one who has an intimate knowledge of the lives of the mass of the people of this country. It is for them that the great Department is mainly carried on and their special wants, needs and requirements should be the chief object of its administration. I have sat for eleven years in this House, and I have heard during that time no fewer than five Ministers make their statements on educational matters, and just as we were becoming accustomed to them and getting to understand them they soared away to some other office, either the Government of Ireland or it may be the Post Office, and new Ministers took their place, who, I will not say had a lesson to learn, but whom we had to get to know and to understand. I think this has one disadvantage. A new Minister comes here and talks to us and we feel in Debate that we have to talk to the gentlemen who are in the House but not of it, the admirable drivers and managers of this great machine, and we should really like to talk to a Minister not for one year, but for a second year and a following year so that we might be able to compare notes in subsequent debates as to how far suggestions have borne fruit in the year that had passed. I think that this constant change of Ministers really militates against national education. I have the greatest respect for permanent officials. I know the value of their work, and they must do most of the work that belongs to educational administration. But there is one thing that they cannot do. They cannot popularise education in the country. It is only the Minister who can do that. He must get to be looked upon in the country as the representative of the country in this great office, and it is only by having a Minister of experience and long association with the work that education will ever be popularised in this country. The great drawback to the progress of education is that it is not popular with the bulk of the people. They use the schools, it is true, but they only use those schools which we make them use and they neglect those schools where attendance is voluntary. They do not use the schools more than they can help because they do not believe in them. At the very earliest possible moment they take their children
      918
      away to such occupation as they can find for them. I believe the nation is awakening a little in its interest in education, and1 in my opinion there is no class of the community where the interest is awakened so rapidly as the commercial class. I am bound to say something for the employer because he is so little taken notice of and so generally lectured. My right hon. Friend read him a very nice little lecture. He said it was all the fault of the employer, who did not understand the importance of education in the carrying out of his business. I do not know where he got his knowledge of employers. I am sure he must only know a limited class.
      Mr. HENDERSON: I have worked for them.
      Mr. HARVEY: He can only have worked for a limited number. I know a great many, and the commercial class in this country is awakening rapidly to a great and growing interest in education. The hon. Member (Mr. Macdonald) warned us not to be pushed along too rapidly by those people who would materialise education; in fact he warned us not to follow those who recommend Prussianising our institutions. I join with him in his warning on that point. We shall be wise if we develop education on our own methods and our own foundations. We have in this country, far as our system falls short of what we should desire, at any rate, an excellent foundation upon which, to build the creation of free men with expanding minds and strong individuality. I hope on a foundation like that we shall build and perfect our educational progress. I am glad to notice how much attention has been devoted to the importance of improving our elementary schools. These schools are and will always remain the chief schools of the people. Technical schools and secondary schools are all excellent. There is sufficient interest in high quarters to look after them and develop them. For the bulk of the people it is most essential that we should develop and improve, as far as we possibly can, our elementary schools, which are the schools of the bulk of our population. I suggest that we might also consider how to make the elementary schools more interesting than they are to-day to the children, and hew to link them up, to some extent, at any rate, with the practical life the child will have to follow when it leaves school. You can only make the elementary schools more interesting to the children by largely

      919
      increasing the number of those teachers who have charge of them during their school life. If I am asked where the supply would come from I should probably fall foul of some of my friends, but I would suggest that until you can get a full and sufficient supply of really trained, certificated, educated teachers, until you can staff the schools with teachers with higher qualifications, you must take the best material you can get. Just now every class of work is wanting labour. We cannot commence too soon suggesting what might be done when the War has been brought to a conclusion. There are thousands and tens of thousands of women who are now doing work—educated women, useful women—who have never worked before, and I say that until you can get a full supply of highly trained expert teachers I would like to see these women asked to come into the schools, at any rate to assist in the supervision of the children and the management of classes already too large. I believe it would be possible to get 50,000 decent, intelligent young women, who love children, to go into the schools to help in the interests of the children.
      You may have most palatial edifices, you may have the most superb equipment and you may have all your teachers trained and highly qualified, but if your classes are too large for the teacher you will fail in everything you attempt. You will not get education. You may get discipline, you will get restraint, you will get repression of the young energy, but you will only get the merest smattering of instruction. The children so controlled, so dominated, so disciplined—for absolute discipline is necessary before anything can be done—will leave the school and look to the factory as affording them the freedom which they most desire. We have been told to-day that we ought to raise the age for school attendance. I would be very glad to see that done. I think it most necessary in order to satisfy even our most modest educational ambitions. But you have no right to detain children in the schools unless you are prepared properly to deal with them when you get them there. You have no right to detain children in the schools unless you can give to every child some individual attention from the teacher appointed to instruct. I would ask the President of the Board of Education to consider some way by which parents might be got to believe more in the elementary schools than they do at
      920
      the present time. It is so easy to call the parents unworthy, to accuse them of selfishness, and to say that their only object is to make money out of their little children, but I am not so sure that these accusations, often so lightly made, are right. I believe that the parent often takes his child away from school at the earliest possible moment, not because he grudges the sacrifice necessary to extend its school life, not because he wants a few shillings from that child in wages, but because the parent is anxious to see the child established, at the earliest possible time, in some position where it can see before it hope of constant employment and a reasonable livelihood. I think if we could get the parents to believe that the school would be of practical use to the child in after life, and that the child would be more sought after and more profitably employ so if its education were better, that would be the greatest stimulus in getting the parents to allow their children to remain longer in the school. I think that could be done.
      The advocates of secondary schools are enthusiastic and eloquent. The President of the Board of Education this afternoon once more referred to that link between school and school, where the child can go to the infants' department of an elementary school and rise standard by standard to the secondary school, the technical college, and the university. That is a very pretty picture, but there is no real link between these schools. I wish there were. Such a link would be extremely difficult to establish for the majority of children. I would ask the President to consider this, that for one reason or another, it may be a mere geographical reason, not one child in a thousand has the chance of reaching the secondary school. That proportion may be lightened, but the difficulty will never be entirely removed. I would urge the President of the Board of Education, as I urged his predecessor, to see if we cannot have either in every elementary school, or in some convenient centre of every school district, an elementary school with good higher-grade upper standards. I think that is a thing that would be of more advantage to a larger number of children than any reform we could bring about. I heard it said two or three times to-day that the status of the teachers ought to be improved. I am heartily in sympathy with that suggestion. I look upon the profession of the teacher as being as responsible and as honourable

      921
      as any profession, and I think every good citizen in every locality ought to go a little bit out of his or her way to make the teachers' social position better, and their lot happier in the district in which they live. That is a small matter; but I should like to see the Government doing something in regard to it. I should like to see some distinction or honour offered to teachers which would show that not only are they honoured by their neighbours in their own locality, but that the Government or the State they serve thinks so well of them that it places at their disposal some little honour or distinction.
      Sir H. CRAIK: I congratulate the hon. Member (Mr. G. Harvey) upon a speech full of interest and certainly full of earnestness and thorough enthusiasm for education. I would like also to congratulate the President of the Board of Education on his statement. I have heard many statements of the same sort, and I can say that his statement stands high for its appreciation of the difficulties which surround him, and by the fact that he is thoroughly awake to the necessity of keeping a watchful eye on the course which is to be steered in the future. Perhaps it is because I am an old gamekeeper turned poacher that I do not feel inclined to accept all the orthodox beliefs which generally emerge in these educational debates. We have had the advantage or disadvantage of having an immense number of the newest nostrums for dealing with educational difficulties. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, in the midst of that wealth of nostrums, to avoid certain pitfalls which long experience in the education world makes me think are not unlikely to occur. There is a very great danger of a certain fussiness and a certain exaggeration in regard to education. We must not shut our eyes to the fact that while education is a very useful thing, there are an immense number of faculties, of powers, of great assets to the nation that develop themselves entirely independent of your educational processes, and are all the better, perhaps, for being independent of those educational processes. There is no nation that has become great merely by its education, although perhaps it is equally true that there is no nation which has neglected its education without risk of a very serious fall. But do not let us act, as too many educational bodies have acted, as if the sole way to national energy and national efficiency lies
      922
      within the walls of the school. Above all things, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will beware of constant resort to Commissions and Committees, which present so many pitfalls and waste so much time. In my own exeprience I often have found that the power of laying out a well-adjusted scheme of organisation, by what is called scientific method, is almost in inverse proportion to the practical knowledge of education as it goes on within our schools. It is very easy to lay down some general scheme, but it is very difficult to carry out that scheme in practice, and it is impossible to do so without studying the most minute and very often uninteresting details.
      I am apt to think that a nation develops its educational facilities not by means of Commissions, not by great schemes, not by arguing for one system of education against another, but because it is the education for which it is fitted, and which it deserves, just as it has the Press, the pulpit and the Government that it deserves. A nation has the schools it deserves, because it makes its own schools. In a single sentence I would like to notice two epochs which I think in our history stand out as epochs where the school did more for the country than it ever did at any other time; two epochs where education really was instrumental in working national regeneration. The first of these epochs was in the earlier part of the sixteenth century in England, when the schools were opening out and the nation was expanding towards the spacious times of Queen Elizabeth; and the other epoch was the development of the Scottish parish school in the middle of the eighteenth century, when Scotland was seeking a place in the sun for herself, determined to find a place amongst the greater nations, developing from being merely a poor country with hardly any commerce, and living under a burden of poverty, into one which was within a generation or two to take a prominent place in Colonial work, and in the development of our Empire generally. These two epochs—the development of the English school in the sixteenth century and the Scottish parish school in the eighteenth century—were not created by Commissions or by schemes or by scientific organisation. They came because the country was moving forward and because the country was determined to have them, and was fitted to have them. Does anyone doubt that the country at the

      923
      end of this War, without any of those Commissions or this talk of scientific organisation, will be alive in every fibre of its being, and will seek, if it has the choice, for some schools that will develop its energy in the best way?
      There are two or three things which I hope the right hon. Gentleman, if he has any part in that development, will keep in mind. First, I trust that he may not be inclined to follow too many will-o'-the-wisps of new subjects of education. The longer I have studied the subject, and the greater the experience I have gained, the more I have thought that the first principle of our education should be simplicity in our curriculum. There is no maxim that ought to be more closely practised in our schools. The second is, Leave initiative to the schools. Do not attempt to curb them by a fast rule, or to make them the mere creatures of an official system by driving them into one single mould. It is only by leaving initiative to the schools, by allowing them to develop their own different methods, that you give them the power of developing character in their pupils. No school that is merely made to follow one fixed line, to conform itself to certain trammels, and to mould itself to certain prescribed formulas will ever be able to develop character in its pupils. It is vain to have a pretentious curriculum, a specious organised system of education, a curriculum that seems to be expansive and comprehensive, if you cannot develop that character upon which our nation has been built, and on which my own country above all, in that eighteenth century, developed to such an enormous extent through the work of the parish school. If you can give the schools the power, however simple the curriculum, of imparting to their pupils the sense of the one thing needful, thoroughness and determination, and the stiffening of their sinews to any hard task, if you can impress them with these words of Kipling, so full of meaning—
      "If you can force your brain and heart and sinew To serve your turn, when all of them are gone, And so hold on when there is nothing in you, Except the will that says to them 'hold on.'"
      then all will be well. That is what we have to impress on the new generation. What the material is we see in the War. We know it by our experience. No belief has "been impressed upon me in my older years more strongly than this, that the new generation which is coming forward is fitted to take its place with the best that
      924
      ever went before. It has developed itself in this War. It will come back full of new purpose. Do not trust all that is best in it to any scheme, however well devised on paper, by any number of Commissions. If you send to your schools men who are filled with the missionary enthusiasm for their task, who will seek to impart to their pupils that enthusiasm, that force, that determination, that perseverance, then, whatever your scientific scheme and your organisation may be, with that spirit your future education will be worthy of the best that has gone before.
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: The Committee is to be congratulated on the Debate which we have had to-day so far. The hon. Member for Glasgow University (Sir H. Craik) has made not the least notable contribution to the Debate which was so eloquently inaugurated by the President. It was rather as gamekeeper than as poacher that the hon. Member warned my right hon. Friend against the nostrum of Commissions and Committees.
      Sir H. CRAIK: I said that I had been a gamekeeper who had turned poacher.
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: I am referring to the hon. Member's game keeping days, when I am sure that as an official he had some suspicion of Committees and Commissions which may obtain in a certain Department which is near this House. But while some of the things which have been said about the Board of Education and its staff may have been true of earlier days—and, as one of its critics, I very probably said some of the hardest things myself—yet from my recent experience I am bound to say that there is a welcome change in the attitude of the Board of Education not only towards teachers, but towards members of local education authorities, and the suspicion, expressed, for example, by the hon. Member for London University (Sir P. Magnus) in his desire for an independent Commission, as though he could not trust the Board of Education, is not quite in keeping, as I believe, with the present attitude of the Board of Education. I am glad to have my opinion reinforced by the hon. Member for Chorley (Sir H. Hibbert), who has been so active in educational matters for many years. I desire to say with what interest I listened to his speech. I believe that it is the labours of men like himself, who have unselfishly devoted themselves to the public good, which have placed our education system on its present modest level. There is one point as to which I do

      925
      not quite agree with the admirable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester. Under the scheme of my right hon. Friend's predecessor, quite a considerable number of teachers in elementary schools have been promoted to the position of inspectors. This is a very happy change, and one which I hope will not be lost sight of during the term of office of my right hon. Friend. What my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester disclosed was unhappily the case in days gone by, when the inspectors, recruited almost solely from the ranks of university men, were placed under the care of one or two of elementary origin, and learned their business at the expense of the people on whom they practised, and partly under the direction of men who were expert in elementary schools, and then proceeded with their work and became divisional inspectors. A happier regime now prevails.
      I desire to refer to one or two subjects in closer detail than has been the case in the speeches which have been delivered—for instance, this question of secondary education. There I would that we had such a leaving age that boys and girls in elementary schools could be kept in association with the same school until the age of sixteen was reached. That, unfortunately, is not the case, and that accounts for the fact that we are not able to build lip in the elementary schools that corporate spirit which is such an admirable part of the organisation of the best secondary and public schools. Unfortunately the central school, the junior technical school, and the secondary school, admirable institutions in themselves, all take their tone from the elementary schools and prevent the development of that corporate life which comes from the influence of the top ·class on those below, and I observe, not with any satisfaction, that the Report of the Board of Education discloses the fact that more children under twelve years of age, quite a number of them at the immature age of ten, are passed into the secondary school, and, if I may, I would warn my right hon. Friend against development along that line. It seems to me to show that a number of parents, recognising the advantage of the secondary schools and of early association with it, are from their more favourable financial position able to place their young children in the secondary schools, and authorities are prepared to take them, because they are
      926
      all fee payers, to the exclusion of those boys and girls who ought to go from the elementary schools, about the age of twelve, to fill those invaluable places in the secondary schools, and the consequence is that we are passing out of our elementary schools, in an enormous number, children a proportion of whom at least should be represented in the secondary school, where their places are occupied by these children of the age of ten and eleven.
      And the Report of the Board of Education seems to comment with some favour on the fact that there has been a considerable increase in the number of entrants into secondary schools drawn from children of about the age of ten. My view is that secondary education cannot begin about that age with any distinct success, that education given about that age must be primary, because of the age and the activities and the abilities of the child, and that far better would it be to prevent the parents of these children, possibly from some extraordinary idea as to what happens in elementary schools, segregating their children from elementary school contact, and taking the places which ought to be reserved for children from elementary schools. And in this connection I may call the attention of the parents to another point in the Report, which has been recently alluded to, regarding the number of exemptions which have been allowed in secondary schools being permitted to vary the 25 per cent, of free places normally demanded from secondary schools who receive the full scale of Grants. Out of 808 secondary schools which receive the full scale of Grants 108 were permitted to offer less than the normal 25 per cent. last year. That seems to me an unfortunate proceeding. It may be that the poverty of the school is pleaded. That is no reason for varying this excellent provision—rather is it a reason for finding additional financial assistance for such schools, so as to keep them to the level of efficiency. In that connection I do not wish to suggest that fees ought to be increased to make up the additional income, and I am in accord with my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley, who suggested that £3 3s. would represent the maximum fee charged for secondary schools in Lancashire. I am afraid that there has been a disposition to increase the amount of fees in State-aided secondary schools, making therefore the percentage of free places

      927
      more valuable to the children from elementary schools who have not the necessary financial opportunity of going forward without rate or State aid. Wales in this particular connection has a very much better record. Of all her secondary schools there is only one which has varied from this 25 per cent, of free places kept for children from elementary schools, and the one school in Wales which was allowed to vary is a school of a non-local character. If Wales can afford it, and if it is good for Wales, surely the practice should be extended in England, and the financial difficulties of the school met by increased Grants rather than by a diminution of free places or by an increase in fee.
      There is another point to which I would like to call the attention of the Committee. That is the question of the junior technical school. It is a recent development, and in many respects an admirable development, of our educational system. It gives what the hon. Member for Rochdale would greatly approve of, the opportunity of applying what may be termed the practical method to the teaching of the subjects in the curriculum, but as I see the development of the junior technical schools, and as I read the Regulations of the Board of Education regarding them, I fear that there is a disposition to make them more vocational than technical. And there we come against the difficulty pointed out by the hon. Member for Leicester, the attempt to make our education vocational at too early an age, and an indication ought to be given as between the practical method developed and the application of the vocational theory at our schools. Technical schools take pupils at the age of twelve or there abouts. I find in the Regulations that the parents of boys or girls who go to those schools have to sign an undertaking that the children who go to those junior technical schools will subsequently follow the vocation which the school is expected to serve. In Shoreditch there is a very excellent junior technical school associated with the furniture business. The parents of the children who go to that school are expected to sign an undertaking that the boys who follow the course of the Shoreditch Technical School will become cabinet makers. Surely there is something wrong there. Surely boys at that age may not be quite sure as to what their vocation is to be, and that is where I think the junior
      928
      technical school is on the wrong lines at present. It is desirable to make the junior technical school a real school and not a pre-apprentice stage, intended to relieve the employer of the necessity of training his apprentices. On the other hand, it was delightful to me to observe that so far as ordinary literary subjects are concerned, there was no lack of power in the children, and it seems to be the experience that the method of students making, as it were, their own practical deductions from arithmetic or mensuration stimulates the activities of the brain in other directions. It is a very remarkable tribute to the type of work that is undertaken there that the pupil teachers trained to be manual instructors were able, notwithstanding some limitation as to the amount of literary work they do, to hold their own with the pupil teachers trained on what might be called the more literary basis. Therefore, I see no reason why there should be a very interesting method of development in our schools; there is no reason why, with the aid of the authorities and the Board, there should not be more practical work done in these schools. But let it be understood that this practical work is not intended to give a vocational bias. Vocational ability may be developed, but there should not be organisation in the school to make boys better carpenters and better joiners; what we want to see is the manual method for developing hand and eye, without regard, at that age, to the vocation which the boy may subsequently be called upon to follow. I may turn for a minute or so to a very important question which the President of the Board dealt with in his speech—the question of the employment of children. It must have come with a shock to the' House to learn that, even according to the figures accessible to the Board, something like 15,500 children have been released from school for agricultural employment in contravention of the existing bylaws. I share the view of the hon. Member for West Nottingham that more power should be put into the hands of the Board to bring to book any recalcitrant authority, and, for my part, I should be glad to see power placed in the hands of the Board to make a reduction of Grants, so that it would become more expensive for an authority not to administer the bylaws than to administer them justly. The education authority has power adequately to carry out the bylaws as they are intended to be carried out, and they should not be inadequately administered so as to release more

      929
      children for labour. In this particular matter I think something more could be done than is being done, especially in view of the problems which will arise at the close of the War. There is in existence a useful little Act, called the Choice of Employment Act. Very little use is being made of that enactment in a number of districts. I believe, as a matter of fact, twenty county boroughs, ninety-four municipal boroughs, and thirty-six urban districts have not taken advantage of their powers under that Act—powers which would enable them to advise, through their subcommittees, as to what avenues were open to the children. These committees could act in accord with the Labour Exchanges to keep employers in touch with the schools, and I invite my right hon. Friend to do something to stimulate the activities of the local authorities in the direction of making better use of the Choice of Employment Act.
      I heard with great pleasure the suggestion that something must be done—and I hope at an early date—to clear out of the way the all too many kinds of exemption which allow children to slip out of school, even under existing bylaws. The time must rarely come—and I think the President agrees with this—when the minimum leaving age of at least fourteen years should be adopted by this, country, and when there ought to be no fancy exemptions by means of what is called the "dunce" certificate," or by means of labour examination, and all that kind of thing, to allow children to get away. I hope we will not have any repetition of the concession which has been made to Bradford. It seems to be thought that something has been gained there. I have very grave doubt about that. Three thousand children will be released probably at a very early date, and something like sixty or seventy teachers will probably be released; and we know that means, with three thousand children released, that sixty or seventy teachers will find themselves looking for jobs outside Bradford. This is a great danger, and the shame of it is that at the age when children can be made most of, and at the time when the influence of the teacher counts for most, the top classes of the elementary schools of Bradford, in the period after the War, are going to be denuded. There is no guarantee, even though certain manufacturers have pledged themselves that halftime will not be adopted in their mills after the War, that this will be carried out. It is
      930
      a question of bylaws, it is a question of the law, it is the question of the application of the Factory Acts, and, as to these particular manufacturers, however they may now pledge themselves, they may not be able, after the War, to carry out the pledge which they have made. The local authority may vary, and may put before the right hon. Gentleman a set of bylaws in agreement with the existing bylaws, going back to the age of thirteen, instead of fourteen, as the age of exemption. So far from regarding it as a concession made by the authority and the Bradford manufacturers to the Board of Education, I have very grave doubts as to whether it is not a concession on the part of the Board to the spinners of Bradford, and I hope there will be no repetition of it during the War.
      Sir STEPHEN COLLINS: After the eloquent speeches we have had this afternoon from expert authorities on the subject of education perhaps a layman, one who speaks on behalf of the parents of the children who are in our elementary schools, may be permitted to say a word or two. We have had the privilege this afternoon of listening to the President in the clear, concise and comprehensive speech which he delivered, and if the parents had been present to hear him they would have been encouraged by what they would have heard. We felt, as we listened to the right hon. Gentleman, that his was the speech of an enthusiast in the work of education, and he gave us matter for reflection when referring to some things which we all deplore. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that little children of five years of age are now being debarred from attending the elementary schools. I think that is very sad. I wish the President and the Board of Education could use their influence now, even before the War is closed, to go back to the old system, and allow these little children to go to school again. I speak with some experience as an old council school manager. I used to visit the schools, and I saw how these little children really loved to be at school, where they spent the best hours of their day. These dear little children were in school, and the teachers loved them, and I must say it seems to be a great grief to these teachers to give up control of these young children.
      8.0 P. M.
      The President referred to the fact, and I agree with him, that the best training ground for little children in their tender years is the home. But I know too many

      931
      places in this great London of ours and in our large towns and cities where there are homes not worthy the name, and where children are brought up in one or two rooms. In this London of ours there are tens of thousands of homes where there is no comfort, where the family is confined to one room, and where the mother has, perhaps, to look after half a dozen children. Perhaps the mother goes out, and what are the little ones to do? I do not know; none of us can tell; but we do know that it must be very sad. I think this is a very serious question, and I hope the President of the Board will take it to heart and see if he cannot rouse up the local authorities, or compel them to take these little children back where they can be taught and loved. The first impressions made upon the minds of these little children of tender years are lasting and grow with them as they pass through life. I trust the President will find himself able to consider this grave question seriously. In relation to the children referred to by the hon. Member who has just spoken, the 15,000 who have already taken up occupations, we have had the confession from the President that nearly 500,000 of our children under fourteen years of age are not attending school. That is a sad, I would almost say a shameful confession. I question whether any other great country in the world has to make such a sorry confession as that. In our Dominions, where there are fifteen or twenty children gathered together, there is a school provided for them. We know the difficulty in our agricultural districts, but I must say that many of our agricultural people are no friends to education; many of the farmers are no friends of education. They hate the Education Act. I say this sorrowfully, but I say it truly, and that is why, as stated by the President, so many of the children in our country districts are taken away from school so early to work on the land. We know their difficulties, but what a contrast in Scotland! We heard the speech from the hon. Member for Leicester, who referred with pride to the advantages Scotland has in the way of education, and in keeping children to school. I heard a celebrated divine the other day refer to Scotland, and he also made this statement, which I really believe he had ground for making, namely, that in Germany, where the war
      932
      spirit was so strong, he did not believe a child had been taken away from school or had received less education in this time of strain and stress of war. If that is true in Germany, why should we not be able to do the same in this country? The cost is spoken about, and the President said that even if there had been no war, most likely there would have been a serious increase, but I suppose what he meant was great increase. I believe the expenditure for education now is £15,000,000 per year, which, let us remember, represents only three days' expenditure in this War. I would say to every Member do not let us grudge what we pay for education, for whatever we pay it is cheap. I believe in what I have said I have spoken on behalf of the parents and of the infant children and of those children who are taken away too soon from school. Members who have to do with agriculture know the truth of what I am saying. I congratulate the President on the enthusiasm of his splendid deliverance, and I hope that we shall all feel more impressed with the value of the education of our children.
      Colonel MEYSEY THOMPSON: I listened with very great interest to the clear and able statement of the President of the Board of Education. There are only two points to which I wish to refer. The first is with regard to the temporary check on the building of new schools which has been mentioned. I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that during the last few years a very large number of schools have been scrapped for what even the local people allow are very inadequate reasons. We are at war, our expenses are very heavy, and the bill after the War will be very heavy, and therefore I wish, with all due respect, to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the advisability of using again many of those buildings which have been scrapped and which, with very little alteration and at very small expense, could be rendered adequate for the purpose of education. The children would receive no less efficient education in those schools than in the new ones. The buildings in many cases are excellent. We see in many of the large towns buildings which have been put on the scrapheap for no other than some small technical reason about lavatories or suchlike, and the local authorities will tell you that those buildings could be put right at very small expense, and would be just as efficient as

      933
      many of the modern schools. The other point which I wish to mention is as to boy labour. I have listened to one hon. Member after another, and it seems to me that they all lose sight of the fact that we are at war. The Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the House yesterday and asked to be permitted to break through the practices of the House and to be allowed to get two stages of the Finance Bill through on the one day, because he pointed out we are at war. That argument is always used by the Government when it suits them, but when it does not they choose to forget it. Here we are in the middle of the greatest War that has taken place for centuries, and at a time of the year when it is of the greatest importance to get all the labour possible for the hay and the harvest generally, and yet one hon. Member after another gets up and objects to children being taken for a short period from school in order to serve those two great national interests—forage for horses and food for the people. We hear about the necessity of providing cheap food for the people from the benches opposite, and yet, when it is absolutely necessary to have all labour possible employed on the farms, hon. Members come down and say, "No, you are not to take those boys," who are strong and healthy and absolutely fit for the work. What we ask is that children should be allowed to be employed on this work, which is healthy work, and which is an education in itself.
      I entirely disagree with those hon. Members who say that children's training should not be begun at an early age. My own practical experience in the Colonies and at home is that those people who make the greatest success in their trade are those who begin to work at an early age when they are receptive, and when the minds are easily trained. If this was a dangerous occupation, or one that was liable to injure the health of the child, I could quite understand the argument, but agricultural work is the healthiest occupation upon which children could possibly be employed. I therefore venture to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is an absolute national necessity at the present time that children should be employed in light work on farms where they are so much needed, and I feel certain it will do good to the children themselves. The President astonished me very much
      934
      by saying that if necessary they were going to coerce the local authorities in this matter, and that if necessary he was coming down to ask the House to give additional powers. I never heard such a thing from a democratic Government, as this Government is supposed to be. You appoint local authorities who understand, or are supposed to understand, local conditions, and the moment they exercise any independence you say, "We will compel you to do as we want, and not to exercise your independent authority." [A Laugh.] An hon. Member laughs. He laughs at everything which is sound and practical. I have had a long experience of him in this House. I venture to say that mine is a very practical suggestion. I think it is a monstrous thing coming from those Benches and from Members of the Labour party to say that we are to appoint local authorities, and as soon as they begin to exercise powers given to them we are going to pass legislation to stop them doing so. What could be more absolutely absurd? Either have no local authorities, and accept the responsibility yourselves, but for Heaven's sake do not appoint local authorities and then give them no power whatever. I hope the Committee will believe that what I am saying is not for the purpose of being disagreeable, or because I in any way underrate education. I have simply pointed out what I think to be practical and useful, and I hope the President will allow the local authorities to exercise their genuine functions in regard to those exemptions which they think necessary.
      Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken that we cannot afford for a moment to forget that we are at war, but I congratulate some of my hon. Friends on their ability to forget it in some of the speeches, interesting and important as they were, which have been delivered this afternoon. For my own part, I cannot forget that we are at war, and on that account I must resist the temptation to discuss some profoundly interesting educational problems which have been the occasion of many excellent speeches. I wish to refer to two points. First, I would ask the representative of the Government, and I would impress on the Board of Education the extreme need, particularly during the War, of getting the different Government Departments to co-relate and unite their actions. The

      935
      hon. Member for Chorley (Sir H. Hibbert) pointed out how in Lancashire expenditure which they had wished to incur, and which was in accord with the policy of the Board of Education, had been stopped by the Local Government Board. I know a case in connection with the local authority to which I belong, where we have been unable to get from the Board of Education anything like a definite direction with regard to the limits of economy and of expenditure. It is not business, and it is not fair to the local authorities to have one Government Department urging expenditure, and another Government Department refusing to sanction it. Take this problem of boy labour. I cannot see why the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Education should not together agree upon certain directions and policies which would be of the greatest value to local authorities. The local authorities have most difficult work to do. We who sit on county councils and town councils are not merely interested in education, and I hope we are not merely interested in economy only in war time. We have to keep a fair balance between these different interests, and unless we get unity between the Government Departments and guidance and help from all the different Government Departments which are concerned in the various branches of our expenditure, it is impossible to adjust, particularly in educational matters, the needs of the country to the special emergencies and exigencies of a time of war like the present.
      I hope the Board of Education will realise, particularly during the next year, that England after the War will not be the same place as it was before the War. Among other things that this War has taught us there is this fact, that under modern conditions, with aeroplanes, submarines, and other machinery of war, the insular character of this country is largely lost for ever. We are brought into contact with the Continent in ways which some of us may well regret, but the fact is one which will have to be reviewed throughout the whole area of our national education. It will affect the way in which the duties of patriotism are taught, and the perspective in which history is to be seen, and it will affect the curriculum of national education in many ways. It may even be connected—I should not be surprised if it were—with the great problem of national training. It may be
      936
      that the country after the War will be attracted to the view that national training is, or might be, quite as much a part of education as it is of specialisation in matters of national defence. My point is to ask the Board of Education during this next year to face the varied problems which will come about owing to what the War has revealed as to the position of our country and its relation with other countries. While neither this House nor the nation are likely to take altogether from any Government Department its prescription on matters so wide-reaching and important, still these questions are such that we have a right to ask the Board of Education carefully to consider them, because I, for one, believe that problems of great complexity and difficulty will arise, and I take this opportunity of pressing their consideration upon the Board of Education, so that they may help the House and the country when the time to decide them comes.
      Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: Those of us who are interested in education have certain topics or problems which we are anxious to press on the attention of the Board of Education and its distinguished President. I speak to a certain extent under a handicap in that I was not able to be present when the President made his speech. I have, however, listened carefully, and have gathered the general course of his remarks. Before speaking on more general topics, I should like to ask whether we can have any information with regard to the Director of the National Gallery? It is true that that body is not directly represented in this House, but as far as it is represented at all it is represented by the Board of Education.
      The DEPUTYCHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I do not know whether that is on the Vote or not.
      Mr. BARLOW: Then I will not press the matter.
      Mr. KING: May I call your attention to Vote 3, Class IV., page 35 of the Estimates?
      The DEPUTYCHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may continue his remarks until I stop him.
      Mr. BARLOW: If any information can be given about the appointment it will be received with great interest. With regard to more general topics, the President has referred to the outlook for the future, and generally to the attitude of the country as

      937
      a whole towards the great educational problems which are thrust upon us as the result of the War. We have heard a good deal about the appointment of Royal Commissions and Committees. There is throughout the country a certain uneasy feeling that all is not as well as it should be with our education, whether elementary, secondary, or university. There is a general feeling that something must be done. I think it was Lord Palmerston who said that when people said something must be done, it usually meant that they were going to do something foolish. I hope it will not be so in this case. There is the point of view of the experts; there is the point of view of the children; there is the point of view of the parents; and there is the point of view of the country at large. I hope that in this matter we shall not sacrifice the great things which, for good or for evil—I believe very much for good—we have in our national education to a greater extent than any other country. We shall make a very poor exchange if we sacrifice certain special splendid products of our schools in order to get a certain amount of mere technical efficiency or more minute knowledge.
      It is extremely important that any changes should be made only after the most careful consideration and after an attempt to visualise the problem not only from the point of view of the narrow school curriculum, but also from the point of view of the national character, the national position, and the national life as a whole—which, after all, began many hundreds, and possibly thousands, of years before we appeared, and will, we hope, go on for many hundreds if not thousands, of years after we have gone. It it too big a thing to be settled in a short space of time by any body of experts, however skilled or dignified they may be. Take, for instance, the problem of the secondary schools. The old charge against those schools was that they were too strictly classical. There is now no school, not even a public school of the most conservative kind, against which that charge can any longer be levied. In all the public schools you have three parallel lines of curricula, and you have in universities a large number of parallel lines along any one of which a student can travel. But for some curious reason the connecting link between the public schools and the universities still remains a very narrow one, and though I would like to see that bridge made broader and the restriction with regard to Greek and
      938
      so on swept away, I think that the questions involved are much wider than merely educational questions. Therefore I ask that the problem, when it is considered, should be considered by some Commission or authority consisting not merely of educational experts, but also of those who see the problems of national character and national life broadly and as a whole.
      I do not say that without a certain, amount of realisation of the special difficulties. I understand that the Board are appointing or inviting Committees to deal with special portions of the problem. For instance, there is Lord Crewe's Committee, the object of which is to deal especially with the question of scientific education and how far it requires development. I believe there is a Committee to be appointed to deal with modern languages and the attitude of the schools generally towards that subject? In fact, I have had the honour of being invited to serve on that Committee. It may be all very well to have these small Committees dealing with various parts of the problem which must be considered from the educational point of view; but what I would much rather have had is a bigger body to start with to consider the whole problem from a broader point of view. What I am afraid of is that each Committee may run its own point of view without sufficiently keeping in mind the coordination of the. different parts of the problem—modern languages, science, literœ humaniores, and so on—and still more without keeping in view the much wider question of the national character and national conditions which, personally, I value extremely highly. Therefore if the Board are deter mined to proceed by Committees dealing with different portions of the problem, which Committees I take it would be large1 j composed of experts, I hope they will secure that afterwards there shall be some larger body of a coordinating character, consisting not merely of educationists in the special sense, but also of others who perhaps have the wider aspects of the national life more present to their minds. So far as the general contribution I have to make to the subject this afternoon is concerned, that really finishes all I have to say. There are, however two special points to which I wish to allude quite shortly. They are these: We have not yet, I think, had the Report of the Board for last year, therefore I have not been able—
      Mr. KING: Yes, we have; it has been out a fortnight.
      Mr. BARLOW: If that is so, I have not received it. I inquired in the Library for it, and they had not got it. Therefore I was under the impression that it had not appeared.
      Mr. KING: Would you like to look at it now?
      Mr. BARLOW: I must decline, I am afraid, for the moment, for reasons which will be perfectly well understood by my hon. Friend. Up to a point, however, I know how they are working in the country, and I do not know that the Report of the Board would give me much more information than I already possess. The first question to which I want to refer is that of homes for mothers; the whole question of the relation of the Board to all these questions of child treatment, and so on. The matter was just alluded to in the speech of the hon. Member on the other side, who put in a plea that the policy, which, after all, is not a war policy, which has been adopted by the Board of Education and most local authorities for a long time, that that policy—I will not say of the absolute exclusion of the "three to fives," as we used to call them—is not an educational problem. It is a maternity problem, a nursing problem, and it is not right to use the expensive machinery of the elementary schools for a problem which is not, properly speaking, an educational problem. That is a justification and an explanation of the attitude of the Board—of the attitude which now has been adopted, after very careful consideration, for some years, now. Just in proportion as our education authorities say. We are not prepared to deal with the "three to fives," because their problem is mainly a nursing problem, and to a certain extent a maternity problem—
      Sir S. COLLINS: May I ask the hon. Member a question?
      Mr. BARLOW: Allow me to finish my sectence first. Just in proportion as you do that, so does it become essential that some authorities should be constituted, and some machinery set up, to deal with the "three to fives."
      Sir S. COLLINS: What I wanted to ask the hon. Member was this: Take a child, say, from three to five years of age, who has been in a lower school. Is it not in
      940
      a much more fit condition to go up higher than if it starts right away from the so called "home"?
      Mr. BARLOW: If I may say so, that is not the point. The point is: What is the proper authority and machinery to deal with these children of three to five who cannot be properly dealt with at home? Is it proper to send them to the elementary school and to use all the expensive and elaborate machinery of education for them? Really, they are only in the nursery condition and more fit for the crèche, or something of that sort. At that age they are not really capable of using to the full the elaborate and highly developed educational machinery which the elementary schools require. That is the problem, and I venture to say that in proportion as the education authorities decide that they are not the proper people to deal with the "three to fives" in the schools, so, in my view, it becomes incumbent on the Board to assist to the utmost of its power with the whole question, by medical inspection, by crèches, by homes for mothers, for the family in its early nursing stage, and so on. The Board can assist us enormously by co-ordination in the areas, by advice, by stimulating local authorities, and so on, especially as to medical inspection—which it can do much to develop—and which if it refuses to take the "three to fives" into the schools, in my view, it is bound to develop to the best of its ability. Both in the Report, I am glad to say, of the Board of Education, still more in the Report of the medical inspector which follows it, this whole question is now dealt with. There is the question, first of all, of mortality in the first year, about which it tells us so much; then afterwards the life of the child in the crèches and homes. All that work has got more and more space in the Report of the Board of Education. I rejoice to see it. I should like to know this definitely when a reply is made on behalf of the Board: What attitude and what share are the Board taking with regard to the developments which have been made, or set up, by the Local Government Board with regard to the Grants for homes for mothers, and so on? I believe these Grants were developed partly as a result of pressure due to the War, but they do constitute rather a new state of things, and I should like to know what attitude the Board, as a Board, is taking up in regard to this work, which at present comes

      941
      mainly from the Local Government Board and not from the Board of Education.
      On the other hand, I wish to say a word about the question of the Workers' Educational Association. This is a voluntary association, and is a work which those of us who are interested in the future in our great industrial centres have, I believe, very much at heart—at any rate, I know I have. I should like to know what the position of the Board exactly is in regard to the Workers' Educational Association. The association has all the advantages, and to a certain extent the disadvantages, of being a voluntary association. Like many associations of its kind, its work, certainly in the initial stages, was probably better by being unhampered by official rules and regulations of any kind; but I think the time is rapidly coming when, at any rate, in the well-established centres we might hope to have some recognition and some help from the Board of Education. If at a certain stage in well-established centres we were to get Government recognition and, to a certain extent, Government help, I believe the Board would be doing real work in the cause of education. Many well-established centres are doing excellent work, work of a real educational kind, and work which, I believe, the Board of Education, if not this year or next year, at any rate in the near future, will see their way very properly to help That, then, is the conclusion to which I wish to come tonight; and I can only repeat what I have said, that I hope that the problems due to the War will be dealt with in the spirit not of the narrow educational expert, but from the broad point of view of the national life—the national character and the national conditions. Any improvement we make in our education—and I think many of our blunders in the past have been due to the fact that we have not recognised this—any improvement made in our educational system must always have in view the assets we have in this country in its character and traditions. Any attempt to strike out with any newfangled system—I do not care whether it is from Germany or any other country—will be a mistake. Our system must be broad, based on the national life; in close touch with the national life. Therefore I nope that we shall not have merely watertight compartments of Committees with, it may be, the necessary adjustments, but that we shall have the problem considered from the point of view of the national life
      Mr. ANDERSON: This Debate has had several very hopeful and encouraging features. I remember taking part in the Education Debate of twelve months ago. It seemed to me at that time that there was no particular interest of the matter in the House. There is a great deal more interest taken in education this year, and that is, I think, because we realise that in spite of the War—and, indeed, because of the War—how tremendously important education is from the standpoint of the future of the country. There have been a very great many interesting speculations this afternoon as to the future of education. I should like to develop some of these speculations, but I do feel that it is perhaps more practical at the moment to make quite certain that we are maintaining, as far as possible, the foundations of the system which has been built in the past, because, unless those foundations are maintained to the best of our ability, there is not much good speculating about the future, because the future will not be of the character that we will desire. I do claim that in not a few districts to-day a serious position is being created because of the continuous retrogression in educational affairs. Everybody knows that in war time there must be sacrifices in this and that direction. In regard to many domestic affairs there will be a tendency towards reaction and stagnation. I do submit, however, that the very last thing we ought to sacrifice in war time is education, and the educational welfare of the children. The problem that we ought to set ourselves is what is the very last we can sacrifice, but I am afraid that in certain districts, where the authority is not keen in regard to the education of the children, or does not realise fully the importance of this matter, they are rather asking themselves how much they can throw overboard at the present time in regard to educational arrangements.
      I say that we ought to have economy, certainly at the present time, but let us economise in regard to the right things. We still go in for horseracing in this country in the middle of the War. The Government itself has become the owner of racehorses. Surely we might begin to look to economy in directions of that kind. If any one of us were to go to a West End restaurant in London tonight, the sort of dinner that one would get would only be limited by the extent of his purse. And so with regard to the purchase of jewellery. In Bond Street you can buy as expensive

      943
      jewellery as you like. I say it is there we ought to lop off in luxuries and unnecessary things. In spite of that, many of the educational authorities, in a matter of this kind, begin to say, "What can we cut down with regard to public health? Can we stop sweeping our streets, and can we cut down at every point the education and the welfare of our children?" I do say that if there is stagnation in these districts the stagnation will continue for a long time to come, and it will not be a case after the War of improved education, but a case for years after the War of trying to get back to the point where we stood before the War broke out. I think that is really a very serious matter, and I am quite sure that since the Board of Education by its official declarations has placed on record that it believes the War renders more necessary than ever a progressive impovement in the development of public education, and if that is true, as it is true, the preparation must begin now, and the thinking-out must begin now, because, if the system is allowed to run down, we cannot look for any improvement for years to come, and in those years other nations will be forging ahead in regard to education and matters of that kind.
      I do not say that all these things could be avoided, but I do say that if you take a group of things together the cumulative effect has been very serious indeed. First of all, there has been the enlistment of some 20,000 teachers, very largely from the elementary schools. There has also been a very large enlistment of students in the universities and colleges. That means that both with regard to present arrangements and in regard to the future supply of teachers the position is being endangered, and however ardent may have been the desire of these men to join the forces I do think that an effort ought to have been made from the national point of view to decide how many of the teachers could be spared, and to impress upon the others that just as good battles could be fought inside the schools against ignorance as in any other direction. It may not be easy to realise that at the moment. It will be easy to realise it afterwards, when we begin fully to understand how much has been lost. I quite realise that at the moment large numbers of people are not troubled very much about education, but it is true that a good system of education is a far better entrenched defence of a nation, and if those trenches are neglected
      944
      or forgotten those who are responsible will certainly in the end be held to blame.
      With regard to teachers who have gone away, their places, as we have been told to-day, have very often been taken by women who had been teaching before they were married, by superannuated teachers, and so on. But that will mean, and does mean now, that there is a lowering in the general standard of efficiency, and not only in regard to the teachers, but in. regard to the accommodation in the, schools, large numbers of the schools having been taken over, either for hospitals or for billeting rooms, and I am afraid that sometimes the military authorities have not always been as considerate in this matter as they might have been. I have a case here of the Wellington Road School, Liverpool, which was on the point of being opened, and which was taken over by the military in May or June, 1915—more than a year ago. That school has never been used by the military. It has stood in that condition ever since, and I am afraid that that has happened in more than one direction. What happens in the case of the children who are disturbed and displaced in this way? I believe I am not exaggerating in saying that at least 100,000 children, in greater or less degree, or for a longer or a shorter period, have been so disturbed and so displaced. In a good many cases it has led to overcrowding. It has meant that children have been taken to mission halls and places of that sort, where very often the arrangements and lighting are not in the least suitable for classes of children; and in other cases it has become necessary to develop a sort of double shift of the children, one batch from 9.30 till 11.30, and the second batch from 11.30 till 1.30, the first batch coming in again at 1.30 and being replaced by the second batch at 3.30 and remaining till 5.30. Where that is done, as the Board of Education admits, it is apt to be done in an atmosphere which becomes vitiated, and the children become dull, sleepy and tired, and the best is not got out of them. That is with regard to teachers and with regard to the accommodation.
      The third point is in regard to the scholars themselves. Far too many of the boys and the girls are being withdrawn from school for employment. We have heard from the President himself to-day the situation .as it is in many of the rural districts. But I entirely agree with the hon. Member for West Nottingham

      945
      (Sir J. Yoxall), who said that the official figures given by the President did not disclose the full extent of the problem. Perhaps I may read a sentence from a speech recently made by Mr. C. W. Crook, President of the National Union of Teachers:
      "Unfortunately, they were not where they were two years ago, and their first duty would be to come back to prewar conditions in the schools and use them as the stepping stones to further progress. With regard to the figures given in the House of Commons as to the number of children in rural districts who were away from school, they were by no means true figures, as they only dealt with the children who had been exempted by the authorities, and not with the very large number who stayed away weeks and months on end, and whom the authorities refused to prosecute."
      That is really a very serious position. These children are being drawn into the towns by the lure of present high wages into various employments. These employments lead to nowhere and will stop with the War. Is this going to be a permanent educational loss? Are these children ever going to regain the educational advantages they are now losing? This is an important matter. As the President of the Board of Education knows as well as anyone, there is going to be a tremendous economic and social reconstruction in the future, and to a large extent it will have to be undertaken by those very children who are now being robbed of their educational chances and advantages. Mr. H. A. Mess, the secretary of the Mansfield House Settlement, said quite recently in referring to the demand for boy labour:
      "Thousands of boys in London at the present time are exhausted physically after their day's work. They are getting no technical training and attending no evening classes. Boys under school age are going to work, and it is no use the authorities bringing prosecutions. After the War we can look forward to a great outburst of the hooliganism, for the labour market will be choked with boys physically and morally damaged and without any training. The same thing is going on with the girls."
      That is not a pleasant picture, and if it is realised in any degree we are going to pay a very high price for the so-called economy which is being practised in this direction at the present time. The Prime Minister said on 8th May this year:
      "The Government are instituting inquiries into the whole problem of education after the War."
      We shall be glad to know more fully what result these inquiries are likely to have and who is taking part in them. I would like especially to know to what extent the working people and their representatives are being represented in regard to these various investigations. Undoubtely there is general dissatisfaction with the present system. I know it is not permissible to discuss the legislative methods and
      946
      measures that might be necessary to establish a democratic national system connecting the elementary with the secondary and the university educational system. The people of this country have not taken the interest in education which they might have done, and this is very largely due to the fact that education has been far too much the cockpit of sectional wrangles in which the real welfare of the children has been sacrificed. I think the War has revealed the gravest defects in our national system, and we are anxious to know whether the Board of Education has learned the lesson and is clearly thinking, out a new policy. We know that there is a growing necessity for technical education, but in this matter there is a danger that may take us on the wrong lines altogether. There are people advocating education to-day because they think there is money in it, and they are going to advocate technical education in order that they can capture this or that trade. Education based on those lines will be lopsided, and it is not going to attain the end in view.
      I believe the real aim of education should be first and foremost to produce good citizens and then efficient wage-earners, and that will be an after consequence. Whilst I believe in scientific and technical education, I think that the basis must be a general liberal education, devoted to cultivating and developing a vigorous and sincere mind in a strong, clean body, and to quickening in the child the power of observation, fostering the power of sound reasoning and sound deduction. Technical education and scientific instruction, if reared on that basis, could do a great deal to make the country enduring and strong. I also believe that the real way in which the country can hold its own in the world is far more by improved knowledge than by systems of tariffs and all such artificial changes. Many of those tariff changes and so on are mere quackery in comparison with the results of improved skill and knowledge. I desire to say that in my opinion the working people themselves in the future must have far more say as to the kind of education they want and need. In the past it has far too much been the privileged and ruling people who have arranged how much education was good for the working people, and the sort of education they should have. In the future, I hope that the masses of the people outside will demand for themselves equal educational opportunities. Nothing grieves me more

      947
      to-day than seeing among the working people so many bright children who will never have the chance of developing their mind or making use of their great gifts. Science, literature, and all that goes to make up a well-trained and cultured mind and a real education ought not in its truest and widest sense to be the prerogative of a privileged class, but ought to be common to all and shared by all. I feel that the whole future of the country is at stake in this matter, and I say that whatever other sacrifices are made, we are not going to sacrifice our child life and our elementary education. If we do, we make the postwar problems enormously more difficult to deal with.
      There is another matter which has been mentioned several times to which I wish to allude, and it is the question of the health of the children. There is the School Medical Service, which has done such excellent work, and here I am afraid we are allowing a dangerous slowing down. I believe that in this respect things are slowing down, and the Official Reports speak of the partial disorganisation of the School Medical Service. Sir George Newman, the chief medical officer of the Board of Education, says:
      "Many school medical officers have been called away, and their assistants have been called away, on military duty, and this prevents not only their cooperation with juvenile employment committees, but imperils the foundation upon which this part of the work is based."
      Side by side with that slowing down on the part of the medical service, we have a largely increased number of children slipping away from school too early, and, if examined, many would be found to be suffering from such troubles as malnutrition, heart and lung troubles, diseases of the ears, throat, and nose, bad teeth, and defective vision. The inspectorate is lessened, but the number of children gainfully employed out of school increases, and these long hours of work in addition to school hours tends to make the children dull and stupid, wasting the child and the public money spent upon him. Sir George Newman says:
      "The European War, with its terrible burden of destruction and loss [of life, makes more, rather than less, necessary the preservation and nurture of child life Indeed, it is probably true to say that there is now no ultimate need of the State greater, more imperative, or more urgent than that of securing the health and physical efficiency of the rising generation, with a view to its all-round practical education."
      These are really matters of very great moment. I would like, in conclusion, to quote one paragraph out of the Report of
      948
      the chief medical officer of the Board of Education, and I think it might form a very practical ideal for the Board of Education itself, because the whole spirit and pith of the matter is here. He says:
      "If we are rightly to equip the children of the nation, it is necessary to give to them all, whether normal or defective, whether rich or poor, a sound and liberal education of body and mind. It does not seem too much to aim at that every child shall be clean, well-nourished, and, as far as possible, healthy; that its systematic physical training shall be taken in hand thoroughly and efficiently; and that its future employment shall be properly foreseen, safeguarded and prepared for. The whole problem of the health, equipment and subsequent training of the 'leaving' child demands further attention in each area, and is essential to the wellbeing of the State Given a healthy body, the development of both muscle and brain is dependent in large measure upon nurture and physical education in its widest sense. On such a broad foundation the mental and spiritual growth of the child and its upbringing in effective citizenship will be secure."
      Conceding all the limitations imposed by the Board, I do think, and I agree entirely with the hon. Member for West Nottingham {Sir J. H. Yoxall), who is such a great authority on this matter, that in many districts we are needlessly drifting away from the ideal and are making the future reconstruction of our educational system more difficult. The Board of Education itself for many months has tended to drift along saying "we are a Board, and we must not bring too much pressure to bear on the local authorities." The result has been that many of these reactionary local authorities have gone their own way and have done exactly as they liked. An hon. and gallant Member quite recently criticised the President of the Board of Education very severely for daring to put any pressure on these local authorities at all. Surely the President is fully justified if they are not doing the work that they are required to do in return for the money that they now receive. There is need for increased vigilance and direction, and, if we economise, we ought to economise in luxuries and war profits. The whole of the future is largely dependent upon this matter. I hope that one thing that has emerged from this Debate will be strongly insisted upon. I hope that the teachers who are going to take a great hand in this work in the future will be properly paid and recompensed, and, as the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. R. Macdonald) so well said, will also be given the additional honour and status to which they are so fully and justly entitled.
      I regard education as enormously important in this standpoint. These problems, in making this country great and

      949
      strong and enduring in all the matters that really count can only be solved if we have an educated democracy. Only an educated democracy with a wide outlook can put aside natural prejudice and selfish passions and uphold the ideal of the public welfare, the public advantage, and the public good. If we are going to have a nation great in its love and justice, great in its hatred of oppression, and great in its desire to conquer poverty, wrong and pain, we must lift up our whole system of education, and we must love education with a whole heart and pursue it as the path towards the true and lasting good.
      Mr. KING: I have had the pleasure now of sitting here for seven years, and every Session I have sat through the whole of the Debate upon the Education Vote. I have tried to speak on every occasion, though I have not always been successful in catching your eye, but I am perfectly sure that of all the discussions on this Vote to which I have listened this is by far not only the most notable but the most encouraging. First of all, we have got as President of the Board of Education a member of the Labour party, and in view of the immense influence and importance of this Department to the working classes I hope that this will not be the last occasion that we shall have a President of the Board of Education belonging to the Labour party. Then, again, I have been struck by the fact that for the first time, I think, more than two speeches in the course of the discussion have been delivered by members of the Labour, party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Three!"] Not only have we had a speech from the President of an hour and a quarter's duration, but we have had three other speeches from members of the Labour party. I believe on no other occasion have we had more than two. What does that mean? It means that at last the working classes or their representatives in Parliament are rising up and are waking to the fact that education means a very great deal to them. One of the things which has bitterly disappointed me in the past has been the fact that representatives of the Labour party have been so constantly absent from these discussions. I congratulate them most sincerely on the eminent part they have played in the Debate tonight, and I trust that on other future occasions, when I may be privileged to sit here and listen to these discussions, I may
      950
      have the opportunity of listening again to speeches so weighty, so wise, and so full of promise as those delivered today.
      9.0 P.M.
      Next to the great and important part played in this Debate by the members of the Labour party one other thing will remain with me, and I think with everybody. That is, the utterance of the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. H. Yoxall), that our educational system to-day is in ruins. That is what he said, and that sentiment has been reechoed and adopted by others I am inclined to think it is right, and I am especially inclined to think it is right because it has been the burden of my own remarks for the last seven years. I thought that I was a pelican in the desert or a voice crying in the wilderness, but to-day I am glad to find men of more weight and authority in this House voicing the view which on more than one occasion I have, with more than great temerity, ventured to express. We have to face this fact: Our educational system, in its elementary portions and at its base, is in ruins, and though what we build upon may be beautiful in design, composed of fine material, and have promising teachers, it cannot stand and be effective if the foundation is in ruins. Why is it true to say that the foundation, the elementary educational system in our country, is in ruins? It is not due to the War. It is due to disintegrating influences which have been going on in elementary education ever since 1902. I do not want to introduce contentious or party matters, but let me point out that for the last ten years or more the deficiency in our school accommodation, in the buildings, has been getting worse and worse. You are constantly getting behindhand in the actual provision of school places for your children, and that is the reason the educational system is in ruins. Was it not the case that a few years ago the London County Council was fined, I think, £20,000 or £30,000 for being behindhand in actually building the necessary places? Why is it that at the present moment, or, rather, it was the case just before the War began, that the Board of Education had a big arrangement with the London education authority to go on building and building for a scheme which was spread out over, I think, five or six years—in order to make up the admitted deficiencies then, that is two years ago, in the places necessary to supply the elementary school children of London? Again and

      951
      again we see that the school accommodation, the places for our children, are in many places lamentably deficient.
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: Other parts of the country are not all like London.
      Mr. KING: No; they are not all like London, and I believe that in Durham they are wise enough to know that you cannot have a healthy or intelligent population without good schools to bring them on. In many places it is very different, and that is one of the problems with which you will have to deal after the War. There will be after this War, as there were before, vast movements of the population. In London alone many districts which were the habitat of large numbers of the population are immense office and warehouse districts, and there is no population. There schools stand stranded, and some of them have been sold or pulled down. But school accommodation in other parts has to be provided in those places to which the population has gone, and there are schools in London to-day overcrowded, and the real reason why we are having so much difficulty in keeping the children on to the proper age of fourteen, or even more, is because the local authorities have made every effort, as soon as the children get to thirteen or fourteen, or are able to get a dunce's or a labour certificate, to encourage them to go out of the school.
      Sir H. HIBBERT: No!
      Mr. KING: In Lancashire, possibly not; but I know of more than one case. At any rate, I shall have something more to say about Lancashire later on. I am going to take the liberty of pressing this particularly upon the attention of the President of the Board of Education. Our school building accommodation is deficient. The right hon. Gentleman knows it, because he has a paragraph in his Report referring to it, in which he says that he has encouraged the local authorities to send in their plans, so that those might be now approved, and that they could get to work very shortly after the War. That is very good. It is on page 23, paragraph 55, circular 903. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to do something else: to give a distinct inducement to these authorities that are deficient in school accommodation to send in and get passed their plans now. That was actually done in the year
      952
      1870, when the first Education Act was passed and when school buildings were encouraged to be put in hand at once by the fact that if the authorities sent in their plans within six months of the passing of the Act they were to get a building Grant. I know that to go back to the policy of building Grants is possibly a very difficult and a very radical proceeding, but I believe it ought to be done, or if you cannot go back to the policy of building Grants, you might offer to give to those schools which will now get plans passed, and which will be under an obligation to start immediately the War is over, or as soon as called upon by the Board of Education, the prospect of getting loan money at a reduced rate of interest. I believe some sort of inducement of this kind would be most valuable to education, and, moreover, most valuable to the building trade and unemployment, which will want a stimulus of some kind or other as soon as the War is over. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that proposal.
      I should like to say a few words about another aspect of our elementary school system, which really shows that the elementary system is, as my hon. Friend says, in ruins. The fact is this. We have now this year many thousand children fewer in our elementary schools than we had a year ago. I only asked the week before last a question upon this subject which, strikingly enough, is not dealt with in the Report of the Board of Education. The Report of the Board, interesting as it is, does not answer this vital question: Compared to a year ago, are there more or fewer children in the schools? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman put such a plain and obvious fact in the Report? I will tell him why. Because he is afraid to answer the question; because, naturally, he is ashamed to have to admit that there are something like 40,000 children fewer in our schools than a year ago. In view of the statement he has just made of the many thousands being abstracted at the present time and since those figures to which I have called attention, which are the figures of January last, and as he has. called attention to the fact that 15,000elementary school children are taken away by a breach of the bylaws, that does not really represent the whole case. The fact undoubtedly is, that we must have at least 60,000 children fewer in the elementary schools of England to-day than before the War I am sure my estimate is a very moderate one.
      Mr. SAMUEL: Does not the Report show that there was an increase of 25,000 on the last year?
      Mr. KING: If the hon. Gentleman will do me the honour to look at the OFFICIAL REPOBT of the 6th of this month, column 1684, Vol. lxxxiii., he will see the figures given.
      Mr. SAMUEL: I am taking the Annual Report.
      Mr. KING: No, as my hon. Friend says, it is undoubtedly an underestimate of the fact to say that there are 60,000 children fewer in the schools now than there were. Someone in the course of this Debate has said that Germany has prided herself on the fact that during the War not one child the less has gone without its education. I wish we could say the same. I should feel more entirely confident not only of victory in this War, but of victory in the terrible struggle which eventually we must face in days of peace. The fact is, as I said, that the elementary education system is in ruins, not only with regard to its buildings, which are far from being kept up to what they ought to be, not only with regard to a declining school population, though all the time the actual number of children in the country shown by the Registrar-General is increasing, but also with regard to many other aspects. I am going to mention, very shortly, two. Why at the present time does the Labour member, President of the Board of Education, go and put fees on infants in elementary schools? I will ask him to look at pages 07 and 98 of his Report. I see he is putting 3d. a week on all children in Standard I., taught in the infants' department. This is a new fee put on, and that is in Lancashire, I think.
      Sir H. HIBBERTmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
      Mr. KING: I am very glad to hear it, but it is in your county. There are other schools where they have had an increase of from 9d. to Is. a week in the case of scholars whose parents live outside the borough. An elementary school charging Is. a week fee! It is unworthy of any Labour Minister at all, and especially a Labour Minister who is President of the Board of Education. There is another question I am going to propound to the right hon. Gentleman which is worth his attention. What is his view of the question of mixed departments and co-education—the teaching of boys and girls to
      954
      gether? I have looked in vain for any reference to this question in the Report of the Board of Education. It is a very important matter, especially at the present time, when there are far fewer men teachers and, probably, after the War you will find great difficulty in filling up the ranks of the male teachers. I ask the President of the Board of Education what is the policy of the Board with regard to mixed departments? They are being discouraged at the present time. In some places, notably in London, for various reasons into which I will not go, but which I could specify, it is the policy to discourage mixed departments and, if possible, to separate boys and girls from being taught together. That is altogether a wrong tendency, especially at the present time. If the right hon. Gentleman does me the honour of making any reply to my remarks, I hope he will give me a word or two of encouragement and enlightenment as to his views upon this question. Another question in connection with our elementary education is the problem of the children under five years of age. We had to-day a speech during the temporary absence of the President to which I wish he had listened. It was made by the hon. Member for Newington (Sir S. Collins), who spoke not as an educationist but on behalf, as he repeatedly said, of what he knew was the feeling of the parents of London. He asked, "Why do you turn all these children under five out of school?"
      Mr. HENDERSON: I heard the speech.
      Mr. KING: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He will agree that it was a very generous and sincere utterance and, as far as my experience goes, it expressed what is very widely felt, for at the present time, when you have women occupied in work of all descriptions as they have never been before, to prevent them sending, as they have done for a year or two, their children between three and five to the infant schools, is nothing less than cruelty both to mothers and children. What is the case in London today? I have just been privileged to see the last Report of the London Education Department. It gloats over the fact that in a few weeks time it will have reduced the infants in infant classes to 25,000. A year ago in London there were 55,000 children in the classes under five. Now the Department is gloating over the fact that in a few weeks they will have reduced that number to 20,000, and that thereby they will be

      955
      saving in Grant—what they will be saving to the ratepayers I do not know—a sum of £37,000. That is false economy and it is cruel economy, because it is cruelty to these children that they should be compelled to be about the streets or under inefficient care and control when they might be in the healthiest place—alas! it must be admitted it is the healthiest place that many London children have—the infant schoolroom. I bitterly regret to think that this ruthless and sweeping reduction in the numbers of children under five in the schools of London is being carried on under the name of the President of the Board of Education, apparently without any protest or warning on his part.
      Another point I wish to make in connection with our elementary schools system is with reference to the statement given to us by the President on page 29 of this Report, where he calls attention to the fact that there are nineteen areas—not nineteen schools—in England where no instruction is given in domestic subjects, while in fifty-seven there is no instruction given in handicraft, and in the case of eleven areas no provision of any kind has yet been made for the teaching of special subjects. I am very sorry to find that there are several Lancashire places in this list where no provision whatever is made for the teaching of special subjects. There is Middleton. We had a speech just now in a very high and dignified strain from the hon. Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins), yet he comes from a place where education itself is sadly lacking, because, apparently, there is not a single school in his area—I do not say in his Parliamentary Division—which makes any provision whatever for special subjects. The same is true of Mossley. What about Swinton and Pendlebury? I believe they are in Lancashire. We have Clitheroe, Middleton, Mossley, Swinton and Pendlebury. The fact is, that here in the county which advertises itself as being the wealthiest area per head of population of any portion or district on the face of the globe—I believe that is Lancashire—you find no less than six large places in which the elementary schools have no provision whatever for handicraft, domestic subjects or special subjects of any kind. That is a disgrace to Lancashire. I am very glad to see the eminent chairman of the Lancashire Education Authority here. I hope that when he goes back he will say to those who are, I know, independent of
      956
      his authority but over whom his influence must indeed be great, "Let this stain on the county of Lancashire be wiped out at last, and let us give a little better education in the schools of our county."
      I hope I have helped to prove, what hardly needed proof, that our elementary system of education is in ruins. There are many ways in which it might be improved at the present time. One thing we must have is, of course, good school buildings. If you have good school buildings, which should be a pride to the district, you will start from good ground. Beyond that you must also have good teachers. I am sorry to see that the accounts we have in the Report of the right hon. Gentleman and in the Reports that I have from various places at the present time about the training of teachers are far from satisfactory. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has given his attention lately to the proceedings at the Leeds Training College. The right hon. Gentleman has evidently not read the "Yorkshire Post."
      Mr. HENDERSON: Oh, yes, I have.
      Mr. KING: Then he knows what a scandal there is at the Leeds Training College, and that you have resignations and the washing of dirty linen at the Leeds Education Committee. I hope he is going to institute an inquiry into it, and I hope the way in which the women students there have been treated, as if they were inferior beings, as if they were mere children who could be ordered about, will be made the subject of a public inquiry by the Board of Education and that we shall have things set right. Evidently this great training college, which ought to be the centre of the training of teachers for the North of England, has got into a very bad way, and it is very discouraging indeed that we should have disclosures like this at the present time.
      I will now say a word upon our secondary and technical schools. I might say something about the number of free places, but hon. Members have already alluded to the fact that there are 108 schools where the Board of Education has allowed them to have less than the required 25 per cent, of free places, so that in the secondary schools, which are supported out of the rates and ought to be democratic, there is not the proper number of poor scholars that there ought to be. I was sorry to see that the number has actually increased during the last year

      957
      under the presidency of the right hon. Gentleman. He ought to reduce the number of these schools which have special privileges given them to have less than 25 per cent, of free places. There are only a few more than last year, but there is an increase, and I hope before next year, if he is still in that post, he will be able to say he has reduced the number. But the whole of our secondary education is suffering from the fact that it is not sufficiently worked as a great system in the national interest. At the present time we ought to be retaining as many scholars as we can in such departments as chemistry, engineering, science, and the higher instruction in what may be called technical and practical subjects. The University of Bristol has a very adequately equipped engineering school. I have just learned that though the students in the last years of their engineering course are being encouraged to stop, yet at the present time all the students in the engineering school of Bristol University are two Hindus, one Chinese, and one Englishman. That is not the way to prepare a number of technical and efficient workers for resuming our operations in the field of competitive commerce and industry after the War, and I very much wish that the President of the Board of Education would abate a little of his recruiting zeal in order to put strength into the movement for retaining the superior students—let them not be only very superior students, but any promising students at all—and allowing them to finish their course. I should suggest that such students might have a special badge given to them. Then they would not be under any sort of reproach and would not be liable to any sort of undue and unpleasant interference because they were remaining on.
      Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I have not risen to continue the discussion of the broad aspects of the education question and the great questions which will await solution after the War. I have rather risen to take up one small matter for which I wish to secure the sympathetic attention of the President of the Board of Education. It is a small matter compared with many of the great issues which we have been discussing, and yet it is a great thing to those whom it concerns, and when we remember what the President said in his opening remarks this afternoon as to the importance of bringing into the schools the best possible teachers for that purpose, and paying them well, it is a great matter also in the
      958
      interest of the efficiency of our schools. Moreover, it is a matter of justice in which all of us as ratepayers and as public men have our consciences involved. I mean the question of the salaries paid to the teachers, and more particularly I wish to dwell upon the salaries paid to the uncertificated assistant teachers, a class which, of course, does not attain the highest rank in the profession and which is not so well organised or able to look after its interests as those who are more highly educated and better paid. But nevertheless it is a class which is relied upon still in considerable numbers for the teaching of our children, and although the number has been much reduced of late years there are still large numbers of these uncertificated assistants, especially among the women teachers. Many of them are teachers of long experience, who are uncertificated because there were not good opportunities for getting the certificate when they were young. Many of them have not tried to gain the certificate, or in other cases they have failed to pass the examination, but in many cases, even when they have failed to pass the examination, they are by long experience and natural aptitude able teachers. I am not going to attempt to exaggerate their position or their claims. I feel as strongly as anyone the desirability of having highly-trained teachers in our schools and having certificated teachers, and where possible teachers with university degrees, and it is still possible, should be encouraged by all reasonable means to get their certificates.
      what I am suggesting is that as long as we rely upon these teachers to a considerable extent we ought to pay them a decent living wage, and I think I shall be able to show that in many cases now even the men are not getting what you would call ordinary labourers' wages, and the women are getting very much less. Men, I think, consider themselves pretty lucky if they get up to £70 or £75 a year, with perhaps a war bonus thrown in, in these times of very high wages. In many cases they are getting less than that. I heard of a case the other day where one of the uncertificated assistant teachers considered that he was benefiting himself in leaving work in order to take a clerkship at 30s. a week. The women are getting very much less. In many cases they are getting £50, and they are doing pretty well if they get £60 a year. The statistics

      959
      are not, as far as I know, available for any very recent date, but I have seen a large number of interesting figures with regard to the payment of these teachers dating from about four years ago. At that time there were in some counties male un certificated teachers employed at as low a figure as £50 a year. In one case the rate had actually begun at £45 a year. In the best county the figures ran up to a possible £80, but as a general rule the salaries started at about £60, and by annual increments go up to about £70. The wages for women in one case were down as low as £30 a year. I did see one case where it was about £70, but that was quite exceptional for an un certificated teacher. The average ran to about £50, going up by annual increments to about £60. Probably the figures are rather higher now. There has been difficulty in late years in getting teachers, and there has been an upward tendency for wages. Moreover, in the last two years prices have risen so much that war bonuses have been given in some cases. I submit that so long as we decide to employ these uncertificated teachers it is very undesirable that they should be paid such very low wages. I know a reason is given that the Board of Education specify that an uncertificated teacher is not to teach more than thirty-five children, whereas, I believe, a certificated teacher is at liberty to teach classes of up to sixty. Therefore, it is worked out and shown that even at a very considerably higher salary it is cheaper to teach with certificated than with uncertificated teachers. That may be an excellent reason for employing all certificated teachers, but it is not, in my opinion, a sufficient reason for paying these uncertificated teachers such very low wages, when you do employ them. We all, nowadays, believe in the principle of a living wage for everybody, although we may not all call it by that name. We believe that everybody ought to have a decent wage on which they can live in comfort, and surely that applies to people who have a fair standard of education and who are employed in imparting that education to the children of the country.
      The argument as to the size of classes is one on which I have very grave doubts. I would not like to dogmatise about it, but I would ask the President of the Board of Education if it is not a fact that, in spite of the regulation, uncertificated teachers are in very many cases teaching much larger
      960
      classes than thirty-five, partly owing, I believe, to the difficulty of getting sufficient teachers at the present time? I know it may be said that in many cases these uncertificated teachers are only uncertificated for a year or two, and are then going on to gain their certificate, when they will get higher wages. Even in those cases I think it is hard that they should be paid so little at the time; but in many cases these uncertificated teachers are not going forward for their certificates, and, unfortunately, they are permanently employed at low wages. I think we can hardly regard that fact without some feeling of shame. I know that the Board of Education has very little direct power in this matter, because the fixing of the salaries rests with the local education authorities. At the same time, one is bound to look to the Board of Education in dealing with questions of this sort. We cannot in this House deal direct with the education authorities, and when we have any reforms which we think ought to be carried out we can only get them carried out by bringing pressure upon the Board of Education as the authority over the education authorities. I recognise as much as anybody the importance of getting good teachers, and I recognise the necessity of paying good salaries in order to get them. By all means let us level up the standard of education of our teachers, and let us get as many certificated teachers as we can; but so long as we do employ uncertificated teachers on a large scale in the educational work of the country, we ought to pay them fairly good wages, and we ought to recognise that many of them, although uncertificated, have proved themselves, by long experience and long practice, to be very useful teachers, especially for the younger classes of children. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give this matter his sympathetic attention.
      Captain BATHURST: I hope that the President of the Board of Education, before he ceases to occupy the honourable position which he now holds, will impress upon the Government the fact that nothing can be so disastrous, in view of the industrial struggle that awaits us after the War, as to allow this country, at such a crisis, to economise in the matter of national education. Nothing will encourage our great competitor Germany more than our economy in the matter of education, and nothing will strike greater

      961
      terror into Germany than if we double, I as I would like to see this country do, our educational estimates immediately on the termination of the War. No money could conceivably be better invested than the spending of an infinitely larger amount of public money than is now spent upon the improvement of the education of every class of the British community. I would like to add my voice to that of others who have spoken in favour of a Royal Commission being appointed at the earliest possible date to consider the whole question of education throughout Great Britain for every class and for every grade of education, and in favour of the suggestion that that Royal Commission should be specially instructed to consider this question with the greatest rapidity, and to report not later than the date of the termination of the War. I cannot believe that this piecemeal method of inquiring into various aspects of the education problem is likely to achieve the results desired. Nor is it calculated to impress the public at large, still less our competitors overseas, as would the unanimous Report of a carefully chosen Royal Commission.
      I have always read with interest the speeches delivered by Lord Haldane in another place, as well as on the public platform, on the subject of education, and I am bound to say that he seems to me to always soar in altitudes far above the practical educational problems that we have to face at the present time. Certainly, those of us who, as members of local education authorities, have to consider the daily problems of elementary and secondary education, are still far, far away from being able to deal in any sense with those problems which Lord Haldane from time to time presents to the country. Lord Haldane is always urging us to begin at the ton. I, on the other hand, firmly believe that we must make our foundations sound before we can build up the great superstructure to which the eminent educationist in another place is perpetually referring. I think that the Workers' Educational Association is doing infinitely better work with a view to getting a sound practical system of education in this country, and one that is popular among the masses of this country, than anything that Lord Haldane can do by speeches in another place.
      962
      I would like to congratulate the Minister of Education on the perfectly admirable appeal which he made about a year ago to the patriotism of the local education authorities, and the managers and teachers in our schools. No document which has ever been issued from the Board of Education during the last ten years in which I have served on the local education authority of Gloucestershire has appealed to that education authority to anything like the same extent as that admirably-worded document which pointed out to the education authorities what their patriotic duty was throughout the whole of this great crisis through which we are passing, and what were the various activities in which those connected with our schools might usefully take part. I take the opportunity of saying that, at any rate in my own environment, the teachers particularly have more than acted upon the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman made. The patriotic activities of the teachers during the short time at their disposal when they were not employed within the walls of the schools, certainly in the rural districts, has been beyond all praise. The teachers have fulfilled all the duties of their position in such a way that, if they never did it before, they have deserved during this War the status which we would all like to see them enjoy, by the lead which they have taken, particularly in our rural districts, in all the most patriotic activities which have enabled the War to be carried on so far with success. There is one particular aspect of this to which I would like to refer. In many districts the British Red Cross Society has undoubtedly encroached upon the school premises. The school premises in many cases are at present the only suitable buildings which can be utilised for wounded soldiers. The teachers have met this very difficult problem with extraordinary courage and devotion to duty, and at the same time, a due sense of proportion. I take this opportunity of thanking the teachers in my own district, particularly teachers of secondary schools, for the way in which they have suffered considerable personal inconvenience, and, so far as space is concerned, considerable inconvenience to the classes, by opening their doors, so far as is reasonable and proper, to admit wounded soldiers in this time of national emergency.
      I would make a special appeal for the education of our girls. For many years

      963
      past I have participated in various projects for the education of our boys. But the longer I live, the more convinced I become that it is far more important to improve materially the education of our girls than that of our boys, and I am inclined to think that one result of the War, during which our women are doing such admirable work for which many of us previously thought them quite unfit, a great demand will be made for giving our girls a better and far more practical education, particularly in our country districts, than they have received hitherto. Four years ago I went on a visit to Belgium to find out what was the secret of the success of the small holdings movement in that country, undoubtedly the most successful of all countries, in establishing a prosperous colony of small holders. I sought for it in the small holdings, and could not find it. I sought for it in the boys' schools, and found some indication of it. But it was not until I was brought into contact with the wives and daughters of those small holders, and eventually sought for it in the girls' schools, that I discovered the great secret of the enormous success of the small holdings movement in Belgium, a movement which has brought immense wealth to that country, considering its size and its former poverty, wealth which alas, for the time being, has been dissipated. But it has brought a greater keenness for self-improvement on the part of the peasant agricultural class than is to be found, so far as I can gather, in any other country in the world. I think that in every class of society in this country there is enormous scope for improvement in the education of our women, and I hope that the President of the Board will take this into careful consideration in conjunction with the various problems which he will have to solve as a result of the War.
      The hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Somerset—I am not quite sure whether he is from Somerset or Lancashire from the remarks which he made—wanted to impress on us the importance of buildings. I think that there are many things in the educational world which should come before buildings. Many of us undoubtedly would set teachers first. If I were asked to choose whether more public money should be expended on buildings or on
      964
      teachers, I should plump, without the least doubt, in favour of the teachers. In view of what awaits us after the War I am sure that they want a much longer and a more thorough training, particularly in practical subjects, than they have today, and having received it they will require and deserve higher remuneration than the bulk of them hitherto have enjoyed. Some hon. Members have been trying to discover the reason for the early age at which students leave both the secondary school and the elementary school. Reference was made to the enthusiasm of the Scot in requiring that his children should remain longer at school than they do in other parts of the United Kingdom. The Scot is a very canny person, and I am not at all satisfied that his enthusiasm alone explains his great desire for more prolonged education. I am sure that the reason why we find this enthusiasm in Scotland particularly is that they are essentially a commercial race of people, and that they realise that there is money in it. I do not think that you are going to induce the children in this country, or the parents, to prolong the education unless you can show to children and parents the commercial value of the education which they receive.
      In reference to continuation schools, I hope that we are approaching the time when continuation instruction will be compulsory. But as long as it is not compulsory you have got to instil into the minds of those children the enormous commercial advantage to them of prolonging their education beyond the compulsory period. I was very much impressed, some three years ago, when helping the Education Conference of the Boards of Education and Agriculture, to take evidence from various witnesses from overseas, on the subject of continuation schools, to hear what our chief experts from Canada had to say. They pointed out to us that children in Ontario and Manitoba were quite keen, after a hard day's work, to walk five miles to a continuation school, and five miles back again, rather than forego the advantages of that education. I do not know how you are going to get that greater intensity. I believe the best way of dealing with continuation instruction is to make it compulsory, or to urge employers to put a premium upon employing the child or young man or young woman who has received a prolonged education. I am not sure that under existing circumstances an appeal made

      965
      by the Board of Education to all the leading employers of the country might not produce very great results, but at any rate I should like to see public opinion so improved on this subject that employers who deliberately take children at the age of thirteen, and some of them I am afraid take them at twelve in our rural districts, or at any rate take them at an unduly early age, into their employment, would be regarded as unpatriotic, and as doing the children as well as themselves a real injustice. I think the Government have great scope in this matter. There never was a time in which the Government could appeal to employers throughout the country with more chance of their appeal being effective, and I particularly want them to make that appeal to agriculturists.
      10.0 P.M.
      I am not going to take up time on the question as to whether it is or is not advisable in the present emergency to employ small boys out of the elementary schools, except to say that I do not think any boy should be relieved from school, as some boys have been relieved, under the age of twelve. We have got somehow to educate employers as to the value to their industries of the well-educated and useful employe, and I hope that an early appeal will be made particularly to agricultural employers to realise the great asset that they will possess in the more highly-trained employe. The only other thing I should like to say is this, that something ought to be done to bring our great public schools—and I use the term in the old sense—and our universities into one great national scheme of education. It seems to me that this gap which now exists between the old public schools and what we in these days call public schools—the elementary and secondary schools—is a very great obstacle to the greatest and most promising development of education in this country. I am chairman of a secondary school in Wiltshire, which contains the children of farmers, tinplate workers, and miners, and I am bound to say that the education that is being given in that school to-day is of an infinitely more practicable character, and more calculated to be useful to those children in after life, than any education which I have received myself at one of the great public schools of this country. I have hesitated very much in spending, as I am doing today, £250 a year on the education of my son at a great public school when I see these children for £6 annually receiving
      966
      as useful an education as my boy is receiving. I think it is all wrong. I think, n the first place, that these boys, if they were mixed in the same schools, or in one great national system, would learn a great deal from each other. They would develop in character, and have a desire to develop to a much greater extent than they do now, when they are being educated in separate watertight compartments. I believe there would be far less difficulty in pushing them forward if you had one scheme for the whole country, in which it would be in no sense derogatory to any boy, whatever his social position, to take his part, and so let him have the enormously beneficial effect of feeling the competition with himself of boys drawn from every class of the community, and an enormous incentive would be given to every child to develop his best self, and become a really valuable educational asset to the country.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: We are discussing the Education Estimates to-day under circumstances of great gravity, from the educational standpoint. I want to remind the Committee what the prewar position was. There had been a great number of weighty inquiries into the various aspects and problems of education and of social reform—an inquiry into the employment of school children, an inquiry into the Poor Law, and inquiry by Departmental Committee after Departmental Committee into every aspect of this matter, and the whole of these expert inquiries resulted, without exception—I think I am right in saying—in the condemnation of our present system of education. The minds of leaders and experts and of educationists all over the country were directed towards pressing upon the Government schemes of far-reaching educational reform. The War brought all these discussions to an end for the time being. But now that the stupefaction has passed away, there is again a great revival of educational inquiry and discussion, and the Government is being pressed to institute far-reaching reforms. But while this demand for reform is taking place, and whilst there is an increasing realisation of the vital need for these reforms, we are creating during the War a new set of evils, a new set of avoidable evils, which will still further, unless the Government intervenes with great sternness, increase the difficulties of educational reform after the War. I do not

      967
      think I am using the language of exaggeration when I say that the system of education such as it was before the War, built up through thirty or forty years, in some vital aspects is almost entirely destroyed. Large numbers of school children are leaving school at an age sometimes less than twelve, sometimes twelve, sometimes thirteen, and these children, who now number a very great total indeed, have left the school for good. It is idle to imagine that many of them will return to the school. Some perhaps in the earlier months of the War, those who left in 1914 and 1915, at the ages of twelve or thirteen, have already reached now the statutory age of exemption, and it is idle to imagine that they will come back.
      The President of the Board of Education to-day in a very eloquent speech, and if he will allow me to say so a speech full of most admirable feeling, has justly condemned this unwise policy that has been adopted of allowing these children to leave school at these early ages for use in agricultural or other industries. I want to ask who is responsible for it. After all, the responsibility is the Government's responsibility, and the fault is with the Government. I remember sitting in this House in the early autumn of 1914, and I heard the present President of the Local Government Board, who at that time sat on the Front Bench opposite, rise and demand that the Government should allow the statutory law to be defied, and that school children should be immediately released for service in agriculture. I remember that Mr. Chaplin rose from that bench and made the same appeal—indeed, if my memory serves me correctly, the hon. Member for Wilton (Captain Bathurst), who has just made a wise and eloquent speech, also asked that school children should be relieved in order to help in agriculture. The Government gave way. The Government assented to the statutory law of this country being defied. When the Prime Minister announced in response to the appeal of the present President of the Local Government Board and Mr. Chaplin his decision and indicated certain conditions, somewhat vaguely expressed, it was quite obvious that the mere statement of any conditions would not prevent, after the Government surrender, the wholesale withdrawal of children from the elementary schools. That has taken place and has greatly intensified the educational problem, because it means
      968
      that a large body of citizens in the future who have got to face the reconstruction of this country as part of the reconstruction of the world will be uneducated and will have been denied even the benefits of that limited system of education which was in operation before the War. The right hon. Gentleman spoke with feeling on this question. It is in his power and that of his Department with the assent of the Government and the Prime Minister to prevent this withdrawal of school children continuing. There is no greater work that he could do whilst President of the Board than to see to it that these unwise economies are brought to an end and that the statutory law so painfully and so laboriously built up is obeyed.
      I want to say something about the reconstruction of the future. The right hon. Gentleman has departed from the custom of his predecessors, and, very wisely I think, has given us some sort of outlook on the future and certain constructive suggestions. What is the great weakness of our system of education? Hon. Members to-day have spoken of our system being in ruins. It has never been anything else but a ruin. We have never had a national system of education. The great tragedy of our system of education has been the fact that it has been a class system under which a great section of the community have no education in any real sense at all. We have considered the elementary school, and the right hon. Gentleman's own advisers have considered it, as a system complete in itself. I venture to suggest that to-day at least we have got past that, and that we now realise that a system under which the children leave all educational care at the ages of thirteen and fourteen and enter at once upon the battle of life immature in mind and in body is not a system worthy of being called a system at all. We have had an entirely unrelated system of education. May I attempt to state the case in figures which, I think, are convincing? There are at present over 6,000,000 school children at the elementary schools. Before the War the average number leaving those schools each year was 600,000, and that is larger now owing to the wholesale withdrawal which has taken place. Of that number, over 200,000 leave before or at the age of thirteen, and over 400,000 leave on attaining the age of fourteen. How many of those children receive any secondary education? Not more than between 8 and 9 per cent. The greater body of them are swallowed up

      969
      prematurely into the industrial life of the nation, to be thrown aside a few years later when they demand men's wages, and ultimately become members of the unemployed. The system under which those hundreds of thousands of children are turned adrift at that early age, to receive no further form of education, is, of course, unsatisfactory and is the first thing to alter.
      I suggest that what we want is a unified system under which we should entirely get rid of the class system of education, and under which elementary education would mean not the education appropriate to a certain rank of life, but the education appropriate to a certain age, and under which secondary education would mean not education appropriate to what is deemed to be a certain higher social class, but under which it would stand for education appropriate to the children of a certain age. We want, therefore, this sweeping reform in our educational system. We want to cease regarding elementary schools as schools which can give a complete education by the ages of thirteen or fourteen, with a possible coping stone in the form of evening continuation schools. We want to see that every child receives secondary education. [An HON. MEMBER: "HOW can you?"] I Tenture to think it can be done, and if my hon. Friend says it cannot be done, I can only say in reply that the sooner we set about doing it the better. I do urge that we want to secure a great increase in the type and character of our secondary schools, and that our ideal should be that every boy and every girl should pass from the elementary school at the age of eleven or twelve and should go on to some further form of secondary education, using the term in its widest sense, and should not be allowed to enter upon industrial life until a far later age than that which at present prevails. These are sweeping reforms but they are necessary reforms, and until we have a related system of education under which every child receives a proper education we have got in no sense a national system. The right hon. Gentleman was alive to the need of reform, and he told the Committee of the steps which he proposed to take in the future. He deprecated the appointment of a Royal Commission and suggested the appointment of various Departmental Committees. I agree with the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir P. Magnus), and I am one of those who greatly regret the decision of
      970
      the President and of the Government not to appoint a Royal Commission, because it does appear to me that we are still far from united as to certain vital principles of educational reform We want through the appointment of a Royal Commission to secure unity—the unity that comes from the findings of such a body on these great principles. Therefore, I hope the Government are not going entirely to reject the idea of a Royal Commission. I believe that such a Commission is almost a necessary preliminary to any real constructive reform. There is no reason owing to the War why such a Commission should not be set up. There is no reason why such a Commission should take a long time to report—a longer time, in fact, than the various Departmental Committees that are suggested. Through a Royal Commission, if the reference were adequate, we might hope to have presented to us the foundation for a national system of education, showing particularly how we can have a national system of secondary education closely related, to which the elementary schools would be the appropriate steppingstone.
      I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman of one aspect of educational reform which has been only hinted at in the course of this Debate, and that is the reform of the universities. Let us remember that, after all, the curriculum of the public schools is largely dominated by the requirements of the university examination. Let us remember also that in turn the public schools dominate the curriculum of the private schools. Therefore, in any national system of education, it is the duty of the nation to find the appropriate place for the university. It is quite obvious that in some respects the universities cannot reform themselves. They want to be given the power to reform themselves in certain vital respects. The problem is so large, the vested interests are so great, the schools of thought on the subject of reform are so divergent, that I think the President will see that at least there are good grounds for advocating the appointment of a Royal Commission. I believe that the appointment of a Royal Commission would really be the quickest way of securing reform. I earnestly hope that we shall not be told that a final decision has been come to in that respect, but that the Government will preserve an open mind on the subject. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman has had

      971
      to-day an experience which I think his predecessors will find unique. Not one word of criticism has been uttered on the subject of educational reform. Every speaker in the Debate has admitted the need for and the urgency of reform. Every speaker has urged the President to go forward. He can, therefore, go forward in the work of educational reform feeling that he has behind him a united House of Commons. I trust that when he delivers his annual address next year he will be able to say that he has acted on the exhortations which he has received, and that he has taken vigorous steps towards carrying out some of those reforms which are so urgently needed in the best interests of the country.
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: I am sorry to detain the Committee for a few minutes longer, but I have sat here during the whole of this Debate, with the exception of perhaps half an hour. I desire, in the first place, to congratulate my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education upon his excellent speech. For many years he and I worked upon the same county council, and I am glad to find that the experience he gained on that council has stood him in good stead in his work in his present office. I trust he will continue to have great success, and that he will carry out the ideals to which he has given expression today. Before I embark on my main subject, I should like to say a word or two in regard to what was said by the hon. Members for Lanarkshire and Wiltshire. Both recommended that the Government should appoint a Royal Commission. I myself have grave doubts as to the wisdom of that course.—to deal with the whole question of education. Indeed, I am one of those who believe that the Departments now have overcome a very large number of the difficulties by the appointment of Committees. They have solved many problems and set aside others to be dealt with, almost immediately by the reference of these matters to Committees. I am old enough to remember the great stir caused by the appointment of a Royal Commission upon Education, which presented its final Report in 1888. I remember reading the two Reports—for there were two—a majority and a minority Report—and also a very large amount of the evidence given before that Commission. When my hon. Friend says that we will get unity from a Royal Commission, I say that you have
      972
      there, arising out of that important Commission, great disunion. You have the two Reports which were divergent. Further, very little of those two Reports have been carried out. A very large number of Royal Commissions have been appointed have got a large amount of evidence, and have presented their Reports, and nothing has been done to carry out their Reports, or to carry into effect their recommendations. I have with me here a Report in regard to scholarships. It is an excellent Report. I have read a great portion of it. But it will probably take years for the Department, or the Government, to carry it into effect, because it means an expenditure of money. I believe of about £325,000. These Commissions make recommendations and they are never carried out. It is a waste of time to appoint further Commissions. If it were a matter of business, of a proper business Department—and I will make one or two suggestions before I sit down where I think there is a great waste of money going on—the heads would never call in an Advisory Committee, or a Commission, to advise them. They would do the necessary work themselves and rectify the errors and see to it that they brought success to the business.
      I was very much struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester. It was an eloquent speech. There have been some other speeches delivered like it. But hon. Members spoke from a theoretical point of view, without practical knowledge of what is going on in the country. I am one of those who believe that the elementary education of the country is not ruined. I am a member of an educational authority myself, and have been for many years. I have been a pioneer of a great deal of the work in my own county. I venture to say, with due regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Leicester when he spoke about the need of education in our country districts, that if he will come to the county" of Durham, where I live and work, and where also lives and works the hon. Member for MidDurham, he will find that there is not a single boy or girl in that county today, let them be as poor as one could imagine, be that boy or girl the son or daughter of an agricultural labourer, that is not within reach of some of the best secondary schools in the country. We have so established secondary schools within that county—something like seventeen or eighteen—that they are within the reach of every boy and girl in the county,

      973
      and they are going on from the elementary schools, right through the secondary schools, and sometimes on to the universities. Therefore, when men talk to me or talk in this House that nothing has been done in this country, I say there is a great silent work going on, and, although I was an opponent of some aspects of the Act of 1902, I am bound to confess that that Act has done a great work, especially in the secondary aspect of education; and if the county councils and the borough councils, who have the power, will utilise that Act in the way it should be worked, I venture to say a further improvement will take place in this country out of our educational system. I was very delighted to hear the practical and very suggestive and instructive address of the hon. Member for Chorley (Sir H. Hibbert), who since he has been in the House, and with his practical experience, has made very good suggestions to the Department as to how they should proceed with regard to this educational work. I want to tell him that he was very much better treated by the Local Government Board than the county in which I am. It is a very remarkable thing. Here is the Education Department, which is responsible for placing very large and grave responsibilities upon the education committees, urging them to carry out certain work, and then you have the Local Government Board coming down and pressing the committees to economise, and we, like him, were under the responsibility of expending up to our 3d. in the £. An inquiry was held. They cut the rate down to 21/2d., and then they would only allow 21/2d., and by that means they were able to stop the whole of the technical education of the county for one year. I say that is false economy. When the Education Department come down and press for this work to be carried out, and then you have another Department coining down without knowing what the Education Department is exacting from those committees, I say it is false economy for one Department to interfere with the other in that respect.
      I should like to draw the attention of the Department to a very important aspect of what I consider to be a great waste of public money that is going on at the present time, and in this we do not require a Committee or a Commission to stop it. I refer to the enormous leakage that is now going on with regard to our continuation schools and technical schools. It is not in the Report this year, but I refer to
      974
      the Report for 1914–15, because that Report is a very full one, whereas the Report this year is a very meagre one, on account of the War. Those figures have caused those who take an interest in education very great alarm. Now, what do those figures show? There are 734,510 students in our continuation and technical schools; 423,000 are boys, and 310,960 are women and girls. There are 243,000 over the age of twenty-one, and you have practically only 490,000 between the age of twenty-one and the age when these boys leave school. The most remarkable thing in connection with these figures is that in the group courses taking more than one subject you have 261,000 entries. In the single subject course you have 908,000 entries. To qualify for a Parliamentary Grant to the Committee those in the group courses must attend fourteen hours during the session and in the single courses ten hours. I find that there were no less than 22,000 in the group system that failed to put in fourteen hours, representing 9 per cent, and no less than 365,000 failed to attend the qualifying number of hours in the single subject group. This means a great loss to the Education Committee. In Wales it represents no less than 21,000 of those who have entered into these groups for various subjects. This means that the local education committee have to prepare for the classes, advertise them, organise and employ teachers, and have to bear the cost of maintenance of the permanent staff and central organisation, and all this depends more or less upon the Parliamentary Grants, and yet we find this large leakage. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman ought to do what great business firms would do in a similar case—that is, send a man down to investigate. I suggest that an inspector should visit every county and meet the teachers and practical men in conference, and see if they cannot overcome this great leakage. If they can overcome this difficulty in the attendance in our continuation and technical classes, it will do a great deal to remove some of the great difficulties we have at the present time. I know the President of the Board of Education is anxious to reply, and I should like to have referred to the work of our secondary schools in connection with the universities. I believe there is a great need of reform in the classification and the preparation of subjects leading on to the university, but I believe that all these things can be done by Departmental action, and there is no need for a

      975
      Royal Commission. I hope that during his next year of office that many of these things he may work out himself by some practical suggestions to rectify the great waste that is going on now, and if he does this he will add further glory to what he has done already.
      Mr. HENDERSON: I feel highly gratified at the course which the Debate has taken since my opening speech. There has been one outstanding feature, and that is the desire manifested by all sections of the House in favour of some scheme of educational reform. If there is any difference of opinion on this point I think the difference has really manifested itself rather in regard to the measures and as to whether we should proceed in this way or that. I do not propose to attempt to deal with the almost innumerable points that have been raised. I have endeavoured to follow the Debate during the hours the Debate has run, except for the absence of a few minutes, and I have been somewhat handicapped without my Parliamentary Secretary to take the second part of the proceedings. But I will promise that all the suggestions that have been made will be very carefully considered. One of the valuable results of this long Debate will be the material which it will provide my Department for thought, for consideration, and for laying further plans for carrying out the work that we have in hand. It is no mere empty phrase when I say that the suggestions that have been made will be very, very carefully considered. I think I indicated by what I said in my opening remarks that I was personally exceedingly desirous, as long as I occupied my present position, of assisting to the best of my ability in advancing education. We have just been reminded by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. J. Samuel) that I have been long associated with educational work, or at any rate with the administration of education. It is twenty-two years since I first became a member of an education authority, and I was, as he reminded us, for some time connected in my Division with one of the best educational authorities in this country, the Educational authority of the county of Durham.
      There are a few points that I would like very briefly to mention. The first speaker in the Debate, my hon. Friend opposite
      976
      (Sir P. Magnus), suggested that I was trying to make too much of the question of money. Here I must take leave to differ from him. I have not come to the conclusion without a considerable amount of thought. I happen to know that for years and years inquiries of one kind or another have been held and in the pigeon holes of the Department, as we usually say, there are any number of schemes. We are not short of schemes. The best brains of the country have gone into this matter before, and I venture to say that effect could be given to no plan that I could bring out of the piles that have been made in days gone by without a considerable sum of money. I purposely emphasised this in my speech, because a number of speakers have paid me the compliment of expressing the hope that I may be in a position again to make a speech at this box as President of the Board of Education. I do not mind saying that in many respects I hope that I do not, because that would be an indication that the War was over. After all, we have to have some regard to the fact that I am only here because I am a Member of the Coalition Government—and when the War is over it is possible that the Coalition Government will come to an end. Probably next year, when this Vote comes up, I shall be sitting here at the corner doing what some of my hon. Friends have been doing this afternoon. That is the position. Therefore I purposely emphasised the fact at the only real opportunity I had that we really need money. If this machine is to be made to go better, if it is to go faster, it can only be driven with money. I hope that my hon. Friend opposite will bear with me when I say that I have very seriously come to the conclusion that that is the only way that we are going very greatly to improve the position. He also raised the question of method. I know that for some time he has been feeling very keenly on the question of a Royal Commission. I have talked it over with him, and I know the part he has taken in presenting the case for the appointment of a Royal Commission. I do not mind saying that after giving very full consideration to the subject I came to the conclusion that the appointment of a Royal Commission was not the best method of investigation in the interests of education itself. I have been myself on more than one occasion a member of a Royal Commission. If we had a

      977
      Royal Commission it would be a fairly large one, because it would have to deal with every aspect of the subject, and I can imagine five or six experts interested in university education—as we know the hon. Member for London University is—sitting alongside five or six experts on the elementary side, and perhaps five or six experts on some of the intermediate stages of education, and I will venture to say that whilst the part of the inquiry more directly concerned with the universities was really being made, it would be in the way with which, I am sorry to say, education in this House sometimes is dealt with, namely, that when it is Scotland, Scottish Members are present; when it is Ireland. Irish Members are there—and so it is in connection with the Commission. We have four or five Members more deeply interested in one aspect of the case than in another, and they attend very very closely to that part of the case in which they are most interested. Royal Commissions do not, I think, commend themselves very strongly to the public mind. I think Royal Commissions have been used on the public platform, whatever party has been in opposition, to make great fun of the party in power for sheltering itself and its side in politics behind a Royal Commission; and I know of no means of inquiry that is held in such disrepute in the country—among the great rank and file of the country, whom we describe at times as the Man in the Street—as a Royal Commission.
      Sir P. MAGNUS: May I say that I was a member, and another hon. Member sitting in the House was also a member, of a Royal Commission in which we were unanimous on education, and that great reforms resulted from the recommendations.
      Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, but I think the hon. Gentleman will permit me to say that it was a Royal Commission on one aspect of education, and not on all, and I think that makes a considerable difference.
      Sir P. MAGNUS: It was on all aspects.
      Mr. HENDERSON: Then the question of time has to be taken into consideration. If the case is so bad as has been represented here to-day—I admitted at the very beginning of my speech that there were
      978
      deficiencies, limitations, and anomalies in connection with our system—though I cannot go so far as my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Sir J. Yoxall), who, if he will permit me to say so, did employ an illustration which somewhat exaggerated them. I cannot believe that in his heart he thinks that the elementary education system in this country is in ruins, and that is the phrase he himself used. I admitted that there were vast limitations, but I venture to say that with all those limitations there is a danger of depreciating and decrying our own system, and I regretted to hear the system spoken of in such terms of depreciation as those in which it was spoken of today. The element of time enters into the question. We are appointing a Committee to deal with the aspect of the case to which I referred in my speech, and the Prime Minister has decided—this is the reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for London University (Sir P. Magnus)—to appoint two more Committees, one to deal with modern languages and one to deal with the neglect of science. Those Committees are being appointed by the Prime Minister as part of the inquiry for Reconstruction. He is the Chairman of the Reconstruction Committee, and he has appointed a number of Sub-Committees, two of them being those I have just named, with regard to those important aspects of education. A fourth Committee is going to be appointed, which is going to be a Reviewing Committee. That is going to be a Committee of the Reconstruction Committee also.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Are these Cabinet Committees?
      Sir P. MAGNUS: Yes, they are.
      Mr. HENDERSON: No. The Reviewing Committee will be a Committee selected from the Prime Minister's Reconstruction Committee. The other Committees which are to be set up to deal with modern languages and modern science will not be Cabinet Committees, but committees of experts very carefully selected by the Prime Minister after consultation with the Board of Education. I feel quite certain that in proceeding in this way by means of those Committees we shall do the work more effectively and

      979
      more speedily than would be the case if we appointed the Royal Commission, to which reference has been made so often.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will any Committee be appointed to consider the provision of secondary education?
      Mr. HENDERSON: I rather gathered that my lion. Friend is one of those who object to too many Committees. I have only named these Committees because that is as far as we have got. If we find another Committee is necessary on the subject he has named, we will give the matter very careful consideration.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I only wanted to show their inadequacy.
      Mr. HENDERSON: It is a question of a difference of opinion as to method. There is a very strong feeling, as I have tried to point out, with regard to Royal Commissions. They are considered by a number of people to be altogether too clumsy, inadequate, and ineffective. We are proceeding by the other method, and we shall take a good deal of convincing that we ought to change that method. The hon. Member for West Nottingham brought up the question of the condition of elementary education and referred to it in very striking and graphic language. When he made his statement I felt very much condemned, because I know he is such an expert upon this question and knows the ins and outs of it as very few men can do. But when the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) rose he opened with a statement that gave me a great amount of satisfaction. I gathered from the speech of the hon. Member for West Nottingham that the calamity and ruin that had been brought about in connection with elementary education had occurred during the War.
      Sir J. YOXALL: Hear, hear!
      Mr. HENDERSON: I get consolation from the hon. Member. (Mr. King) because he told the Committee that he had for seven years been a pelican in the wilderness telling the Committee, on the speech of every President, that the education system was in ruins. I am rather glad to think the responsibility does not lie at my
      980
      door, because I prefer to take the hon. Member behind me as against the hon. Member (Sir J. Yoxall) on this point. But if the hon. Member can produce any evidence to show that things are really so bad as he made out in his speech, I shall be delighted to talk it over with him. I am always glad to see him at the Board of Education. I shall be glad if he will present we with a memorandum on the subject, and point out really what has brought us to this position, and you may depend upon it, coming from him, it will receive from me the most careful consideration.
      The hon. Member also put a question with regard to holidays. He reminded the House of the position I had taken up in regard to the suspension or postponement of holidays. I announced, at a very important and very successful conference on this question this morning, that, so far as the school holidays were concerned, I had decided not to interfere with them. I will give my reasons. I am exceedingly anxious to keep down the holiday spirit, but I felt that so far as the children were concerned it would be a mistake to interfere with them. But I had another reason. Apart altogether from physical reasons, and the effect upon the children, I knew that many teachers had already arranged very bravely to sacrifice their holidays and give their time to some form of national service. I know, too, that some children enjoy themselves immensely by having their holidays in the fields, giving a little assistance here and there. I believe it does them good. If I only satisfy myself that hundreds of thousands of these children in cities like London and our great manufacturing centres can in some way be sent out to run about in the fields and do what little they can, I can conceive them spending their holiday in no better way and in no better circumstances. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will agree with the decision which I have come to with regard to the children.
      One or two other questions have been very prominent. We have had the question of child labour. I said at the beginning of my speech that it gave me a great amount of concern. That was to be expected. I have tried to deal with it. Some speakers seemed to think we had all the power as a Board that we needed to deal with this question. The hon. Member (Mr. King) said all these

      981
      things are being done under a Labour President, and he rolled that off his tongue like a sweet morsel. He seemed to think it was a grand thing that we had a Labour President. He seemed to think a Labour President had nothing to do but to rule the Board of Education and rule the local authorities, just as if he were carrying on an agitation as an irresponsible outsider. There are very few Members who know how limited our powers are on this question. We have gone thoroughly into it. I did not want to say this but I am compelled, by the statements which have been made, to say that if we had to proceed we could proceed, first of all, by public inquiry. If we do not get the local authority to accept our decision, then we could proceed by mandamus. Surely that is not a very good prospect for the Board of Education in time of war. I wonder if the hon. Member (Mr. Whitehouse) thinks that if we proceed by mandamus we are going to get a conviction because they have taken 15,000 children to work in agriculture. Large as the number is, and much as I deplore it, they could come forward and say that they had taken these children to work in agriculture, and that no other form of labour was available. I wonder whether the hon. Member thinks we could get a conviction under those circumstances?
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should exercise financial pressure, and also that the statutory provision should be put into operation?
      Mr. HENDERSON: I have told the Committee that we have considered this matter very carefully, and we have concluded that our powers on this point lie in the direction that I have already named. When happier times come and we sweep away all those exemptions that I gave to the Committee this afternoon, and which are a disgrace, in my opinion, because they simply make a perfect system of education an impossibility, I hope we shall then be able to have some uniform age upon which the Board of Education can work. The hon. Member for North-West Durham (Mr. A. Williams) raised an entirely separate point, on which I feel that I must say a word. He pleaded the case of the uncertificated teacher, and informed the Committee that it is a case of low status and low pay, and that the question of pay was a
      982
      matter in the hands of the local education authorities. I do not see how I can interfere. I have looked into the matter, and I have discussed it with the hon. Member for North-West Durham, and I have tried to show him that it is a matter for the local education authorities. However much I may regret it that there are teachers in an honourable profession like the teaching profession getting the small salaries to which the hon. Member referred, I have no power to deal with the Durham County Council.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: I did not refer to the Durham County Council.
      Mr. HENDERSON: The hon. Member informed me that teachers for his Constituency had approached him on this question, and therefore I must come down to the concrete, and if it is in his Constituency it is the Durham County Council that is concerned, and the Durham County Council is the only authority, acting through its committees, that can increase the salaries of the low-paid teachers whose cases the hon. Member has brought before the Committee.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: I think that it is unfair to deal with it as a question of one county council. I dealt with it as a general question.
      Mr. HENDERSON: I am sorry if the hon. Member takes exception. However, the position is as I have stated, and I hope my hon. Friend will do what he can to get the local authority to take the matter up. I desire to thank the Committee for the consideration they have shown to me to-day, and for the very sympathetic references that have been made to my statement.
      Colonel MEYSEY-THOMPSON: The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the question I raised in regard to the employment of boy labour in agriculture?
      Mr. HENDERSON: I did refer to it.
      Colonel MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Then it must have been when I was not here. It is a very important matter.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: I have met a number of persons who are very much interested in this subject, and I have attempted to defend the position taken up

      983
      by my right hon. Friend. I have pointed out to them that, when all is said and done, he is not absolutely responsible for the policy of the Education Department.
      It being Eleven o'clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow (Wednesday).
      The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
      Whereupon Mr. DEPTJTTSPBAKEE, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND).
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND).
  GERMAN SHIPBUILDING.
  GERMAN SHIPBUILDING.
  VENEREAL DISEASES (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  VENEREAL DISEASES (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
    SINN FEIN LEADERS (PHOTOGRAPHS).
    SINN FEIN LEADERS (PHOTOGRAPHS).
  RELEASE OF GERMAN PRISONER.
  RELEASE OF GERMAN PRISONER.
  EGYPTIAN PROVINCES (GOVERNORS).
  EGYPTIAN PROVINCES (GOVERNORS).
  BELGIUM (IMPORTS OF LARD AND FOODSTUFFS).
  BELGIUM (IMPORTS OF LARD AND FOODSTUFFS).
  Spirits (Manufacture).
  Spirits (Manufacture).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Ceylon.
  Ceylon.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders.

Land Drainage (Feltwell) Provisional Order.

Also the Certificates that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
RHODES ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Committed; the Committee to meet on Thursday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
To be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Hylton).

CONSOLIDATION BILLS (LARCENY BILL. [H.L.]).
Report from the Joint Committee made, and to be printed. (No. 73.) Bill reported with Amendments and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and to be printed as amended. (No. 74.) Minutes of evidence laid upon the Table and to be delivered out.
CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The LORD BALFOUR appointed to take the Chair in Committee of the Whole House this day.
CRAVEN ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
CONWAY AND COLWYN BAY JOINT WATER SUPPLY BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
FINANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord President (M. Crewe)). (No. 72.)
LECKY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
HORNSEY GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Trading with the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916—Summary of cases dealt with by the Advisory Committee up to 2nd June 1916 inclusive, and of the recommendations made therein:
Railway Accidents—General Report to the Board of Trade upon the accidents that have occurred on the Railways of the United Kingdom during the year 1915:
Board of Education (School Attendance and Employment in Agriculture)—Summary of Returns supplied by County Local Education Authorities of Children excused from School for employment in Agriculture on 31st May 1916:
Board of Agriculture and Fisheries—The Recent Development of German Agriculture, by T. H. Middleton, Esquire, C.B., Assistant Secretary, Board of Agriculture and Fisheries:
Ordnance Survey—Report of the Progress of the Ordnance Survey to 31st March 1916:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Army (Territorial Force)—Scheme made by the Army Council for the establishment and constitution of an Association for the County of Ayr under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907:
Intermediate Education (Ireland)—
Rules as to the employment of Centre Superintendents;
Examiners' Rules:
Irish Universities Act, 1908—Statute VII. for University College, Cork:
County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877—Account of Receipts and Payments under the Act during the year ended 31st March 1916:
National Insurance Acts—The National Health Insurance (Insurance Committees) Consolidated Regulations, 1916, dated 14th July 1916:
Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899—Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, under the Act that the Provisional Orders be allowed to proceed, subject to such recommendations as may hereafter be made with respect to the several Orders:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Corporation of London—Annual Accounts of the Chamberlain of London for the year 1915–1916: Delivered (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

THE MESOPOTAMIAN EXPEDITION.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House whether he is now in a position to make a statement to your Lordships on the subject of Mesopotamia, which has been a matter of question and answer in this House on several occasions.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, it is desirable for several reasons that I should reply as fully as I can to the question which has been put by the noble Marquess. In the first place, as he has stated, this subject has been often before us of late, and, in the second place, I understand that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister is going to make, or has made, a statement upon it in another place, and it is therefore due to your Lordships that something should also be said here. As regards the presentation of Papers concerning Mesopotamia, the House knows what our intentions have been on that matter, because they have been stated here, and it has been informed that the Papers have been fully prepared. That is so. But when the Papers were in a complete state of preparation they were finally examined by the Army Council, and the conclusion which the Army Council reached was that the effect of their publication would be to give information to the enemy concerning future operations, and that the information thus acquired would be prejudicial to the future action of our troops in that country. The House will see that the Army Council could not reach this conclusion until they had the Papers before them as a whole, because the kind of deduction which can be made for the benefit of the enemy from such Papers as those may depend, indeed often must depend, upon the general effect produced by them on a large scale, more than on the single pieces of information contained in any particular document. The War Committee considered, this deliberate opinion having been expressed by the Army Council, that for the time being—I lay stress on the phrase "for the time being"—the withholding of the Papers must be regarded as a chose jugée—that it was not an opinion which it was possible to combat. Therefore for the time being we are not prepared to present Papers on the subject of the military operations which have taken place since we first went up the Persian Gulf. I may say in passing that, also for military reasons,

733
though obviously for military reasons of a different character, the publication of Papers regarding the military operations at the Dardanelles must also for a time be withheld.
The House will realise that, so far as the Mesopotamian operations are concerned, there are two subjects of profound interest both to this House and to the country—two subjects which may be regarded as distinct, although they are in various ways connected. In the first place people may ask, and do ask, how it was that we ever went to Mesopotamia at all. Were our objects in doing so mainly military or were they largely political? Allied with those questions are those concerning the conduct of the military operations from the opening of the campaign until now; and it is on that side of the question that the Papers of which we have so often spoken were prepared, and those are the Papers which for the time being we are compelled to withhold. But there is also another side to the question, closely allied, as I have said, although distinct, and it is upon this, I understand, according to the questions put to me on the last occasion by the noble Viscount, that information is specially desired—I mean questions relating to the transport service, to the medical service, and to some extent also to the general supply services of that Army. To some extent, and to a degree which perhaps might not appear at first sight, some of the same objections apply to the publication of Papers on this subject as also to those of a more purely military character. But, on the other hand, it will be possible at any rate before long to give fuller information on this branch of the subject than upon the other.
As regards the transport service, which has been the subject of much animadversion, and to the difficulties of which, speaking broadly, the greater part of the troubles which have occurred in. Mesopotamia may be ascribed, various inquiries and endeavours at improvement have taken place. As the House knows, it was at the beginning of this year that the conduct of the operations in Mesopotamia was taken charge of by the War Office in the place of India; and without attempting now to enter into anything like a general review of all the circumstances, I may remind your Lordships that it was only at the very end of last year or the beginning of this that complaints began to come home of the working of the transport
734
and medical services, and since then the Departments have made, as I shall describe in a moment, such inquiries as they could with a view to meeting the difficulties. To take the matter of transport first, Sir George Buchanan, a very distinguished engineer, has been examining the whole matter of river transport on the Tigris. No Report from him has yet come home, but there is every reason to suppose that his examination is complete. In March last an experienced officer, General Gilmour, went out, and has since been inquiring into the circumstances both of the river and of railway transport, and the results of those inquiries will be, so far as possible, communicated to the public when they have been received.
What, however, I think has cut deeper into the public mind has been the series of difficulties connected with the medical service and the needless sufferings which are alleged to have been inflicted on a number of our sick and wounded through the failure to carry out that service in a proper manner. At the beginning of the year, when reports were first received in India that the medical service was not being carried out with full efficiency, it was desired to send the best possible gentleman who could be found in India to make a Report. For that purpose Lord Chelmsford, who was at that time serving as an officer, was selected to go to report on Mesopotamia, with two others. Before Lord Chelmsford, however, could undertake this duty he was offered the Viceroyalty of India and accepted it, and consequently the scheme fell through. In his place a medical officer went to Basra and made a Report which did not entirely satisfy the Government of India by its fullness and the amount of information which it contained. Accordingly, late in February—I think on the 20th—the Commission was despatched of which mention has already been made in this House. That was conducted by Sir William Vincent, General Bingley, and Mr. Ridsdale, who is closely connected with the Red Cross Association. That Commission made a full examination of all the conditions. It has presented its Report in India, but the Report has not yet arrived here; nor are we, indeed, cognisant of its general tenor, still less of the details of its contents, and clearly it is impossible to attempt to discuss it until it arrives. In addition to that, a very capable medical officer, Surgeon-General O'Donnell, who is now the Medical

735
Director in India, has been carefully inquiring into the conditions on the spot.
My noble friend opposite, Lord Wemyss, has a Motion on the Paper for Thursday dealing with the whole subject, or at any rate enabling a debate to be instituted which would deal with the whole subject. I should venture to suggest, therefore, that your Lordships would probably prefer to postpone until Thursday anything like a general discussion on the subject, although, for the reasons I have stated, you will not at that time be in possession of any Papers. On the other hand, I am well aware that many of your Lordships, apart from Papers, have no little information of what has happened in Mesopotamia, and you are therefore probably possessed of the necessary materials for a discussion. I think it is possible that it may be suggested that even upon the materials which now exist it would be right and reasonable to hold an immediate Inquiry into what can only be described as the breakdown, in certain respects, of the arrangements in Mesopotamia. There are obvious difficulties attached to an immediate Inquiry—namely, the practical impossibility of securing the evidence of all those who would be in a position to give it. But it is certainly not the desire of His Majesty's Government to evade or avoid inquiry on the subject, and it will be no doubt for us to consider how soon it will be possible to institute a formal Inquiry of that kind. It is the very natural desire of all observers, on recognising failures in such a business as this, to fix the proper responsibility upon some person or persons involved. Nor can anybody say that such responsibility ought not to be ascribed. At the same time, when inquiring into the burden of blame which has to be borne by individuals it is also necessary to inquire into the conditions under which they have worked and the system under which they have carried on their different duties.
There is one point which I think it is important, to bring out. It might well be said, "It is all very well to postpone a full Inquiry into all the circumstances on the ground of physical or personal difficulties, but what guarantee have we that there may not be a repetition of these failures so long as the same people remain responsible?" That is by no means an unnatural question. But so far as the medical services are concerned, it is reassuring to know that Surgeon-General O'Donnell, reporting quite lately, states that the condition of affairs
736
as regards supplies and so on is now as satisfactory as it can be made. Therefore the House will see that the possible danger to which I have alluded cannot be held to arise in this particular case. I have no desire to pursue the subject further now. I thought it due to the House to make this quite bare statement, and I hope that your Lordships can concur with the view that discussion can more profitably take place on the Motion of my noble friend opposite on Thursday.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I might, perhaps, be allowed to say a word or two on what has fallen from the noble Marquess. Although we have pressed for the publication of Papers, I do not think we have failed on any occasion to respond to an appeal from the Government for the non-publication of Papers which might in any way impair the use of our Forces or their position in regard to the war; and I feel sure that your Lordships, on this side of the House at all events, will be willing to acquiesce in the very disappointing decision which has been conveyed to us this afternoon. It is disappointing because it is almost inconceivable that the difficulty which has arisen, and which must have been foreseen from the first, could not have been so arranged between the two Offices, or by the War Council, that your Lordships might not have been kept waiting for three months for the debates which the noble Marquess now admits had better take place. I also think that had this question been faced at the outset, as it might have been, there would have been very little difficulty in providing us with those Papers which, in the interests of the Government, it is highly desirable should be published, exculpating, if possible, the higher officials or whoever is not responsible for the terrible state of things which has been existing in Mesopotamia.
One word as to why it is absolutely necessary for us to proceed with Lord Wemyss's Motion on Thursday. In the first place, to our great regret we have heard for the first time that this Commission which was sent out, instead of being ordered to report at once by telegraph to the Secretary of State what changes were required to prevent the continued sufferings of the troops under these conditions in Mesopotamia, have not only not reported by telegraph, but have gone to Simla, and their Report is only now finding its way to this country by mail. Meantime

737
letters are reaching many of your Lordships, I am sure, as they are reaching me, by every post confirming the view that not only at the beginning of the year, but as recently as late in May, the conditions in Mesopotamia were bad to an extreme which has not been paralleled since the Crimean War. In addition to that, the noble Marquess has not given us to understand that any human being up to now has been made accountable; and in those circumstances I am sure your Lordships will feel that my noble friend Lord Wemyss will be amply justified in going forward with his Motion on Thursday.

GORE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

POLICE, &c. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, this is not a very long Bill, and I shall not have to detain your Lordships more than a few minutes in moving the Second Reading. The Bill is divided into three Parts. Part I deals with matters appertaining to the Police; Part II deals with two or three subjects appertaining to factories and workshops; and Part III is concerned with miscellaneous and general provisions.
I will first explain Part I. Clause 1 refers to the retention by ex-police-constables of their pensions whilst employed for the purposes of the war. By subsection (2) of Section 13 of the Police Act, 1890, it was laid down that if a pensioned police-constable was appointed to any office and received emoluments from public moneys, and if the pay and the pension exceeded one and a half times the salary that he received as a constable, so much of the pension in excess of that sum should be forfeited. It was supposed that the ex-constable was covered by that subsection; but it has occurred that in the High Court a decision has been given in a contrary sense, and if one of these pensioned constables went into a Government munition works he might find himself in a worse position than if he were employed by a private firm. Clause 1 of this Bill deals with that point.
738
Clause 2 has to do with a promise which was made when the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Bill was being passed. In the case of constables who were induced to join the Army or the Navy by promises of extra payment, the clause provides for the excess authorised, and puts them in the same position as servants of local authorities. Clause 3 will enable the Police authority to pay compensation for death or injury to people who, at the request of the police, are called out to assist them in their duties during the war—for instance, people who are engaged in ambulance work during a Zeppelin raid. Such persons would get the same rates as constables. Clause 4 provides that the expression
"pay of the police" shall be deemed to include the pay of any woman who may be employed by a Police authority to perform any of the duties of the police and who is required to devote the whole of her time to such employment. These women will receive the same pay as police-constables. This Clause also deals with the amount to be paid to the Police authority from the Exchequer Contribution Account. Clause 5 provides for the regulation of street collections for charitable purposes, but it will not interfere with those who sell articles in the streets for their livelihood.
I now come to Part II. Clause 7 has to do with what is called the welfare of workers in factories and workshops. In recent years many employers have made arrangements for the welfare of their employees. These have been extended, because of the large number of women and girls who are now engaged in factories and workshops, and a special department has been set up to deal with munition factories under Government. But there is no power at present to deal with other industries, and that is the reason for the introduction of these provisions in this Bill. Where so many women and girls are employed it is desirable to make arrangements for heating, and for convenience for taking, meals, for the supply of drinking water and protective clothing, for ambulances, first aid arrangements, and so on; and also, where both sexes are employed together, for discipline. Provision will be made for the consideration of any objections submitted by the occupiers affected.
The second clause in Part II—Clause 8—provides for the abolition of the investigation of accidents by the certifying surgeon. This work has been deemed by two Inquiries

739
to be redundant—first, by the Committee which sat from 1908 to 1911 on Accidents in Factories, who reported that this officer in this particular capacity was not needed; and again by the Retrenchment Committee, who suggested that this gentleman in this capacity could very well be abolished. The provision in this clause means a saving of £12,500 a year. The certifying surgeon will still be left with the duty of seeing after children and young persons, as to age and other matters, and also investigating lead poisonings and other industrial diseases; and an Amendment was introduced into this Bill in the other House by the Secretary of State, which gives the certifying surgeon work to do in regard to cases of injury caused by exposure to gas, fumes, or other noxious substances. The duty of the factory inspectors in combination with the certifying officer is not treatment, but has to do with seeing that no infringement of the Acts takes place, and also ascertaining, where there have been accidents, whether they were preventable.
Clause 10—the first clause in Part III—provides for the case of miners who have been on active war service. As noble Lords no doubt know, where a miner is anxious to become a mine manager or an assistant mine manager he has, in addition to passing certain examinations, to do five years' practical work. If the man were away soldiering he would become rusty for his examination, and the additional three or four years which he might have to complete would make his examination a still more difficult affair. It is very desirable to do away with that disability and to enable him to pass his examination before he has complied with the qualification as to practical experience. I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that the standard of safety will not be jeopardised at all, because the man will not be entitled to a certificate of competency until he has completed the period of practical experience in mining. All that will happen will be that he will have the examination behind him. Those are the principal provisions of the Bill, and with these few words of explanation I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Sandhurst.)
LORD STRACHIE: I desire to ask my noble friend a question on Clause 8. He did not give us any explanation for the
740
provision in this clause except that of economy. We are very glad to find that the Government are ready to economise even to the extent of £12,500 a year; and one can quite understand that this may be a desirable saving when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to admit, as he did last night, that his calculations were so defective that we are actually spending £1,000,000 a day more than the Government supposed would be necessary. My noble friend, however, did not say why it is thought desirable to abolish investigations by certifying surgeons in the cases of death or injury due to accidents. The provision is all the, more curious when, as the noble Lord told us, in the case of industrial diseases and in the case of injury caused by exposure to gas, fumes, or other noxious substances, investigation by the certifying surgeon is retained. The noble Lord did not explain whether the work of investigation now being performed by the certifying surgeons is to be done in future by the inspectors of factories. If that is intended, I doubt very much whether it will be possible. These inspectors are already overworked, and more accidents are now occurring because of the larger number of unskilled persons at present employed in factories. Therefore I submit that this is not the time for the saving of this £12,500 a year and the running of risk through necessary investigations not being made. I understand that what happens now is that the surgeon reports to the factory inspector as regards all these accidents, and it is very important that this work should continue. Yet under the proposal in this Bill there will be no protection for the worker who meets with an accident which is not caused by exposure to gas, fumes, or by disease. It is proposed to leave it to the employer alone to make the report. I submit that with every intention on the part of the employer to be fair, you cannot call him an impartial person. Therefore I contend that by this proposal you are depriving workmen of proper protection.
EARL RUSSELL: I venture to think that your Lordships would do well to look also at Clause 7 of this Bill before it finally leaves your Lordships' House. I do not know how much discussion the Bill received in another place, but it does look as if these clauses might be the better for a little further consideration in Committee. With regard to Clause 8, the noble Lord

741
who has just sat down has said practically all that is to be said as to abolishing investigations of accidents by certifying surgeons, which seems rather a serious thing to do for such a small saving as the sum mentioned. The noble Lord, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, stated that this work had been deemed to be redundant, but I was unable to gather from anything he said what the redundancy was or what other inquiries there are which would be satisfactory in place of investigations by certifying surgeons.
As to Clause 7, rather large power is given under it to the Secretary of State to call for special provision to be made at factories. The matters to which the clause relates include "arrangements for preparing or heating, and taking, meals." These words seem fairly innocent, but they might cover the provision of a large and elaborate mess room with expensive cooking arrangements. The clause also applies to "the supply of protective clothing," and "facilities for washing," and there is nothing in the clause to prevent the latter including a Turkish bath. Then there are to be "arrangements for the supervision of workers." I do not know how far that
is intended to go. Does it involve a matron and nurses for female workers? That may be all very desirable, but it is rather dangerous to leave it to the ipse dixit of the Secretary of State as to the requirements to be imposed on employers. There is a provision that if the reasonableness of the requirements is disputed, the matter shall be referred for settlement to a referee selected in accordance with rules to be made under this clause. Your Lordships have not before you the rules that are to be made under the clause, and I do not understand whether the referee is to be appointed by the Home Secretary or how he is to be appointed, or in what way he is to be an independent person. If he is merely to be a Government official, it does not carry the matter much further; and unless this clause is considered it is possible that hardship might be inflicted. When once a Department gets these powers into its hands, Parliament ceases to have control over the exercise of them, and I think it is possible that some safeguards might be devised. I do not propose myself to move Amendments, but I have thought it well to draw attention to the matter so that it may be considered before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill gave us, if he will allow me to say so, an extremely useful and lucid exposition of its provisions, but it is a very complicated Bill. It amends a great many different Statutes, and there is in it a good deal of legislation by reference. Personally, although I express my gratitude to the noble Lord for his explanation, I think it is a great pity that this House was not given the Memorandum which was circulated to the other House of Parliament in explanation of this Bill. I hold a copy of it in my hand. It is very enlightening and enables one to understand the Bill with much less difficulty than if it is not in one's hand, and as it was printed for the other House I cannot understand why the Home Office did not see that it was circulated along with the Bill to members of this House. I think it is desirable that we should know why we were not treated with the same consideration as members of the House of Commons.
I want to say a word or two about Clause 8. It seems to me, as far as I understand it, to go far to abolish any investigation at all by the district factory surgeon into what are called preventable factory accidents. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the National Union of Teachers have made a strong point that the protection given to children and young persons by these investigations is very important; and it is especially important at a time like this when younger people are being recruited in this class of factory than has been the case before the war. I say that these investigations are valuable owing to the fact that the certifying surgeon himself obtains, through these inquiries, information of mechanical processes which he would not otherwise be so well able to understand, and this knowledge enables him to know exactly what conditions he should affix to certificates of fitness for any particular employment in the case of young persons who come before him.
I have looked at the Report of the Departmental Committee to which the noble Lord alluded, and more especially at those pages which deal with this amendment of the law. I think a point might be made that the Departmental Committee, upon whose Report some stress is laid, had no business to touch this matter at all, as it is not included in their terms of reference. They, in my opinion, assumed a power to make recommendations on a matter on

743
which they were not asked to give their opinion; and reading between the lines I have come to the conclusion that this particular proposal in this Emergency Bill is made in settlement of a pretty old controversy between the certifying surgeons and the Home Office, and that the Home Office are taking advantage, under the plea of emergency and of economy, to do away with provisions which I think are useful, but which, for some reason or other, they have desired to get rid of for a long period of years. I frankly admit that the whole of these are rather points for Committee, but I have called attention to the matter because I think it convenient to say that I have given notice of Amendments to Clause 8 which will raise the question in a concrete form on whatever day the Committee stage is taken.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, with regard to the certifying surgeon and the factory inspector, what I understand is that the work is now being done twice over, and that the certifying surgeon is only in that capacity employed in one third of the cases of accidents that occur.
The investigation is one which requires great knowledge of machinery, because it is not a matter of treatment but of seeing whether the Acts have been complied with, and, if they have been complied with, whether the accidents are preventable in future. With regard to what Lord Balfour said as to young persons and children, I think under the Bill those duties are still left in the hands of the certifying surgeons. I regret that the Memorandum which was attached to the Bill in the House of Commons was not included with the Bill when it was circulated to your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: When does the noble Lord propose to take the Committee stage?
LORD SANDHURST: I should like to consult the convenience of noble Lords opposite in that matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is evident from the speeches which have been delivered that a little time is required in which to study the Bill. Perhaps in the intervening period my noble friend might consider the propriety of circulating to your Lordships the Memorandum which was attached to the Bill in the other House.
LORD SANDHURST: I will certainly ask the Secretary of State about that. If it meets the noble Marquess's convenience, I would suggest next Tuesday for the Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

OUTPUT OF BEER (RESTRICTION) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, this Bill is not a form of temperance propaganda, nor has it any connection with any kind of fiscal policy. Its only object is to increase the tonnage space available for the importation of commodities that are essential to the country. It is proposed to add the materials used for brewing to the very many articles the importation of which has been restricted on account of the shipping difficulty. This cannot be done directly as in other cases, as these materials—maize, barley, rice, and sugar—are also foodstuffs. I do not include hops, as the importation of foreign hops has already been prohibited.
After consultation with the brewing trade, it was decided that the best way to arrive at the object aimed at was to reduce the amount of beer brewed from 30,250,000 barrels to 26,000,000 barrels a year. This will save about one-third of the imported materials, amounting to 160,000 tons. In order to secure this decrease, Clause 2 of the Bill imposes a reduction of 15 per cent. on the output of the breweries as compared with the year ended March 31, 1916; or, as an alternative, a reduction of 30 per cent. on the output in the year ended September 30, 1914. This alternative has been given to meet the hard case of some breweries which have already been compelled to reduce their output considerably in the last year owing to changes in population that have taken place, the result chiefly of the movements of troops.
Clause 3 restricts the establishment of new breweries. Clause 4 provides means for dealing with special cases of hardship. Clause 5 safeguards the interests of "free" as opposed to "tied" licence-holders, and secures to the former a proper proportion of their previous supplies. Subsections (3) and (4) of this clause extend the same security

745
to the Central Control Board and to the managers of clubs. In the Bill as at present drafted canteens are placed in the same position as clubs, but when the Bill reaches the Committee stage an Amendment will be moved taking out canteens from this clause. This will be done at the request of the War Office, who have already made other arrangements.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ROYAL MARINES BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.
GAS (STANDARD OF CALORIFIC POWER) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (PART II) (MUNITION WORKERS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had the following Amendments on the Paper—
After Clause 4, line 32, at end, insert:
Payment of Rates by Employers.
Subject to the provisions of this Act, every workman insured under this Act and the employer of any such workman shall be liable to pay the rates specified in the Third Schedule to this Act.
Page 4, Second Schedule, line 30, insert:
THIRD SCHEDULE.
The following shall be the rates of contribution from workmen and employers:—

To be paid by the employer

2½d. per week.

To be paid by the workman

2½d. per week.

In the case of workmen of the age of twenty-one or upwards whose remuneration does not include the provision of board and lodging by their employer and the rate of whose remuneration does not exceed 4s. 6d. per working day, the following shall be the rates of contribution:—
Where the rate of remuneration exceeds 3s. 6d. but does not exceed 4s. 6d. per working day:

To be paid by the employer

4d. per week.

To be paid by the workman

1d. per week.

Where the rate of remuneration does not exceed 3s. 6d. per working day:

To be paid by the employer

5d. per week.

Provided that, in the case of a workman below the age of eighteen, 1d. shall be substituted for 2½d. as the contribution from the workman and from the employer, or where the rate of remuneration does not exceed 3s. 6d. per working day, 2d. from the employer.
The noble Lord said: As your Lordships will have seen, I have given notice of Amendments to this Bill. The Bill is rather a complicated one, and there is in it a great deal of legislation by reference. I have done my best to understand it, but if your Lordships will look at the first clause you will see what a very complicated proposal it is. The clause runs—
Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1911, relating to unemployment insurance (including the provisions as to contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament), as amended by the National Insurance (Part II. Amendment) Act, 1914, and the National Insurance (Part II. Amendment) Act, 1915 (which provisions as so amended are hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), and the regulations made thereunder shall extend to every person, being a workman within the meaning of the principal Act…
and so on. This shows what a good deal of reading you have to go through to find out what is really the object and intention and probable result of the Bill.
It seems to me that there is a danger, under the latter part of this Bill, of a very unfair burden being put upon the humblest class of workers who have been recently recruited in our munition factories, and it is to attempt to get rid of what I think is this injustice that I have given notice of the long, but I hope not very complicated, Amendment which is upon the Paper. It is not, I am bound to say, exactly in the form in which I should have wished to see it, because I should like to have included provision for some part of the necessary expense of the matters referred to being borne out of public funds; but, of course, I am precluded from doing that by the doctrine of privilege. Therefore I came to the conclusion, with those who advised me, that the only way in which the injustice of which I am afraid can be remedied is by putting a slightly larger share of the necessary expense upon the employer.
The principle of graduated unemployment contribution in accordance with the wages earned by the workers is already incorporated in the health sections of the National Insurance Act. This principle

747
did not, I am sorry to say, find a place in the unemployment sections, presumably because hitherto those sections have applied only to a few of the better paid trades. It is because this Bill will apply to a number of poorly paid employments that I think a new departure should be taken. Broadly speaking, all those well paid employments are men's employments, but this new Bill extends the insurance contributions to a large number of, comparatively speaking, new industries, in many of which women and children are engaged at exceedingly low wages. Take one instance. I could give many more, but this is an illustration in certain leather work, including the sewing of women's shoes, carried on by home workers, the rates of wages in which are so low that the need of a Wages Board is urgent. In munition works the Ministry of Munitions has just fixed, for women and girl workers, wages from 2½d. for girls of 16 to 4d. and 4½d. for adult women, with an extra ½d. for women in danger zones. The point is this, that the charges already levied on women workers tend to lower their wages. There is the Health Insurance of 3d. per week in the case of girls of 18, up to a larger sum in the case of women. It is also customary to charge the workers a penny a week to pay for the cleaning of the workshop, and for the errand girl, and so on; and also for the silk, cotton, or thread, and so on, according to the work on which they are engaged. Some of the women who are working at these wages have other expenses to meet besides those I have mentioned. To enable them to go to work they have to pay from 2s. 6d. to 4s. a week in many cases to have their children cared for while they are at work. This sum varies with the amount of food that has to be provided, and, as your Lordships know, food and other things have risen very largely in price; and I am very much afraid that if some such provision as that of which I have given notice is not incorporated in this Bill serious injustice will be done to a very humble class of workers engaged in useful munition work.
I frankly say that in moving this Amendment at this stage of the Bill I do not feel that I have very much hope of enlisting the real knowledge of a large number of your Lordships, because unless your attention has been called to it and you have studied the Bill, as I have endeavoured to do, I am quite sure that the whole
748
weight and importance of the matter will not easily be brought home to you. My attention was only called to the matter as late as Friday of last week, and I have had no time to go more fully into it than that lapse of time has allowed. I knew that I had to give notice of the Amendment yesterday, because by the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House an Amendment on Third Reading must be in print before it is moved. I think that this Bill, considering its importance, has been hurried through. I know, however, that it is an Emergency Bill, and I do not make a real point of that. Although I think that this Amendment hangs well together and would be just if inserted, I have hardly any hope that I shall be able to persuade the Government Office responsible for the Bill to accept it. But if they do not accept it I would like to ask this question, Cannot they devise some means whereby this obvious injustice to a very humble class of our fellow-subjects can in some way be obviated, because I am sure there is a real grievance.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Are the Amendments of the noble Lord to be taken separately?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I apologise to the House for not explaining that. The first Amendment is one referring to the liability of the workman to pay the rates specified in the Third Schedule. The second Amendment is to the Third Schedule. It was, of course, impossible to explain the first Amendment unless I explained the contents of the second; but, as a matter of course, the only actual Amendment is the first—for the insertion of the three lines after Clause 4.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, line 32, at end, insert:
Payment of Sates by Employers.
Subject to the provisions of this Act, every workman insured under this Act and the employer of any such workman shall be liable to pay the rates specified in the Third Schedule to this Act.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I cannot accept this Amendment. My noble friend's object in moving the Amendment is to relieve the lower paid workpeople of the greater part or the whole of the contributions which otherwise would be deducted from their wages. This suggestion has constantly been put forward and rejected

749
in regard to the existing insured trades. An Amendment on similar lines was put down in the other House by a Labour Member. It was not moved because it was out of order there. But subsequently reference was made to it by another Labour Member, from which I should gather that the Labour Members themselves were not entirely in agreement in regard to the desirability of having discrimination of this kind as to the workpeople who are paid at different rates. I may point out that the Amendment would set up an impracticable distinction between the present insured trades and the new trades. Workpeople getting less than 21 s. or 27 s. a week, as the case may be, if engaged in engineering, shipbuilding, etc., will continue to pay 2½d.; if insured under the new Bill they will pay 1d. or nothing. There will be many border-line cases in which it is very difficult to say as regards a particular workman whether he is at the moment insured under the principal Act or under the new Bill. Constant difficulties and disputes between employers and workmen will arise accordingly. Even if in all cases the demarcation question could be settled so that it was quite clear without difficulty whether a workman was insured under one Act or the other, the difference of treatment in the two cases could not be justified and would arouse resentment. The women and girls, for instance, engaged in shell turning or fuse making are insured under the principal Act (as being engaged in engineering) and would continue to pay 2½d. The girls of the same type, and getting, perhaps, the same money, engaged on shell filling or fuse filling would pay no contributions or reduced contributions.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Moved, That the Bill do pass.—(Lord Stanmore.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, on this Motion I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the Bill itself. It is a Bill "to extend the provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1911, relating to unemployment insurance to certain trades and employments in connection with the present war." My attention has only been directed to-day to this Bill, because it was read a second time as recently as Thursday last and is down for Third Reading this afternoon. If your Lordships will look at the Bill you
750
will see how it proceeds. Clause 1 applies to a workman who (a) is engaged on or in connection with munitions work as defined by the Munitions of War Acts; or (b) is employed in a trade mentioned in the First Schedule of this Act. This is an Emergency Bill limited to a certain time by Clause 3, which provides that employers and workmen are only to be liable to pay contributions up to such date as the Board of Trade may by Order determine, "not being later than five years after the commencement of this Act or three years after the termination of the present war." But though this is an Emergency Bill, if your Lordships look at the trades specified in the First Schedule you will find, among others, that "saw milling, including machine woodwork and the manufacture of wooden cases," is included. To a certain extent I have no doubt that packing cases are used for ammunition and things of that kind, but the result of this provision is to include not merely the saw millers who are engaged for ammunition purposes and for the purposes of the war, but all saw millers of every kind and sort all over the kingdom.
I call your Lordships' attention to this because it is an instance of an Emergency Bill which is used for much larger purposes. It introduces certain trades which were attempted to be included before, but that attempt was then defeated. It is so with regard to the question of saw millers. I believe that the reason of this provision in the Bill is this, that there are some saw millers who are at the present time out at the war, and who, when they come back, will displace other persons who are engaged in the saw milling occupation; and therefore it is thought right that the persons who are now engaged should pay contributions and should be included under the unemployment sections in order to provide for them after they are replaced by the persons who are now abroad and who may return and resume their employment. I am bound to say that if saw millers are to be included it should be only saw millers who are engaged during the war. It is hardly fair to include saw millers who are employed all over the country. I know that this has been specially objected to by large contractors in Scotland and other places, who are engaged in timber works and employ a large number of men, who will now, under this clause, become liable to contribute under the unemployment sec-

751
tions. I do not like to move the omission of paragraph (7) from the First Schedule, but I think it ought to be omitted in justice to all saw millers who are not employed in place of persons who are now out at the war. I submit that this Emergency Bill principle is being very largely extended and made to include all kinds of Regulations and Orders which are not emergency matters at all.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I should like to point out to the noble Earl that the saw milling trade were selected on exactly the same principle as the six other trades in the First Schedule, and that they are doing a very large amount of war work.
On Question, Bill passed.

MARRIAGE OF BRITISH SUBJECTS (FACILITIES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Islington.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before this Bill is read a third time I want to ask the noble Lord in charge of it whether he can give me one item of information. It is very important that a Marriage Act should be drafted in terms which are quite intelligible. I have had the greatest difficulty in understanding the meaning of this Bill. I want to ask the noble Lord this question, Does the Bill do more than allow an Order in Council to be made applying to Dominions to which an Order in Council could not be applied under the existing Act of 1915? If it is limited to that, I have no objection.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, my noble and learned friend has quite accurately interpreted the purport of this Bill. It is merely to give effect to the Act that was passed by Parliament last year. It was found, as I explained when the Bill was read a second time, that in certain Colonies the practices were such that the Order in Council which could be imposed upon Dominions and Colonies under last year's Act could not be extended to those particular Colonies. It is in order that the Act of last year should have effect throughout the Empire that this Bill has been found necessary.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

RE-ELECTION OF MINISTERS BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I will ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which has come up to us from another place and is of distinctly practical importance, although for some reason a somewhat facetious colour has been supposed to attach to it. What happened was this. Last year, after the Coalition Government was formed, a measure was introduced entitled the Re-election of Ministers Bill, by which those numerous Ministers who accepted office were exempted from the penalty of securing re-election from their constituents. The principle was generally approved. As the Bill was introduced into another place it covered the whole period between May of last year and the end of the war; but some purists, not desiring, I suppose, to place too much power in the hands of the Executive, moved an Amendment limiting the action of the Bill to the months of May and June of last year, with the result that this further measure has become necessary.
At the same time as that Bill was introduced the Bill constituting the Ministry of Munitions was brought forward, and this latter measure was drafted in the belief that this Ministry, being created only for the period of the war, would enjoy the benefits of the Schedule to the Act of 1867, which exempts certain offices from re-election, without that Schedule being included. Therefore in the Bill which created the Ministry of Munitions, Schedule H of the Representation of the People Act, 1867—which, as your Lordships will remember, was the famous Reform Act introduced by Mr. Disraeli, by the Schedule of which various offices are exempted from the necessity of re-election when transfer is made from one to another—was not included. Consequently the present holder of the office of Minister of Munitions and the present Secretary of State for War both become subject, or would become subject except for this Bill, to re-election.
But there is a third and still more significant case—that of my right hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General. He, it was naturally assumed, having become Solicitor-General when the Coalition Government was formed and therefore having

753
become a Minister in those happy months of May and June, would escape re-election. It appears, however, on close examination that such is not the case, because the benefit of the Re-election of Ministers Act of last year, so to speak, exhausted itself in enabling him to become Solicitor-General. He was not re-elected after his appointment as Solicitor-General, and therefore—it is a strangely technical point—he does not get the benefit of the transfer from the Solicitor-Generalship to the Attorney-Generalship, which he would in ordinary course obtain under the Act of 1867. Consequently he becomes also liable to re-election; and, indeed, he has been for a long time sitting in the House of Commons without being a member of it in the strict sense.
I hope your Lordships will agree to the prompt passage of this Bill. It is clearly not in any sense to the public advantage that these Ministers should be unable to sit in the House or to take part in debate. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will not only give this Bill a Second Reading to-day but will agree to its passage through all its remaining stages to-morrow, in order that my right hon. friends may be able to be in their places in the other House on Thursday. I shall also, I may mention, ask your Lordships to take the Finance Bill through its remaining stages to-morrow, because for sound financial reasons it is absolutely necessary that it should receive the Royal Assent on that day.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

ENEMY TRADING IN INDIA.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India—

1. Whether the firm of Schroeder Schmidt, of Bombay, which was stated to have been closed, is still dealing in manganese ore under the name of Ettlinger & Company.

2. Whether the firm of Schroeder Schmidt was not an adjunct of Ettlinger & Company before the war; and

3. Whether Ettlinger & Company are now supplying the Munitions Department with manganese ore through the Carlton Iron Company.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, since I drew attention to this question in January last it has entered on a new phase which is very difficult to understand. I then pointed out that the firm of Schroeder and Schmidt, of Bombay, was regarded as an enemy concern when war broke out, and was ordered to close. This firm, however, received permission to go on trading pending liquidation, and in that happy position it remained for about fifteen months. Further action at length was taken by the Government of India after some protests had been made, and a Mr. Kann, whose proper home is Frankfort, was allowed to go out and make arrangements for the carrying on of the business and the transfer to somebody else. In the last half of January a Mr. Dadabhoy Ramtek was apparently negotiating the purchase of 20,000 tons of manganese ore as the approved successor of the Schroeder and Schmidt firm. I further stated at the time that Schroeder and Schmidt were really agents of Ettlinger and Company, of London, and that Ettlinger and Company were in close financial relations with Beer Sondheimer and Company, of Frankfort. My noble friend the Under-Secretary of State said, in reply, that enemy firms in India could only trade under licence from the Government of India, and that such licence was not given unless discontinuance of their operations would be disadvantageous to British interests. He also stated that Schroeder and Schmidt had been closed "except that the firm is permitted to dispose of indent goods already obtained, and to sue, if necessary, for recovery of debts subject to the supervision of a controller." And he had been informed also that manganese ore could be "obtained more quickly" from this enemy firm "than in any other way." And finally the noble Lord assured the House that Ettlinger and Company had "really no connection with this particular firm in India," and that Mr. Kann, during his complicated negotiations, was "under the vigilant attention of the authorities."
My Lords, those statements created considerable surprise in India, and it was at once explained that 80,000 tons of manganese ore was available for export in British hands in December, and that Schroeder and Schmidt held at that time only 7,000 tons. I may add to this that the richest manganese ore in India is in British hands, and that Schroeder and Schmidt could obtain it only by acting as middlemen. How any advantage to British

755
interests could possibly accrue from allowing Schroeder and Schmidt to go on trading, it is very difficult to imagine. As regards the pre-war relations between Schroeder Schmidt and Ettlinger, I have a copy of a letter which was written by the former to the latter in November, 1913. From that letter I should certainly say that it was clear that Ettlinger and Company were almost the head office of Schroeder and Schmidt, and that both these firms were in most intimate relation with Frankfort and also with another firm in Bremen of which I do not know the name. Besides that, I have copies of the Bilbao-South Spanish charter parties, which prove that Ettlinger and Company were agents for Beer Sondheimer and Company, and I understand that these connections were known in business circles though apparently not to the India Office.
I now come to the later phase of this question. Mr. Dadabhoy Ramtek seems to have dropped out of the matter, and the firm of Schroeder and Schmidt now trades in the name of Ettlinger and Company; and in April last cargoes of manganese ore were consigned by Ettlinger to Hull and Genoa. The Hull cargo was intended for the Carlton Ironworks Company, of Middles-borough. Since then 2,900 tons of manganese ore have been shipped from Calcutta by Ettlinger, and consigned to Ettlinger and Company in this country. All that mass of ore was intended for the Carlton Ironworks Company. Now manganese ore has been made contraband of war and is controlled by the Munitions Department. But the Munitions Department has permitted this large supply from a firm of very doubtful antecedents to the Carlton Ironworks. More than that, before the war the Carlton Ironworks Company were in close financial relations with Ettlinger and Company, who, I think, still have the monopoly right of selling the ferro-manganese produced by the Carlton Company. Since the war began, Ettlinger and Company have been in the habit of issuing this rather attractive advertisement—
"Army supplies. City merchants with surplus capital invite proposals connected with War contracts. Are also prepared to entertain any profit-sharing scheme for other bona fide transactions in general merchandise, and request full particulars.—' Anglo-French,' Box M 246, The Times."
Whatever may be the status of a firm which is the agent of an enemy firm in Frankfort and almost stands in parental relation to an enemy firm in Bombay, it certainly is not Anglo-French.
Meanwhile Ettlinger and Company appear to be accumulating stocks of manganese ore at Calcutta and Bombay with very wise prevision. Before the war Schroeder and Schmidt were almost the sole suppliers of manganese ore to Germany. When peace comes Germany will be in great need of manganese, which only Russia and India can provide. In a letter recently received in London I find the following—
"It is useless our raising a contention about the firm of Ettlinger, because, although your description of them is quite correct, the business which is being done in their name is not being done by them or for them, but by the Government of India, who have taken over their concern and are using it themselves."
I am certain my noble friend will contradict that statement, because it is quite inconceivable that the Government of India can be speculating in manganese ore under a German name. Nothing could be more important than preventing an impression of that kind getting about among Indian merchants.
The importance of this matter seems to me, not so much in the value of the trade permitted, which is not very great, as in the remarkable measures which seem to have been taken, cither by the India Office or by the Government of India, and in the extreme cleverness of the pre-war preparations of the Germans which is revealed. In the background there is Beer Sondheimer and Company, of Frankfort; in London there is Ettlinger and Company, doubtless naturalised, but agents of Beer Sondheimer and standing in very close relations with an enemy firm in Bombay, and perhaps with an Ironworks Company which bears a good English name. When war broke out, the Indian firm was recognised as an enemy concern. It was ordered to close, but then received most-favoured-nation treatment, and the parent firm in London was this year allowed to carry on the business for the firm in India. Considerable injustice has been done to British firms in India; but my point is that this is a typical and most instructive instance of that peaceful penetration which we were told not long before the war by a high authority was for the benefit of mankind.
The moral I draw is this. We talk glibly of removing the tentacles of the German octopus from our trade; but we have not succeeded so far, and when peace comes we may find the task almost impossible, because the number of interests which have their financial home in Germany is greater than we know. Incidentally I think this

757
case does plainly demonstrate the urgent need of the Registration of Firms Bill which is shortly to come before your Lordships' House. I now beg to put the Questions standing in my name.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to bring before you a case even more serious than the one to which my noble friend has called attention. It is the case of the firm of Müller, and I should like to ask what is the objection to winding up this firm. Müllers were turned out of the Baltic Exchange. But they were reinstated at the instigation of the Government, and there is consequently a great deal of indignation amongst the members of the Baltic Exchange. It has been brought to the notice of this House already that between 1,250,000 and 1,500,000 tons of ore have gone through Rotterdam to Germany since the war began, and a great deal of that ore has been sent by Müllers. In 1914 they chartered a steamer. Its original destination was Antwerp, but when they heard of war being declared they diverted it to Rotterdam. All that cargo was manganese ore, so necessary for making munitions of war, and the whole of that cargo went eventually to Germany. This really means supplying munitions with which to kill our soldiers. It is not only very hard on the soldiers but very hard on the munition workers, because they have to work double time in order to counteract the effect of these German shells on our lines. I submit that the Government should do something to stop Germans in this country trading as English subjects when they are really trading for the benefit of Germany. The company to which I have called attention is not only an enemy company, but it has been proved to have been trading with the enemy. I would also ask whether any of the naval advisers have protested against this firm. I am informed that they have, but I am not sure about it. I should like to know definitely whether they have protested against this large amount of manganese and iron ore going into Germany. My noble friend Lord Devonport showed quite recently, in your Lordships' House, that 557 cargoes have gone to Germany representing over 2,000,000 tons of ore. That is a serious thing for our soldiers, for our expenditure, and for the war altogether. I do not see how we are to end the war if the British Government allow these things to go on.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, before I reply to the Question placed on the Paper by my noble friend Lord Sydenham, I would refer to the speech which has just been made by the noble and gallant Lord. It is impossible for me, without notice, to answer a question in regard to a firm about which at present I am in possession of none of the facts. These are extremely complicated cases, and it is absolutely necessary to have, due notice in order that inquiry may be made, because it very often means probing into the recesses of more than one Public Department. I did not glean from the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord that this particular firm of Müller is connected with India or the Government of India. From what I gathered, it was a firm trading in the Baltic. Therefore the question which he put to me should more properly be put either to the representative of the Board of Trade or to the representative of the Admiralty.
My noble friend Lord Sydenham has raised three specific points in the Question that he has placed upon the Paper. First, as regards Schroeder and Schmidt, a firm in Bombay, I repeat what I said on a former occasion when this question was raised, that this firm was licensed to liquidate shortly after the outbreak of war; it had its licence revoked, and was closed down in June of last year. Since that time it has only been authorised to sue for the recovery of debts, and to dispose of the balance of indent goods which had been imported to the firm in pursuance of contracts that had been entered into prior to the commencement of the war. The House will understand that, in closing down these firms, especially if they are large firms, it is only fair to the firm and to all concerned that due time should be given for this process of liquidation to be carried out, and of course in the case of a large firm in ordinary circumstances the process must be one of considerable duration. Throughout the process of liquidation all moneys that are accumulated in regard to transactions are deposited with the Treasury of the Government of India, and therefore in no way come into competition with other or British firms in the country. As I explained in the debate last January, this firm of Schroeder and Schmidt not only dealt in manganese ore but with many other commodities, such as piece goods and hides. Therefore

759
it will be seen that the process alluded to is one that must take time before it is brought to a final conclusion. But that, I understand, has now definitely come to pass. I would also point out that during the period of liquidation the whole of the manganese ore exported by this firm has come to this country, and has been under the very close supervision of the authorities both in India and here.
Now I will say a word as regards the other firm alluded to by the noble Lord—Messrs. Ettlinger and Company. The noble Lord asks me whether Schroeder and Schmidt was not an adjunct of Ettlinger and Company before the war. I must admit that I find myself obliged to-day to modify what I said last January in the course of the debate then. What I said then in regard to the connection between Ettlinger and Company and Schroeder and Schmidt was said with imperfect information. I have found out since that there was a connection between these two firms before the war, and so far as I have been able to ascertain the manganese business of Schroeder and Schmidt had been largely financed by Ettlinger and Company. When I last spoke on this question, from the information then in my possession there seemed to be no objection, under the supervision that was being carried out, to Ettlinger continuing to supply ore to this country. At the time manganese ore was greatly needed by the Munitions Department, and, as I then said, it was found by the Munitions Department that they could obtain ore through this source more readily and of a higher quality than would have been the case had they left this particular firm out. Ettlinger were therefore allowed to export ore from India for the use of this country, and for the purposes which I have described. Every precaution was taken to ensure that the delivery was to this country, and that it was in bond; and in addition to the convenience to the Department in time of emergency, it was also done with a view to considering the small mineowners who were purchasing through this company, and it was therefore on that account to a large extent that the transfer was allowed.
Recent investigation by the Board of Trade regarding the character of Ettlinger and Company has brought out the fact that before the war close relations existed between this firm and the firm alluded to by the noble Lord—Messrs. Beer Sondheimer
760
and Company, of Frankfort. The Secretary of State for India, on becoming informed of these facts, considered it inadvisable that facilities should be maintained which would assist in the resumption of German influence in the manganese ore trade after the war. Accordingly, after consultation with the Government of India, it was decided to issue orders with a view to terminating their business in India, and the firm in question is now being informed accordingly.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is Ettlinger and Company?
LORD ISLINGTON: Yes. Now one word as regards the other firm alluded to by the noble Lord—the Carlton Ironworks Company. I have made inquiries of the Ministry of Munitions and am informed that the Ministry do not purchase either manganese ore or ferro-manganese from this company. I have no doubt that manganese is supplied by the Carlton Iron Company to manufacturers of munitions, though this has not been obtained through the Ministry. As regards this firm I may say that the Office for which I answer—the India Office—has no direct concern, and I would suggest that if the noble Lord desires further information he should consult either the Admiralty or the Board of Trade. I may say this in addition. The Carlton Iron Company had business relations with Ettlinger and Company before the war. It seems that they were under German influence, but I am given to understand that since July of 1914 the company has been reconstructed, and at least five-sixths of the shares are now said to be in British hands. Beyond this I have no further information regarding this firm.
Before sitting down I will state broadly what the Government of India are doing to deal with cases such as those which have formed the subject of the noble Lord's questions. The Government of India, in order to secure complete power over these firms, are issuing two Ordinances. One of these will empower them to impose prohibition and restriction both on imports and on exports in any way they see fit. This will give them complete power to deal with any suspected firms or undesirable individuals. Then there is a second Ordinance, which follows closely the British Act dealing with trading with the enemy, but has the necessary adaptations to meet

761
the varying conditions in India. The Government of India, have long prevented hostile firms carrying on business in India for the benefit of enemy interests; but for the purpose of determining what is a hostile firm—a very difficult matter to determine—they are taking as a criterion whether a firm's, business was being carried on before the war for the benefit of enemy interests and is likely to be resumed on similar lines after the war. This action, your Lordships will see, will give the Government of India power to close down firms who, in order to continue their business during the war, have temporarily severed their enemy connections, but have done so in such a way as to make it possible or likely that they will resume them on the termination of the war. It will also enable the Government of India at the same time to transfer the stocks and the contracts to British firms, so that the supply of manganese ore to ourselves and to our Allies will in no way be interrupted. When these Ordinances are in force—which will be very soon—I think it may be said that the control of enemy trading by the Government of India will be complete; and it will therefore then rest with them to decide the extent to which it is desirable to exercise these powers with regard to the elimination of enemy trade in India and its connection with this country. I hope that I have answered all the points raised by the noble Lord, and that he is satisfied with the information I have been able to give.
LORD SYDENTHAM: I thank my noble friend for his very full answer. As regards the past, I do not think he has quite satisfied me; but with regard to the future, he holds out hopes of great improvement. I understand that in future Ettlinger and Company will not be able to move manganese across the seas. And I am sure the House will welcome the two Ordinances of the Government of India. But the war has been in existence nearly two years.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think a word ought to be said on that last point. The noble Lord who represents the Government of India spoke with a general air of satisfaction at the action which his Department has taken with respect to this enemy firm, but it seems that the Government of India have wakened up two years after the war began. What have the Government of India been doing all this time? My noble friend on
762
the Cross Benches brought this subject prominently before the Government at the beginning of this year. Then, not because the Government of India had found anything out but because my noble friend presses them and persists, they ultimately take action.
I do not know, but I think it is extremely doubtful whether they would have done anything at all except for Lord Sydenham's Questions. I put it to the noble Lord as representing the Department that it would have been only right if he had said that the Department were extremely sorry that nothing had been done before. These things have been going on all these months. Yet he says, "We have just found out that Schroeder and Schmidt, or Ettlinger and Company, had connection with some Germans in Frankfort before the war." Why did they not find that out before? Why did they not apply to the Board of Trade and ascertain? Indeed, I do not quite know even now what the position of Ettlinger and Company is. I understand that, under the action of the Government of India now, the Indian branch of Ettlinger and Company is not allowed to operate. But are we to understand that the branch of Ettlinger and Company established in this country is still operating? Are they still a firm protected by British laws and helped by the good order and government, of this country? Are the really Germans, and are they in connection with Germans still? What is their position?
Then there is—it certainly has a good English name—the Carlton Iron Company. I am left in some doubt as to the position of this firm. They appear to have dealt with Ettlinger, who dealt with Schroeder and Schmidt, who dealt with a German firm in Frankfort. Whether the Carlton Iron Company are a true British concern or not does not appear. I hope we shall not be given the answer that we must inquire of another Department. If we can be quite sure that the Government will take this matter in hand and finally fathom the intricacies of the German connections of these various gentlemen and firms, we shall be satisfied. But I must say that my noble friend has been abundantly justified in calling attention to the matter; and I hope that the next time my noble and gallant friend Lord Beresford asks about another German gentleman called Müller, he will receive a full explanation of why the Government have not acted in that case.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, I think I must say a word in reply to the noble Marquess, because I think he is under a misapprehension. He seemed to conceive with regard to these firms that they had been allowed to proceed as they liked during the whole of the war, and that no security or control had been placed over them by the Government of India. That is not so. In the case of one firm, they were placed in liquidation and told to close with the exception of open contracts which still existed, and all the moneys that were collected from those sources were placed in the Government Treasury and were not at the disposal of the firm. So that I do not think it is quite fair to say that the Government of India have been callous and indifferent to British interests in regard to that firm. As regards Ettlinger and Company, I can only speak, of course, in regard to that firm in its connection with Indian business. The noble Marquess expressed the hope that I should not give him the reply that he must ask another Department. But I am very much afraid I must give him that answer, because it is impossible for my Department to reply in respect of all the different firms dealing in other parts of the world. These, of course, properly come under the supervision and the control of an entirely different Department from the Government of India or the India Office. The firm of Ettlinger may, for aught I know, have large interests with other parts of the world, but it is not in my power to obtain the information for which the noble Marquess asked in regard to anything outside India. I rose merely to submit these points, because it struck me that the noble Marquess, in making his comments, considered that the Government of India had been indifferent to their duties, which is really not the case.

MILITARY SERVICE—CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are now able to state whether the method of dealing with conscientious objectors indicated by the Prime Minister in his statement to the House of Commons on the 29th June 1916 is intended to have the effect of putting into civil custody military conscientious objectors sentenced prior
764
to the issue of Army Order X of 25th May, 1916; and whether they can now inform the House what has been the result of the second Court-Martial on C. H. Norman, where he is now detained, and in what custody.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when I raised a discussion on this subject a fortnight ago your Lordships will remember that there were two matters left over which the spokesmen of His Majesty's Government were not at the time able to answer. I put this Question down for last Tuesday, but at the request of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War—and I hope he will allow me to congratulate him on his position and the House on having a direct representative of the War Office to deal with these and other kindred matters—I put off the Question until to-day. The most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury was fortunate enough to obtain an answer from the noble Earl rather earlier [on July 13] on the first branch of the Question, and I think I need only ask him to be so good as to clear up something about which I am not perfectly clear. In the reply which he made to the most rev. Primate, the noble Earl said that the conscientious objectors at the present moment undergoing detention—who were sentenced before Army Order X was issued—were divided into two classes: those who behaved well when in prison, and those who behaved badly by refusing to obey orders. Those who behaved badly were to have a Court-Martial and the benefit of the Prime Minister's statement, and the noble Earl said it was the intention of the War Office that those who behaved properly should not be treated worse than those who behaved badly. I did not quite understand whether they were to be put in as good a position, and whether they were to be placed in civil custody. If that is the intention, perhaps the noble Earl will make it clear. With regard to the last part of my Question, I want merely to know what was the reason for the second Court-Martial on Norman, what the result was, where he is now detained, and whether he is in civil custody.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF DERBY): My Lords, I thank the noble Earl in the first place for deferring this Question, and in the second place for his kind words concerning myself. With regard to the part

765
of the answer previously given about which he is not clear, I would point out that detention is not a civil punishment. When men are under detention they are still under military discipline; but it is the intention that those men who are under detention and are behaving properly shall be put in exactly the same position as those who have behaved badly, in that their cases will be inquired into by the Central Appeal Tribunal.
EARL RUSSELL: With the result that they will go into civil custody if they are found to be conscientious objectors?
THE EARL OF DERBY: If they are found to be conscientious objectors they will go into civil custody, and will come under the scheme by which national work is found for them. With regard to the latter part of the Question, C. H. Norman was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment with hard labour by the second Court-Martial. On July 5 he was removed from Wandsworth Detention Barracks to Wormwood Scrubbs, where to the best of my belief he, now is. He is in civil custody, and his case will therefore come before the Central Appeal Tribunal.

THE BATTLE OF JUTLAND BANK.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND THE DUKE OF RUTLAND rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is their intention immediately to move a Resolution conveying the thanks of Parliament to Admiral Sir John Jellicoe and the officers and men of the Grand Fleet for the victory obtained by them at the Battle of Jutland Bank.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I am aware that this is rather a delicate Question for the Government to answer. At the same time I am supported by precedent, because during the great Napoleonic wars the thanks of Parliament were on several occasions conveyed to the gallant Admirals and seamen of our Fleet for victorious actions at that time. I do not know how far the parallel applies in the present case, but it does seem to me that in the somewhat exceptional circumstances Sir John Jellicoe and the officers and men of the, Grand Fleet deserve special recognition at the hands of the representatives of the country. It may be said that this is not the moment for the thanks of Parliament to be given to the Fleet, or to any section of His Majesty's
766
Forces, for the gallant work they have done, but that this should be postponed to a later moment. That is a point on which I am anxious to get the opinion of His Majesty's Government. Certainly in the days that I have been quoting Parliament did not wait until the end of the, war, I do not know how long your Lordships imagine this war is going to last. But as far as my own private opinion is concerned I think the extremely momentous action which was fought the other day by Sir John Jellicoe and the Grand Fleet is distinctly deserving of the highest recognition that the country can give.
It must also be remembered that on this occasion—not that it matters to the officers and men of the Fleet, because they know what they have done and what they are going to do—a considerable amount of undeserved feeling against them was created by the strangely unfortunately-worded announcement of the action which was made by the Admiralty. So far did feeling go that, instead of achieving a great victory, it was thought that the Fleet had merely scraped through the action with considerable loss and no appreciable gain, as regards victory at all events. I believe I am right in saying that when many of the wounded men from the Fleet were landed at Queensferry and other naval ports to be taken to hospital they were, in many cases actually hooted—groaned at—by onlookers. I know from my own personal knowledge that officers when they landed at Queensferry and other places after the action were actually condoled with by the, cabmen who drove them on having taken part in an unsuccessful action. That was largely owing to the, as I say—and I am putting it very mildly—most unfortunately-worded message which was first conveyed to the country by the Admiralty. At any rate, it ought to be made clear to the country that they were not defeated.
The Highest in the land has congratulated the Fleet on what they did, and Parliament would not be straining any privilege or going beyond any action that it should take if, as soon as possible, it were to show its marked appreciation of the extreme gallantry, determination, and skill shown by the Grand Fleet on the occasion of the battle of Jutland Bank. Although we all know that the Navy is a silent Service which talks very little but thinks a great deal, that is no reason why Parliament should not show its appreciation of what it has

767
done during the past two years. I am fully aware that recognition is, of course, also due to the vast fleet of mine-sweepers, patrol boats, and armed trawlers, and all that immense section of the naval forces which has sprung up during this war and which has done its part so magnificently. Any appreciation on the part of the country of the services which have been rendered by the Navy cannot but be highly gratifying to the Fleet, a considerable branch of which, of necessity, gets but scant appreciation at the hands of its fellow-countrymen, because they do not know what those men have been doing. Those of your Lordships who know what has been done during the past two years, not only by the Fleets recognised as Fleets and by the ships of His Majesty's Navy recognised and in the Navy List, but by all those men on board the mine-sweepers, patrol boats, trawlers, and so on, recognise that all these men deserve the deepest thanks of the country. I will not detain your Lordships longer. I should very much like to know the opinion of His Majesty's Government with regard to this question. I am certain that, whatever they decide to do, there is not a man in this House who does not appreciate to the full the immense services which have been rendered by Sir John Jellicoe and the officers and men of the Grand Fleet.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I feel certain that the suggestion of the noble Duke will enlist the sympathy of all your Lordships, as in principle it does the sympathy of His Majesty's Government. We should all be glad to hasten the expression of any form of thanks which can assure the Fleet how heartily we recognise, not only the consummate strategy and the daring tactics of the Commander-in-Chief and of his subordinate commanders, but the devotion and coolness of all ranks during the actual progress of the engagement, the special deeds of valour enumerated in Sir John Jellicoe's Despatch, the dash and gallantry shown by the lighter craft, the light cruisers and the destroyer flotillas, and last, but not least, the splendid skill and endurance of the engine room department.
The thanks of Parliament, as my noble friend has pointed out, by frequent precedents would seem to be the most fitting expression of the nation's pride and gratitude after what my noble friend accurately describes in his Question as a
768
naval victory. It was saddened, as previous victories have been, by grievous and irreparable losses of gallant seamen; but the enemy's material loss was intrinsically greater than ours, and was markedly greater in proportion to his naval strength. The reduced and battered German Fleet had to make the best of its way back to its bases, saved only by the approach of darkness from destruction; and the unchallenged command of the North Sea, and of all seas, rests with us. In spite of what my noble friend stated, nobody now believes that this engagement was other than a success for us. At the time there was doubtless some misapprehension. For a short period that misapprehension may have been widely spread, though I trust it did not often take so extreme a form as that narrated by my noble friend. Now that misconception has completely disappeared, for everybody has read Sir John Jellicoe's Despatch, and the facts are known.
But, my Lords, in this war it has so far not been our practice to offer normal thanks to those British commanders who have earned them either by sea or by land. Cases, however, will rise to the recollection of the House in which precedent would have fully justified that course. As a mere illustration I may mention the brilliant expedition of Admiral Sturdee to the Falkland Islands, which can compare with not a few of the naval exploits for which in the past the thanks of Parliament have been accorded. Several of the advances made on land since the autumn of 1914 might also be mentioned. It must, however, be remembered that in bygone days a Parliamentary Motion constituted almost the only form of public thanks that was possible, for newspapers were few and dear, and the debates in Parliament were not reported. Now the sailors and soldiers can read in the nation's eyes the nation's gratitude. For these reasons His Majesty's Government think it wise to postpone for a time—and only for a time—those formal tributes of honour to the commanders and to those who serve under them. That the postponement may not be very long is the heartfelt wish, not merely of His Majesty's Government, but also of the whole House and of the whole country.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, may I remind your Lordships that, in addition to the claims to gratitude of the Fleet to which allusion has been made by

769
the noble Duke, there is another. But for the vigilance of the Admiralty and the promptitude with which the Admiral at Queenstown acted, we should have had the whole of Ireland in a blaze. The authorities managed to obtain information about the ship full of arms and also of Casement's movements and had him arrested. Had it not been for that prompt action we should have been under the necessity of reconquering Ireland. I think it is hardly possible to state the debt we owe the Fleet on that account.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, I quite appreciate the view which my noble friend opposite (Lord Crewe) has taken with regard to this question. It would probably be better if the thanks of Parliament were given to Sir John Jellicoe and his officers and men after the war. But this is a very peculiar case. There was issued a deplorable communiqué which the officers and men of the Fleet felt most keenly. The population thought that they had been beaten, and in several places they were hissed—this I can vouch for—although they had fought perhaps the finest action ever fought in the history of the world. The action of Sir David Beatty in holding the German Fleet for four hours has never been equalled. Trafalgar had a great deal to do with the alteration of the map of the world; it was a brilliant action, but only 492 men were killed in the whole Fleet. Sir David Beatty lost 5,100. Do you not suppose that the officers and men who came back to this country, with regret and admiration and affection for those they had lost, felt it very acutely and very deeply when they were hooted and hissed as if there had been a reverse. Therefore I support the view of my noble friend (The Duke of Rutland) that enough has not been made of the action by the constituted authority here. I do not believe that the German Fleet will come out again; they will be very foolish if they do. And if they do not come out again it will mean that the mastery of the seas remains with us absolutely. In this action we commanded the sea, but we could not command the weather. Nothing to any seaman could be better than the manoeuvring and the tactical and strategical skill displayed by our Admirals in this action. As far as our opinion, as seamen, goes, there was not a single mistake made—nothing except the accident of the weather. I think
770
it would be a graceful act on the part of the Government if something were said to remove the feeling of distress and disappointment felt by both officers and men in our splendid Fleet on account of their reception at home immediately after the action, when they knew well what a victory they had won.

LIQUID FUEL.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had the following Notice upon the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they can indicate what steps are likely to be taken in the near future, or have been taken since the beginning of the war, to promote economy in the use of petrol for public and private purposes; the dates of any regulations or notifications insisting on the need for economy; also what steps have been or will be taken to increase the production in this country of liquid fuel, including benzol from gas works and low temperature distillation plants, in view of the needs of our aerial, naval and military forces, as well as for commercial purposes.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject of the Question which I have put on the Paper is an important one. We have arrived at a stage in the war when, to public knowledge, we are running short of liquid fuel, at any rate for the time being; and when you consider that our aircraft, a considerable portion of our Fleet, and a great part of the transport of our Army are dependent on liquid fuel, the importance of the subject is obvious. What seems to me to have happened in regard to this question is this. Too late in the day—in the twenty-fourth month of the war—the Government have realised that there is a chance of this country being short of supplies of fuel of this description. Consequently they have, I think quite rightly, taken steps to see at any rate that the Army does not suffer and that the public services are supplied. But this has now to be done at the cost of the private consumer, and, to a certain extent, of the transport services of this country and of the commercial community.
I maintain that if this question had been properly considered earlier in the war we might to-day have been in a much more favourable position and should have had ample stocks for our requirements.

771
There was no secret about the increasing consumption of liquid fuel before the war. In 1913 this country consumed 105,000,000 gallons of petrol; in 1914 it had risen to 125,000,000 gallons; and in 1915 to nearly 150,000,000 gallons. Therefore it was obvious that, war or no war, the consumption was increasing rapidly. The war found us in this position. Though there were good stocks in some countries, like America, there was no great reserve in this country; and we have ever since the war been put in this position, that being non-producing with regard to petrol—except the small quantities that are distilled from shale in Scotland—we have had to import it and the price has risen so much that a tank steamer of 6,000 tons of liquid fuel from New York to-day costs £100,000; more than double what it would have cost a short time ago. I think it is not inopportune that I have put this Question on the Paper at this moment, because the noble Lord who replies will have an opportunity of telling your Lordships authoritatively the amount of restriction which is likely to be put on the supply to the private consumer after August 1. It has been stated that he is to be left with only 30 per cent. of his usual supplies. The Times yesterday informed us that the figure was 50 per cent., while others place it higher. Users of the automobile of all classes recognise that in a question of national necessity their own private and even commercial interests must give way. I do not think there is any harm in saying that the consumption by our Army at the Front for transport services may in some contingencies be doubled shortly, and this extra amount which has to be found will have to come entirely out of the home supply. This is another case in which we are loo late in taking precautions. If at the beginning of the war real thought had been given to the subject, we might have had ample stocks laid by.
Nobody can defend the unlicensed consumption of petrol that has been going on ever since the beginning of the war. No check has been put on its use by the private consumer for what is called joy-riding; and nobody could have witnessed the multitude of cars, as I did myself recently, going down to comparatively distant race meetings, without seeing that even now there is no heed paid to the Government's plea for economy. Above
772
all, there has been a scandalous waste of petrol in some cases in connection with Government services. I am not going to quote cases to-day, but it is known that cars have been washed with petrol. It has been reported to me by officers whom I cannot but believe implicity. I think it behoves the Government to set their own house in order by promoting the greatest possible economy. One often sees cars conveying single officers. Greater economy in that direction might be observed, and I believe the War Office have already taken action in that connection. In many instances a train would be equally as quick, and even the humble tramcar might be used in some cases. Again, I am sure that officers could in many cases do work on co-operative principles, and not use one car for one officer only. I quite agree that drastic restrictions are now inevitable, and they will cause great inconvenience. It is all very well for the Government, in their appeals for economy in motoring, to lead the public to consider that motoring is a luxury, but it became a necessity long ago. People have sold their horses and carriages and have been accustomed to rely on motor-cars for all kinds of professional work. To cut off to a large extent the supply of liquid fuel to the inhabitants of this country would be a very grave act indeed, and I am sure that nothing but necessity compels the Government to restrict its use as much as they are going to do.
One other point I want to mention before I sit down. There is a source of home supply which I have advocated in this House and elsewhere for many years past, and that is that we should produce benzol from gas works and low temperature distillation plants. I have used benzol myself with great success, and it is now being used more and more. It was largely used before the war, in France, for taxicabs especially; but the Government of this country before the war were taking very little interest in this subject. I think now we ought to be going into the question of low temperature distillation of coal and stripping gas of benzol on as large a scale as possible. I commend the Government for the steps which the Board of Trade have taken already at Barnsley, where they have a system for the home production of liquid fuel, but it must proceed on a very much larger scale than that. If the Government wish to be independent of foreign supplies of

773
liquid fuel, which will be absolutely vital to aircraft and transport and to certain portions of the Fleet, they must institute in this country a wide system of distilling benzol from coal on a low temperature system. Otherwise in this war and in any other war afterwards we shall be absolutely dependent on foreign produced liquid fuel. Moreover, liquid fuel is an absolute necessity to carry on the business of the country. When I criticise the Government in this way I should like to say that the Admiralty, alone of the Government Departments, were aware of the coming shortage, and I am informed that they made a protest early in the war on this point. I understand that the importing companies also informed the Government. But it was not until the appointment of the Petrol Committee, under Mr. Berry, of the Great Northern Railway, that any serious notice was taken of the subject. I have put this Question on the Paper with the object of giving the Government an opportunity of stating their policy with regard to the future, and I hope they will tell us that they are seriously considering the question and giving it the attention which it deserves.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to deal with the petrol question have taken a census of the consumption, stock, and estimated requirements of all users of motor spirit. The results of the census have only just been ascertained, and it is now clear that drastic restriction in the use of petrol for all classes of motor vehicles will be necessary, as the shortage of petrol at the present time is serious. It is provided by the Finance (No. 2) Bill, now before Parliament, that on and after August 1, 1916, no motor spirit may be purchased without a licence. A duty of 6d. per gallon will be charged on licences for private cars, and of 3d. for doctors' cars and veterinary surgeons' cars; and the amount of petrol issued under the licence will be considerably less than the estimated requirements shown on the census cards, though I cannot tell the noble Lord the exact proportions.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Can the noble Lord say whether 50 per cent. is probably correct, or somewhere about that figure?
LORD STANMORE: I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Lord the figure. There can be no question at present of the use of benzol as motor spirit, inasmuch as practically all the benzol produced is required for the manufacture of high explosives. Every possible step has been taken to increase the output of benzol at gas works, and a Bill has gone through the House of Commons—and I hope may pass its final stage in your Lordships' House to-morrow—enabling the Board of Trade to make Orders substituting a calorific-power standard of gas for an illuminating power standard in the case of undertakings erecting benzol recovery plant. Further, the number of by-product coke ovens has been largely increased. The Board of Trade consider that low temperature carbonisation of coal may undoubtedly have a high value, but at the present time the by-product oven has an even higher value for war purposes, inasmuch as the yield of raw materials of a standard of purity suitable for explosives is greater, and the metallurgical coke produced is urgently required for blast furnaces, etc. The question of low temperature carbonisation in the future is being considered by the Government.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord, of course, has not been able to tell us in what proportions these allotments of petrol will be made, but may I ask him, before the Government make any declaration, whether he would not consider and bring before the proper authorities the great hardship which will be created if those proportions are made according to the amount of petrol used in the past and without inquiry. A man who has been, as my noble friend put it, joy-riding unlimitedly for many months puts in a return, say, of 100 gallons; another man who has used his car almost entirely for military and public purposes may return 40 gallons. If each of them is going to get a quarter of his previous supply, you will make it quite impossible for the one to do the work he has hitherto done.
The Government before bringing forward their restriction in this connection—which I admit may be wholly necessary—made an appeal to us voluntarily to abstain, in the public interest, from undue use of petrol. I know a large number of people who have made it a practice—it has been almost a sacred rite—not to take their

775
motors out unless required for some really necessary work. It is rather hard in those cases that they should see their neighbour who had not met the Government demand placed in a very favourable position, while they are absolutely unable to get about to do their necessary public work. I would ask my noble friend to have this point considered. A grave fear has arisen in the course of the last few days that a standard which is said to be one-quarter of the previous supply is going to be fixed indiscriminately. I should have thought that those who had been moderate in their use of petrol ought to have an opportunity of showing before some authority that they have a right to the full supply they had hitherto received. I may state that in my part of the country we have a very large camp, and some motor-cars have been used to carry workers to and from the camp, which is situated three or four miles away on the common. It would be very hard if that work were stopped, while those who are using their cars to go forty or fifty miles to London, when the train would do just as well, do not suffer the same amount of restriction. I hope that this matter will be given serious attention by the authorities.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stanmore has referred to the cards, and rather intimated that the returns made would form the basis of future supply. I would ask the noble Lord whether any test or inquiry has been made in reference to the statements filled in upon the cards with regard to past consumption. If the noble Lord has not already informed himself on that question, perhaps he will make inquiries. I suggest that it might be desirable to test certain cases, because there is little doubt that some people have not been conscientious about their return. I was myself told that I had been very foolish to make a true return seeing that I would certainly get it cut down, and that I should have done what other people did—namely, make a much larger return, and ask for 100 gallons a month, and I should then get 25 gallons, which would be the normal amount required. It will be very unfair if no attempt is made to test these cases and to cut down people who have made wrong returns.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I forgot to mention, when I spoke just now, that I entirely endorse what fell front Lord Montagu about the over-consumption of petrol by the Army at home. Only to-day I had an instance brought before me where drivers who were loading up allowed their engines to run for an hour and a-half. All these things ought to be looked into, especially the consumption of petrol by officers travelling from place to place in England. If this were done, I believe that a reduction of something like one-third might be made.
LORD STANMORE: The course which it is feared will be taken is so obviously inequitable that I cannot believe that this will be the basis on which the arrangement for the future will be made. Anyhow, I will inquire into the matter, and bring the noble Viscount's suggestion to the notice of the Department. And that applies also to the suggestion which was made by Lord Strachie.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I thank the noble Lord for the reply he has given me. It has not been very satisfactory, but I recognise the difficulty of answering all the questions. Perhaps if the subject is raised again later on, definite information will be given to the House; and I hope the consumption will not be cut down until that has been done.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, it was not, of course, possible for my noble friend to go into details on the questions put to him from the other side of the House; but I may say confidently that the principle to be adopted is not likely to be the principle of merely reducing in the same proportion the amount consumed by individuals, whether that consumption was a prodigal or a careful one. It seems to me that the first object would be to ascertain whether the basis of the calculation was a reasonable one, and then to apply the percentage of reduction. We will take care that this aspect of the case is thoroughly considered.
House adjourned at five minutes past Seven o'clock, till to-morrow, half-past Three o'clock.