Sitting of 19 April 1917

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
The CLERK AT THE TABLE informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders Bill,
"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the King's County and the Rural District of Newry No. 1," presented by Mr. DUKE; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 33.]

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Return of the Area and Production of Wheat, Barley, and Oats in the United Kingdom in each of the years 1867 to 1916; and the average price of British Wheat, Barley, and Oats in England and Wales [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Memorandum explaining the Supplementary Estimate of £3,856,000 for the financial year ending 31st March, 1918 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Regulations under which Supplementary Grant will be paid to Local Education Authorities for Elementary Education, if provision is made by Parliament for the purpose [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Regulations for Secondary Schools in England, excluding Wales and Monmouthshire [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Copy presented of Report of the Attorney-General to the House of Commons on the Blackpool Improvement Bill [presented pursuant to Standing Order 175a]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JOINT COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Order, dated 18th April, 1917, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entitled the National Health Insurance (Normal Rate of Remuneration) Order, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICE) GRANT ACT, 1913.
Copy presented of Third Report of the Medical Service Board for the year 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS. WAR.
  WAR

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will inform the House of the purport of any communications that have passed, during the last three months, between the American and British Governments with reference to Ireland?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): No, Sir.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether, after the accession of America, unanimity of objects in the War among the Allies is to be reached by levelling up to the American standard, including equal independence for small nations as for large, and especially for Ireland; if so, why the British Government have not made a public declaration to this effect, especially in Ireland, with the generosity and promptitude of the new Russian Government with reference to

    1799
    Poland; and, if the delay is caused by waiting for the approval of this House, when the draft terms will be submitted for consideration?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can at present add nothing to the statements already made on this subject.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question comparing the want of action of this Government with the prompt action of the Russian Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already given all the answer within my power.
    Mr. GINNELL: That is none at all.

    CONTRABAND.
    Captain BURGOYNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any thing has been done since 3rd August, 1914, which has affected, or now affects, or may in the future affect the rights of Great Britain and Ireland within the waters or any part or parts of the waters which lie between any geographical point in the United Kingdom and any geographical point in Norway in respect to absolute or conditional contraband goods of or in respect of the Narvik or any enemy or neutral ship or ships; and, if so, what was it, when, why, and by whom was it done?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answer is in the negative.

  RUSSIA.

    BOSPHORUS AND DARDANELLES.
    Mr. BLISSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he Has any official information showing that the provisional Government in Russia is prepared to agree that the Bosphorus and Dardanelles be internationalised; and, if so, whether he will make a statement on the subject?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not, therefore, arise.

    EMPEROR NICHOLAS II
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact
    1800
    that Russian newspapers are publishing revelations regarding the conditions which prevailed at the court of the late Czar; and can he state whether any steps have been taken, or are in contemplation, to prevent republication in this country?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

    CZAR'S GOVERNMENT AND ROUANIA.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of General Hiescu, former chief of the Roumanian General Staff, that the Russian Government compelled Roumania to take up arms on behalf of the Allies in July of last year for the purpose of securing her defeat by the Central Powers in order to provide a reason for Russia making peace; and can he say whether His Majesty's Government had knowledge of the intention of the Russian Government to present an ultimatum to Roumania and gave diplomatic support in the matter?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have seen the interview to which the hon. Member refers in the first part of his question. The answer to both parts of the second half of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask whether the Noble Lord has knowledge of the presentation of an ultimatum by the late Russian Government to the Roumanian Government as indicated in that general sense?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: What I ask is, have you any knowledge now as to the ultimatum?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir; not beyond what is stated in the interview.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Has the Noble Lord seen the statement issued by the Austro-Hungarian Government in a Blue Book stating that such an ultimatum was presented?
    Lord R. CECIL: Well, Sir, I should not pay very much attention to that.

    BRITISH COTTON GOODS (FRENCH IMPORT PROHIBITION).
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he

    1801
    can give particulars of the French Government prohibition of import into France of British cotton goods?
    Lord R. CECIL: I understand that full details with regard to the recent import prohibitions imposed by the French Government will be published in next week's issue of the "Board of Trade Journal." Meanwhile any information on the subject which is required can be obtained on application to the Board of Trade.

    SHANGHAI ELECTRIC WORKS (ARREST OF GERMAN MARINE).
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that a German marine was arrested under suspicious circumstances on the premises of the electric works of the municipality of Shanghai; that the trial of this marine, who was acquitted, was held in secret in a private German House before the Dutch Consul-General assisted by two German Consular officials; if so, if he will say whether His Majesty's Government are content with this form of procedure; and, if not, whether they propose to take any steps in the matter?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have seen in the Press the report referred to by the hon. Member, but I have received no official information with regard to it.
    Mr. STEWART: Will the Noble Lord cause inquiries to be made?
    Lord R. CECIL: Yes, Sir; certainly.

    COTTON EXPORTS TO DENMARK.
    Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the Board of Trade statistics to the effect that we exported to Denmark from 1st January to 28th February in 1917 803,500 lbs. of cotton yarn, whilst in 1913 for the same dates we only exported 135,900 lbs., and of cotton manufactures we exported for the same months in 1917 11,966,200 yards, whilst for the same months in 1913 we only exported 2,983,500 yards, he can say why, after nearly three years of war, we are supplying a country adjoining Germany with such an extra amount of necessary
    1802
    goods for manufacturing war material; and what steps he is taking to prevent this state of affairs in the future?
    Lord R. CECIL: The figures quoted by the hon. and gallant Member take no account of pre-war imports into Denmark from other than British sources and give no true indication of the statistical position. The figures in possession of His Majesty's Government show that for the six months ending March 31st last the total Danish imports amounted, in the-case of cotton yarn, to 2,048,200 lbs. as against 1,992,500 lbs., and in the case of cotton piece goods to 22,283,700 yards as against 23,541,100 for the corresponding period of 1912–13, the higher figure of yarn being more than counterbalanced by the lower figure of piece goods. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

    SUMMER TIME (IRELAND).
    Mr. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the confusion and inconvenience which has been caused by the application of summer time to Ireland; and what steps the Government propose to take to deal with the situation?
    Mr. DONOVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the protests against the renewal of the Summer Time Act in Ireland this year, superimposed on the Greenwich time, as tending to prove disastrous to the tillage and harvesting operations in the country, he will take action to have the operation of the Act suspended in Ireland from the beginning of May next?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I have seen in the Irish newspapers reports that in various parts of the country people are keeping their clocks at the old time. This is not forbidden by the Summer Time Act, but it no doubt causes some confusion. I cannot see that there is any insuperable difficulty in adjusting working arrangements so that the new time should have a fair trial. At present I have no information which seems to me to necessitate any proposal to the House for new legislation.
    Mr. DILLON: In view of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question, which is extremely urgent, and causes the greatest possible discontent in Ireland, on the Adjournment to-night.

    EDUCATION EXPENDITURE (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the amount of the proposed increase of expenditure on education in Ireland corresponding to the increased expenditure on that service in this country; and if he will outline the manner in which the increase is to be administered in Ireland?
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as an equivalent to the Supplementary Vote for Education in England and Wales, it is intended to propose an additional grant for Irish education; and if he can state the amount of such grant?
    Mr. DUKE: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to the question of the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh. I am communicating with various educational authorities in Ireland in order to formulate proposals for securing, in connection with Irish education, advantages equivalent to any which may be granted for this country under the scheme about to be explained by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the increased amount for Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: It is not a very thrifty thing to allot an amount first and then find out what is necessary afterwards.
    Mr. GINNELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman arrived at an estimate of what will be required?
    Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member must be content for the time being with the answers I have given.

    DEPORTATIONS (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the public announcement that MacInerney's fish stores in Limerick have had to be closed up and the business brought to an end, in consequence of the banishment of Mr. James MacInerney from Ireland on political grounds without charge or trial; whether he is aware of the public inconvenience thus caused at a time of food scarcity; if it be not the policy of the Government to destroy the business of individuals on political
    1804
    grounds or on the secret information of competitors, whether Mr. Maclnerney will be given the advantage of a trial; and how, and to what extent, the Government intend to compensate him for the loss of his business?
    Mr. DUKE: I have not seen any such announcement as that mentioned in the question. I am informed, in answer to inquiries I have made, that the fish store in question has recently been carried on by a brother and sister of James Maclnerney, and that it was closed ten days ago. No question of compensation arises in respect of the deportation of James Maclnerney under the Defence of the Realm Regulations which authorised his deportation.
    Mr. GINNELL: In this case in which the business has been closed up as the result of the deportation of the head of it, will the Chief Secretary make no inquiries as to what could be done afterwards?
    Mr. DUKE: I have made inquiries, with the result which appears in the answer I have given

    WAGES BOARD (IRELAND).
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked what steps have been taken for the establishment of wages boards in Ireland; and whether, where the representatives of the employers and employés have agreed upon a minimum wage, machinery will be established to ratify it and make it mandatory upon any section that might seek to evade it?
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary if he will state the Government's proposals with reference to the establishment of a wages board in Ireland"
    Mr. DUKE: The Corn Production Bill, which is now before the House, contains provisions for the establishment of wages boards in Ireland. In the hope that this measure will become law steps have been taken provisionally for bringing the boards into operation as soon as possible after the statutory powers are obtained. I am aware that in the meantime farmers and labourers in many of the Irish counties have made satisfactory temporary arrangements, and I anticipate that where a minimum wage has been ascer-

    1805
    tained in this way, the proposed wages board will have power to establish it as a legal minimum wage.
    Mr. O'SHEE: If there is any undue delay in the passing of the Wages Board Bill will this be done by an Order in Council?
    Mr. DUKE: I have been giving attention to the matter in case the necessity arises, but I hope it will not be necessary. I think the hon. Member will see that it will be much better to have one permanent scheme than a temporary one in the first instance. Farmers and labourers in various parts of Ireland have been dealing with this matter in a perfectly practical and friendly way, and this has had good effect in removing the difficulties in the matter of ascertaining the minimum wage.
    Mr. O'SHEE: As there is bound to be some considerable delay in any event, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps by forwarding this Bill or otherwise to make its operation retrospective?
    Mr. DUKE: That question no doubt will arise when the Clause relating to the Irish Wages Board is considered, and if it appears to be necessary no doubt it will be done. Of course, that will depend upon the judgment of the House in the matter, and that is one of the reasons why I do not want to anticipate the decision of the House with regard to a new departure of this kind by any sectional action.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    CORN MILLS (IRELAND).
    Mr. LUNDONasked whether, in view of the increase of tillage throughout Ireland, any steps are being taken for the purpose of setting up corn mills so as to meet adequately the necessities of the coming harvest?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture have been giving assistance by means of loans and expert advice for the equipment of mills in Ireland, and are continuing to do so.

    TILLAGE (IRELAND).
    Mr. O'SHEEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what is his estimate of the increase in the area cropped or about to
    1806
    be cropped for the present season in Ireland for oats, potatoes, wheat, and barley, respectively, as compared with last season?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture are not yet in a position to furnish estimates of the increased crops due to new tillage, but I am able to say that the regulations for compulsory tillage have been cheerfully responded to throughout Ireland, with occasional exceptions which in no way affect the general good result, and that the small percentage of defaulters are being systematically dealt with.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any rough estimate of the total increase under tillage in Ireland this year?
    Mr. DUKE: It would be misleading.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Is it not the fact that the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture said that about 1,000,000 acres would represent the amount?
    Mr. DUKE: I would rather not commit myself to any figure. My own view is that when I am in a position to give it definitely to the House it will be regarded as very satisfactory and creditable.
    Mr. FITZPATRICKasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) why Mr. H. Thompson, Castlefarm, Borris-in-Ossory, Queen's County, who holds 500 acres of arable land, has been exempted from tilling the 10 per cent. of such land under the increased tillage scheme?
    Mr. DUKE: Inquiries are being made into this case.

    POTATOES (GERMAN PRISONERS).
    Mr. STANTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if, at Aberavon, South Wales, last week, 200 German prisoners were received; if the Government at once commandeered all the potato stocks locally for the use of these German prisoners; if he is aware that the Aberavon people are of the opinion that they deserve greater consideration from the Government than German prisoners; and if he will see that British citizens whose sons are fighting at the front shall not fare worse than our imprisoned German enemies?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): My hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. There is no information in the War Office that local stocks of potatoes were commandeered, but I will make inquiries if my hon. Friend desires. Instructions have now been issued stopping all issues of potatoes to prisoners of war in the United Kingdom.

    UNINTERNED ENEMY ALIENS (COMPULSORY RATIONING).
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will forthwith institute a system of compulsory rationing of all un-interned enemy aliens in the United Kingdom?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): The possible results obtainable from the adoption of the hon. Baronet's suggestion could not justify the creation of the elaborate machinery required for the purpose

    Dogs (FOOD WASTE).
    Mr. PETOasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether any and, if so, what steps are being taken to reduce the number of superfluous dogs of all sorts in this country with a view to saving the incidental waste of food?
    Captain BATHURST: As I informed the hon. Member for West Waterford on the 3rd April, it is not at present proposed to place any statutory restriction on the keeping of dogs Those who keep dogs should, however, realise that the giving to dogs of food fit for human consumption is not in the national interest.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the hon. Gentleman issue a voluntary ration for the 2,700,000 dogs in this country?
    Mr. O'SHEE: Will the hon. Gentleman take no steps to effect a reduction in the number of dogs'?
    Captain BATHURST: That matter does not come directly within the province of the Department which I represent, but representations are being made to other Departments on the matter.
    Mr. LUNDON: What does "ornamental dog" mean?

    BEEF FAT.
    Mr. O'SHEEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that in Ireland the raw fat of beef cattle is being sold by butchers at 4d. per lb.; and whether, having regard to the prices of margarine and butter, the Food Controller will consider the desirability of buying this fat and utilising it for food by converting it into margarine in a Government factory?
    Captain BATHURST: I am not aware that in Ireland the raw fat of beef cattle is being sold at so low a price as 4d. per pound. The price in England is considerably higher, and no doubt a ready market would be obtained if the raw fat from Ireland were sent to England. The suggestion made in the last part of the question will be brought to the notice of the Food Controller.

    IRISH BACON.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNORasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the Food Controller in fixing the price of Irish bacon considered the effects of the same as compared with the price fixed for English bacon; is he aware that the price of Irish pigs has already fallen 3s. per cwt., thus causing a loss of £1,500,000 sterling in a year to farmers and others in Ireland; that English buyers are buying Irish pigs at the lesser price, importing them to England, and selling them in England as English bacon at the higher price; and whether the Minister will find some means of coming to a more equitable arrangement whereby what seems to be an injustice may be removed?
    Captain BATHURST: I have already informed the House that the price of provisions, including bacon, is periodically revised by the Home and Foreign Produce Exchange. The most recent revision took place on Friday last, when the price of Irish bacon was advanced 3s. per cwt., no change being made in the price of English bacon.
    Mr. DILLON: In revising the price will the hon. Gentleman keep before his mind the grave danger of the total destruction of the pig-rearing industry by the enormous increase in the price of food and the difficulty, almost amounting to impossibility, of obtaining food for pigs?
    Captain BATHURST: That is being constantly borne in mind, but it must be re-membered that there is a great deal of food now given to pigs which would be more economically utilised if it were given direct to human beings.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that within the last four weeks the number of pigs killed in Ireland has been reduced by over 25 per cent., thereby lessening the quantity of food for the use of people, and is he further aware that the feeling amongst the Irish farmers is that they are going to oease rearing and fattening pigs for market owing to the actual loss in the market value of them?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question down.

    TEA.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, under the Board of Trade Returns, tea is classed as a food or a drink, and if the latter, whether he has power to deal with it; whether the Order he has issued with regard to packing by net- weight applies to teas packed for export; and, if not, whether he will issue an Amendment making it clear that teas may be packed and sold under bond in any weight or form necessary for the maintenance of export trade?
    Captain BATHURST: The Board of Trade classification does not affect the Food Controller's powers, which clearly extend to tea. Under the fourth article of the Tea (Net Weight) Order, 1917, if the exporter or packer desires to place any statement as to weight on the package it must be a true statement as to the net weight of the tea. The rest of the Order applies only to retail sales.

    WHEAT.
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the enforced reduction in the price of home-grown wheat will result in a corresponding reduction in the price of bread; and, if so, will he further reduce the price of home-grown wheat and so reduce the price of bread, which is inflicting suffering among those classes who are not participating in war prosperity?
    Captain BATHURST: The price of the loaf is mainly dependent upon the current value of imported wheat, so that alter-
    1810
    ations in the price of home-grown wheat cannot be expected to reduce to a corresponding extent the price of bread.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of reducing the price of bread?
    Captain BATHURST: Yes; it is being continuously considered as being, apart from its availability, the most important factor which we have to consider. May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the Order relating to cakes and pastry issued this morning, which may, and we hope will, have the effect of rendering a great deal more flour available for bread?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: In view of the fact that having control of shipping has compelled the Australian farmer to sell at 40s. a quarter, why cannot the hon. Gentleman take similar steps to get a cheap rate for British supplies?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

    COLD STORAGE.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the increasing shortage of foodstuffs for cattle owing to lack of tonnage and the consequent necessity for reducing the head of stock, the Government is taking into consideration the need of developing and using to the full the cold storage system throughout the country?
    Captain BATHURST: The question of the adequacy of cold storage is receiving attention. I believe, however, that the accommodation is fully equal to existing requirements, and will prove equal to any demands which are likely to arise in the future.

    INDIAN MEAL.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that some of the large millers in Ireland have issued a notice to their customers that no more Indian meal can be had for the present; if he is aware that the effect of this Order will be to put an end to the keeping of pigs and poultry; if it was on the instructions of the Food Controller that the Order was issued; and, if so, why it was issued?
    Captain BATHURST: It is impossible to answer this question unless more par-

    1811
    ticulars are furnished, but I may say that no special instructions have been issued as regards the use of maize in Ireland.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what quantities, in tons, of Indian meal was imported into Great Britain during the year 1916, as well as the quantities imported monthly since the 1st of January, 1917?
    Captain BATHURST: The quantity of Indian meal imported into the United Kingdom during the year 1916 was 20,932 tons. It is not in the public interest to furnish the further information asked for.

    HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS (IRELAND).
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the recent Order for the curtailment of food in hotels and restaurants in Ireland is causing inconvenience to travellers and others engaged in commercial pursuits, whose time for meals is uncertain and often takes place at intervals of many hours by reason of their duties; and is any reconsideration of the Order for such cases contemplated?
    Captain BATHURST: No, Sir. The reconsideration of the Order is not at present contemplated.

    FISH CONSIGNMENTS.
    Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked if Irish fishermen will be exempted, like the Scotch, from the Order securing the prepayment of carriage on goods sent by passenger trains?
    Mr. O'LEARYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the hardship and inconvenience inflicted on fishermen and fish-buyers in Baltimore and other fishing centres in West Cork by requiring them to pay carriage to the railway companies when booking fish for conveyance to market; whether this requirement applies to Scottish fishermen; and whether, seeing the handicap that such a requirement necessarily means to the fishing industry and consequently the provision of cheap food for the English people, he will see that the old arrangement, by which carriage on fish was paid when the consignee took delivery thereof is again restored?
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the new arrangement requiring fish booked from Ireland to England to be paid for at the time of booking has caused inconvenience to Irish fishermen, and that these men, many of them poor, often land their supplies at ports where they are unknown and find it in many cases impossible to find the money necessary to pay the carriage; and, seeing that these regulations do not apply to Scotland, will he, under the circumstances, take steps to have these regulations withdrawn in Ireland?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Roberts): The recent requirement as to the prepayment of passenger train traffic has not been applied to fish landed in Scotland, as it appeared that its application might have involved special difficulties at certain Scottish ports. No representations as to similar difficulties in Ireland have hitherto been received by the Board of Trade, but inquiries will be made, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Gentlemen.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the same treatment will be given in Ireland as in Scotland?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I shall be glad to receive any representations on the subject.
    Mr. O'LEARYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that railway companies refuse to accept empty fish boxes for conveyance to fish buyers in Baltimore and other fishing centres in West Cork; and whether, having regard to the scarcity and cost of timber and the difficulty of providing an adequate supply of boxes for the conveyance of fish to the markets, he will see that the railway companies make provision for the conveyance of those empty boxes, to fish buyers without unnecessary delay in transit?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am afraid that in present circumstances difficulties in connection with the rail and sea transit of empty boxes cannot altogether be avoided, but I will make inquiry in the matter.

    SHIPS' STORES.
    Mr. DAVISON DALZIELasked the total quantities of wheat, meat, and sugar per month taken out of the United Kingdom by merchant vessels in the form of

    1813
    ships' stores; whether the condition of affairs relating to ships' stores is in accord with the statement by the chairman of Messrs. Houlder Brothers and Company, Limited; and whether the Government will take steps to remove the obstacles placed in the way of shipowners who are endeavouring to assist in conserving the food supplies of the country?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I regret that it is not possible to give the figures asked for in the first part of the question. It is the wish of the Government to encourage the purchase of ships' stores at ports abroad instead of in the United Kingdom, and I understand that the somewhat special case to which the hon. Member refers has now been satisfactorily met.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. LUNDONasked if the Local Government Board has any power to interfere with the authority of a pension officer so far as the application for the additional 2s. 6d. is concerned; and, if so, to what extent?
    Mr. DUKE: I am in communication with the Local Government Board in regard to the matter.

    SPIRITS AND WINES (RESTRICTIONS).
    Mr. FLAVINasked on what basis the Advisory Committee have fixed the amount that is allowed to be cleared during the half-year ending 30th September, 1917, and how are the authorities under both heads (wines and spirits) issued as instalments of what traders are entitled to; and when traders may expect that their applications will be fully dealt with and authorities finally issued by the Advisory Committee for the quantities that they are entitled to in lieu of the present instalment system, which leaves wholesale dealers at a standstill and threatens their complete extinction under the restrictions on clearances of spirits and -wines from bond which came into operation on 2nd April, 1917?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The basis on which clearances during the half-year ending 30th September, 1917, are being
    1814
    allowed, namely, 25 per cent, of the clearances in the year 1916, is fixed by a rule made by the Treasury under Subsection (2) of Section 4 of No. 270 Statutory Rules and Orders, 1917. The applications for the grant of authorities necessitate inquiry in the majority of cases, and, in order to facilitate the transaction, of business, provisional authorities sufficient, so far as can be seen, to meet current needs are in such cases being issued;. they will be dealt with fully as soon as practicable. If, in any case, the provisional authority is insufficient, it is, of course, open to the person concerned to-make application for an extension.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these restrictions-strike Ireland much more severely than any other part of the United Kingdom, as 95 per cent. of Irish houses are free houses owned, occupied and stocked by the tenants, whereas in this country the majority of the houses are tied, and therefore the people have not the same interest as in Ireland?

    SUPPLY OF FODDER (IRELAND).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he is aware that there is a fodder famine in many of the more mountainous districts of county Donegal, that several horses and cattle have perished through hunger, and that the growth in these districts will be at least a fortnight behind that of the low-lying lands; and if he will approach the military authorities with a view to inducing them to release a portion of the fodder which they have stored with the larger farmers in the county so as to enable the smaller farmers-to feed their horses and cattle for the next six weeks?
    Mr. DUKE: Steps have been taken by the Department of Agriculture, with the co-operation of the military authorities, to deal with a shortage of cattle fodder in Donegal which has arisen from, among other causes, the severity of the season, and considerable supplies have been made available, and I am assured that the arrangements now made will be sufficient to deal with the emergency.
    Mr. KELLY: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate more fully for the benefit of the people concerned to whom they should apply for immediate relief?
    Mr. DUKE: The method adopted, to the best of my recollection, is that supplies of fodder have been made available for sale at reasonable prices in the quarters in which fodder is usually sold. If the hon. Member will communicate with me either today or to-morrow, I will give him more particular information.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is it a fact, as stated in the question, that horses and cattle have actually perished from hunger while there is plenty of fodder stored under contract and sold for military requirements?
    Mr. DUKE: I did not need to wait to ascertain whether cattle had died before asking for, action to be taken. As a matter of fact, the matter was reported to me, and I have taken steps to deal with it.
    Mr. KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of prohibiting the export of fodder except for military Requirements from the port of Derry?
    Mr. DUKE: Before the hon. Member asks me to do that he had better consult those of his constituents who grind hay and other things for sale as to what their view would be about it.

    TORPEDOED HOSPITAL SHIPS (REPRISALS).
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister what steps are to be taken to give effect to the threat of reprisals against Germany for torpedoing hospital ships?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): Action has already been taken, of which the particulars have been made public, in consequence of the dastardly attacks on hospital ships.
    Mr. BUTCHER: May I ask whether these proceedings will be renewed as soon as possible at another place?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it is desirable to give any information further than is contained in my answer.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Has there been any recent loss of hospital ships?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir, and they will be made public in due course.

    GREECE.
    Mr. DILLONasked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any information as to the present situation in Athens and Northern Greece?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The situation in Greece is now under discussion by the Allied Governments, and any Statement in regard to it at the present moment would be premature.
    Mr. DILLON: May I ask, as there is great public anxiety on this question, whether some statement will be given as to the situation in Greece and what policy the Allied Governments are intending to pursue there?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it, would be very desirable, if it were possible, to have a discussion on this subject: and I may say now that the Government has decided that it would be desirable to have a private Session of this House, and I hope next week to be able to state when that will take place.
    Mr. GINNELL: May I ask whether the Allied Governments engaged in the discussion of this matter include the United States of America?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Up to the present, the United States of America have not taken any part in it, but I have no doubt as soon as arrangements are concluded they will be consulted in every matter in which they are interested.
    Mr. GINNELL: Then they are not included in the present case?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the private Session will be confined to one sitting only?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps my hon. Friend will wait until I make the next statement about it.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Would it not be advisable to consult the United States of America before these arrangements are made?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It may be desirable, but it is not very practicable.

    SALONIKA EXPEDITION.
    Mr. DILLONasked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any

    1817
    information as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the Salonika Expedition; is it proposed to keep a large army in the neighborhood of Salonika during the coming summer; and, if so, what precautions have been taken against a recurrence of the diseases which were so disastrous to the Allied armies last summer; whether the army at Salonika has been put into condition to advance; whether it is proposed that it should advance against Bulgaria; and, if not, for what purpose so large a body of troops is to be kept at Salonika?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As this question deals directly with military plans, it is impossible for me to give any answer to it.
    Mr. DILLON: Might I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to that part of the question which does not deal with military plans, but which asks what precautions have been taken against a recurrence of the diseases which were so disastrous to the Allied armies last summer? If an army is to be kept there, surely we are entitled to know whether anything can be done to protect it against those diseases which invalided 60,000 of our men last year?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can assure the House that the Government are fully alive to the difficulties and dangers in connection with this matter, and are taking all possible steps.

    PRISONERS OF WAR (SUPPLY OF BREAD).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that of 242 men of the Cameron Highlanders who are prisoners of war in Germany only two had, up to 27th March, acknowledged receipt of bread from Copenhagen; whether he has satisfied himself that the arrangements for the supply of bread to prisoners from Copenhagen are satisfactory; who is in charge of the depot there, and what is its cost; and whether he has evidence that other prisoners are receiving their supplies of bread?
    Mr. HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I am informed that the number of prisoners of the Cameron Highlanders at present on the records of the Central Prisoners of War Committee is 227. I am afraid it is not possible to state how many of these
    1818
    particular prisoners have acknowledged receipt of bread from Copenhagen up to-27th March, but the latest information shows that acknowledgments have been sent for 60 per cent. of all the bread sent. The acknowledgment cards are sent direct to Copenhagen, whence they are forwarded to London in parcels, according as shipping facilities permit. I understand that the arrangements for the supply of bread from Copenhagen are now satisfactory, except for the inevitable uncertainty as to the arrival of the flour and other necessary ingredients, owing to shipping difficulties. The Bureau at Copenhagen is supervised by a-Committee, with Lady Paget as president, and Mr. Marcus Slade as director, and its working cost up to 23rd March has been £21,261 16s. Id. I am informed that 73,502 loaves weighing 3¼lbs. were sent from Copenhagen to our prisoners-in Germany during the month of March.
    Mr. SCOTT: In the case of a prisoner who has stated that he has received no parcels for three months, is the system such that proof can toe provided of the dispatch of parcels to the prisoners and of the dispatch of them from Copenhagen?
    Mr. HOPE: Yes, I understand that is-the intention of the Central Prisoners of War Committee. My hon. Friend knows that an inquiry is proceeding on all these points at the present moment.
    Mr. SCOTT: In the case of particular prisoners who allege that they have received no parcels for periods like that, will proof of dispatch be submitted?
    Mr. HOPE: Submitted to the Committee?
    Mr. SCOTT: Will the Committee obtain proof of the dispatch of food and parcels in these individual cases?
    Mr. HOPE: It is perfectly free for them to ask for it and to supply it; but I do-not control their proceedings.
    Mr. SCOTT: Will the Committee which is in charge of this matter and responsible for it, submit proof of dispatch?
    Mr. HOPE: I understand that they will. All that they can do is to guarantee that the parcels go. A hundred and one things-may happen to them afterwards.
    Mr. LOUGH: May I ask whether the figure given as to the cost of the bureau includes the cost of the bread?
    Mr. HOPE: Yes; having regard to the amount, I have no doubt that it does.
    Sir JOHN AINSWORTH: Having regard to the alarm and anxiety felt in this matter, could the hon. Gentleman in some way or other inform the House or the public how it stands?
    Mr. HOPE: I thought that was the purpose of my answer. I do not know what more I can say.

    RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE, DUBLIN.
    Mr. DONOVANasked the Prime Minister if he is yet in a position to state the name of the Irish representative whom it is proposed to appoint on the Reconstruction Committee?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister has appointed the hon. Member for North Galway (Mr. Hazleton) to be a member of the Reconstruction Committee.

    ALLIED POWERS (WAR AIMS).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether the abandonment by the new Russian Government of the purposes of conquest, which the late Russian Government stated had the approval of its Allies, makes any difference in the purposes of conquest of those Allies, especially in the purposes of the British and Italian Governments; and whether the Government of the United States of America has been informed of the present purposes of territorial conquest of all the Allies?
    Lord R. CECIL: His Majesty's Government are of opinion that a public discussion of the topics referred to in this question is not in the public interest at present.

  AIR SERVICES.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS SECRET SESSION.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange a Secret Session to enable him to give the Members of the House of Commons the facts which were supplied to General Smuts and Sir Robert Borden, and which enabled them to make such assurances as to the condition of the Air Service?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is proposed to take the Estimates of the Air Board on Thursday next. The Government have decided that a Private Sitting of the House is desirable, and I hope to be able to say next week what arrangements will be made for it.
    Mr. BILLING: Is it understood that this House will have the information which was supplied to General Smuts and Sir Robert Borden, which enabled them to make these statements?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In the opinion of the Government it is desirable that there should be a public discussion of the Air Board upon the Estimates in the ordinary way. After that there will be nothing to prevent its being discussed in the Private Session to which I have referred.
    Mr. BILLING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Air Board Vote will come on?
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister if he will request the Chairman of the Air Board to meet the Members of the House of Commons in secret conference before the Air Vote comes before the House?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the AIR BOARD (Major Baird): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The Air Board Vote will be taken at an early date, and my Noble Friend considers it preferable that the public discussion of matters concerning the Air Services, for which the Vote will provide an opportunity, should precede any such conference as is suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. BILLING: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think it would be better that the Chairman of the Air Board should have an opportunity of making any statement he may wish to make to Members of the House before this discussion takes place, so that it might be found unnecessary to raise points which otherwise might be raised?
    Major BAIRD: I have already given the hon. Member the opinion of the Chairman of the Air Board, which is contrary to the view taken by himself.

    FRANCHISE AND ELECTORAL REFORM.
    Mr. BLAIRasked the Prime Minister whether he will undertake to circulate

    1821
    with the copies of the Electoral Reform Bill a Return showing the boroughs and counties of Great Britain which will lose their separate representation under the proposals of Mr. Speaker's Conference; the boroughs and counties of Great Britain whose representation in the House of Commons will be reduced, and to what extent; and the constituencies in Great Britain, other than those whose representation will cease, whose boundaries will be altered under the proposals?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. I am afraid it would not be possible to supply all the information my hon. and gallant Friend requires, but his suggestion will be borne in mind.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister how many conscientious objectors engaged in reclamation work at Princetown were given leave for Easter; what was the extent of the leave and whether free railway warrants were given; is he aware that there are men now fighting at the front who have had no leave for two years, and that thousands of men in the Royal Navy have not had leave since the mobilisation in 1914, and in some cases not for five years; and how he reconciles the giving of leave, if such leave were given, to these conscientious objectors after a few weeks' residence at Prince-town in face of the long and continued service of our sailors and soldiers?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Of the 856 conscientious objectors then employed at the Princetown Work Centre, 274 were allowed to go on leave at Easter, and of these 166 had their fares paid. The amount of leave given varied according to the time the men had been employed. The regulations formerly provided for one working day's leave per month; but they now allow four days' leave after three months, and another six days after twelve months, in addition to the usual public holidays. The men are not allowed to travel by rail oftener than once in three months, and their fares are paid only twice
    1822
    in the year. Leave is dependent in every case on good conduct and industry and the exigencies of the work. It is no doubt the case that many soldiers and sailors have less leave, but, as the men under the Committee were specially released from prison after accepting alternative service, the Committee have not considered it right to deprive them of all liberty.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these cowards and shirkers attended divine service at Princetown and walked out when the National Anthem was sung?
    Mr. BRACE: I am not aware of that. I have heard that it was so, but I have no evidence of the fact.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: It is so.
    Mr. PETO: Why was Easter selected for this privileged leave in this case, when the rest of the public were specially warned not to travel at that time?
    Mr. BRACE: These men, under the Regulations, are entitled to a certain amount of leave, and it was thought that Easter was quite as convenient as some other time. If the House gives authority that these men are not to have any leave at all, that is a matter entirely for the House of Commons.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does this arise at all?
    Mr. BRACE: In the Regulations under which the Committee works; we feel that these men are entitled to at least ten days' leave a year, and as they only get 8d. a day—[An HON. MEMBER: "A great deal too much!"]—it is not an improper thing to give them free railway passes.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Did the Home Office grant leave at Easter because the Home Office were not aware that the Board of Trade had advised the public not to travel?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a lieutenant in the Royal Indian Marine who has been six years in Mesopotamia and unable to get a day's leave?
    Mr. BRACE: How can I be aware of that?
    Mr. BUTCHER: By whose orders are privileges given to these shirkers which cannot be accorded to our soldiers fighting at the front?
    Mr. BRACE: It is not a privilege. It is one of a series of Regulations under which the conduct of these people is controlled. If the Regulations are not correct, I shall be prepared to answer any question that may be put.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether conscientious objectors have been sent from Wakefield Gaol to a parish in Norfolk and put to cut pit-props; that on arrival they refused to sleep in the barn prepared for them; that, in addition to receiving 8d. a day, they are lodged rent free, given 1s. 9d. a day for food, free coals, and 7d. a week for washing; whether these men were given holidays at Easter and in some cases free passes as far as the north of Yorkshire were allowed; and, if so, why these men who refuse to serve their country in the Army are given better conditions than men fighting at the front?
    Mr. BRACE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Conscientious objectors have been sent to Norfolk by the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors to work at cutting pit-props, and the firm employing them reports that they are working satisfactorily. The Committee know nothing of any refusal to sleep in the barn. They received a report from their agent that the barn was not suitable for prolonged occupation, and they sanctioned his renting another building. The men are not required to pay rent; fuel is supplied; and food and washing are provided for as indicated in the question. The men could not meet the expense of living out of their daily allowance of 8d., less deductions up to 6d. As regards their leave, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I have just given to the previous question.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that they refused to sleep in the barn for one night?
    Sir WALTER ESSEX: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his questioner would probably, in the recent weather, also have refused to sleep in a barn?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I would not mind sleeping in a barn.

    DISBANDING OF ARMY (OFFICERS' LEAVE AND PAY).
    Sir EDWARD GOULDINGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention
    1824
    has been called to the recent announcement by the Minister of Labour that when the troops are disbanded they are to get a month's holiday with Army pay and separation allowances for the wives and children; and whether, in view of this decision, it is intended to grant similar recognition to all officers who have served at the front?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): These questions are still only under consideration, but the hon. Member may rest assured that both officers and men will receive appropriate though not necessarily the same form of recognition.
    Sir E. GOULDING: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that many of the officers in the new Territorial Army are in a financial position not different from that of the troops?
    Mr. FORSTER: That certainly will be taken into account.
    Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to so large a share of the time of the House.

    PEACE PROPOSALS.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether the defeat of Von Hindenburg by the British and French on the Western Front in Easter week, with the huge capture of prisoners and guns, is regarded by the Government as a decisive military victory for which they have been waiting to propose negotiations for peace; whether the recent domestic revolution in Russia has converted the whole population of that vast empire into a stern, unbending, and loyal Ally; whether the partnership of the great Republic of the West in the European struggle; for democracy against autocracy completes a series of changes in the position of the War and its respective combatant nations; whether His Majesty's Ministers will reconsider their decision not to approach peace by way of negotiation; and whether he will now advise His Majesty to enter a confer ence of belligerents and seek a settlement, as we have been twice invited to do by the Central Powers?
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that ques-

    1825
    tion, may I ask him whether it is not time enough to consider proposals for peace when the Germans have ceased to blow up hospital ships?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The supplementary question is a better answer than my own. The answer to the first, fourth, and fifth parts of the question is in the negative. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative, and the third part I do not understand.

    GOVERNMENT WAR COMMITTEES.
    Mr. WILSON-FOXasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the difficulty which Members of this House and the public experience in obtaining accurate information in regard to the various Committees which have been appointed by the Government during the War, he will cause a Return to be prepared as soon as possible giving in relation to every such Committee the following information: By whom it was appointed; its terms of reference or other short particulars in relation to the scope and nature of its duties; its composition and the names of its executive officials; its official address; and particulars as to the Reports, if any, which may have been published in reference to its work?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Steps are now being taken to prepare a list of Commissions and Committees set up to dealwith public questions arising out of the War, in continuation of Command Papers 7855 and 8256. The inclusion of particulars such as my hon. Friend desires will form the subject of consideration when the Return is being compiled.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Pensions Minister whether it is proposed to issue a new Royal Warrant dealing with pensions for officers and their dependants; whether it is proposed to give effect to the Report of the Select Committee on Naval and Military Services (Pensions and Grants), which reported that the grant of pensions to officers' relatives are too rigid and ought to be revised with reference to the principles on which pensions, etc., are granted to the dependants of men serving in the ranks; and whether he can say within what period he hopes to make new proposals?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Barnes): I propose to issue shortly a new Warrant dealing with pensions for officers and their dependants, and I think that the hon. Member will find that the Report of the Select Committee has not been disregarded. I am unable to state the precise date when the Warrant will be ready, but good progress is being made.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Pensions Minister whether any provision is made for the illegitimate child of an officer who has been killed in action, the child having been maintained by him in his own house previous to his death; whether provision is made for the illegitimate child of a private soldier in similar circumstances; and whether, if the soldier happens to have been promoted to the rank of officer for distinguished service before his death, the child loses all right to pension or allowance?
    Mr. BARNES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second part in the affirmative. The position of unmarried wives and illegitimate children of officers is being considered in connection with the proposed new Warrant for officers' pensions, but I am not in a position to anticipate the decision which will be reached.

    INTERNED MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICERS.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, as regards officers of merchant ships holding second or first mates' certificates who have been interned for over two years, they will on release be given permission to present themselves for provisional masters' certificates of competency, full masters' certificates to be granted when they have put in the requisite qualifying service at sea?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Provisional certificates of competency are issued solely for the purpose of appointment to, or promotion in, the Royal Naval Reserve, and do not entitle the holder to act in the capacity shown on the certificate. It is not proposed to lay down a hard and fast rule as to the conditions on which interned officers of the mercantile-marine holding certificates of competency as second or first mate may be examined,

    1827
    on their release, for certificates of higher grade. Every case will be considered sympathetically on its merits.

    LIQUOR TRADE (IRELAND).
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Prime Minister whether he will give facilities for discussing the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Belfast with reference to the recent retrictions imposed upon the liquor trade in Ireland?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I fear that in the pressure of public business it will not be practicable to grant facilities for this Motion, but this subject can be raised on the Irish Estimates.
    Mr. DEVLIN: When will the Irish Estimates be put down?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I will do my best to arrange to suit the convenience of the Irish Members of the House.

    TRADE COMMISSIONERS.
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the President of the Board of Trade the number and names of the present Trade Commissioners, with their respective headquarters; and if he will state how many of them have paid official visits to Ireland, and when and to what districts such visits were paid?
    Mr. ROBERTS: There are four Trade Commissioners at present: Mr. Hamilton Wickes, in Canada and Newfoundland, at Montreal; Mr. Milne, in Australia, at Melbourne; Mr. Dalton, in New Zealand, at Wellington; and Mr. Wickham, in South Africa, at Cape Town. The following official visits to Ireland have been paid by the Trade Commissioners: In 1911 Mr. Hamilton Wickes, who was then Trade Commissioner in Australia, visited Dublin and Belfast. In 1912, Sir Southern Holland, who was then Trade Commissioner in South Africa, visited Belfast. In 1914, Mr. Wickham, who was then Trade Commissioner in New Zealand, visited Dublin and Belfast. In 1915, Mr. Hamilton Wickes, who had by then been transferred to Canada, visited Dublin. In 1916, Mr. Milne, Trade Commissioner in Australia, visited Dublin. I may add that Belfast,
    1828
    Dublin, and Londonderry are included in the tour which Mr. Hamilton Wickes is at the present moment undertaking. None of the Trade Commissioners visited the United Kingdom in 1913.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Trade Commissioners have been increased from four to sixteen?
    Mr. ROBERTS: That is in contemplation.
    Mr. LUNDON: Will the hon. Gentleman say why those Trade Commissioners have only visited Dublin and Belfast? Why not visit the South and West of Ireland?

    ROYAL CANAL, IRELAND.
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board has yet taken over the control of any Irish canal; and, if not, whether it proposes to do so?
    Mr. ROBERTS: One canal in Ireland, the Royal, is the property of a railway company, and possession has been taken of it, together with the rest of the company's undertaking. Possession has not been taken of any other canals in Ireland, and I do not know of any present intention to do so.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this canal belonging to a railway company is being controlled by the Railway Executive Committee in Ireland?
    Mr. ROBERTS: It is taken over as part of the railway undertaking.

    COMMERCIAL INTELLIGENCE (IRELAND).
    Mr. HAZLETONasked how many Chambers of Commerce in Ireland and how many business concerns in Ireland, respectively, are on the special register for the circulation of confidential trade information kept by the Commercial Intelligence Department of the Board of Trade?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Chambers of Commerce and thirty-five firms in Ireland are on the special register.

    TRADE RETURNS.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the President of the Board of Trade why recently the monthly trade Returns have been published so late; whether he can arrange that in future they will appear at the usual time; and when the March Returns may be expected?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The introduction of certain modifications in the extent of the information published in these Returns has necessarily involved some delay in their preparation and printing, and the accounts for March will not be ready for publication until about the middle of next week. The delay in future months will be considerably less, but I fear that the regular date of issue will henceforth be somewhat later than in the past.

    COTTON GROWING.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he can make a statement as to the intentions of the Government in regard to assisting the growth of cotton throughout the Empire?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I hope to be able to make an announcement on this important subject at an early date.

  COAL SUPPLIES.

    SHORTAGE OF RAILWAY WAGONS.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the present shortage of railway wagons in Scotland for the transport of coal; and whether the Coal Controller proposes to take any steps in the matter?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am aware that difficulties have been experienced from time to time in connection with the supply of wagons in certain districts, but recent returns from coalowners in Scotland do not appear to show any general or serious loss of time at the pits due to that cause. The whole question of wagon supply to the collieries is receiving the close attention of the Controller of Coal Mines.

    COAL OFFICIALS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. MILLARasked whether a Coal Controller has been appointed for
    1830
    Scotland; what experience he has had of the mining industry; and what is the scope of his duties?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No separate Controller of Coal Mines has been appointed for Scotland.
    Mr. MILLAR: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether an officer has been appointed to deal with the case of Scotland under the Coal Controller?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Yes; I believe certain district officers have been appointed.
    Mr. MILLAR: One particular district officer?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question and I will ascertain.

    SCARCITY IN LONDON.
    Mr. GILBERT(by private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the great shortage of coal 3tocks at London railways depots and whether he is aware that this caused the greatest hardship on all small buyers during the recent cold weather and can he specially arrange with the railway and coal committees that London is supplied with sufficient coal stocks so as to prevent the inconvenience caused to the poorer London districts by this scarcity of coal?
    Mr. ROBERTS: This matter has received the attention of the Controller of Coal Mines, who issued telegraphic instructions on Saturday last to all collieries in the districts supplying London to forward daily until further order the same quantities to London as on the corresponding day last year. The railway companies were at the same time asked to give special facilities for the transit of the traffic. Arrangements have also been made with the London merchants that priority will be given to sales in small quantities, and, in particular, that all the merchants will serve small purchasers at their depots at certain times each day at prices 2d. per cwt. below the trolley price for the district.
    Mr. GILBERT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that coal trucks coming to London are not loaded to their maximum capacity, some of them carrying as much as 2 tons and more less in their load; and in view of this waste of haulage will he have the matter inquired into at once?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I was not aware of that fact, but I will cause inquiries to be made.
    Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Neath Valleys the colieries are only allowed to work one or two days a week on account of the lack of facilities for carrying the coal from there up to London?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I was not aware of that particular case, but similar cases have occurred, and the whole matter is receiving the close attention of the Controller of Coal Mines.
    Mr. EDWARDS: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the special instructions given to the railway companies will be made to apply to these Glamorganshire Valleys?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I should think so.

    RAILWAY WORKERS, IRELAND (REMUNERATION).
    Mr. CLANCYasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the Board has yet considered the claim of the agents, stationmasters, and clerical staff of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland for inclusion in the scheme of increased remuneration for Irish railway workers; and, if so, whether he will state the result?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Board of Trade have been in communication with the railway company on this matter, and the company, in accordance with an opinion expressed by the Department, are, I understand, arranging to repay to their clerical staff certain deductions from the war bonus which have been the subject of dispute.

    Local Taxation (Ireland).
    Mr. MULDOONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will cause an immediate production of a statement dealing with the insolvency of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account for the last financial year, and furnish therewith particulars showing the actual abatements made for the past six years in respect of the customary grant of 4s. per head per week towards the cost of lunatics in district asylums in Ireland with a view of enabling the general council of the county councils of Ireland to formulate a demand for recoupment in accordance
    1832
    with the deferred proposals of the present Prime Minister when Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. DUKE: A statement is being prepared.
    Mr. MULDOONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has already drawn, or will at an early date draw, the attention of the Teasury to the ascertained fact that the anticipation of a former Chancellor (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) that the provision would prove generous protection for the maintenance of the grant has not been realised; and if he will urge on the Treasury that the pressure imposed on the taxpayers compelled by law to meet the demands of district asylums in Ireland has reached a stage that cannot further be borne?
    Mr. DUKE: I assume the question to refer to the local Licence Duties and the Grant by which these are supplemented Various deputations from local authorities in Ireland have called my attention to the deficiency in funds now available to meet the necessities of the lunatic asylums, and I believe the difficulty is not limited to Ireland. I am making further inquiries on the subject.

    County Donegal Railway Service.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) if he is now in a position to announce the intentions of the Government with regard to the lines worked by the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company; and (2) if the-electric signalling apparatus on the Burtonport Railway and on other lines worked by the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Company has broken down; if so, what steps are being taken to safeguard persons using these lines; and how long has this state of things been in existence?
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that a dearth of provisions exists in certain parts of West Donegal; that this dearth is in part due to the long-continued failure of the Letterkenny and Burtonport Railway to deal satisfactorily with the conveyance of essential foodstuffs; and what it is proposed to take to place the working of this railway upon a sound footing?
    Mr. DUKE: The maintenance and working of the Burtonport Railway have been the subject for a long time of very

    1833
    grave complaints tending to show that the railway was not fulfilling the purposes for which public funds had been expended in its construction to the extent of upwards of £300,000. In such circumstances, Section 7 of the Railways (Ireland) Act, 1896, provides means of inquiry as to whether the railway is efficiently worked, maintained and developed, with consequent powers in certain cases for taking control of the undertaking. The Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, acting under the powers conferred on them by the Statute, have appointed Mr. Joseph Tatlow to inspect and report upon the condition of the railway and the working, maintenance and development of the same. The various matters referred to in the questions will no doubt come within his cognisance.
    Mr. KELLY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state if any immediate steps are being taken pending the receipt of the Report referred to?
    Mr. DUKE: Oh, yes, Sir; very active steps are being taken. The plant of the concern is being put into working order, and, with regard to what I might almost describe as the innumerable complaints which have come from the district which hon. Members have brought to my notice, steps have been taken by the Railway Executive Committee, and in other directions, to do what is immediately necessary. This inquiry is with a view to preventing the same kind of conditions which have arisen.
    Mr. KELLY: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate if any steps are being taken to repair the locomotives?
    Mr. DUKE: Yes, Sir; that is one of the matters to which I have referred.
    Mr. H. LAW: I listened very carefully to the reply, but I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman refer at all to the statement made in the first part of my question.
    Mr. DUKE: It was included in the last clause of my answer, that this matter of the provision of fodder has been engaging the attention of the Department in Dublin, and it has been dealt with, at any rate for the time, in a practical sense.

    Floods (River Nore).
    Mr. FITZPATRICKasked the Chief Secretary if he has received any report with reference to the floods caused in the
    1834
    townlands of Derrykeirn, Capnaclough, Shanahoe, and Cloncough by the weir across the river Nore at Leeches' disused woollen mill near Abbeyleix; and, if so, what steps he intends taking in the matter?
    Mr. DUKE: The report which I have called for in regard to this matter has not yet reached me.

    Intermediate Education (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked whether the Intermediate Education Board has submitted its proposed rules for next year's examinations to the Lord Lieutenant; and, if so, when will they be laid upon the Table of the House?
    Mr. DUKE: The draft rules have been submitted to the Lord Lieutenant by the Intermediate Education Board, and are at present under consideration. I am not yet in a position to say when the Rules will be laid on the Table of the House.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. O'LEARYasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that an arrangement was come to about six year ago between the landlord and tenants that the control of the Leigh-White estate situated in Adrigole and Glengariffe, should be taken over by the Congested Districts Board, and an undertaking given by the latter to the tenants that the estate would be sold and vested in the tenants in the course of a year or two; whether he is aware that the undertaking has not yet been carried out by the Congested Districts Board, and that the tenants are still required to pay a higher rent than they would pay if the purchase of the estate was completed; whether he can state the reasons for the delay; and if he will urge on the Congested Districts Board the necessity of adhering to their undertaking, and carrying them out in this case without further delay?
    Mr. DUKE: Terms for the purchase of this property were agreed upon between the landlord and the Congested Districts Board about six years ago, but no such undertaking as that mentioned in the question was given. The estate is not yet vested in the Board, and, as they are not yet the legal owners of the property, they cannot proceed with the resale of the holdings. In accordance with the usual practice, the tenants are in receipt of abatements in their rents. In some cases agreements undertaking to purchase holdings

    1835
    have been signed, and in these cases the tenants are being charged interest on the purchase prices in lieu of rent. Pending the vesting of the estate in the Board, they have no power to enforce a scheme of rearrangement.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether any steps are being taken to acquire the vacant and untenanted land of Baron, Moydow, county Longford, and Agharea, Longford, of both of which estates the owners are willing to dispose; and, if not, will he, in view of the importance to uneconomic holders around, call the Estates Commissioners' attention to these cases with a view to immediate action being taken?
    Mr. DUKE: There do not appear to have been any proceedings before the Estates Commissioners for the sale of the lands mentioned. If the owners institute proceedings for sale the matter will receive attention.
    Mr. FARRELL: What about the last part of my question? Will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Estates Commissioners to these cases with a view to immediate action?
    Mr. DUKE: I should have to have a good deal more information than I have at the moment before I could take any exceptional steps to deal with this estate.
    Mr. FARRELL: I will supply some additional information.

    Exports and Imports (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) when the Report of Irish exports and imports for 1915 will be published?
    Mr. DUKE: The Report referred to was published yesterday.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. McKENNA: Can the Leader of the House say whether it is proposed to sit to-morrow, and what will be the business for next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not proposed to sit to-morrow. I may say that probably we shall ask the House to sit generally on Friday.
  On Monday next we propose to take the Venereal Diseases Bill, the Billeting of Civilians Bill, Munitions of War Bill, and possibly one or two other small Bills;
  On Tuesday the Agricultural Bill;
  On Wednesday the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, Report; and
  On Thursday, Supply—Air Board.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Will there be an interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stages of the Agricultural Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, there will be an interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stage of the Agricultural Bill.
  Mr. D. M. MASON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state definitely when the Budget will be brought in?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope to bring it in on Monday of the week after next.

SUPPLY.— [5TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1917–18.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

EDUCATION ESTIMATES.

  MR. HERBERT FISHER'S STATEMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £13,565,780 (including a Supplementary sum of £3,856,000), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of
  1888
  payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, 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. Herbert Fisher): I must ask a very large measure of indulgence from the Committee, since I so find myself unable to discharge my duty in reference to the Education Estimates within the narrow limits of time appropriate to the first quavering utterances of a new Member. I believe, however, that there is in this House, and not only in this House, but in the country at large, a quickened perception of the true place of education in the scheme of public welfare, and a very earnest resolve to give to our national system, if it can be called national, and if it can be called a system, all the improvements of which it is-capable. Indeed, nothing has been more remarkable than the attention which has recently been paid both in the public Press and on public platforms to the subject of education. One might have imagined that the War would have so occupied and exhausted the mind of the country as to leave room for no other thought. But this has not been the case. The War has had the very opposite effect. Quite naturally, and as it seems to me quite rightly, this great calamity has directed attention to every circumstance which may bear upon national strength and national welfare. It has exhibited the full range of our deficiencies, and it has invited us to take stock of all the available agencies for their improvement.
  Another feature of the present situation which cannot fail to impress hon. Members of this House is the remarkable interest which is now exhibited in education, which is evinced in two quarters from which a clear note has not always hitherto been sounded. Trade unions are demanding educational reform. Many of the most enlightened employers and manufacturers are actively promoting it. There is now a prospect new in my experience, and so far as I know new in the experience of this country, of the cooperation of the commercial and industrial interests of this country with the thoughtful energetic portion of the population to secure not only a higher standard of industrial and commercial fitness,

  1889
  but a higher level of general education. Not less significant is the remarkable consensus of opinion both as to our present needs in the field of education and as to the main lines of educational reform. I will not attempt to disentangle all the threads of thought and feeling which have combined in this movement. Some minds attach importance to education as to the foundation of industrial and military strength. Others are principally affected by the prospect that in the spread of education they may find the resolution of the discords in our industrial life; and I notice this also, that the calamitous destruction of young lives in the present War, lives of the first promise, does impose a solemn obligation on Parliament so to provide for the future that the rising generation, which will be deprived of its natural predestined leaders, may be prepared to furnish an added measure of service to (he community.
  I make these preliminary observations because in the Estimates I am submitting to the Committee I am proposing a large increase of expenditure. The sum which the House of Commons will be asked to vote for the service of education in the year 1917–16, being greater by £3,829,048 than the amount voted by Parliament in the year 1916–17, will involve the largest increase, as compared with the Estimates of the preceding year, which is known in the history of the Board. This increase does not appear in the original Estimates, which were printed at the usual time, and have been for some time past in the hands of hon. Members. It appears in the Supplementary Estimate bearing a recent date. Accordingly it will be convenient if I deal first with the Estimates which have been prepared and printed in the ordinary course, and which relate to the normal upkeep, apart from those special developments which will require increased Grants. The Committee will notice that these Estimates provide for an expenditure by the Board of Education in the year 1917–18 amounting to £15,159,780, being less by £26,952 than the amount, voted by Parliament in the year 1916–17. These Estimates are, as they were last year, on a war footing of retrenchment. Last year they were so closely clipped that they showed a reduction of £294,646 on the Estimates of 1915–16, and very little further shrinking is to be expected. Three of the causes which were at work last year to reduce the Estimates did not quite reach their fullest effect then, and are now
  1890
  responsible for a further reduction. I refer to the departure of military students in the training colleges on military service, the cessation of building operations in connection with these colleges, and the shutting down of evening classes in the lower grades of technical work.
  4.0 P.M.
  These retrenchments, coupled with further retrenchments in the expenditure upon museums and sundry other similar decreases, amount altogether to £106,599, against which there is a net saving of £78,462. There is an increase of £3,235 under the heading of Administration, sub-head (a); an increase of £28,927 granted to elementary schools, sub-head (c); an increase of £42,800 granted to secondary-schools, sub-head (e); and an increase of £3,500 granted for the Imperial College of Science and Technology under sub-head (g.) I do not think these increases demand any extended observations. The chief part of the increased cost of administration consists of the provision of expenses for certain Committees which have been appointed to report upon questions affecting the future of education, and the remainder relates to the ordinary annual increments to the salaries of the staff. The staff itself is greatly depleted, more depleted than it was last year, and it has been run at a less cost. But our Estimates bear the full value of the salaries of those officers of the Department who have been lent to other Departments, and part of the salaries of those who have gone on military service. While I am on the subject of the staff, I should add that 669 members of the Board's staff have gone on military staff. Of these, forty-two have been killed in action, or have died on active service, and five are reported as missing. In addition to this very considerable contribution to the fighting forces, representing over one-third of the members of the Board's normal male staff, very substantial help has been rendered by the Board of Education to other Departments and special committees, notably the War Office and the Ministry of Munitions. At various times since the beginning of the War no less than 297 members of the Board's staff have been loaned in this way, and at the present moment 159 of the Board's staff are thus on loan. I learn that the services of these officers are greatly appreciated, and I am not surprised to hear it. I know there is a circle of opinion that the

  1891
  official mind is choked up with the sawdust of rules and regulations, but at any rate that does not apply to officers of the Board of Education, whose abilities and zeal and enthusiasm for educational progress are beyond all praise.
  I come now to the second item in the scale of our Estimates. The increase in the expenditure on elementary schools arises partly from the normal growth, in the pensions to teachers, and partly to two developments of great interest and promise—I allude to the provision of new grants for evening play centres, a movement which we all honourably associate with the name of Mrs. Humphry Ward, and to the new provision of grants for the organisation and provision of physical training. I allude to these developments with the greater pleasure in view of the fact that they have received the favourable consideration of my distinguished predecessor, Lord Crewe, who undoubtedly would have carried them out if time had permitted. The increase in the secondary school grants is due to the increase in the number of pupils on whom grants will be paid during the financial year, and it is a matter of no little significance that one of the first desires, and one of the immediate results of the increased prosperity of the working classes during the War, has been an increase in the number of pupils entering our secondary schools and the length of their stay in those schools. I have now mentioned all the ordinary respects in which the Estimates differ from last year, and the net effect is that, after setting off the increases against the decreases, the sum asked for is less by £26,952 than the sum voted last year. But these Estimates do not, and should not, stand alone. The total expenditure of this country on education in England and Wales may seem to be large. Some £16,000,000 are paid out of the taxes, another £17,000,000 out of the rates, perhaps, though it is impossible to make an exact calculation, the sum of £7,000,000 more come out of fees, voluntary contributions, and endowments.
  This makes a large sum; it amounts to £40,000,000. But it must be taken in the general context of national expenditure. It is eight times the value of our annual importation of oranges and bananas. It is four times the value of the estimated saving which the country has been able to effect through the partial substitution
  1892
  of margarine for butter; it is one and one-third times the value of the annual expenditure on tobacco, and it is almost one-fourth the value of the annual expenditure on alcohol. I have cited articles of luxurious expenditure, with respect to which it is always pertinent to ask whether we can afford to spend the money. But when we are considering a form of productive expenditure, which is not only an investment but an insurance, that question cannot stand alone. We must ask a supplementary question. We must ask not only whether we can afford to spend the money, but whether we can afford not to spend the money. And the supplementary question is more important and more searching than the question on the Paper. When I ask the House to commit itself to a large additional expenditure on public education, I may very properly be asked whether the country is getting full value, or at all events good value, for its present expenditure. I confess that the profit to be derived from the system of education cannot be assessed by arithmetic or proved by geometry. Educational advance cannot be measured by the things whiach are taught, but only by the things which are learnt, and the things which are learnt are often quite imponderable and not to be measured by the standard of any definite intellectual acquisition. It is easy for any observer of our social phenomena to pick out a black patch here and there, and to paint a dismal picture of the progress of our civilisation.
  But on a comprehensive view, no one can pretend to doubt the very real effect which our system of popular education has had in the improvement of morals, in the refinement of taste, and in the development of the skill, knowledge, and intelligence of our working population. The enormous increase in our population since 1870, when elementary education was introduced, has been accompanied by a marked decrease in crime. Illiteracy has been reduced to comparatively small dimensions. In 1862, 225 married men out of every thousand were unable to sign their name; in 1907 the number had fallen to fourteen—fourteen too many, but still only fourteen. Take another thing. Good books are read in larger numbers and by a wider circle of people; and reports of librarians from districts inhabited by artisans, show me very conclusively that there has been a marked increase in the- demand for treatises upon handicrafts,

  1893
  upon economical and social problems, and upon the technique of various trades. I should like also to add that the progress has been especially rapid since the Act of 1902. Apprehensions were than entertained that the new administrative machinery, set up by that measure introduced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Foreign Affairs, might have the effect of sapping the foundations of local interest in education. Whether that has proved to be the case or not—and I imagine that you would get different answers to the question from different parts of the country —there can be no question that the past decade has witnessed a very substantial measure of educational progress. Whatever test you take, there has been a very marked and clear advance.
  And if anybody had doubted the value of our elementary schools, that doubt must have been dispelled by the experience of the War. What are the plain facts of the situation? An immense Army has been suddenly formed out of volunteers, and has proved itself in a very short space of time the match at every point for the forces of the first military situation in Europe. It is an Army, let it be observed, mostly recruited from the elementary schools, and I venture to assert that this sudden and brilliant military improvisation could never have been achieved if we had been working upon the basis of a population entirely uneducated.-This wonderful achievement implies trained powers of assimilation, the instructed conscience, the well-directed will, and an instinct for good conduct, and when we consider that the enemy is divided from us by the obstacle of the sea, and that we have had every reasonable security for hearths and home, the great English Crusade is found to imply qualities of imagination and ethical feeling as well. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to cite two pieces of evidence, one from the Army and the other from the Navy, in support of the proposition that the country owes not a little to its public elementary schools in the present strife. Here is an extract from a letter written by an officer in a Lancashire regiment in the year 1915 16:—
  "The second and third-line troops could never have been raised and trained in the time they were but for the public elementary schools. In many cases the first two lines absorbed all the trained material there was and the commanding officers of the third line bad actually to 'make' officers, non-commissioned officers,
  1894
  and men, the two last almost wholly from the product of the public elementary schools. The instruction o the men was greatly helped by, their intelligence Scouting, outpost work, bombing, trench raiding, etc. require not only native intelligence, but, also the ability to write in plain, unmistakable English a short message, on which much may depend. We had no Army schools for our men, nor any time to spare for instruction even if we had. Consequently we were wholly dependent on what the public elementary schools sent us."
  Here is the voice of the Navy. The commander of a light cruiser flotilla, manned almost entirely by hastily levied hands from the merchant service, or from ordinary civil employ, writing spontaneously to one of our inspector, says:
  "The way these fellows picked up the job seemed me perfectly marvellous. There is something in you damned board school education after all."
  Yes, Sir, there is something in the education of our public elementary schools. I have here the records of a coucil school in Northumberland, which sent 263 volunteers to the Army, three of whom hold commissions as captains, eight as lieutenants, twenty-six as second-lieutenants, while twenty-one are midshipmen, two hold military crosses, four have received the military medal, one the D.C.M., another the D.S.O., and several have been mentioned in despatches. This roll of honour is not confined to any one school or any one district. You will find them scattered throughout the length and breadth of the land, and they are worth something to the country, and many argosies of oranges and bananas. I make, then, no apology for our scheme of popular education or for the money which is spent upon it. I am sure that on the whole the country is getting at least as much value for what it spends in the sphere of education as it gets from its expenditure in any other direction. But I do not, of course, say that we could not get more value for our money. Some areas are forward, and other areas are backward. There is still much levelling up to be done, but on the whole I am confident in asking this House to assent to the proposition that the money which has been spent upon national education has not been wasted but has been turned to a useful account. In education almost everything depends upon the personal element. If the teacher is good and is thorough in his work, and if he is fond of children and if he be alert, understanding, sympathetic, firm and yet good-humoured, success is secured. If the teacher is bad the most costly buildings and equipment will not redeem your educational system from failure. I think

  1895
  we have been, on the whole, remarkably successful in the teachers whom we have obtained for our State-provided and State-aided schools, having regard to the slender remuneration which has been offered to them. There are, of course, varieties. Every teacher is not a paragon. Some have no gift, others little industry, and, like every long-service profession, the teaching profession shelters men who have outlived their zest and appetite for work. But I would ask any Member of this House who has a large familiarity with the working of our public elementary schools—and I know there are many such Members here—to contrast his impression of our teachers to-day with the picture which Macaulay painted in the House of Commons in 1847 of the teachers of that day:
  "The refuse of all other railing, discarded footmen, ruined pedlars, men who cannot work a sum in the rule of three, men who cannot write it common letter without flaws, men who do not know whether the earth is a sphere or a cube, men who do not know whether Jerusalem is in Asia or America".
  We must take the profession as a whole, and, taking it as a whole, I am struck by the great number of industrious and devoted teachers, men and women, who work in our schools. But the average pay of the teacher is far too low. For a certificated head teacher the average salary is £176, and for a certificated assistant teacher £129, and for an uncertificated assistant teacher £68. Those are the salaries for men. The salaries for women are lower, £126 for a certificated woman teacher, £05 for a certificated woman assistant teacher, £56 for an uncertificated assistant teacher, and £40 for a supplementary teacher. The certificated teacher is a man or a woman who enters the profession after some years of preparation for it. His skill and attainments are severely tested before he is admitted. He does not begin work until he is twenty-one or twenty-two years of age, and yet there were before the outbreak of war 42,200 certificated teachers, male and female, drawing salaries of less than £100, and 26,700 drawing salaries of less than £90 per annum. The case of the uncertificated teachers who are persons with qualifications is even worse. Is it to be wondered at that the profession is held in slight esteem? Is it to be wondered at that teachers in our public elementary schools find it difficult to regard themselves as members of a liberal profession, and that it is becom-
  1896
  ing more and more difficult to find recruits of the right quality in adequate numbers? The problem of recruitment was already serious before the War, and it will be more serious still unless steps are promptly taken afterwards. It has been calculated that nine thousand entrants are annually required to repair the wastage in our elementary schools, and this upon its present basis of large classes. I do not pin myself to this, but I think it will certainly prove to be an under-estimate, and a very considerable under-estimate, if any real attempt be made, as it must be made, to reduce outclasses after the War and to extend the scope of popular education.
  In 1906 the total number of entrants, boys and girls, was 11,901, in 1908 it had fallen to 9,614, in 1910 to 6,185, in 1912 to 5,232. In 1915–16 the number of recognised candidates rose, owing to measures taken by the Board, to 7,047. These figures are eloquent in themselves, but they do not exhaust the situation. We have to remember that for every male entrant into the profession there are from three to five female entrants— in my opinion an excessive proportion— that many new and attractive openings have been unfolded before the eyes of educated women during the War, so that the problem, which was acute already in 1914, will become still more acute in 1920. I have heard it said that teaching is a vocation and that money wage does not matter. It is true that a very large number of men and a still larger number of women do enter the teaching profession actuated by something akin to the missionary spirit, but in a profession numbering 150,000 members you cannot rely upon the missionary spirit alone as a source of recruitment. With all our manifold virtues, we cannot depend upon an annual supply of 9,000 missionaries, content to endure a hard, narrow, and stinted existence for the sheer love of teaching. In every large profession you must rely on economic motives to some extent for your recruits, in the teaching profession less than elsewhere perhaps: but even teachers are human. I do not expect the teaching profession to offer great material rewards—that is impossible; but I do regard it as essential to a good scheme of education that teachers should be re-relieved from perpetual financial anxieties, and that those teachers who marry should be able to look forward to

  1897
  rearing a family in respectable conditions. An anxious and depressed teacher is a bad teacher; an embittered teacher is a social danger.
  The first condition of educational advance is that we should learn to pay our teachers better. If we do not take this step, we shall not be able to keep the profession at its present level in numbers and quality; still less shall we be able to extend its sphere or to deepen its influence, and steps should be taken now if the fruit of the investment is to be reaped after the War. A teacher cannot be educated and trained in the twinkling of an eye, and we must make the profession more attractive now in order that young people may be tempted to enter forthwith on the comparatively long course of education and training which is the necessary preliminary for work in our State-aided and State-provided schools. The most certain way of securing that any extra money available for elementary or secondary education should go into the pockets of the teacher is for the State to pay the teachers direct. I have carefully considered this solution of the problem. It possesses many clear recommendations. If the State were to salary the teachers, inequalities which at present exist between the salary scales in different areas would disappear, there would be a general scheme of increments and of promotion throughout the country, the rural schools would be better served, and the available teaching ability would be distributed by the State in such a way as to secure a degree of equality of opportunity as between urban and rural districts, which, under our present system of decentralisation, it is very difficult to secure. But the establishment of the teaching profession as a branch of the Civil Service would cut at the roots of our local system of education. I do not so much fear the enslavement of the public intellect through a corps of State teachers, because, do what we will, we can never make a German out of an Englishman, let alone out of a Welshman. But I do fear a very great and abrupt decline in the local interest in education if the control of the teaching body, and payment means control, is withdrawn from the local authorities and vested in Whitehall. For this reason I do not propose to recommend this treatment of the problem. I intend to approach
  1898
  it on other lines. I am going to ask the House to sanction an additional Grant for elementary education of £3,420,000—
  Commander WEDGWOOD: A dole to the landlords!
  Mr. FISHER: Framed upon a principle which will give a direct interest to the local authorities to enact liberal salary scales, and I believe that by this plan my object will be attained without any undue invasion of the sphere of local autonomy. One of the advantages incidental to this proposal is that it will readjust the financial relations of the Treasury and of the local authorities, of the taxpayer and of the ratepayer, upon a more equitable basis. It is common knowledge that during the past ten years the proportion of educational expenditure borne by the Treasury has diminished, while the proportion borne by the ratepayer has steadily increased. In 1005–6 the State Grants were to the rates in the following proportions: Grants, 53.9 per cent.; rates, 46.1 per cent. In 1915–16 they stood: Grants, 46.5 per cent.: rates, 53.5 per cent. Thus, in these ten years the relative proportions have been almost exactly exchanged. In the London area the proportion of State contribution has fallen as low as 31 per cent, in 1915–16 of the total expenditure incurred on education by the authority. I do not think you need wonder if the ratepayer—and every countryman of mine, however insensitive upon other matters, upon the subject of the rates becomes as sensitive as a lyric poet—feels that if he is to be invited to bear any further educational burden, a higher contribution should be made by the State. The Committee will remember that the present Prime Minister (as Chancellor at the Exchequer), appointed, in 1912, a Departmental Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir John Kemp, to report on the changes which had taken place in Imperial and local taxation, and to make proposals, and that Committee presented, in 1914, a Report which, if it is not presumption of me to say so, is a model of excellence in its survey of a complicated state of facts and in the skill with which all the relevant considerations were focussed for the purpose of Parliamentary action
  Commander. WEDGWOOD: A Departmental Committee without a single Member of Parliament on it?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and gallant Member has forgotten the usual courtesy expected on these occasions, and I must distinctly ask him to make no more of these interruptions.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Mr. Whitley, having been called to order in a most extraordinary way for making interruptions—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
  The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fisher.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Mr. Whitley, I must ask to be allowed to make an explanation.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to make an explanation. Mr. Fisher.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: I am not the first person who has interrupted.
  The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fisher.
  Mr. FISHER: With certain modifications, I have adopted the recommendations of that Committee as the basis of my present proposals. I will first indicate the respects in which I have followd that Committee, and then those in which I have taken a different turn. First of all, we desire, as the Departmental Committee desired, to find some better principle of partnership between the State and local authorities than that which has hitherto prevailed. We do not admire, nor wish to retain, a system under which a fixed contribution is made by the State to meet a growing burden, but we desire to replace it by a system under which, as the burden increases, so will the State contribution increase. We proposed a formula for automatic expansion of Grant to follow upon and keep pace with expansion of the cost of education. Next we desire, as Sir John Kemp's Committee desired, to make the State contribution dependent, not merely upon the expenditure of each area, but also upon two other factors—the size of the area's educational task, and the ability of the area to discharge this task. We measure that task, as did Sir John Kemp's Committee, by the average number of children in the elementary schools. We measure the ability of the area, again as they did, by the assessable value. The more populous an area is, and the poorer the produce of its rate, the more will it benefit under our proposal. In all these
  1900
  respects we have merely followed the recommendations of Sir John Kemp's Committee.
  I now come to one point in which we have departed from them. In that portion of the Grant which varies with, and expands with, an area's expenditure, they proposed that all expenditure should rank alike, and that the proportion covered by the Grant should be 40 per cent. We propose that all expenditure shall not rank alike. We distinguish between the salaries of teachers and all other expenditure. To the salaries of teachers we shall contribute 60 per cent.; to all other expenditure we shall contribute 20 per cent. Since the salaries of the teachers account for about two-thirds of the whole expenditure it will be seen that we have upon this point amended Sir John Kemp's formula in a sense favourable to the education authorities. I now come to the formula itself. The detailed workings of this will be explained in a White Paper, which I hope will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow. There was once a Prince of the North Country who, in circumstances differing from those in which the Committee now finds itself, was compelled to embrace the Dragon, whereupon the creature suddenly divested itself of Its unprepossessing exterior, and assumed the authentic form of a delicious princess. The formula which I wish to impress upon the affections of the Committee is perhaps somewhat forbidding on first appearance, but closer inspection will reveal manifold attractions. I will now introduce it. Thirty-six shillings per child in average attendance, minus the, produce of a 7d. rate, pins three-fifths of the salary expenditure, and plus one-fifth of the other net expenditure. Well, now, if we translate this from arithmetic into English, it means that more Grant will be paid to the poor authority than to the rich authority, more to the generous authority than to the niggardly authority, more to the authority which believes in fish and blood than to the authority which puts its trust in bricks and mortar.
  Let me respectfully analyse the formula. We find that it consist of a rate element and of an expenditure element. The point which I wish to impress upon Members of the Committee is that the rate factor in the formula is calculated to produce a very powerful effect. Let me illustrate the point. A 1d. rate taken in relation with the number of children

  1901
  under education in the public elementary schools works out upon the average over the whole country at something like 3s. per child. There arc, however, some districts so poor that a 1d. rate works out at 2s. per child, while others again are so affluent that it works out at 5s. per child. These figures are not extreme figures. I take them for the purposes of illustration. Under the operation of our formula the poorer of these two contrasted districts, the 2s. district, will get 21s. more for each child in attendance than the richer area. That is a very strong differentiation, but it is justified, not only on grounds of financial equity, but upon the most vital interests of educational progress. I think it is not sufficiently realised—I certainly did not realise it until I was able to take a synoptic view—how very unequal are the educational facilities of this country as between area and area. There are some districts, I might even say there are some counties, which are years behind the more progressive parts of England, so that a child of poor parents who has the misfortune to be educated in these areas or counties has no real chance as compared with the child whoso parents dwell in the area of a progressive authority. Though this neglect is often due to human factors—to landlords, farmers, and others who do not believe in education—yet it is in the main possible to establish a very close co-relation between educational backwardness and a low assessable value. The primary condition of a sound scheme of elementary educational finance, therefore, is to make adequate and ample provision for these financial disparities.
  I pass to the second factor of the formula, the factor which is based on expenditure. Here I may be asked why, seeing that the incidence of loan charges is extremely uneven as between authorities, I do not propose that the Treasury contribution to these charges should be higher and the contribution to salaries lower. My answer to that is twofold: first, that the Salary Bill is the great cost factor with which the local education authority has to deal, and it will, therefore, help local authorities more effectually by paying even one-fifth of their salary expenditure than by defraying the loan charges. Secondly, we wish to give a direct encouragement to the improvement of salaries, and to indicate, by the high percentage of the Treasury contribution to be attached to this
  1902
  item of the account, the great interest which we have in the improvement of the financial position of the teacher.
  5.0 P.M.
  Although I have for convenience of exposition dealt separately with these two factors, the rate factor and the expenditure factor, yet the formula in its working will be a single whole. Add together 36s. for every child in average attendance, the three-fifths of the expenditure on salaries, and the one-fifth of the rest of the expenditure; deduct from this total the produce of a 7d. rate, and you get the amount of the State contribution to the expenses of ordinary elementary education in an area. If anybody reckons out the cost of applying that formula throughout the country, he will find that it amounts to something more than £15,000,000. We do not propose at the present time to interfere with any of the existing Grants; and we do not intend to add over £15,000,000 of new money to the existing Grants. What we propose is that in all those areas where the existing Grants fall short of the sum which will be reached by our formula to make the supplementary Grant on top of the existing Grants so as to bring them up to the amount ascertained by our formula. The difference between the existing Grants and the total sum reckoned according to the formula is £3,420,000, and that is the amount of the new money for which we are asking in the Supplementary Estimate under Subhead C 8. Furthermore, we impose both a minimum limit and a maximum limit to the total amount of State aid which is payable to an authority. If there is any area—and there will be none this year, there may be one or two next year —where, even after payment of a supplementary Grant, the State contribution will be less than 40 per cent, of the cost of elementary education in that area, we shall be prepared, on one condition, to make up the State contribution to 10 per cent. The condition is that the area shall itself be raising a rate of at least 1s. in the pound. If the area does not make that amount of effort we shall not be concerned to go out of our way to give extra assistance beyond its calculated share of the supplementary Grant. We have a similar proposal as to the maximum limit. So long as an area is raising a rate of at least 1s. in the £ it may receive whatever share of the supplementary Grant it is entitled to under our

  1903
  formula, but if it is not raising a rate of at least 1s. then we shall not pay a supplementary Grant to it beyond a certain limit. That limit is the amount which would bring the State contribution up to two-thirds of the cost of education in that area. To put it in another way, the State will not in any area bear more than two-thirds of the total cost of education unless the area is itself making a fair effort to bear the burden represented by at least a rate of 1s. in the £. I have now explained the principles upon which we shall distribute the new money for elementary education, and the minimum and maximum limits to be applied to the new money in each area.
  I pass on to educational and administrative conditions to be attached to the Grant. In the Regulations we take powers before paying the Grant in any new year to review the provision made for elementary education by the authorities, and to consider its adequacy and efficiency in relation not only to the local needs and circumstances, but also to the development of a satisfactory system of elementary education, including the establishment of the teaching service on a sound basis throughout the country. In particular, we give notice that we intend to have regard, among other things, to the provision made in the area as a whole for the following objects: Firstly, for maintaining an adequate and suitable staff of teachers; secondly, for securing the progress of the older scholars by means of central schools, or otherwise; thirdly, we shall have regard to the provision made in the area as a whole for the teaching of handicraft, cookery, gardening, and other special subjects; and fourthly, to the efficiency with which the law of school attendance is administered. If the Board are not satisfied on any of these points they may, after the first year, withhold or reduce the Grant, and if the amount so withheld or reduced is more than 1s. per unit of average attendance they will present a Report on the subject to both Houses of Parliament.
  One other observation may be permitted on the proposed new Grant for elementary education. While we intend to give a direct inducement for the payment of adequate salaries, and while we propose also to attach certain general conditions to the Grant, we do not contemplate any minute interference
  1904
  with the local authorities. We have not earmarked part of the Grant for this purpose or for that. We feel that the authority which has the responsibility of administering the Education Act in the country should have reasonable latitude as to its expenditure. We do not, therefore, propose to prescribe a definite salary scale for the authorities. But I am greatly dissatisfied with the existing variety of scales, which go far beyond any variety which can properly be considered as reflecting local conditions, and since the principles which should govern salary scales are a matter of some complexity, I am proposing to invite members of the several interests concerned to help me to explore it. There is, however, one exception in this policy of latitude to which I must advert. Our intention is to ask the local education authorities to conform to a schedule of minimum salaries for certificated and uncertificated teachers. I claim, then, for the proposed new Grant for elementary education that it will provide a more equitable adjustment between local and central expenditure, that it will enable better salaries to be paid to the teachers, that its incidence will be equitable as between rich districts and poor districts, and that, being expansive and responsive, it will act as a powerful and perpetual lever for educational reform. I may add that it will place the Board and Parliament in a better position to undertake the very necessary work of consolidating the different Grants for elementary education, and placing the whole finance of elementary education for the first time on a scientific basis.
  I next come to the second item in the additional Estimates—the Grant of £433,500 for secondary education. The secondary schools are the key of the situation. Our elementary teachers must be trained in secondary schools; our professional men, our university students, our leaders of industry and commerce, should have, if possible, a full secondary school education. I really regard as one of the weakest points of our education system that so small a proportion of our population proceeds to the secondary school and that so small a proportion of those students who enter a secondary school are able to stay for a full period. If we desire, as I submit we should desire, this secondary education for all boys and girls in this country who are capable of profiting by it we must look far outside the

  1905
  orbit of our public schools. We must look to the public schools which are aided or provided by public authorities. In these schools the fees are low and there is, thanks to a regulation which we owe to the right hon. Member for North Monmouthshire (Mr. McKenna), a large number of free places reserved for boys and girls who have been in public elementary schools. About 34 per cent, of all the pupils in the secondary schools on the 31st January, 1914, were ex-public elementary scholars holding free places, another 2 per cent, hold scholarships, and 65 per cent, of the pupils had previously attended public elementary schools. I think it will be well to notice that although our highway from the public elementary school to the university still needs considerable improvement it is very much the widest highway of any of the great European countries. But even with low fees and free places it has proved so far impossible to keep the majority of children in school up to the age of sixteen. They are leaving all the time, some at twelve, others at thirteen, others at fourteen and fifteen. The school is like a kaleidoscope, the pieces suddenly changing shape, appearing and disappearing. How can there be any suitable corporate life, any completely effective scheme of instruction under conditions so depressing as those?
  There are other palpable defects in our system. The calling of a secondary schoolmaster in a State-aided or State-provided school has yet to be made reasonably attractive to a really able man. At present the secondary school teacher is ill paid. He receives no pension, and yet his is a profession which ought to compete on equal terms for ability with the First Class of the Civil Service. In no advanced country but England will you find so large a proportion of secondary school teachers without a university degree. In no country is the gulf between the career of the secondary school teacher and the career of the university school teacher so clearly marked. Somehow or other we must attract able men into this branch of the profession, and provide them with a sufficient number of pupils able to receive a full secondary school education. The Grant which has been placed upon the Supplementary Estimates will go some way towards remedying these admitted deficiencies. It will enable the secondary school teachers to receive better salaries; it will enable them to contribute to a pension fund; a
  1906
  part of the money no doubt will be expended in improving equipment. It must also be remembered that while the cost of secondary education has increased, and is still increasing, the scale of the Board's Grants, which was fixed in 1907, has been stationary, so that the increased cost has either fallen upon the rates, or upon the parents, or has not been met at all. This sum, which is assigned in the additional estimates for secondary schools is not like the contribution to elementary education, an area grant. It will be distributed among the secondary schools according to the principle which is already in adoption. There are, as the Committee is aware, some schools which earn a full Grant of £5 per pupil. There are others— forty-eight in England and one in Wales— which earn Grant upon the lower scale, of £2 per pupil. We propose to raise the Grants made to both types of school by £2. We believe that this will be the least invidious way of helping the secondary schools, and, what is more important, the most effective way of securing for the children attending the State-aided secondary schools of the country a better education.
  It must not. however, be thought that the secondary schools in this country can be put upon a satisfactory basis merely through the operation of such an additional Grant as I have described. That Grant, indeed, if applied solely to the salaries of the secondary school teachers would raise them by about 14 per cent., and, as I have said, this Grant, when supplemented by a Pension Act for secondary school teachers, the Bill for which I hope shortly to introduce, will provide a very substantial improvement in the teachers' position. The Board have felt for some time past that the provision for the organisation of advanced work in those secondary schools which retain a proportion of pupils up to the age of eighteen is unsatisfactory. We think that further assistance should be given to enable secondary schools to provide advanced courses so planned as to lead up to a standard such as is required for entering upon an Honours course at the university or an institution of university rank. Accordingly, in our new Regulations, we provide that assistance should be given to organised courses of advanced instruction recognised by the Board. To schools establishing such recognised courses we propose to make Grants not exceeding £400; and I think it worth while

  1907
  to point out that, among the conditions attached to these Grants is a stipulation that the Board must be satisfied that sufficient provision is made in the school for assistance to poor children taking the courses. The provision of these advanced courses will materially improve the highway to the universities, and will enable secondary schools to be classified according to the special provision made either for classical studies, or for the modern humanities or for science, so that there may be in every considerable area an inexpensive secondary school with a large number of free places offering the higher forms of secondary teaching in each of the recognised branches of secondary school education.
  We hope also to deal with another grave defect in our present scheme of secondary school life. I allude to the great multiplicity of examinations. I am informed that there are no less than one hundred separate examinations for which boys in a secondary school may, at one time or another, desire to prepare. Every profession frames its own conditions of entrance without much regard to the general educational convenience of the country. I need not dilate upon the evils which ensue from this distracting tangle of examinations. The Board, for some time past, has realised that the problem needs handling, and we have good hopes, with the assistance of the Teachers' Registration Council, and the co-operation, which I am confident we shall obtain, of the professional bodies, of relieving our schools from this incubus. I think the Committee will agree with me that if we are successful in attaining this object, a great measure of educational improvement will be effected at a very small cost.
  It has been suggested to me that secondary school education should be free, and the establishment of a system of free secondary education is an ideal with which I have very great sympathy. It may be thought that the simplest way of attaining this object would be to abolish all fees in secondary schools. Well, that would mean that if the schools were to go on even at their present level of efficiency, someone—and I suppose the someone would be the State—would have to find a revenue of about £1,000,000 a year, which would be struck off by this stroke of the pen. I doubt myself whether there are many reforms worth having
  1908
  which can be achieved by a stroke of the pen, and in the present instance I think that the assumed advantages of this reform would be more than counterbalanced by administrative and educational difficulties. It must be remembered that a great part, and not by any means the least valuable part, of secondary education is supplied by schools provided or completely controlled by local education authorities, and a part by governing bodies which are only loosely connected with them at all, so that the administrative and financial operation of freeing secondary schools would not only be much more complicated than is generally realised, but would certainly raise highly controversial questions.
  I am fully aware of the imperfections of the existing system of financing secondary education and I hope to effect a substantial improvement in it, though, as Sir John Kempe's Committee realised, it is not, at present at any rate, susceptible to treatment by a formula analogous to that which I have adopted in the finance of elementary education. I have little doubt that, in spite of the considerable provision of free places and scholarships which is already available, further assistance, both from the central and from the local authority, is required to place the advantages of secondary education within the reach of all children who are able to profit by it. I think we should do well, in the first instance, to concentrate on the organisation of a better system of maintenance allowances, especially in the upper parts of our secondary schools. After all, it is important that in our secondary schools the son of the manufacturer, the son of the foreman, and the son of the workman should be educated side by side. We do not want a caste system in education. We want social fusion, and the best way of securing social fusion in the secondary schools is to have a system under which well-to-do parents contribute their fees, and help to support the school, while the children of poorer parents are assisted, and liberally assisted, by free places and maintenance allowances.
  I have now concluded the observations which are directly suggested by the Estimates themselves. I have indicated the scope of the improvements which these additional moneys, should the House think fit to vote them, will enable us to carry out in the sphere of public education. I have shown how we may discard an obsolete system of finance as between

  1909
  central and local authorities; how we may prepare the way for a consolidation of elementary school Grants; how we may remedy the low and uneven remuneration of the teaching profession in its elementary and secondary branches; and how the secondary schools of this country may be improved by the granting of more liberal salaries to the teachers, by the introduction of a scheme of pensions, by maintenance allowances for the encouragement of more promising pupils, by the development of advanced courses, by a system of classification, and by the delivery of teachers and scholars from the excessive and distracting demands of external examinations. But great as these improvements will be, much more remains to be done if our system is to be made adequate to the future needs of the nation.
  I do not propose at this moment—perhaps it would be hardly in order—to invite the House to consider in any detail the plan of educational reform of -which these additional Grants constitute an instalment. What this House and this country are, I believe, really anxious to know is, in the first place, whether the Government is seriously resolved to undertake the solution of the educational, administrative, and financial problems involved in any attempt to remedy these admitted defects; and, in the second place, whether this attempt will be made systematically and comprehensively on a well-considered plan. On the first point, I say with confidence that I have every reason to believe that his Majesty's Government is in earnest in this matter. The mere fact that in the middle of a great War, when the finances of this country are strained to the uttermost, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is willing to find nearly four millions of additional money for the development of public education is, I think, a sufficient indication that the Government mean business. As regards the second point, I can assure the House that all the problems of public education are being considered in relation to one another, and that though in order of time some reforms must necessarily precede others, they are not being dealt with in a fragmentary or opportunist manner. In my opinion the expenditure of the additional money included in the Supplementary Estimate will not return full value unless it is followed up by development in many other directions.
  1910
  Since I came to the Board of Education I have had the advantage of much consultation with men representing the most diverse interests both educational and industrial, and I do not think I am overconfident in saying that I do see my way clear to a really systematic and many-sided development of the organism of public education. The House will, of course, realise that the Estimates and Supplementary Estimates only provide funds which can be expended in the current financial year. I hope that next year's Estimate may make provision for such future developments as can be made in the ordinary course of administration; but it is also true that for other developments—and those perhaps of the greatest importance—legislation will be necessary. I should not be in order in now referring to the legislative proposals which I hope to have an opportunity of submitting to the House, and it would, I believe, be more convenient that I should reserve for that occasion any attempt to explain the details of my plan. I may, however, be permitted to mention in advance one or two of the main lines upon which I hope to proceed.
  I shall not here enlarge upon the problem of the universities, not from any failure to appreciate the urgent need for promoting research and the higher forms of learning in this country, but because it would be more convenient to consider this aspect of the problem in connection with the financial needs of the universities, which will only be fully disclosed at the conclusion of the War. But I may perhaps be permitted to say that no scheme of university development would in my opinion be satisfactory which did not provide and did not make ample provision for the prosecution of free and independent post-graduate research, and also a liberal provision of scholarships to be held at the universities of this country. The object which wo are all striving to attain is very simple. We do not want to waste a single child. We desire that every child in the country should receive the form of education most adapted to fashion its qualities to the highest use. This will mean that every type and grade of school in the country must be properly co-ordinated. It will mean that the county authorities, either separately or combined together in provincial committees should make complete and progressive schemes for education in their respective areas, so that adequate and systematic provision may be made

  1911
  not only for the elementary but also for technical, commercial, and secondary education of the children in the district. But supposing these estimates are carried, they will carry us some way in this direction, but they will not carry us the whole way. Our estimates introduce the principle of the area grant, and they attach to it general conditions, one of which is the due provision of higher education, but they do not compel local education authorities to make this provision. That will require legislation. We think that the time has now come when the country should no longer be content to leave so important a matter as the co-ordination of all forms of education in a particular area to the discretion of the local authority, and no Education Bill would be really-satisfactory which did not require the committees of the county councils and county boroughs to submit schemes to the Board both for secondary and elementary education. That is one direction in which I look for improvements.
  Another question which is to be considered is the development of our country schools. The critics of our rural education have often complained, and with some justice, that the fare provided in our village schools is not altogether suited to the needs of country children. It must of course be remembered that about 75 per cent of the children educated in our village schools ultimately earn their livelihood in the towns, so that a wholly rural education would be even more inappropriate than education which had no rural bias. Still I have always felt that in spite of our recent improvement, and there have been many, we continue to make too little differentiation between our rural and urban education, and I have every hope that, with the co-operation of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture improvements may be introduced into the education of country children calculated to mould a taste for country life, an interest in all the common sights and scenes of the countryside, and an intelligent use of all its various opportunities.
  There is another question. We have made great strides in our educational methods during the last fifteen years, but I think that it is generally admitted that our provision for very young children, as also our provision for the children in the upper standards of elementary schools is not altogether satisfactory, and I propose to invoke the aid of Parliament to em-
  1912
  power local education authorities to establish nursery schools for children under the age of five, and in course of time I hope that the provision of such institutions will be sufficiently ample to enable us to proceed a step further in the direction of releasing young children from the obligation of attending the formal instruction in a public elementary school. At the other end of the scale a good deal may be done, and should be done, to diversify and improve the work of the upper standards of our elementary schools, and to promote the growth of central schools. In general, it may be assumed that a knowledge of the three R's is satisfactorily rooted and established by the twelfth year, and that during the two final years of school life the diet should be richer and more varied. There should be more handwork for the boys, more housecraft for the girls, and more literary and inspiring education for both. Such improvements, however, require no legislation, and can be effected with a minimum of cost by a better direction of educational effort. It would, however, be necessary so to amend the law of school attendance as to secure that for every boy and girl in the country a full period of school instruction until the fourteenth year.
  The changes which I have briefly outlined would give to our present system an elasticity and strength which it does not at present possess, but I have still to touch upon the gravest deficiency in our educational arrangements. I allude to the inadequate provision for the intellectual, moral, and physical discipline of young persons during the period of adolescence. This is no new matter. My predecessor, Mr Joseph Pease, whose pioneer labours in the field of educational reform I wish gratefully and sincerely to acknowledge, made an extended allusion to this subject when introducing the Estimates, and there are some important recommendations contained in the Report of the Departmental Committee presided ever by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Herbert Lewis). What, Sir, is our present system? We turn children out into the world at the age of 12, 13, and 14, just at the moment when their powers of intelligent and independent receptivity are first aroused, and their schooling should be beginning to bear fruit. Thenceforward the child is the prey of

  1913
  accident. It is true that a small minority of the young persons put in an appearance at our evening schools, and though the results obtained from evening schools are well worth having they are not sufficient. The number who benefit is comparatively small, the attendance is spasmodic and irregular, and all experience tends to show that after a hard day's work young people are too fatigued to receive the full measure of advantage from evening classes.
  I do not disregard other agencies. There are the Boy Scouts, an invaluable organisation, now comprising 200,000 members. There is the Church Lads Brigade, and there are, of course, girls' and boys' clubs scattered up and down the country, all attempting, within the modest measure of their powers, to cope with this problem. In certain of our great industrial works schools have been established by the intelligent benevolence and self-interest of individual employers. These agencies are all very valuable, and in my eyes they are all the more valuable because they are voluntary, but their operation is partial, and they are not sufficient to fix and secure the best results of elementary training in the great mass of the people.
  I do not know whether hon. Members happen to have read a book which appeared some years ago, entitled "Across the Bridges," written by Mr. Paterson. It is a study of life in South London, and it contains a remarkable description of the gradual degeneracy in the mind, character, and taste which comes over the children of South London after the conclusion of their school life. At the opposite end I have been impressed by the fact that boys who have been stirred up at the age of sixteen or seventeen to attend the technological classes attached to our new universities in the North of England have so lost the habit of intellectual activity as to clog and impede the efficient working of the college. May I put the matter in another light? I would submit that the country docs not get full value out of its elementary schools because so much of the training and instruction is subsequently lost; and it does not get full value out of its higher technical institute and agricultural colleges because so many of the students who attend these classes have learnt so little and forgotten so much since their school life came to an abrupt close some years ago.
  1914
  It is clear that the country must do something to remedy this glaring defect in our educational system. I do not conceal from myself that any scheme of continued education will be exposed to cross-currents of criticism. It will not be easy to establish a system at once sufficiently comprehensive and sufficiently elastic to give the young people of this country what we all desire that they should have without an undue dislocation of our industrial system. Yet this is what must be done if the State is to reap the full measure of advantage which a system of public education can afford. What is it that we desire, in a broad way, for our people? That they should be good citizens, reverent and dutiful, sound in mind and body, skilled in the practice of their several avocations, and capable of turning their leisure to a rational use. And what do we sea? Our standard of physique as a nation is deplorably below the standard which a great people should set before them. Our common taste in amusement, though greatly improved, is still, in the main, rude and uncultured. We have lost, and arc only now slowly beginning to recapture, some of that general taste in music, the most universal of the Arts, which was long ago a special note of our English civilisation, but which now has been banished to the mountains and valleys of Wales. Our aptitude for technological studies is great, but only half developed, and though we are an extremely clever nation when we choose to use our brains, we are only just, beginning to realise that the capital of the country does not consist in cash or paper, but in the brains and bodies of the people. It is time that all this was changed. Economy is in the air. We are told to economise in our expenditure and in our foodstuffs. I suggest that we should economise in the human capital of the country, our most precious possession, which we have too long neglected. I should not recommend any measures which would have the effect of disturbing the labour market during the War. I fully realise the difficulties of agriculture and of industry and am not anxious to perplex the business calculations either of those who employ or of those who are employed, but I hope that Parliament may see its way at an early date to assent to a measure which will give effect to the general principles which I have endeavoured to describe, so that the foundations may be laid for a fabric of national

  1915
  education worthy of the genius and heroism of our people and a fitting monument of the great impulse which is animating the whole nation during the War.
  Mr. McKENNA: The cheers to which we have just listened assure me that I shall have the support of the whole Committee in offering to my right hon. Friend the warmest congratulations on the brilliant statement of educational policy which he has just addressed to us. If he will allow me to say so, he has acquired at one jump such an ease of Parliamentary style that anyone who listened to him could not help forgetting that he was addressing the House for the first time. It is ten years since it was my duty to stand at that box and to address the Committee upon the same subject. How happy is my right hon. Friend's lot compared with the one which I then endured. We lived in those days in the midst of a religious controversy. I had to conduct it as my predecessor who sits near me now (Mr. Birrell) had to conduct it, and as his predecessor also had to conduct it, and I am sure they all, as I did, most heartily loathed it. My right hon. Friend happily is now able to make a statement based on purely educational policy, without one single note or thought of religious dispute.
  I can only say that it would be impossible at this time to enter into the details of the proposals that be has made, but we shall have an opportunity of examining them more particularly as the major part of his proposals cannot be effected, as I understand them, without a Bill. I should like to say at once, however, that so far as I am concerned I shall give him my most whole-hearted support, first, in his proposal to improve the status of the teacher, next, in his proposal to introduce as I understood it, a system of day continuation classes, and, thirdly, in his proposal to raise the school age, though upon the last point I was not quite clear whether he intended to have a Bill or not.
  The War has given the whole nation a clearer and more sympathetic sense of national unity and national responsibility. The fitting equipment of the child for the battle of life is a national concern in the interest not merely of the individual, but also of the State. It requires the expenditure of money, and it requires the placing of confidence in those who have
  1916
  the control of our educational system. For my part, I shall be quite ready, both to vote for the expenditure of the necessary money and to give full confidence to the right hon. Gentleman in the execution of his policy. He has made a bold attack upon the Treasury, and I congratulate him on having found a sympathetic listener in my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Bonar Law). It is not long since I myself occupied the same office, and I am happy to remember that whilst I was there I was, at any rate, in part able to give sanction to some of the proposals which have now come before us. I refer more particularly to the Grant in respect of technical instruction. My right hon. Friend says that economy is in the air. There are those who say that it is to be found nowhere else. But for my part I do not look upon the expenditure on education as uneconomical expenditure, and I cannot help thinking that most, if not all, of my hon. Friends who have placed upon the Paper a Resolution calling attention to the need for economy in expenditure will agree with me that these three and a half million pounds represent probably as well-spent money as this House could vote.
  Mr. HOGGE: It depends how it is spent.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. McKENNA: I heard for the first time this afternoon the details of my right hon. Friend's formula, but very possibly because of my past experience at the Board I was able to appreciate what that formula means. The additional money is to be spent, as I understand it, in meeting the formula of an area Grant of 36s. per child, minus the product of a 7d. rate, plus 60 per cent, of the salary bill, plus 20 per cent. of the balance of educational expenditure. I thought my right hon. Friend explained very completely what the effect will be, of allocating expenditure in that way. For my own part, I believe it will have a very serious effect in improving the quality of the teaching. I agree with him in believing that there is no way of securing a sound system of education in this country other than by the better recognition of the status of the teacher. The Grant, as he proposes it, has the further effect of distributing the cost of education more evenly as between rich and poor districts.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Is my right hon. Friend referring to the revaluations of the country districts which arc not fully assessed?
  Mr. McKENNA: That would be an addition to the proposal, but it does not affect the result of my right hon. Friend's proposal as it relates to things as they are now. Taking the financial situation as it stands at this moment, the effect of the proposal, as I understand it—I only heard of it for the first time this afternoon—will be to give a larger amount to the poorer districts, which, as a rule, are not only poor in respect of their rateable value, but are rich in respect of the number of their children. Consequently the giving of the Grant of 36s. per child and deducting from it the product of the 7d. rate will give a far larger amount in the case of the poor, much-peopled districts in comparison with the rich and scantily populated areas. I therefore welcome, both on the ground of the distribution of the Grant and the direction which the Grant gives to the educational tendency, most warmly the proposals which my right hon. Friend has made. Of course, we shall have a better opportunity for examining them when we can see them more in detail. I hope I may be allowed to conclude with congratulations to my right hon. Friend upon the statement he has made.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I think I ought to say a word or two to the Committee before the general discussion proceeds. I gathered that in a considerable portion of the latter part of the speech of the Minister for Education he was referring to proposals which can only be carried into effect by legislation. I thought, in all the circumstances, that it would be pedantic for me to interrupt on such an occasion and to in any way minimise the very interesting speech which the Minister for Education was making. But, of course, it is well known that in Committee it is not permissible for us to discuss legislative proposals. The matter having been opened, the Chair is in rather a difficult position. I can only appeal to hon. Members in the discussion which will now take place as far as they possibly can to give as little possible occasion for intervention from the Chair.
  Mr. LOUGH: On a point of Order. I should like to ask whether the whole amount of the proposed Vote is included
  1918
  in the Resolution that has been proposed to the Committee, including the £400,000 and more which applies to these now legislative proposals, and if it is not in order for us to pass a Vote in this way that will cover these new proposals?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know exactly how this Vote is allocated.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that we are entitled to discuss on the Vote for Education now the Supplementary Estimate of which the President of the-Board has spoken. In that Supplementary Estimate there is included a sum of £3,400,000 as a Grant for the salaries of elementary teachers and a further Grant of £400,000 for the salaries of secondary school teachers. In these circumstances, is it not necessary to dispense with the ruling of the Chair in order to deal with the subject at all?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I had better read the Question again, which will answer the question of the hon. Member. The Question is
  "That a sum, not exceeding: £13,565,780 (including a Supplementary sum of £3,856,000), 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, 1918, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and for the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I desire to add my congratulations to those that have been offered by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. McKenna) to the President to the Board of Education for his interesting and comprehensive speech in bringing these Estimates before the Committee. Your ruling, Mr. Maclean, makes it a little difficult for those who desire to speak on this subject to limit their observations to certain portions only of the President's address. My right hon. Friend is the seventh President of the Board of Education who has been appointed since January, 1906, when I first entered this House. I am sure I am saying nothing to which any one of his predecessors—one of whom I see opposite at the present moment—will take exception, if I add that he is the first to possess those special and distinct qualifications which should be associated with the responsible position to

  1919
  which he has been called. What those qualifications are everyone will know who is familiar with his distinguished academic career. I desire, therefore, to congratulate not only him, but also the House of Commons and all who are interested in education, upon his appointment to this office at this critical period in our national history.
  The President has asked for a very large additional sum for the purposes of elementary and secondary education. Notwithstanding the enormous cost of the War in which we are engaged, I feel certain that that sum will be freely and gladly granted. The President has lucidly explained the objects for which these sums of money arc to be employed. I desire to refer very briefly to sonic of them, although I am afraid that the decision of the Deputy-Chairman of Committees will necessarily limit what I might have had to say. My purpose in rising on this occasion is by no means to criticise the President's proposals, but rather to emphasise them. If it should seem that I do not speak of the probable results with the same confidence and enthusiasm as the President has spoken of them, I hope the Committee will ascribe the difference to the difference in our ages and to the experience of years as to the vanity of all human anticipations. I am convinced that there is a general agreement at the present time that our educational machinery needs development and, in some directions, to be improved. That is necessary, if only better to adapt it to our present needs, some of which, during the progress of the War, have been brought prominently under our notice. We must not, however, exaggerate our defects. I am glad to say that I have not been among those who on every available occasion have taken pains to compare unfavourably our educational system with that of other countries, and especially with that of Germany. I was very glad to find that the President did not adopt that attitude. The results of our education have certainly not failed us in the hour of our need. The President pointed out that these results could not have been obtained in a people wholly uneducated. I venture to say something more, that these results could not have been obtained in a people that had been ill-educated. I have frequently referred here and elsewhere to some of the distin-
  1920
  guishing features of our system of education, features that have proved of the greatest possible help to us in this world War. I need scarcely repeat what the President has said, that our boys fighting at the front at the present time, many of whom are fresh from schools and colleges, have shown by their conduct the value of the training they have therein received. They have exhibited qualities of endurance, courage, good behaviour and intelligence, of which this country has reason to be proud. Further, our men of science, trained in our universities and in our technical schools, have proved beyond question their inventive capacity and their ability successfully to grapple with the difficult and special problems that have been submitted to them for solution.
  I should like also to be allowed to say a word about the teachers. I find it difficult to speak too highly of their enthusiasm or of the sarifiees which they have made, and are making, in the discharge of the responsible duties connected with their work, for which, as the President, I am glad to say has so well pointed out, they are in many cases wholly inadequately recompensed. It is too often forgotten that sound education is not as much a question of costly buildings, or of expensive equipment, or of staffs of good inspectors or officials, as a question of good teachers. If we arc to have good teachers, they must be well paid; they must be free from pecuniary anxieties, and the profession to which they belong ought to be made more attractive than it is at present. After the War it is quite certain that more teachers will be needed for the better staffing of our schools, and that teachers will be required with new qualifications to discharge new duties, which will demand a long and protracted education. I was very glad to find that the question of the supply of a sufficient number of well-qualified teachers should be regarded by the President as the first charge on the large Votes for which he has asked.
  The President referred to a good many other subjects, and I could almost wish that he had been able to devote a larger amount of his interesting speech to the proposals contained in his concluding remarks than he was able to do. I am quite convinced that the time has come when it is essential, in the best interests of the country, and in order that we may raise

  1921
  the general level of education among all classes of the community, that the leaving age of children from our elementary schools should be raised; and I think I may inform the President that as regards this question, I believe there is at present general agreement. But if the teaching of our schools is to be made of permanent value to the children therein educated, it will not be enough that the school age should be raised; and I consider it essential that it should be raised equally in rural as well as in urban districts. But I say that alone will not be enough, and I am very glad to be referred in the concluding remarks of his address to other means which may have to be adopted, and for which legislation will be necessary. I have frequently pointed out, as the result of my own experience, extending over very many years, that a large proportion of the young people who join our evening technical classes at the age of sixteen or seventeen or later, enter those classes without the necessary preliminary knowledge to enable them to reap the full advantages, of the theoretical and practical teaching which is now so liberally provided. Many have forgotten much of what they have learnt at school, and the highly-qualified teachers appointed to give technological, scientific and trade instruction have very often to repeat the lessons of the elementary school master. Many remedies for this state of things have been suggested and I am sorry to say, nearly all have failed, and I am convinced, therefore, that the only available remedy is the further encouragement of attendance at continuation schools. I had hoped that that might be possible by voluntary effort, but we know our voluntary efforts do not always bring about the results we hope, and I am sure the Food Controller would confirm me in this opinion. I have, therefore, very reluctantly come to the conclusion that other measures will have to be adopted, including some degree of compulsion. I am not going to speak now, because it would be out of place, of the difficulties which will be associated with any scheme of compulsion, however carefully it may be prepared. Those difficulties we shall have to consider when the Bill for bringing in a large system of obligatory continuation schools is before the House. But even if we had a better system of attendance at continuation schools than now exists, still other steps would have to be taken in order that all qualified children should
  1922
  have an opportunity, which I think they should have, of reaping the full advantages of higher education. We must widen the avenue along which children may pass through all intermediate stages to the university and to the higher technical school It is a mere truism to point out that one of the great assets of any country is the brain power of its citizens, and, fortunately, brain power is not confined to any one particular class. Full opportunities, therefore, should be afforded for the cultivation of any special form of ability wherever it may be found. Of course, the difficulty is to know how to find it.
  This brings me to another matter which comes within the range of the subjects which we are now permitted to consider. I am quite certain that if these special abilities are to be discovered among the hundreds of thousands of children in our elementary and other schools, and if we are to select from them those who are qualified to receive a university education and who may gain more than they might lose by such an education—for you must always remember what a distinguished American essayist said, that "one of the benefits of college education is to show a boy its little avail"—then the teacher must be freer to give more personal and individual attention to each one of his pupils than is at present possible. There are other valid reasons why the teacher should be brought into closer relationship with his pupils; and if this personal relationship is to be established it is essential that the size of the classes in our elementary schools should be reduced—in other words, that the number of teachers attached to each separate school must be increased. This, then, is one of the reasons why it is necessary that further funds from the Exchequer should be granted.
  There is no doubt that the developments outlined in the earlier part of the President's speech, if in full operation, would demand very large funds from the Exchequer. How much they would demand we do not know, and I here want to make a suggestion to the Board. The statistics furnished by the Board of Education, some of which have been adduced in the President's speech, are necessarily incomplete. They generally leave out of account the number of children who are in attendance at our public, other endowed, our boarding, and our private schools. It would be useful if the Board would make

  1923
  a thorough survey of the whole field of education, and supply figures showing the number of children in those schools, and also the number of students in our universities, in the medical schools attached to our hospitals, in our higher technical institutions, and in all other institutions which are not State-aided. Not many days ago, before the Recess, I asked for a Return of these figures, and the answer I received was not very satisfactory, because the figures are not at present available, and consequently any statement which could be made as to the proportion of the population receiving some form of secondary or higher education can only be accepted as approximate and conjectural. In this connection I hope that the Board, in its praiseworthy endeavour to bring a larger percentage of our children under the influence of secondary education, will avoid as far as possible the temptation to destroy, or even to reduce, the number of our private schools. They have formed, and I hope they will continue to form, a special feature in our educational system, and I say this not only on account of the urgent necessity of avoiding any superfluous or unnecessary expenditure in the production of new schools, but because I attach great importance to the greater freedom in matters of instruction which can be enjoyed by teachers in those schools compared with what is possible in schools under State control. The President has, perhaps wisely, avoided any reference to this subject, as he knows as well as I do that it is not a wholly tin-controversial question.
  There is just one other matter arising out of the President's address on which I want to say a word or two. I do not propose to go into the complicated formula by which the President indicated the relative amount of State aid to local aid provided in various different areas. That is a question which would tax too far my arithmetical or mathematical ability, but it is anticipated that the proportion of State aid to that locally provided out of rates must in many, if not all; areas be somewhat increased. This, I take it, is inevitable. I note that the London County Council has forwarded a claim to 50 per cent. of the total cost of education in its area, and one of the claims of the Educational Workers' Association, whose representatives appeared as a deputation to the President only yesterday, is that 75 per cent. of the total cost of education
  1924
  should be defrayed by the national Exchequer. Of course, both these formulas are much simpler to understand than that suggested by the President. But this question arises, whether this increase,. whatever it may be, in the ratio of Government to local aid to education will not necessarily be accompanied by a tightening of the control which the State-through the Board, now exercises on the conditions of instruction and teaching in our schools. I am not complaining of any action on the part of the Board, and I was very pleased to see that the President is desirous of leaving the local authorities a considerable amount of freedom. I must own there are occasions —and, one arose not long ago—when I could wish the Board would show a little more independence than it does show. I only desire to point out a danger ahead, which I trust will be avoided. As a rule I hope the Board will see the necessity of giving, not only to local authorities, but also to managers of schools, as much liberty and freedom from external control as is consistent with the general efficiency of the teaching and the suitabillity of the schools to the districts in which they are situated. Such, liberty of action is especially necessary in dealing with technical and commercial education, but I desire, here and now, to put forward a plea on behalf of the teachers in all our schools. I am sure that the President will admit that as the standard of education in our elementary and secondary schools is gradually raised, the teacher should be permitted a larger amount of freedom in the choice of subjects, of methods of instruction, and even in deviating from the prescribed control. I notice that the President stated that increased grants mean increased codes. I have, therefore, thought that I might make this statement in view of the larger-Grants which it is proposed to give for the purpose of education from the Imperial Exchequer.
  There are many other matters to which, if time permitted and the Deputy-Chairman of Committees also permitted, I should like to have referred, particularly the questions raised in the concluding part of the interesting and exhaustive speech of my right hon. Friend, but we are told that other opportunities will be-given. I would like, however, to refer to one of those subjects, and that is the importance of further manual and scientific training in all our schools. For more

  1925
  than thirty years I have persistently urged the necessity of combining practical instruction in science and in hand-work with book-learning in our schools. To the best of my ability I have shown from many points of view the educational advantages, moral, intellectual, and economic of manual training, and now that I can no longer hope to take any active part in the modification of the curricula of our schools, it is a matter to me of great, satisfaction to find in the Final Report of the Departmental Committee on juvenile education, so ably presided over by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, strong evidence of the great value of this branch of education. I will read one or two passages from that Report. On pages 11 and 12 it is stated:—
  "The truth that for many children the best avenue to the mind is through the hands has not yet worked its complete revolution. More manual instruction of various kinds is needed both for boys and girls in every type of school."
  The Report also says:
  "for all boys, and even girls, the practical use o ools is very important."
  The Memorandum affixed to that Report, from Sir Christopher Turner, than whom no one is more qualified to speak on agricultural education, says:
  "Children must Arrive at the continuation school with their interest in manual work and nature thoroughly aroused. Manual work for all boys and girls must be developed in all our schools."
  Authoritative statements like these are very gratifying, and if effect can be given to them, I shall see the full consummation of all my earlier efforts. I would like to conclude by congratulating my right hon. Friend on the valuable proposals which he has outlined, and I feel certain that when the Bill is introduced these proposals will be accepted as an important instalment, with still more to follow, of educational reform, and as a distinct contribution to the solution of the problem of the adaptation of our national system of education to our existing and future needs.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the exhaustive and charming speech which he delivered, a speech at times really human, which is very rare in an educational speech made, in the House of Commons. I can assure him, as one who has heard twenty-three or twenty-four speeches on the subject of education, that I have never seen a bettor House. It was nearly half-full, and those who were present certainly were inter-
  1926
  ested in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I find myself thoroughly in accord With all the proposals he has made to-day, and I wish they had been made earlier for the benefit of the country. I wish they had been made years ago. The President mentioned the large sum of forty millions of money which has been spent altogether on education. I do not think the country is parsimonious in the money it grants towards education, and certainly it does not grudge these forty millions. Perhaps my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) will find fault with that statement. The question that the country asks is, "What do we get for the money, and do we get enough of the right stuff for our money?" I have had many years' experience in regard to educational matters. I am now speaking as a humble rural Member and I am thinking entirely of rural education in what I am about to say. I honestly confess that in my belief there is something wrong in our elementary education. It may be the curriculum or it may be the teacher's fault. If—and here I think I am right—often in the rural districts the teacher is at fault in the elementary school, it is hardly to be wondered at. He has been starved literally to the verge of extinction. For years he has had no hope to look forward to, and the marvel to me is that we have been able to find men to take their places in the rural elementary schools at the miserable stipends given. Nothing proves that more than when you look at the difference between the country and the town elementary schools. You get in the town elementary teacher, at all events, some glimpses of hope, some glimpses of humanity, some glimpses of association between the teacher and the class. In the country districts we are often obliged to keep men on either for pity or because we like the man himself or because we know that he will starve if he is driven out. The result is that he is kept long after he is any use, and often at a time when he is doing really more harm than good to the pupils who come under his care.
  I confess that the scope of the Estimates which the right hon Gentleman has introduced is smaller than I had hoped. I did hope they would have embraced a wider field. One of the great difficulties, and one of the reasons why our education system is faulty, is because there has been a want of continuity in the policy of the various Boards. I have seen Presidents come and go. There must have been

  1927
  seven or eight of them, and I think it would be very difficult to find the thin line of continuity running through the policy of these various Presidents. All this discourages the country in many ways. I did hope that the right hon. Gentleman to-day would have found a wider field over which to cast his net. On one point especiaily I am very disappointed. I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman takes more interest in secondary than in primary education, which is only natural. At the same time I am more interested, perhaps, in primary education, being of a more uneducated mind, and because I see more of primary education in our rural schools. I am disappointed in regard to the question of compulsory evening classes. I believe they would have been of the greatest value to boys, especially if the age is raised to fourteen. I know the difficulties, perhaps as well as the President, but they are difficulties that could be overcome. The evening classes come at a time when the boys and the girls are liable to get into mischief outside, when they are playing about or fooling around, and when they might be learning something. Compulsory evening classes would not inflict any hardship, but on the other hand they would have an excellent effect. I know that voluntary effort exists, but it is not sufficient to cope with this matter. In regard to free places in secondary schools, I am happy to say as chairman of one of the big grammar schools of England, the Chig well Grammar School, that we have found free places an unqualified success. I confess that with my reactionary Tory ideas when free places were first proposed—my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) still suffers from that—I viewed them with considerable disfavour, but we have found great advantage both for those who have the free places and for ourselves. I have nothing but unqualified praise for them. It would be difficult for hon. Members to find fault with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman except that his advances are too small, and the demands that he is making upon the nation's purse and upon legislation are too small. At all events, it is a beginning, and it is a beginning in the right direction. I wish the right hon. Gentleman God-speed in his efforts.
  Sir J. YOXALL: For many years I, like my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Lockwood) have listened to educational
  1928
  estimate Debates in this House. I would like to acknowledge the handsome way in which reference has been made to the work of education in the country districts. If the elementary schools in Essex deserve to be found fault with, as many of them do, it is due, I fear, not only to the cause which the hon. and gallant Member mentioned, that is the defective supply of efficient teachers, but it is largely due also to the control which the county council exercises over the education affairs of the county.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: It was not with the teachers so much as the class of teacher and being so underpaid that I found fault.
  Sir J. YOXALL: The Essex Secondary Education Committee are willing to do something to improve that. But the War cut down the estimates by the county councils in a way I am glad to think this Committee will not cut down the Estimates of the Board to-day. But here is my doubt about the whole situation. I fear very much that efforts will be made by local education authorities, particularly in rural areas, to get out of the duties which are supposed to be imposed upon them by the formula and the proposals of to-day. We have had a most admirable speech, lucid, interesting, informed with all the knowledge necessary for the purpose and imbued with educational enthusiasm, and we are offered for the education of this country a very considerable advance in the money provided, a sum larger, I think, than any advance which has ever been given before. And an elaborate and ingenious formula has been devised to secure that the money shall be spent efficiently and properly upon the objects which the Board of Education has in view. I am sure that the President of the Board, and this Committee too, are anxious that the money shall be spent upon those objects which we all desire to attain, but I am not so sure that the conditions outlined in the President's speech will secure that result in all cases.
  I know that the education committees of this country in every case contain some men and women earnest in well-doing in education, some men and women who will carry out their duties to the best of their abilities in spite of every obstacle placed in their path; but I know this also, that there is no education committee in this country, particularly no county education committee, and there is no county council

  1929
  in this country that has control of the education committees which does not contain a proportion, perhaps a majority—in some cases I am sure a majority, in other cases a large minority—of persons who are not imbued with the desire to bring about educational reform and to carry out improvements. And I am certain that if it be possible for those persons, whether as members of education committees or as members of county councils controlling more or less the education committees, to get hold of in any way whatever some portion of the money which is to be voted by us to-night I hope, with the object which we all desire of increasing the expenditure hitherto made upon education and improving the quality of education, that many of these people will seek in every possible way, by all kinds of adroit devices, to get hold of some of that money and not use is as educational expenditure, but use it for the purpose of reducing the rates. The point which I wish to make is that the President of the Board of Education and my hon. Friend (Mr. Lewis), who for the time being represents him on that bench and the earnest, enthusiastic, and able Board which they represent in this House, should consider whether they are perfectly certain that the safeguards set up by the formula and the Regulations which are to be issued will be adequate for the purposes they have in view. I hesitate, therefore—having these doubts in my mind—to do more than to say that one must carefully consider the White Paper, and one must watch the working out of the new arrangement in actual practice during the present financial year before one can more than express an opinion of general approval and of gratitude to the President and his colleagues for the admirable work which they have done in this matter, for the disposition which they have shown, for the purpose which they have in view, and for the way in which all this has been carried out.
  A year ago, on the last occasion when these Estimates were before the House, I stated that the educational system of this country was in ruins. That was true then. It is even more true now. In ruins because of war conditions. I refer more particularly, of course, to the elementary education system—the number of schools closed, the increase in the number of children out of school for agricultural and industrial reasons who ought to be in school, and the decrease by the thousand in the number of teachers. Month after month they have
  1930
  gone from the schools to military service. Men are going by the hundreds month after month, and women are now going out of the schools to banks, accountants' offices, warehouses, and other places of that kind, to engage in activities in which they were never engaged before but for which their education fits them, and in which they are receiving higher remuneration, often by 50 or 60 per cent., than they would receive in the schools. Training colleges are more and more being closed; the supply of candidates as entrants to the profession is more and more cut off. To that extent the educational system is more and more in ruins than it was twelve months ago. I know that it is nobody s fault. It is not the fault of the Board of Education; it is one of the consequences, one of the circumstances, which have attended this War. I am not finding fault or laying blame, but I simply mention it to show that it was time, and more than time, that the speech and the proposals which we have heard this afternoon should have been before the Committee. It is not too early now to begin to plan for the future, and a plan like that which we have heard this afternoon, with its purpose and its spirit, is the most essential part possibly of that work of national reconstruction which must arise, and the sooner the better, both during and after the War.
  Sir SWIRE SMITH: I desire to associate myself with the congratulations which have been offered to the Minister of Education for the very interesting and important speech which he has delivered to us in submitting proposals which, if adopted, will have the very greatest influence in placing our national education on a sounder basis than it has hitherto reached. I also express the satisfaction, which I am sure is shared by the Committee and by the country, that our Education Department is now presided over by a Gentleman of high ideals and great, wide sympathies, and one who has achieved a commanding position as a teacher and as an expert educational organiser. This War has compelled us to realise more than ever we have done before that our position as a nation depends entirely on the efficiency of our men and women, an efficiency the foundation of which must be laid in our schools. But I am afraid that we do not realise the seriousness of the problem that we have to face. We have done great things in the past, but we have

  1931
  not done by far enough, and it is not a question of waiting until after the War, but in most of the work that we have before us wo may begin to-morrow, and the sooner we begin the better for us all. It is said that something like 600,000 children leave the schools every year, and something like 400,000 of these never enter a school again. And of the 200,000 who do attend evening classes, as we have been told on the highest authority, many attend very irregularly, and we know that most of the time in which they are at school is taken up with making up what they have lost during the interval between leaving the primary school and attending the night school.
  I am strongly of opinion that in none of the advanced countries of the world is there such an amount of educational wastage going on as is shown by this country. I have been very much interested to read the Report, which many of you no doubt have seen, of a Departmental Committee on juvenile education in relation to employment after the War. That Committee was presided over by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. In that Report, which contains evidence from every possible quarter, the Committee recommend a departure which has never been attempted in our educational system—that continuation schools should be established, practically universally, following our elementary schools, and that even these continuation schools should be attended in the day-time. That is a part of the question which, at any rate for a little time we might leave, because it is a question which, as has been explained by the Minister of Education, is bound up with many others, and will require no doubt a great deal of discussion. But the Report is, I think, the most human and the most hopeful document that I have ever seen embodied in the form of a Blue Book. It is a Report full of interest, and I take the liberty of quoting from it one sentence which follows a generous appeal for citizenship, and which says:
  "We have to bring research to beat upon the progress of our manufactures, to overhaul routine, to eliminate waste, to carry our reputation for skilled workmanship and honest and intelligen trafficking into new markets and to maintain it in the old."
  That is a problem which, as most of us are connected with the industries of the country, we must face, and face with determination. To solve such a problem would enable tens of thousands of boys
  1932
  and girls to find their own natural bent. It would do more—it would keep thousands of boys and girls out of blind alleys. And I think that it would be the greatest possible safeguard against what we may call, what I may call, the unemployables, but it would also provide for the influx of girls into skilled trades, which I think may become perhaps the biggest social and economic result of the War. We shall not find, I hope in future, that any girls or young women will be prohibited from taking up any employment for which they are physically and intellectually suited, and that they will not be denied payment equal to that of the man for the same quantity and quality of work which they may do.
  7.0 P.M.
  Our secondary schools, of which we have heard a great deal and of which I hope we shall hear and see very much more done regarding them, were described by Matthew Arnold in his day as "the worst in the world." And they have always lagged behind. But under the system which is being set forward to us by the Minister I am sure that they will take their place in the national system, and will become the connecting link between the elementary schools and the university, preparing the young people, on the one hand, for professional and literary work, and, on the other, for agriculture, industry, manufactures, and commercial pursuits; but I do not want us to wait until after the War before we begin this great and useful work. Anyone who cares to look into the matter would be astonished at the number of boys and girls who pass from the elementary schools to the secondary schools who would very soon climb the ladder, and who would enrich the community more than themselves by the application of their knowledge to the purposes of the State. The national system of education we desire is one that would be sifting through all our schools, giving equality of opportunity to the humblest to rise to the highest stages of education. Such a system would bring us into line with other countries; it would bring the backward districts of this country into line with the best districts; it would bring us into line with the most prominent and most cultured nations of the world. As a nation of skilful traders we all know that we have been relying too much on book knowledge,

  1933
  and too little on practical experience. I think we cannot do better than take the advice of Emerson, who said:
  "We must take the step from knowing to doing; we must teach the rising generation to do the things well the world wants done."
  That great idealist, Ruskin, who will not be accused of utilitarianism, foreshadowed a conception of technical education sixty years ago, declaring that
  "the training which makes men happiest in them-selves, also makes them most serviceable to others.
  He also expressed his belief
  "that all youths of whatever rank ought to learn some manual trade thoroughly, for it is quite wonderful how a man's views of life are cleared by the attainment of the capacity of doing any one thing well with his hands and arms. At this day the most useful things which boys learn at public schools are rowing, riding, and cricketing. But it is better that Members of Parliament should be able to plough straight and make a horseshoe than feather their oars neatly or point their toes prettily in stirrups."
  Probably it did not occur to him that all boys and girls are not from public schools. At that time Members of Parliament were not necessarily sent to public schools, and perhaps it did not occur to him that he would live to see men not from public schools, but from the plough, the bench, the mine, chosen to represent their fellow labourers in this House. I do not think he would have been surprised to find many of them who by their knowledge and grasp of affairs have d me credit to this assembly and have adomed the Treasury Bench, to which they have been raised. I wish to express my hearty approval of raising the salaries and recognising the status and true value of teachers to the State. There is no class of public servants more responsible or more deserving, and there are no positions to which more importance can be attached. There has been much talk about speeding up our machinery if we are to hold our position in competition with other nations. I think there is a good deal of necessity to speed up our educational equipment and organisation, applying new impulses not to teachers only, but to the mechanical and scientific equipment of laboratories and workshops. Of all machines, the human machine is the one that pays best for any money and labour that can be spent on its improvement. The British boy is not behind any rival in any scientific or artistic faculty, but it must not be forgotten that he should at least have equal training. We are all aware that we established our supremacy through our inventions and machinery, aided by the skill and industry of our people. Other nations purchased our machinery, and, by reason
  1934
  of their superior education, some of them used it more effectively than we used it ourselves.
  At the end of the Seventies -let me go back to my own experience—chere was such a depression in our exports to foreign markets and such an increase in our imports of foreign manufactures as to cause public attention to be drawn to the matter. Mr. Mundella, the then Minister of Education, and who was very well acquainted with the material progress of Germany, appealed to the Government for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the position of our country commercially and industrially compared with other countries. What happened? The apathy of this country on such a question as this was illustrated by the reply of the Government when appealed to. Their reply was that they could not afford to appoint a Commission, and it was only when Mr. Mundella promised that they would pay their own expenses that a Commission was granted. The leading industries were represented on that Commission, iron, steel, the great textile industries, cotton and wool, chemicals and pottery, and agriculture had a special Commission. It was my privilege to represent wool. My hon. Friend the Member for the University of London represented on that Commission the City and Guilds of London. In those days our educational expenditure was the lowest in Europe, and it ought to have been the highest. The technical Commission made an investigation of our own schools and those of the various advanced countries of Europe and America. They came face to face with all the facts bearing upon production and bearing upon superiority of manufactures, and also upon the great question of the quantity of production. They found that in matters of practical efficiency, in energy, in grit, and fidelity, the workers of this country were second to none, but that in ordinary education and application of scientific principles they were hopelessly behind. While on the Continent, we saw, especially in Germany, magnificent technical schools. In England our employers and employed, our foremen and our workmen connected with our works, could only receive what little education they could get from evening classes at mechanics' institutes— elementary it must have been, of course —and these classes were mainly constituted in the cotton and wool districts of

  1935
  Lancashire and Yorkshire. All the evidence we obtained in the course of our investigations in every country and in every industry was decisive of this, that we were beaten in brains, in lack of training and cultivation, and nothing else.
  I remember that we inspected a chemical laboratory at one of the most ancient universities of Germany—not a modern university—thirty-five years ago, and in that university laboratory we found more students taking the highest courses of chemistry than could be found in all the chemical laboratories of this country put together. In spite of what has been urged to-day by my hon. Friend the Member for the University, that our general education in many respects is equal to that of continental countries, I venture to say that this disparity has continued through all these years, and almost up to the time of the War, and it is probably true that there are more of the highest students in one particular university on the Continent than could be found in the whole of our country, which depends on the manufacture of all those goods which we send into the world. It is because of that condition of things we lost the aniline dye industry, and that we were surpassed in others with the aid of scientific research. I remember that on one occasion the Commissioners asked the cost of a technical school, and the Education Minister said that he did not know the cost and did not care to inquire, for, he added, "England paid for German schools by buying the products of those trained in them." I have often said that we shall continue to pay for foreign schools till we build schools as good in which to prepare students, and make them efficient and well equipped for their part in the competition of the world. Depend upon it, the more we can expend on education, the more we shall reap from the increased value of the commodities that, we make. There is no getting away from that; and, with our great export trade, we have to rely upon our successful competition in every country, and we can only continue to trade by the quality and the cheapness of the articles that we produce, which, of course, entirely depend on the skill and knowledge of our manufacturers and artisans. That is the business test, and educational expenditure is the soundest of investments; it is mixing brains with work in industries such as the aniline dye
  1936
  industry, chemicals, electrical engineering, and all classes of machinery, and if we are to surpass in those industries, we must learn how to render ourselves efficient in them. We may keep an article out of this country by a tariff, if high enough, but a tariff will not teach us how to make that article, or sell it at a profit.
  I may be permitted to say one word about the industry of agriculture, a description of the deficiencies in which has been given by the Minister of Agriculture in England, who said that this country is like a beleagured city. With soil and climate not superior, the Germans, through scientific farming, have nearly doubled the produce of the average 100 acre farm that we produce in this country, according to an inquiry which was instituted by our own Board of Agriculture. I have taken the liberty to go back to my own experience, and I mention these matters because of the danger that lies in our way after the War is-over, of continuing to ignore the lessons of the past. During and after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, our manufacturers, as now, found willing buyers for all the goods they made. Old designs were accepted, and it was not necessary to create new ones. But after the War they still believed that the then existing condition of things would continue, and they ignored the foreign competition that followed. With what result? Many manufacturers were ruined, and thousands of operatives were thrown out of employment. That calamity, owing to ignorance-and apathy of those who were blind to the true conditions that obtained, cannot occur in the same form now, because we are better prepared to meet competition. But even now few appear to know how needful it is that we should safeguard our position by the trained efficiency and vigilance of the people. This country, as we know, has in times of supreme trial often been late, and during the War, time after time, warning was given that delays were leading us into danger, but, as yet, I am happy to say that we have not been too late. This education call by the Minister of Education is still another appeal not to be too late, a call that demands willing and immediate response, and the sooner we take action in the matter, the sooner we shall secure the enduring prosperity and welfare of our people.
  Sir HENRY HIBBERT: I desire to offer my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on his magnificent speech. I thank him on behalf of the county authorities for the additional assistance contained in his proposals. I am only sorry that he did not come to the position earlier, for I think the Board of Education or the Local Government Board or the Cabinet, whichever was responsible, made a very great mistake in cutting down our expenditure during the War. Last year and the year before they took away facilities which were being provided for our students and which would have been of such value after the War. In higher education we reduced our estimate in 1915–16 by £14,935. In the county of Lancashire we had to ask the sanction of the Local Government Board for permission to spend money which we had already spent, and they told us that unless in addition to previous economies we economised further to the extent of one-sixteenth of a penny rate they would refuse that sanction. The result was that we were forced to reduce our Estimates for the year 1916–17 by £16,820, which told, I can assure the Committee, most severely against the efficiency of that which has done so much for Lancashire—I refer to the evening continuation schools and classes. With regard to elementary education, we -were not compelled by any fixing of rate to reduce, but still we were advised that all those rates should be cut down, and the result was that we had to make further economies of £16,800, making a total economy of £41,404. I am delighted, for another reason, that the right hon. Gentleman is President. A great deal has been said this evening about the payment of teachers and there can be no question whatever that if there is any class in the community who ought to have adequate remuneration it is the teacher. My own committee have recognised that, and I think we gave about as liberal a bonus as any other county. But when I tell you that giving the bonus cost my county £49,500, or equal to a rate of 2½d., you will quite understand why as a county administrator I am delighted at the advent of the new President, with that persuasive eloquence which I am sure he must have exercised to induce the Treasury to give so much money. I do not know whether it is in order to discuss now the various questions which have been exciting the attention of educational authorities for
  1938
  some time past. I mean the raising of the age of exemption to fourteen, the question of whether half-time should be abolished or not, and also whether evening and continuation classes are to be made compulsory. Perhaps, after all that has been said to-day, it might be waste of time to speak about those matters now, particularly as I understand a Bill will be introduced at no very distant date dealing with those very difficult points.
  I should, however, like to say something about evening continuation classes. I think my remarks will apply almost as well to Yorkshire as to Lancashire. Lancashire is very greatly interested in this question. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Sir S. Smith) has referred to them. They bring within reach of a large class of men, at a time when they badly need it, a system of education which has been very greatly developed under the continuation school code. You can quite understand why we in Lancashire are greatly interested when I tell you that 16 per cent, of the students of evening continuation schools and classes in England and Wales are in Lancashire. I attribute a very great amount of the prosperity of my county to the education given in those evening continuation classes. In fact, I do not hesitate to say that above one-half of the looms in Lancashire are to-day owned by men who either were themselves operatives or whose fathers were, and who have attained to a strong financial position in consequence of the opportunities given to them in evening continuation schools and classes. It is quite a common occurrence now, when on the Manchester Exchange, to be stopped by a young man, who will say, "Do you remember me?" I say "No," and then the young man will say, "Many years ago you gave me a prize for design for weaving cloth at such-and-such a school." Whatever the Board of Education in their wisdom decide to do, I hope they will not, at any rate, do away with the evening continuation schools and classes. The President of the Board said to-day that he thought the constitutions of the children were impaired by working all day and then going to evening continuation schools. I would only remind the House there were a lot of Lancashire mill hands at Gallipoli whose constitutions were certainly not impaired by working all day and then attending evening continuation classes. There is another point which I think is

  1939
  probably of even greater importance for those boys and girls who attend evening continuation classes. If they did not do so they would be at a loose end and they might be learning something at street corners which it would be infinitely better for them never to have the opportunity -of being taught. Therefore, looking at the matter from both points of view, educational and moral, I do hope the Board of Education will not do anything to injure these evening schools.
  The secret of successful education in this country, as has been said over and over again, depends upon better staffing. We want more expert teachers with better salaries and pensions and retiring allowances. It is absurd to expect, particularly in the case of the secondary schools, that men of university education will seek an occupation where the pay is so absolutely inadequate. The President of the Board mentioned, I think, almost every reason which had militated against the success of our educational system but the main one. I consider that the main thing which has militated against the success of secondary education in this country is the apathy of the parents. The last time I spoke in this House was on the Education Estimates, and I then said that education was not popular and to that statement the Under-Secretary of the Board dissented. I repeat it again to-day, probably not so much as it was, but certainly it is still not popular among the people. Although it is perfectly true, as stated by the President, that in spite of the War there have been larger numbers of boys and girls entering the secondary -schools, unfortunately they do not stay long enough. Let me give you an object -lesson. My committee finance thirty-four schools with 8,100 scholars. We have 36 per cent. free places. The President spoke about maintenance allowance. Prior to the War we gave a small maintenance allowance to our free places in the third and fourth and subsequent years if they cared to remain at school, and yet we cannot keep them there. The minimum fee in most of the schools is three guineas per annum, and we offer 520 free places annually, for which last year only 1,850 students competed. Including the non-county boroughs, which are in the administrative county of Lancashire, we have 341,899 children over five years of age. Assuming the school life to he eight years, we have 42.700 leaving
  1940
  annually, so that only a little over 4 per cent, competed for those free places. Why do they not compete for them? Simply because wages, and this is exactly the same in half-time, are considered of greater importance than education.
  At the beginning of the President's speech, he spoke of a national system of education. I should rather gather that he thought we had neither a national nor a system of education. I do not know whether he meant that, but I think he did. Let me tell him, as one who has had a very great amount of experience as an administrator of education, that whatever the system and whatever the policy, unless you get the full weight of the people behind you, you may spend millions and millions and millions more than you do now, and yet never get that education which is necessary for our people if you want to leave the destinies of the country in safe hands. I said a moment ago that we had thirty-four secondary schools; schools which are replete with every modern convenience, and built without regard to cost. Our teachers are efficient and are paid at as high a rate as those of any county in the kingdom probably outside London. What is the result? In only five schools is our school life over three years. In one school the leaving age is over seventeen, in sixteen schools over fifteen, in thirteen schools it is over fourteen. I am sure the President will agree with me when I say that if boys or girls going to a secondary school do not intend to stay the full four years it would have been infinitely better for them to have remained in the elementary school and left at fourteen. There comes in the great waste of money of which the economists complain.
  There is one other matter which I would like to bring before the House. The President himself indirectly alluded to it, and that is with regard to science scholarships given by the universities. It seems to me that it is desirable in the interests of science in secondary schools and in the universities that the number of science scholarships offered by Oxford and Cambridge should be considerably increased. I do not know what jurisdiction this House has over Oxford and Cambridge—probably none—but I think it is advisable in the interests of science that we should have some improvement in this matter, and that the basis of the examinations should be broadened by encouraging candidates to take a second subject; in

  1941
  other words, that it should be made difficult for a candidate to obtain a scholarship if he confined himself to one group of subjects only. What I am saying now does not apply to the provincial universities, that is to say, the universities outside the two older universities, where every facility is given for the study of science. Our schools have suffered from over-specialisation, directly encouraged by university entrance scholarships. I quote from the interim report on scholarships for higher education issued by the Board of Education, and get these facts: that of 286 scholarships offered by the two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge 205 were for classics and 81 only were for science. We have heard the admirable maiden speech of my Friend the hon. Member for Keighley (Sir S. Smith), a gentleman who certainly knows what he is talking about, an old educationist, a man who has done yeoman service in the cause of education throughout the length and breadth of this land, and he showed you the enormous importance to the commerce of this country of the teaching of science. If the thing ended there it would not matter very much. I mean to say that it would gradually right itself, but, unfortunately, this penetrates to the large public schools, who give similar scholarships, and in turn it goes down to the preparatory schools, were the curriculum in practically fixed to absorb the plums on the classical side which will be offered by the older universities. In addition to that, I have been told on very good authority indeed that in consequence of this superabundance of classical scholarships many the brightest and most intelligent boys in the secondary and preparatory schools— I am speaking of the large public schools-are induced to go on the classical side, to the great loss by the nation of the scientific ability which those boys might place at its service if they were properly encouraged. I should like to say one other word, because I do not want to be misunderstood, and that is this, that I have no desire whatever to banish the humanities, but I do believe that a man or a woman should be educated for the trade, profession, or occupation he or she intends to follow. I was reading the other day the following:
  "There is a widespread belief that the only humanities are the languages and literature of Greece and Rome. It is therefore curious that those who hold this belief ignore the important position assigned by the Greek philosophers to such sciences as then existed——"
  1942
  And then it goes on to say:
  "Surely the humanities must include all the intellectual interests of the healthy mind, but an education that fails to give an important place both to literature and to science is incomplete. Neither the man of letters who has had no training in science nor the man of science who has had no training in literature is entitled to reproach the other for being half educated."
  I do not think timer words were ever written than those, and I commend them to the attention of the House. I would finish, as the hon. Member for Nottingham said he would finish, by saying that no improvement can be made in the teaching of science and other subjects unless an adequate supply of better trained and better qualified teachers can be attracted into the profession, and that this can only be done by the provision of better salaries and by an adequate national system of pensions
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: I doubt whether in any assembly of educationists there is one better qualified by long administrative experience and sympathetic interest to address the assembly than is the hon. Member for Chorley, who has just sat down. He will perhaps allow me in this House to express on behalf of the teachers of his own county their great appreciation of his very active interest, not only in the schools, but in their professional welfare. I would that many other counties, which could be named here, were as excellently dealt with in the matter of educational provision as is Lancashire. But I venture to join issue with him on the question of evening continuation schools. I know they have done a great work, but I am very doubtful as to whether they should be continued on existing lines. The hon. Member called attention to the magnificent exploits, in which all England glories, of the men from his own county on Gallipoli, and he thought that some of their doings had not been the worse performed, though some of them might have worked all the time in the day and attended evening continuation schools as well. The fraction of young men, even in Lancashire, who attend evening continuation schools is so small that there would be very few on Gallipoli who had undergone the hard experience of a day's toil followed by evening continuation school work. The probability is that their exploits were the greater because they had gone to the open air in the evening rather than that they had attended continuation schools after a day's work in the mill. I would remind the hon. Member that as far back as the days of the Boer

  1943
  War 50 per cent, of the would-be recruits at Manchester were rejected on physical grounds alone, and I doubt whether any other county could have beaten that record, due, no doubt, to the close work in the mill and perhaps due, too, to their diligence in attempting to do two tasks— the attendance at work and at continuation schools. That is not the way in which the solution will come.
  The solution must come, in my view on this question of continuation education, by means of continuation schools held in the hours of daylight, and all the evidence which has been collected confirms me in the view that it would be intolerable for the young people, and that it would be wasteful and ineffective, to attempt to apply compulsion to tired children taught by tired teachers. The Departmental Committee which has recently reported, and of which it was my privilege to be a member, heard a great deal of evidence on this point. The members of that Committee came unanimously to the conclusion that so far as continuation schools are concerned there was only one recommendation they could make, and it was that compulsion should be applied, but that it would not be the right thing to apply it to those who had already spent a full day at work. I want to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the manner in which our chairman—your Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. President— presided over the deliberations of that Committee, and of his courtesy, his ability, and his care for the work of the Committee at times when, if he had considered his own health, he would not have attended. May I at the same time take the opportunity of stating that the chief officials of the Board represented on that Committee, and those responsible for the secretarial work, rendered us magnificent service? The work done by our permanent officials is not always appreciated, and acknowledgment is not always made in this House. My experience on that Committee gave me such an intimate knowledge of the work which was being done that I felt that on the first opportunity that I had in this House I would make this declaration, that for care, for diligence, for willingness to assist in every direction and in the preparation of statistics and long and wonderfully good memoranda, the work of the officials of the Board of Education could not have been improved in any direction.
  1944
  I want to take up a point, in connection with the continuation schools question, which was made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Sir S. Smith) in his very interesting maiden speech. There, again, we have an educationist fully entitled to be heard in any assembly where education is under discussion. But I rather think the hon. Member, who has a great record in connection with technical education, is apt to place undue emphasis on the necessity for the technical side of the preparation of our youth. That will not be sufficient. I would that he would recall what has been the effect in Germany of this excessive emphasis on technical education. It has made the Germans a skilled people, but it has not improved their hearts. A recent experience which I shared with several Members of this House shows what great technique can do. It gives facility for the destruction of villages in the minimum of time, and it teaches most quickly how to destroy orchards and ruin trees which time does not permit to be cut down. Technique is all very well in its way, but it is not the main objective of education, and we shall fail in our scheme if we place vocational instruction as the goal of our endeavours. It was there that my sympathy with the President was complete, because he seemed to me, in his splendid speech, on which, with the rest of the House, I wish to congratulate him, that he placed the various aspects of education in a proper perspective. There is a place for vocational, technical, and scientific education in our national scheme, but the place for the technical type of education is not, shall I say, the fundamental place. The? great thing to remember is that we are preparing our young people to make the best of their lives. It is that part of life which is a preparation for a livelihood where the technique conies in. There is no incompatibility between full preparation and the full development of the young citizen, and the preparation—not with too great emphasis on it—for the livelihood that he must earn. On the latter it seems to me the hon. Member for Keighley was disposed to go a little astray, and place undue emphasis upon that aspect of educational reform.
  I turn to the very interesting speech of the President. Those who hailed his appointment with such great delight will to-morrow read his speech with great satisfaction. They expected great things. They looked on him as one of their own

  1945
  number who should make good in the position to which he has been raised. The whole teaching profession has taken it as a great compliment that a vice-chancellor of one of our universities should have been taken straight from his work to be made President of the Board of Education. They are looking to him for great things. They feel that he has been given a representative opportunity. They anticipate with some confidence that he will realise the great responsibility which rests upon him. He has shown in his speech that he recognises that education is one of the greatest means of national reconstruction. The War has destroyed much. The War will leave us short of some of the bravest and most promising of the young lives of the country. How important it is, then, that those who are now being equipped in our schools shall be given every opportunity to make the most of the ability with which they have been endowed. It is for us to take great care that no single young citizen is deprived of any opportunity for full and complete development, whether spiritual, moral, or physical. The President in his comprehensive speech embraced all those aspects of development. There was great need that he should, because on the physical side Sir George Newman, his able official who presides over the medical department of the Board, has revealed our shortcoming. I trust the President may see his way clear at an early date to make such changes, by legislation if necessary, that some part of the enormous disability from which young life suffers may be diminished through his administrative action, possibly through legislation he may have to propose.
  It seems little short of a grave public scandal that of 6,000,000 children in the elementary schools no less than 900,000 should be reported upon as unclean, that 3,600,000 of the 6,000,000 should be suffering from dental disease, and that there should be a million of those 6,000,000 suffering from malnutrition. In this particular connection, the physical side of education, I hope that the President will see his way clear to make effective the administration of the Employment of Children Act. The scheme of reforms which he has outlined will fall short of full fruition if, while we are raising the school age to fourteen, it does not attend to that matter. I hope provision will be made so that there will be no exemptions for any children whatever
  1946
  under the age of fourteen. There will be a leakage if it is possible. Children of school age ought not to be employed for the great number of hours which they are now employed. I hope the Employment of Children Act will not be allowed any longer to remain merely a sort of optional Act, but that it will be made compulsory. Then, as to the question of street trading. That requires to be dealt with very thoroughly. The question of the continuation school is a problem that also requires very drastic treatment.
  Some figures have recently been provided by the Board in a Return, which Members ought to take an early opportunity of consulting. On reference to it I find that the last census shows that out of 690,732 children of the age of thirteen and below the age of fourteen, 520,437 were under some form of full-time or part-time instruction. The significant fact following on that is this, that of those children there were 144,169 of the age of fourteen—that is to say, that only three children out of every ten are under some form of full-time or part-time instruction at the age of fourteen and before the age of fifteen. There is a still further diminution when the age of fifteen is reached. One hundred and twenty-three thousand five hundred and fifty-two only out of 669,971 of the age of fifteen are under any form of full-time or part-time instruction, or only one out of five. Out of those children who are sixteen 85.44 per cent, are not under any full-time or part-time instruction. The figure is worse at the age of seventeen. I think all educationists are therefore convinced that this problem has to be dealt with, not on voluntary lines; these have failed to produce a satisfactory result. The figures which the- Board have placed at our disposal make it absolutely essential that in our continuation schools system we must apply some form of compulsion for a number of hours per week. I wish to impress upon those in authority that they will do well to present to us a bold scheme. It has been stated from the Front Bench this afternoon that there is a change of opinion in the country. That is quite true. The witnesses who attended before the Departmental Committee, whose Report I have quoted, numbered nearly 100. They were nearly unanimous in telling us that there was a change of opinion amongst the public of this country. You may take it that this change of opinion is found not merely among employers. We had representatives

  1947
  of the trade unions before us. Both masters and men therefore appeared before us. Representatives of the trade unions, speaking for hundreds of thousands of men, told us that the portion of the country for which they spoke was ripe for a change. In support of this, may I refer the Parliamentary Secretary, who is now in charge on behalf of his colleague, to the programme of education which was recently adopted by the Labour party conference at Manchester? It shows how completely in sympathy with a bold scheme the whole labour world will be, and that the right hon. Gentleman need not expect that a bold scheme will appal those who have authority to speak for labour.
  One has only to observe, for example, the scheme of reform of the Workers' Educational Association, which, in fuller elaboration, but confirms the programme set out at the Labour party conference at Manchester. That favours a' complete scheme which suggests a far higher leaving age than the President has indicated this afternoon, and suggests a half-time continuation system under compulsion. As far as the Labour party is concerned, the age of sixteen is favoured. Those who are entitled to speak for labour tell us almost with one voice that labour at least is ripe for great changes in the scheme of national education. Therefore, apart from some few unions, possibly in the textile trades, it is not from labour that opposition may be expected. I venture to suggest that to palter with a scheme and to give us trivial proposals at a time when the nation is suffering enormous losses, and requires the intensive cultivation of young life—in this position to put forward merely a mild scheme—will be to invite failure. The time has come for striking the imagination of our people by bold proposals. Therefore the Government should attempt the minimum represented by the proposals of the Departmental Committee. For myself I desire to go much further than these proposals. They may represent what some would call a working compromise. They do not represent the goal of those for whom I am entiled to speak. Let me beg the right hon. Gentleman in charge (Mr. Lewis) that any persuasive powers he possesses in Government circles should be used in the direction of helping forward proposals which will at least be the minimum of the recommendations of the Committee over which he so well presided.
  1948
  Before I conclude I desire to thank the President for his handsome acknowledgment of what the schools have done during the course of the War, of the work of the teachers, of what has been done by the boys who are now fighting; the handsome compliment he has paid to those products of elementary schools will be greatly appreciated by those responsible for their training. I desire to say how welcome the proposals of the President will be, so far as they go, on the question of finance. As a matter of fact, if the thing be reduced' to the amounts payable per teacher, the three and a half millions which it is-proposed to allocate as a supplementary Grant to the elementary schools will not be much. It will not, for example, give a minimum bonus to teachers comparable to that which the railwaymen have-secured. The hope of the proposal lies in this, that provision is made for progressive advance. If a scheme be now adopted on the basis of the Kempe Committee's proposals, we may look, as I believe, for progressive addition to teachers' emoluments will do something to solve-the great difficulty of the diminishing supply of entrants to the profession. The whole scheme of improved national education pivots upon the teachers. If additional numbers are not forthcoming our scheme will fail. If, therefore, the Board cannot get from the Treasury the necessary amounts to make it worth while from the material point of view for people to choose teaching as a profession then the most magnificent paper schemes may be put forward, but so far as those schemes-becoming effective or translated into effective action is concerned they will result in failure. I welcome the beginning which has been made. I hope it will be regarded merely as an instalment. I hope we may expect from the Treasury a larger and larger addition to the Estimates as they come along year by year. I hope also that there may be provision for the local authorities to deal handsomely—that also is absolutely necessary—with the teachers they employ.
  8.0 P.M.
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I am afraid I cannot claim to speak, like the hon. Gentleman who has preceded me, as an educationist. I am merely a humble Member of the Tory party interested in social questions, and as such I desire to add my small voice to the

  1949
  chorus of congratulation which greeted the speech of the President of the Board of Education. It is indeed refreshing to have at last secured an Education Minister who means business, and who brings to his task not only a great knowledge of the subject, but also sympathy. The illustrious general, Sir William Robertson, has said that the great secret of military operations was to do the right thing at the right time. I congratulate the Education Minister on applying that most excellent dictum to the social sphere. I hope he will not think me ungracious or ungrateful for favours to come if I point out that he could not have done very much less, or could not have delayed his proposals any longer. I entirely agreed with my hon. Friend and colleague the Member for West Nottingham (Sir J. Yoxall) that the educational system of this country is in ruins, and if the Education Minister were as indifferent as some of his predecessors in office, or as hostile to education as the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), he could not possibly have delayed in building up that ruin. In fact it is as incumbent on us to build up the ruins of our educational system as it is on the Belgians to build up the ruins that have been made in their country. An allusion has been made to the results of this ruined system, but no allusion has been made to the fact that there are, I believe, at least three million children between the ages of twelve and seventeen years altogether outside the atmosphere of education. So irregular has the attendance become that I read in the educational supplement of the "Times" that in some cities of the North schools are opened every day with some 12,000 to 15,000 who ought to be there away from school. What are the results of this condition? These results may be well summed up in the terms of the Lewis Report. It points out the fact that boys have been allowed to acquire habits of foolish and mischievous extravagance. Even the ordinary discipline of the workshop has given way. Let me bear that out by what I have been told by persons well qualified to speak. I have been informed that the discipline among the boys is so bad that the tendency is to dismiss them from the factories and to employ girls in their place. There even threatens now to be an acute problem of boy unemployment. There is also, of course, the fact that juvenile crime has
  1950
  gone up by about 40 per cent. The Lewis Report goes on to say that there is a notable deterioration of behaviour and, morality, that gambling has increased, and that the strenuous hours of long labour have overtaxed their strength. So it comes to this, that not only is our present educational system in its defects tending to ruin the character of the juvenile population of this country, but it is also calculated to impair their health. This is not, the time, to my mind, for paying compliments. The time now is for girding up our loins and doing our duty and putting an end to a system which is doing very grave injustice indeed to the child-life of this-country. It is not only doing that, but it is undermining the welfare and the safety of this great country.
  Nothing has been more remarkable to-my mind than the indifference which this House has displayed to educational subjects for the last six or seven years, in fact, that negligence and indifference has-lasted ever since 1906. Whether that is due to the fact that there is very little popularity, but a good deal of odium to-be gained by an active educational policy, or whether it is due to the fact that the party in power had an educational Ulster in their midst, in the shape of Lancashire. I do not know, but nothing would have conferred greater benefits on this country than an earlier tackling of this problem. We have had great arguments lately as to whether future development in education should be on the classical or on the-scientific side. I confess that these arguments leave me quite cold. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Essex that what really matters at the present time is an improvement in the education that we-give to the poorest of the poor. I cannot say I am an authority, but I hold the belief that the children of the middle class and of the fairly well-to-do artisan have nothing very much to grumble at in our present educational system. They can proceed to-the secondary schools. But to the-child of the poorly-paid man, earning, say, from a pound to twenty-five-shillings a week, the present educational system of this country is nothing more nor less than a system for manufacturing inefficiency. May I remind the House of that interesting Report of the Consultative Committee? The Consultative Committee found that at a critical period of their life a very large majority of the boys of England and Wales are left

  1951
  without sufficient guidance, with the result that there is a great waste of early promise, injury to character, lessening of industrial efficiency, and the lowering of the ideals of personal and civic duty. They go on to say that, through lack of guidance and training during lessons, intellectual interests are stifled, worthy ambitions are delayed, and concentration of purpose is impaired. That is a heavy indictment, and the worst of it is that every word of it is true. The children of this country, and particularly the children of the poor, are in a regular vicious circle. A man is poor because his parents have been poor, and his son will be poor because he is poor. Social investigators all agree that there is among a large section of the working classes a rigid caste system. The child of the skilled artisan becomes a skilled artisan; the child of the general labourer, or of the casual labourer, becomes also a general or a casual labourer, and the child of the unemployable is often unemployable. What we have to do is to break down this rigid caste system and this vicious circle, and the only way of doing that is to introduce an educational system designed chiefly to improve the condition of the poorest of the poor.
  Lord Haldane, in another place, said that the condition of our secondary education is appalling. What to my mind is a great deal more appalling are the many obstacles, hindrances, and obstructions which the children of this country have to face before they reach manhood. We had the fact alluded to just now that a million children, in Sir George Newman's language, are so physically or mentally defective or diseased as to be utterly unable to derive reasonable benefit from their education. You have also the struggle against the system in Lancashire of part-time, which the Committee has found to be disastrous, not only to the education of the children but to their health. It is a fact that many thousands of children in this country have parents so poor that they are forced to go to work, and are sometimes working as many hours out of school hours as an adult workman. They reach school so tired as to be utterly unable to profit by their education, and as a result of the overstrain the system ruins their health. You have also the fact that street trading is a hotbed of criminality, and of the loafer and cadger. You have the mon-
  1952
  strous injustice that for errand boys and van boys there is no legislative, safeguard at all. It is quite legal to employ these children for as many hours as the employer likes to do. It is quite legal to employ a van boy or a parcel boy up to ten or eleven o'clock at night. In fact, our industrial system and our educational system combined do not fit in well one with the other. The industrial system has been too strong for our educational system, and the whole thing seems nicely designed, not so much to safeguard the interests of the children—I may be pessimistic, but that is my impression—as to provide a certain number of employers of labour with as much cheap labour as they possibly can need. The task we have to set ourselves is to rescue for these children a few of the hours which are now given to monotonous and un-educative toil. The War has revealed many deficiencies in our industrial system. I will not refer to them all, but it is to a great industrial nation like this somewhat humiliating to find that at the outbreak of the War we were unable to manufacture dyes, a great many chemicals, and optical glasses.
  It being a Quarter-past. Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Gas Light and Coke Company Bill (by Order), London Corn Exchange Company (by Order),
  Read the third time, and passed.

  SUPPLY.
  Postponed Procedding resumed on Question,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £13,565,780 (including a Supplementary sum of £3,856,000), 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, 1918, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education,

  1953
  and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry G rants-in-Aid."
  Question again proposed.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I want merely in few words to say that I think we need not be nervous that the industrial deficiencies of this country will not be remedied. We know that they will, and that when the British nation puts its back into a thing it does it well. But I do most heartily agree with my hon. Friend who spoke last, that the great thing which we have got to see to is that the humanity of the worker is not obliterated by the necessity for increased production. It would profit us very little as a nation if we conquered the whole world with our economic system, and finally ended off by becoming slaves to machines ourselves. What we want is not only a system to produce skilled workmen, skilled scientists and great technicians, but what we want is a scheme that will produce not only good workmen but good citizens, able to hold fit converse with the spiritual world and generations of mankind, past, present, and to come.
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I desire, in the first place, to take the opportunity of congratulating my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education very warmly on his excellent speech, and I do so the more as our earliest oratorical efforts were both made in the same college debating society. He has grappled with questions which have been too long shelved. He has taken a breadth of view, and recognised a wide perspective, based at the same time on an intimate knowledge of detail, and his freshness of mind in treating all these matters is, I think, all the fresher because he has been aloof from the educational atmosphere of this House. I. think the general trend of his policy promises every success to those who take an interest in education, and I welcome his appointment most heartily, and think it forebodes much good to the education of the country. His aim is, as he said himself, to get the best value for the very large sums of money which we vote for education, and I hope in increasing the salaries of teachers—which, I believe, is supported in practically every quarter of the House, especially in view of the increase of wages and salaries all through the kingdom—that he is pursuing a policy to which he will give the best effect.
  1954
  I have risen really to call my right hon. Friend's attention to one or two matters, some perhaps of wider importance, some perhaps of less wide importance, but all of them matters in which the influence of the Minister for Education counts very-much, and in which I hope he will exercise that influence in the direction which I should like to suggest. In the first place —and I am speaking as a Town Member— I candidly say that I think the whole trend of education has been to fit children for town occupations. I am not sure that that has been always wise. Certainly now that we are face to face with the question of improving our agriculture and our food production, there is much to be said for guiding the dispositions of children, who are willing to be guided, or who show capacity to be guided in that direction, into not only town occupations but country occupations, and I think it would be well if my right hon. Friend were to encourage some change in the curriculum in the direction of making the countryside a child's text-book. This is certainly emphasised by the present national conditions. Since food production by petite culture is recognised to be a matter of great importance, let us stimulate interest in school-gardens. I think that has been much neglected by the Board of Education up to now, and vegetables, which are now brought from abroad, might very well be grown at home. He might very well take up the question much more actively, and endeavour to make the countryside, as I said, a child's text-book. The matter can be further carried out by consulting the new Department of the Board of Agriculture—I think I am right in calling it the Horticultural Section of the Food Production Department, which is under the Board of Agriculture, and I believe that much useful expert information might be obtained which would assist in giving effect to this policy. Some counties, no doubt, are already rich in school-gardens. They have shown a keenness in this form of cultivation which deserves all praise. Other counties, on the contrary, are very much behindhand in the matter, and the authorities are disposed to give greater effect to town education than to country education. I think that where practicable—and it is practicable in many quarters—it would be desirable to bring up the level of these less progressive counties to the level of the more progressive counties in the matter of school-gardens. "Let us cultivate our gardens"

  1955
  was, I believe, a maxim of Voltaire, who was a great gardener himself, and the maxim seems very well suited to the present situation.
  The other matter to which I was anxious to call my right hon. Friend's attention is quite of a different kind. It is one in which he can equally exercise much influence from his position at the Board of Education, and I am anxious that he should do so. It is as regards secondary education, and the commercial and the scientific and modern side as against the less modern and the less scientific. From his experience at Sheffield, I feel sure that he will be disposed to appreciate the value of the more modern side of education. While I should be the last—and I expect he would be the last also—to desire to set aside classical education altogether, while, indeed, I think there is no better education than the classics, at the same time undue expenditure of effort is, I think, given by the older universities to that class of education, and the effect of their encouraging it as they do is to reflect their tendency right away down to the most primary education of all. Also it seems to me that whether it be commercial or classical education your standard of work must in the main be based on the capacity of the average boy and not of the brilliant boy. I believe that too great emphasis is laid by the older universities on the value of a classical education, and accordingly the modern side is neglected both in the public and private schools, which follow in a more remote degree the example of the universities.
  It was only the other day that my own boy, who is at a public school, having reached a certain stage, was told he had to choose either between French or science. That is a most astounding choice to have to make at the present day. My boy was told that in the ordinary course he could not go on with both, and therefore I have been obliged to circumvent the rules, at any rate, for the time being. I should have thought it was perfectly futile to keep up a system of that kind, and I hope that universities, which I am afraid are very slow in moving in this direction, will set an example of a more practical and advanced kind. My general view is that all modern subjects should be taken much more seriously at school, in regard to science, modern languages, history and English composition; and as to science
  1956
  itself I think it might be taught more scientifically than it is now. There is already a scientific way of teaching classics, and an equally scientific method should be applied to teaching science. I fear that the advocates of science are sometimes rather narrow and exclusive in their view of education, and I hope I shall not tread on too many people's toes if I say that I think on occasions the advocates of science, with whom I have very much sympathy, are nearly as narrow as the advocates of pure classics. That is a direction in which my right hon. Friend could very well exercise a wholesome influence, and as I am disposed to think that he has no prejudices, he may be able to do much.
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: I should like to say a few words apropos the admirable speech of the President of the Board of Education, and I wish to endorse on this point what has been suggested by the last speaker and the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Goldstone). I think we are all prepared to take a much broader view with regard to the possibilities of modern subjects as an educational medium. I do not, however, desire to stand in a position to be stampeded. I am a little afraid that too much instruction in science would absorb all the energies of the boy and all the time of the student. We have to be careful that vocational instruction shall only be treated as the coping-stone, and be sure that it is applied only to those who have a broad basis of general education. I have the honour to be a member of one of those big educational Committees now sitting, the Modern Languages Committee, and I have been very much impressed with the attitude which has been taken up by some of the leading employers of labour upon this question of vocational instruction. We had before us the other day the chairman of one of the biggest shipping lines in the country, and we asked if he wanted better facilities for teaching modern languages to his staff, and he replied: "Not at all. I want a man with his mind alive and with a good general education." The two things required are imagination and initiative, and those will not be secured by vocational instruction, and you can only secure them by a sound system of genera) education.
  I would now like to turn to the most admirable speech of the President of the

  1957
  Board of Education, and I wish to say for myself what a relief and pleasure it is to have a real educationist as Minister for education, and not have, as so often happened in the past, a politician, possibly of distinction and possibly not, but at any rate a man who has not had the training of an expert educationist. It almost took one's breath away to-day to hear the great problems of education treated in such a broad and delightful way as they were by the right hon. Gentleman without reference to any question of political prejudices. We are fortunate in our new President, if I may say so. I think he is also fortunate in two respects, for he is fortunate in the time at which he is called to this great office, because this is a time of reconstruction, and he has a chance, owing to the needs and necessities of the moment, which few, if any, Presidents ever had before. He is also fortunate in the temper of our people at the present time, for I firmly believe that as a result of the War there has been aroused an interest in the educational problem which it is the right hon. Gentleman's business, and the business of all of us, to make every effort to use, and we have before us an opportunity now which is not likely to -occur again in our lifetime.
  With regard to these financial proposals I propose to say very little. They are a matter of expert working out. I am the representative of a poor area like Sal-ford, which is poor in material wealth, although it is abundantly rich in the highest form of wealth—that is in its children. From both these points of view the President's formula is extremely acceptable to us because we are not very rich as far as rates go, and we have a large number of beneficiaries to receive the funds which we hope will come to us. A great deal has been said about the teachers of the country. Anyone who has had the close experience in education such as I have had for the last twenty years cannot but rejoice at the splendid, devoted, whole-hearted and untiring service which has been, rendered by the teachers of this country. When one says that, one would also like to go on to say that one would like to see in some respects those services adequately recognised. The President has shown his appreciation by promising that one of the chief means of improvement shall be employed, namely, that the teaching profession shall be better paid. There is no doubt, however much may be the mis-
  1958
  sionary enthusiasm of a certain number of teachers, that the teaching profession, like any other profession, in the end has got to compete in the economic market, and the more that can be done to raise the status of that great profession the greater, I am certain, will be not only the product in character, but the economic product of this country as the result.
  I do not know whether it is a very revolutionary proposal, but might i ask the President of the Board of Education, the next time the Honours List comes up for consideration, to make a suggestion or two? If we could put the impress of the State's recognition on this great body of the teaching profession it would do a good deal to elevate the status of the profession in the eyes of the community. I do not know whether it is too revolutionary, but if a head master can become a bishop I do not know why he should not become a peer. The heads of our big day schools give their lives to education in school and out of school. They are always with the children; they are the most self-sacrificing people I know. Why should not the list of baronets and knights be open to the successful heads in all branches of the great teaching profession of this country— yes, and the ladies too? You may say that is rather a foolish suggestion, but I do not think so. I do not believe any country in the world enjoys the advantages of a finer set of Civil servants than we do. If it were only measured in salaries I do not believe that the reward of the Civil -Service would attract the type of men that it does. It is because there are in addition—I do not think we need make any bones about it— other rewards for the Civil servant. They have a pleasant life, their careers are distinguished, and, in addition, there is ample State recognition. If you do that in the case of the Civil Service I cannot see why you should not do it in the case of the teaching profession. We have had, I agree, two instances in which it has happened. We have my hon. Friend on my right (Sir J. Yoxall), a distinguished member of the teaching profession, whoso services have been recognised. I would like it more freely done, because I believe it would put the teaching profession on a much more satisfactory basis from the point of view of a general recognition by parents and the State of the magnificent services that they are rendering to the community.

  1959
  There was one omission in the speech of the President to which I have to draw attention, and with regard to which I hope he will do his best to give us some assurance. A great outcry has been made, not unnaturally, about those children who during the War are going to suffer as the result of the relaxation of ordinary regulations. I am not going to join in any fierce outcry about it. We have all got to make sacrifices, because the State has got to be carried on, and obviously rules and regulations which fit times of peace do not fit times of war. If children have to be taken from school rather earlier than they would have been under normal conditions it is sad, but it is inevitable. Having said so much, I want to make it quite clear that if the State has been forced by dire necessity somewhat to modify the regular rules of peace time, so as to deprive a large number of children of the ordinary educational facilities, which means that it will be a handicap to them for life—I heard that a workers' deputation to the President yesterday put it as high as 60,000 children—then it can only be on one condition, namely, that the loss which they have suffered shall be somehow and at some time and under some conditions made good to them before they are many years older. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could give us an assurance that he has that matter in mind, and that he will see that something of the sort is done. We have no right to handicap these children, because of the State's necessities of the moment.
  With regard to his broader programme, we arc going to have other opportunities of discussing it. There is the question of the nursing centres, the threes to fives, as we used to call them, for whom he is going to provide employment or instruction outside the expensive curriculum of ordinary school life. That is excellent, and, if he can raise the age to six, so much the better. In the poorer industrial areas somehow the threes and fives must be kept off the streets. In many cases the mothers are at work, and they cannot help it. I would rather that the mothers were at home, but even if they were at home the help of nursing centres ought to be made available for them. Then comes the question of raising the school age to fourteen. You have got to consider this question not only from the point of view of theoretical edu-
  1960
  cation, not only from the point of view of the teacher, who is naturally keen on a higher standard, and not only from the point of view of the highly - paid artisan, but you have got to consider it from the point of view of the more poorly paid worker, to whom very often it is a very serious thing if just at the time in his life when his burden is greatest, probably from thirty to thirty-five years of age, when he has got a family of four, five, six, or seven children just growing up, you suddenly cut off from him a source of assistance on which he has been counting. You may say that it is a perfectly inhuman thing for a parent to look for assistance from his children. I am not so sure. I am not sure that there is not a good deal to be said for the social theory of the solidarity of the family and the co-operation of the household, but apart from that I am as anxious as everyone is that our educational standard should be driven up, but if you are going to do that you must consider the case of the parent.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I must ask the hon. Member not to deal with that matter any further. I have allowed a general reference to it, but it is so clear that it can only be altered by legislation that I hope he will now pass from it.
  Mr. BARLOW: I submit to your ruling and with that caveat I am content. I am entirely in sympathy with those who consider that evening continuation classes are really an undue tax on the physical strength and attention of the children, but it is entirely another question if you are going to give up the solution of evening classes and take day training. In certain areas good employers, such as the well-known firm of Mather and Platt, of Salford, have tried to work out schemes of this kind. They have not been a great success. Whether something could be worked out in the way of half-time shifts of children, say, three days in and three days out of the factory; or whether you could get over the difficulties with the foremen of the works, I am not quite certain, but I am certain that the President and his expert advisers have the problem thoroughly in hand.
  May I say a word or two on the whole position as represented in the admirable speech of the- President of the Board? There has been an uneasy feeling through-

  1961
  out the whole of the country that our education, good as it is in many respects, is not as good as it ought to be. That feeling is not an uncommon one in other countries besides our own. I happen to have returned to this country within the last few days from the United States of America. I was recently in Chicago, where a dinner was given me by a large number of gentlemen connected with the Press. We discoursed about the War and other things, and at the end of the meeting I said to them, "Will you tell me one thing? We have certain searchings of heart with regard to our education in England. Are you gentlemen here satisfied with your education in America?" They all said unanimously, "No." I asked, "What is the difficulty? Is it not practical enough? Is it too expensive, or what is the matter?" These gentlemen were all people of position—leader writers, and BO on, on the great newspapers in the middle West, and as fine a body of working journalists as one could want to meet anywhere. Very few of them were university men. I doubt if any of them were. They were all keen, successful, capable men. Their answer to me was in these words. It was unanimous. They said, "We are not content with our education because it is too materialistic." That was a very remarkable answer coming from the place where it did. We have to be very careful that in all these steps we are taking our education is not made too materialistic.
  Something has been said to-night about our educational programme now not involving any religious difficulty. I am glad that the religious difficulty, at the moment at any rate, is at an end, but I am firmly convinced that you cannot have an effective form of education for this country unless you are prepared to include in your education a measure of religious instruction as well. There was an interesting article in the "Times Education Supplement" quite recently in which the writer drew attention to the fact that it had to be recognised with regard to the future educational settlement of this country that the country as a whole has settled that we are to have some form of religious education. Sooner or later I expect to hear the President dealing with that problem. Now is not the time. I am perfectly convinced that the mere questions of hours, pay, and curriculum are not enough to turn out what we want,
  1962
  which is not a German efficient soldier or technician, but a whole-hearted, capable and, to use the President's own words:
  "A dutiful and reverend man."
  If we are to secure the great educational programme that is desired, I am perfectly certain that we shall have to secure more enthusiasm in the country as a whole. We have to get some steam behind it. Our teachers are devoted and hard-working, and we hope to secure even better ones from the measures now proposed. The Treasury is, apparently, showing more heart than it has ever done in the matter, but what we still have to arouse is the enthusiasm and interest of most parents and of the large mass of the population who have no direct contact with education at all. It requires a big effort to do this, but somehow we have to make the dry bones live. It is no good involving ourselves in barren discussions about six hours or twenty hours, or extra pay, or this measure or for that. The only way to arouse real enthusiasm is by what the Americans would call "an uplift"—that is, a new vision with regard to education. We recently had in the Established Church a great National Mission. I should like to see a National Mission throughout the country on education, to make the country realise what is involved for the future of this race, in seeing that we get the education of the 'next generation of children put on a higher, better, and more effective, but also, shall I say, a more moral and spiritual plane than it has ever attained in the past.
  Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I fully appreciate—and am sure the Committee appreciates—the tone and spirit of the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. Member (Mr. Barlow) advocated what I should myself like to advocate and urge upon the President of the Board of Education. The hon. Member for Chorley (Sir Henry Hibbert) raised the same point —that the people of this country have not that devoted interest in education which is absolutely vital if our aims and hopes are to be realised. In my early days I had it impressed upon me that this country attached far more importance to brass than it did to brains. During the course of my life I have had to realise to a large extent the truth of that aphorism. The admirable speech of the new President has inspired the men in the House of Commons who have had the opportunity and privilege

  1963
  of listening to it. The country wants what the House of Commons has had; therefore I support very heartily the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Barlow) that by some method and in some form there should be a mission on behalf of education in this country, so that the people may realise the vital importance of it to their children, and themselves get such a passion for education that they shall demand a better one than we have at present. We need a driving force, and I believe now is the psychological time to start that mission and make that endeavour. Without disparaging in the slightest degree the Presidents who have preceded the present occupant of that position, we have now a man who has been chosen, not because he is a politician—I have not the slightest idea what his politics are—but because he is an educationist. He has given us the best possible evidence of his desire for education and its advancement in the speech to which we listened this afternoon. I should like to see him giving the country what he has given us here. The effect of a mission of that character, led by him, with the facts and inspiration behind it, might prove an enormous boon to the country. I hope he will forgive me for saying that, chosen as he has been for this special post by reason of his expert knowledge and capacity, I hope he will prove himself to be, in a new, effective and modern sense, a real fisher of men.
  I use that expression deliberately and advisedly. The word has to be made flesh and dwell among us, and it ought to be so in the matter of education. We want the spirit and passion of education embodied in a man. I believe we have it in the present President of the Board of Education, and the imagination of the people of this country has to be struck by the need of it, and I sincerely think the present President is the man to lead that mission in this country, and I hope he will be willing to do it.
  He has given indications of his recognition of the essential conditions of making our education more effective in the future than it has ever been in the past. He is in the happy position of being able to present to the House of Commons the largest increase in the provision for education that any Minister has had. I congratulate him upon it. It is undoubtedly a big sum, but I cannot help
  1964
  contrasting it with the sums we are paying without limit in connection with this War. Without the slightest limitation whatever we are spending money like water to kill men. We ought, indeed, to be willing to spend even more than this amount in the desire of making them live and providing for their education and advancement, and I am satisfied that the President has hit upon the essential part, vital to our development, in his emphasis upon the need of improving the lot of the teacher. The child, to learn, must be taught. The child cannot be taught without a teacher. You cannot have a teacher unless you pay him a proper salary for his work. I have been deeply impressed by the representations which have been made to me by certain of the men teachers, who told me that in the condition of things today they regard teaching as a dying profession. If there be any truth in that whatever it is disastrous to the future of this country. Consequently it is vitally necessary to make it not a dying but a living profession, which shall attract the best men and the best brains of the country, and for that it seems to me they not only need pay but they need prospects. They need the idea of a career. They need something to look forward to to draw out the best from them if they are ever going to draw out the best from the children who are placed under their charge.
  9.0 P.M.
  I am told a sorry story, which I suppose is true, of the ordinary lot of the class or assistant teacher. I understand that the average salary is from £85 to £160, the latter figure attained after fifteen years' service, and at the average age of thirty-six years. It seems to me a soul-destroying business for thoroughly educated men who are to do the work which they are asked to undertake. I understand that in theory a class teacher is only supposed to be a bird of passage—that it is a means whereby he shall become some day a head teacher. But, as a matter of fact, it seems to have become now a permanent profession in itself, because there is no opening for him to secure the higher range. Consequently, what I would urge most strenuously upon the President is to do-what I am satisfied ho desires to do, to-give the class teacher a larger opportunity and a greater prospect of something which lies in the future to stimulate his better effort, and I believe that is only going to come as you develop the lot of the head teacher and provide more head teachers The head teacher, as it stands at present

  1965
  does not seem to me to have the inducement that he ought to have, though his lot is better than the class teacher. But there again it seems to me that we need a stimulus and an opportunity. Why should not the head teacher have something in front of him which again shall draw out his best endeavours? It seems to me that the teacher in the elementary schools ought to have a greater opportunity of entering into the inspectorate. He does to some extent, but only to a very little extent, I believe, and in the lower branches of it. The head teacher, if he is capable, ought to have a chance of advancement, and, as we desire to provide a ladder for the children, we ought to provide a ladder, if possible, for the teachers, so that they may go on, and thus gain greater aptitude for their great work. We are democratising the Army. The man who has gone in as a private comes out as an officer very largely, and the more our Army is manned by officers who have previously been privates it seems to me it is better for the work they have to do. And so more and more it ought to be the case with school life that the men engaged in our elementary schools shall feel that there is something to look forward to, and therefore, by stimulating their efforts, they will stimulate the efforts of their children.
  Only one other point I wish to make. It seems to me there has been too great a tendency—I suppose it has been the object to save expense, and by that means we have sacrificed the children—to build up great barrack schools so as to bring a great quantity of children together. The teachers have had too many children placed under their control. If the children are going to be educated there must be a human, vital, personal touch between the teacher and the child, and if that is broken down there is no real chance for education. The consequence is that by this means there are fewer head teacherships and therefore fewer head teachers, and the chance of development is destroyed and the lot of the child is made worse.
  I realise that the President of the Board of Education is full of the desire to promote education and to promote the welfare of the teacher. I believe this is a national matter, and while it has to be conducted locally it must be conducted in a national spirit. I earnestly hope, therefore, that the President of the Board is going to signalise the position to which he has been called, with the full support of
  1966
  the nation, in such a way that when this terrible War is over, when the war against Germany in the interests of liberty is ended, we can begin anew the war against ignorance in the interests of progress, so that the whole nation may go forward, and that the lot of the children may be better in the future than it has ever been before.
  Mr. WING: May I be allowed to ally myself with the remarks of the last two speakers and to express my feeling that the whole Debate, together with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, has been of a most profitable character, because while certain aspects have been introduced there has been a general balance struck which would mean that we, as a people, do not wish to drag behind others in a technical sense and that we shall not sacrifice the higher and better part of our children in order to make them little niggers and producing machines. The right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity such as has seldom fallen to those who have occupied his position, because there are at present not only the circumstances immediately surrounding the War, but I believe a now vision is striking the mind of the masses of the people, and I am sure it does not require that I should emphasise this because the right hon. Gentleman himself has been an active worker in association with those attached to universities. The deputation which waited upon him yesterday, with its list of trade unions and workmen's clubs, is bringing about that public opinion that is necessary in order that the right hon. Gentleman may march on to bigger things in an educational sense. I rise specially for the purpose of calling attention just to two things. One has already been mentioned and emphasised, and that is the surrounding of the profession of headmaster and teacher with a very much larger amount of public honour than has previously attached to it. I speak with feeling as one who a long time since was a scholar. I remember marching out of school as a disappointed boy at the age of eight and a half years to go to work. I felt that the schoolmaster at that time was a judge and a monarch. I looked up to him as a man who had solved all the mysteries of life, who knew all about the nations of the earth, the sun and the stars, and knew all about the seas. There was no mystery in the earth or under the earth that, to my mind, the schoolmaster had not mastered. I do not forget that

  1967
  the same mystery attaches to the boys and girls who now go to school, and I am going to plead that if possible we shall attach to this great profession more public honours than have been awarded to it in days gone by, and that the great, mysterious power which possesses the minds of our scholars should not be in any sense reduced or in any sense lowered by our want of attention to their material welfare, but should be rather increased than otherwise. Take a case like this. In most of our Government Papers that are issued we find that where persons have to get testimonials as to their honesty and general behaviour, the clergyman usually appears in the list and the magistrate also. Even the policeman appears on the list, but very seldom the schoolmaster, who knows more about the person concerned than all the others combined. If it is a question as to the character of the boy, or the granting of an allowance, the schoolmaster knows about it, but he is regarded as the one person not to be appealed to. I ask that the schoolmaster should take his position in a social sense with the magistrate, the clergyman, the chief constable and the clerk, and that you should give him the reward that should enable him to maintain his position and be free of that financial worry from which so many suffer.
  I want to allude to a certain class of teacher, because we differentiate our teachers into the certificated teacher, the uncertificated teacher, and the supplementary teacher. I do not want to put in any plea for inefficiency, but I do want to express my dissent from the right of education authorities to use the difference between the certificated and the uncertificated teacher in order to reduce or to exploit them and to impose upon them a low form of remuneration, not because the uncertificated teacher is an incapable person, but because that teacher does not occupy a status equal to that of a certificated teacher. They use that want of status to the impoverishment of the one and the reduction of the advancement of the other. I ask, on behalf of the uncertificated teachers, that there should be some measure of protection for them, and that they may be protected against that exploiting spirit which brings to them a much lower sum of money than they are entitled to receive. In the matter of status I understand that teachers are graded in the sense that they
  1968
  stand for so many scholars each, but in the matter of practice you put as many burdens on the uncertificated teacher as you put on the certificated. I ask that you should not allow status merely to govern reward, and that at least you should allow labour to have its reward in cases such as I have mentioned. The new proportional Grant will come as a happy message to the county of Durham, because there we not only have good schools and fine schools, but handsome children and a large number of them. I know that the locality which I have the honour to represent will receive the message with very great satisfaction, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall read the White Paper to-morrow with a great amount of curiosity. Allow me to associate myself with all those who have spoken of the tone, the manner, and spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and may I hope that we are at the commencement of a great mission, in which the people may have a greater vision, and that there may be a greater chance for the teacher and the head master and a brighter and happier time for the children whom they teach.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Let me, as an Irish representative, join with all the other speakers in congratulating the Minister of Education on the excellent ideas which his speech contained and on the excellent promise that lies in that statement. I have been in this House for sixteen years and I have always taken the greatest possible interest in education in this country as well as in education in my own country, because I believe that education properly applied to the masses of any country is one of the great refining, humanising agencies, and is one that if properly applied is bound to seek justice, equality, and advancement for the democracy in any of the countries where it is taught. If I may say it as an Irishman without in the slightest degree seeking to throw any disrespect upon Englishmen or upon English systems of education, I should say that most of the difficulties and most of the bad systems of government in my country are due to the fact that the democracy of this country fop years gone by have not had given to them the democratic education that is now going to be given to them by the Minister who has spoken to-day. As an Irishman and as a democrat I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's speech. We want in this country and we want in Ireland more

  1969
  money in order to make education better and to bring it within the reach of the masses.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see what Ireland has to do with this.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: I will avoid it.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No doubt Irishmen are entitled to speak as so many Irish children are being educated in England. That is the reason why I called the hon. Member. I thought he was going to deal specially with that topic.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: I do not intend to deal with the special question of Ireland. I know it would be entirely out of order on this occasion. I was going to say that in this question of education for England we are all interested as Irishmen, because for the time being at least we are concerned with education in the schools of this country. There is one question in the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman to which I would draw especial attention, and that is the question of secondary education. You have in this country a fairly perfect and fairly modern system of primary education. I am not acquainted with its details, but I know there are many Englishmen who think it should be very much better than it is. Dealing with the question of secondary education as it is expected to be under the proposals made this evening, I suggest, as one who takes an interest in education as such, that the proposals are wholly inadequate. If it claims to be a democratic country, and if it is a country which wishes that brains, character and the energy of the working masses of its people should be developed on lines good for the country, it is right for the parent to claim that his child if that child has ability, character and brains, should be able to go from the humblest school in the land to the highest university. No State can claim that its education is democratic, or that it is full and complete, or that it gives reward to brains and character if it lays down the principle that it is only wealth that can advance to the highest positions in education in this country, and that poverty is a barrier to brains and character. With regard to secondary education, I understand that the system at present adopted in this country is that a boy may go to a secondary school if that secondary school consents to adopt him. If a secondary school in this country allows 25 per cent, of its students to come
  1970
  in as free students, then it will be paid £5, or according to the proposed scheme £7, per pupil of all those in attendance. Having some experience of secondary education and having had the advantage, or shall I say the disadvantage, of having been a very poor boy, I feel that if you put a child of the working man into one of this aristocratic class of schools inevitably there is bound to be drawn—I do not say willingly or consciously—between the non-paying poor man's child and the fee paying rich man's child, the distinction of social position and of wealth and other distinctions. This is fatal to true education. I am satisfied that until this country provides in suitable centres free secondary schools for every boy who wishes to follow a secondary school education, we shall not have laid down the essential principles of democratic education in this country.
  I have been reading a very interesting account of a contrast that was drawn by Professor Sadler between the secondary education of this country and that of America. He has divided it into heads. He first deals with the boarding school, and he says "ingrained in the English traditions: practically non-existent in coeducational America." This may be a little out of place on my part, but I hold strongly that schools of this kind are not democratic schools. They are class schools. They are not schools where education is the main object in view. They are schools which are intended to give to the wealthier and more aristocratic classes a certain stamp which, even without progress in education, will afterwards enable them to be selected for certain privileges and advantages in the social life of this country. These social distinctions which exist in England are, he says, absent entirely in America. Then he goes on to discipline, which he says is autocratic in England and weaker in America, and he goes on to the examination system, which he says is rampant in England and nonexistent in America. To my mind this question of secondary education is one of the utmost importance to the workers of this country, and as an Irishman, who is most anxious to see the workers of this country given the opportunity to use their brains and character so that they may reach the highest social, commercial, and political status that their character and energy demand, I join in wishing the new Minister for Education in this country my heartiest congratulations, and to express

  1971
  the hope that he may long remain to guide the destinies of education in this country and to improve it far beyond what he has outlined in his statement to-day.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I should like to join in the congratulations that have been showered on the head of my right hon. Friend for the great departure which he has made in delivering an educational speech when introducing the Educational Estimates. I am all the more grateful to him because, though what he has said this afternoon has been said by a good many of the more democratic educational organisations for some years, yet this is the first time that we have had any evidence of a real attempt to unify and dignify our educational system; and though there are many of the minor points of my right hon. Friend's speech with which I might venture to join issue, I think that we may take it as the first contribution to an exceedingly promising scheme, and that it is the duty of the Committee to praise rather than to criticise. I am particularly pleased with this proposal regarding the salaries of the teachers. It has been a perfect disgrace to this country that men whose intellectual attainments were so good and whose services to the community were so marked as those of the teachers should have been paid salaries that other professional men would have characterised as being nothing more than pauper doles. I am not quite sure if he is wise in limiting to 20 per cent, the aid that he is to give for other expenditure. At the present moment, for instance, there is a great dearth of buildings, an hon. Friend of mine put down a question to-day in which he asked whether during or before May, 1914, there were 124 public elementary schools in London, with a total accommodation for 54,000 scholars, which had been condemned by the Board of Education. Unfortunately, this question, which was No. 138, was not reached within the time limit, but those of us who have studied the statistics know that it is an extract from an official statement that has been made. But that is not all. If the Minister for Education is going to reduce the size of classes then the dearth of buildings will be greater than ever, and consequently the Board of Education will be faced immediately by this problem of how to encourage much more rapidly than they
  1972
  have done hitherto the building of new schools I doubt very much if that part of his programme, which provides for one-fifth of the cost of building being paid by the Treasury is adequate. I throw that out as a suggestion. It may do for the moment, but I think that? he will find, before he occupies his position very much longer, that he will have much pressure brought to bear upon him to increase that 20 per cent.
  I was particularly pleased with what he said regarding the teacher as a man. I have noticed in educational debates in this House that when educationists spoke about increasing pay and increasing age and reducing classes they imagined they were solving the education problem. It was very gratifying to find in the speech of my right hon. Friend that he takes a totally different view, but, whilst all these things are necessary, the great central problem of education is something much more elusive than that. We must try some way or other whilst offering these economic advantages to get hold of a teacher who is a teacher by vocation. It is very difficult, particularly in this House, to discuss that question, because at a certain point it becomes rather abstract, but still I think we ought to impress upon the Board of Education certain educational changes that will tend to produce the true psychology of the teacher. The one point that I have made before here, and which I venture to repeat again, is this, that unless you make the work of your elementary school sufficiently bright and sufficiently interesting you can pay your teacher what you like, a £1,000 instead of £160, you can reduce his class to what size you like, and heighten the age of his pupils to what limit you like, but even then you will not produce your good teacher. I do not know any profession with which I have had any connection where the quality of the man depends so much upon the interest in his work as in the case of the teaching profession. Therefore, I hope that my right hon Friend, having taken the necessary economic steps to improve education, will see to it that he also takes the psychological steps to improve education.
  I was a little suspicious about a suggestion which he made, but which, I must confess straightaway, I am not sure if I took it up accurately. He admits that we have been saying for some time that if we heighten the age of exemption, then you must revise our educational curriculum for at least the last year or the last two

  1973
  years. I have been very often struck, in the educational work of the elementary schools, by the barren results in the last two years. It is no use talking about raising the school age unless it is accompanied by a thorough and liberal revision of the school curriculum, of the last two years of school attendance. I think my right hon. Friend hinted that he was going to create some sort of central institution for dealing with this matter. May I make another suggestion, not as against him, but that he might consider it? At a certain point in the elementary school education the interest of the teacher and the interest of the pupil are in common. The interest of the pupil undoubtedly is to be taken away from the atmosphere of the elementary school and brought into the atmosphere and conditions of the higher school. I would submit that the interest of the teacher is that he should have the pupil sufficiently long under his charge to make something of him. If you are going to give the teacher work which will stimulate him and keep him efficient, and make him feel that the work he is doing is the very best that is in him to do, and if you try to devise some sort of scheme by which he associates himself with his pupil in the way the Scottish dominie associated himself with his pupil, taking him from the A B C to Latin and Greek, until he was able to pass to the university—if you are going to do that with English schools, you must devise with some completeness a scheme for the elementary schools which will enable the teacher to make at least one stage of his pupil's career complete. I throw out that suggestion, and I would like my right hon. Friend to consider this matter from that point of view.
  The Cockerton judgment was one of the most abominable things that ever happened from the educational point of view. Do not let us repeat that under the impression that we are increasing the efficiency of education. I am not at all sure that we cannot be over-efficient in the method of our education, making the great mistake, by that, of sacrificing the psychology of the good elementary educational school. You can give apparatus, you can give surroundings, you can give ampler buildings, a more roomy building, you can give laboratories, and so on, and to that extent you benefit the pupil; but if in order to do that you are stunting the field of the teacher's work and making it unnaturally narrow and
  1974
  barren and pettifogging, then you destroy the education of the elementary school. Therefore, I do submit that you should not attempt to create watertight departments, and I think the less that is done the wiser it will be, more particularly in education. I was a little sorry, therefore, when my right hon. Friend went on to refer to the regenerating of secondary education. I do not think his proposal regarding secondary education even approached finality, and I am a little sorry that it was made even as a first step. The right hon. Gentleman did not talk about the education ladder. That is a great blessing. I hope that it is decaying and rotting, and is about to disappear wholly. But he did talk of the education highway, which is a very much better term. On these questions words and phrases can be applied without indicating the real idea— merely conventional phrases that can be used without indicating any very serious meaning. The education highway is a totally different idea from that of the education ladder, and the proper idea is the education highway. But I think the right hon. Gentleman's reference to maintenance Grants and so on indicated that the shadow of the educational ladder still lies across the education highway. I would like to associate myself with what fell from the hon. Member from Ireland. I had a very curious illustration of what he said the other day. A friend of mine, a working man, came to me with his boy, who had won a scholarship, and asked for my advice. He was too proud to accept it, and I think he was perfectly right; I gave him advice which I thought might open another door so that the boy would not suffer.
  What hon. Members who have not gone through elementary schools as we have gone and who have not finished their education in elementary schools as we have had to finish it must remember is this: If you get a lad who is worthy of going to a secondary school and then to a university, in nine cases out of ten you have got a very proud lad. He feels his inferiority even when everybody round about him is trying to make him forget it. Self-pride and self-respect are things, especially in education, which we must do nothing to eliminate. If you send the son of a working man to a secondary school on a maintenance scholarship given to him because he requires that maintenance scholarship you are doing him a very great

  1975
  injustice. The old Scottish method of bursary was a very much better method. That Scottish bursary method was common competition In the days I have in mind the highest for Aberdeen was, I think, £30. There was the sense of the honour of the competition and those who did not require the money could refuse it. If my right hon. Friend would devise, in connection with the secondary schools, some adaptation of that old Scottish bursary idea he would get out of a great many troubles and avoid a great many objections from self-respecting working men with which his present scheme will certainly be met. In the end he has got in the secondary schools to lump endowments, and, as a matter of fact, he must face with great boldness the whole problem of secondary education. He must do it for this reason, that secondary education is the real education. Elementary education is only a preparation and universities are specialised. The modern university has become more and more specialised. The old Scottish university was the very finest type of secondary school that any nation in the world had, and it is that type of education which is getting too much split up to-day, with the result that you are putting nothing in its place. You have broken up elementary education and you have so arranged that the old curriculum of the Scottish universities, of philosophy, mathematics and humanities, is getting so attenuated and broken down that the culture that came from it as a whole, and that does not come from any of its separate sections, is now being lost.
  I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that in the next twelve months he should tackle the problem of secondary education from that point of view, remembering that if you are going to have real culture in your nation you are going to get that culture from your secondary stage of education, for which the elementary must prepare. Then he will see that he cannot avoid making that secondary education practical for two reasons. If it is a snobbish thing, its psychological effect will kill its education, and if it is an economic affair, then you axe depriving your-, self of the brains available from the working classes. We hear a great deal about reconstruction now. There are Committees reconstructing everything. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should have an Educational Reconstruc-
  1976
  tion Committee, very carefully appointed with a very wide reference, so that he might be able, as soon as possible, to have some sort of conspectus of the educational problem from various points of view covering the whole field, from the smallest village school to the most ancient and honoured of our universities. The great problem for us all is to unify the whole of the education system, so that there can be no narrow roads as if uniting two different worlds, but one world, great, organised, co-ordinated and differentiated, with somewhere in the centre such a wide and rich field of education that the man who is not going to specialise, but who is going to leave his school and go into the world as an efficient man and a good citizen may get that general culture which is necessary for his mental equipment, and from which alone it will spring. Some sort of investigation like that is now very necessary. It must include universities, it must take into account secondary schools, it must take into account the relations of all the grades of the various educations. I end as I began by congratulating my right hon. Friend in delivering a speech this afternoon upon education to which it was a great pleasure to us to listen.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: There are two points that have come before the House to-day which have not been dealt with from, as I believe, the Liberal point of view. I want, first of all, to deal with that point which caused me to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman when he was making his admirable statement. We have put before us to-day the question of a large subvention in aid of the rates. I hold that we in this House are guardians of the taxpayers, and that we should watch very carefully very large Grants made from the taxpayer's pocket, even if they are for the benefit of the ratepayers, and even supposing that the Grant in aid of the rates has no economic effect upon the whole of the country's finances. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) sitting opposite. He, at any rate, has been long enough a Member of this House to know perfectly well that this question of subvention in aid of the rates never comes up without that economic question arising at the same time of who benefits by that subvention. We know perfectly well that the agricultural landlord, when he buys land, buys that land subject to a charge for the

  1977
  education of the working classes, and subject to a charge for the support of the poor. Everybody knows that the price he pays for that land depends upon those charges. If there was no question of the land being charged for the support of the poor or for the benefit of education he would pay more for that land when he bought it. Is it not a fact that if you remove from that land the charge upon it for the support of education and the poor you thereby increase the capital selling value of the land? That has been put before this House by Mr. Disraeli in words which unfortunately I have not been able to find, and it has been put before the House by Mr. Gladstone and by every statesman who has brought this question forward. These are charges in the nature of a permanent mortgage on the land, and if you relieve the land of these charges thereby put a present into the pockets of you thereby put a present into the pockets of the landlords.
  In the last Conservative Government one of the things they did was to relieve the ratepayer at the expense of the taxpayer. There were grants made in relief of local rates, and unanimously the whole Liberal party denounced that as a dole to the landlords. I am only sorry that in the speech which he contributed to the Debate to-day the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Monmouthshire (Mr. McKenna) entirely forgot his old speeches of twelve or fifteen years ago, and we merely had the universal blessing of anything which would squander our money for the benefit of the ratepayers. Some part of this £3,500,000 finds its way in relief of rates. I do not know how much it will be, but in so far as that sum goes in relief of rates it is the present of a capital amounting to twenty or twenty-five years' purchase of that sum into the pockets of the landlords of this country. We try to shut our eyes to it and pretend it is not happening, but it is happening all the time, and whenever the Conservative party are in power they have done their best to relieve the ratepayer at the expense of the taxpayer, because it goes into the landlords' pockets. But this scheme which has been put forward to-day offends yet more strongly against all justice, because the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education quoted the Kempe Committee.
  One of the features of the Report of that Committee, which was, of course, a Conservative Report made by Conserva-
  1978
  tive gentlemen on the Committee, was that there should be a revaluation, so-that matters might be equalised between the town and country districts. It is perfectly notorious to everybody here that the farmers of this country, sitting, on the assessment committees, have managed to get their agricultural land assessed at far below its proper value throughout the country. Many farms are not assessed at more than one-third of their real annual value, but if you go to the boroughs and towns, there you find property assessed right up to the chimney tops. Consequently, this relief that the Minister for Education is going to give to the local ratepayers based upon the revenue arising from a 7d. rate is going to be most unfair between the town and country districts. If you take the 7d. rate for a town district, that 7d. is a tax upon the full annual value of the town. But if you take the 7d. rate for an agricultural district, that rate is, in fact, bringing in 3d. or 4d. only upon the full annual value of that country district. These facts are well-known, and are specified by the Kempe Committee as one of the questions which would have to be put right before a subvention in aid of rates was made, so that, even judging between one class of ratepayer and another, you are not only benefiting the ratepayers, and therefore the owners of property, as against the taxpayers, but you are also discriminating between the town tenant and the country tenant in a way which is, in my opinion, unfair. This question is not a new one in this House, but I can only hope that some of the newer Members will learn something about it before this Grant is through, because it is certain that those for whom I speak and who believe in the rating of land values will offer to this Grant a most determined opposition, and not only here but in the country we shall make it quite clear that the object of this Grant is, as is the object of all other doles to ratepayers, merely a benefit to the party who are bringing it in.
  There is one other point which I want to make in connection with the speech of my right hon. Friend. Everyone who has spoken in this Debate has supported the idea of the raising of the school age and of compulsory evening classes. I admit that this is a question which will have to be dealt with by a Bill and that we can only deal with it very generally at the present time, but

  1979
  I want the House to realise that there is another point of view. I believe, in putting this other point of view forward, that I am probably in a very small minority in this House, but then we are not the parents of the children who have to go to school. We are legislating in this connection for other people than ourselves, and I want it to be remembered that we do not send our sons to the elementary schools, but other people's children. Some four or five years ago a Bill was introduced by a private Member, the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Mr. Den-man), for raising the school age, I think it was to fourteen. It was an optional Bill, optional by districts. I had the honour of opposing that Bill, and the Bill did not proceed very far. It got through Committee, but no further It got no farther for this very adequate reason, that although everybody in the House was very pleased with the Bill, the people outside, the trade unionists and the ordinary mothers of families, got perfectly furious at the idea of the Bill becoming law. Do let us remember that parents in this country who are trying to make both ends meet on £2 a week—
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Less than that.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: I am speaking of parents with £2 a week, and they do not find it very easy to bring up a wife and five children on that sum, and the idea that you should postpone for another six months, or in some cases for another year, the wage-earning age of those children is not one which appeals to the mothers and fathers of this country. I was astonished, when that Bill to which I have referred came on—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have allowed the hon. and gallant Member, as I allowed another hon. Member, to make a general reference, and I must now ask him to pass from that topic, because it is excluded from the purview of the Committee.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: In that case I ask the House to remember that parents in this country are in a very difficult position at the present time, and I think we should be doing our duty by them if we gave them the opportunity of continuing their children's education, but did not make it compulsory. I believe that my right hon. Friend would find that all these teachers would do far better
  1980
  work and his educational schemes would be far more satisfactory if the system was voluntary. So long as it is voluntary you have the stimulus to do good work. You have to attract children to school by making it interesting, you have the stimulus of a really good educational system. It is otherwise when you have compulsion and children have to go whether they like it or not. Everybody knows that in regard to the public schools where we send our sons. There is a far more important point raised by my right hon. Friend to-day to which I want to come—that is in connection with these evening trade continuation schools. This question, of course, was brought up in Germany first of all. It is an importation from Germany. It has been advocated most boldly in Germany by Dr. Kerschensteiner.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken. It is not evening continuation schools, but day training schools to which he is referring.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: I am afraid my right hon. Friend must be referring to something else. I am dealing with trade continuation schools, where the children have to put in three evenings a week or one day and an evening, where in each place different regulations are made as to the hours at which school needs to be attended to suit the local industry. In some districts it is two days a week, and in some others three evenings a week; it varies from place to place. These trade continuation schools of Dr. Kerschensteiner have been carried to a very remarkable pitch of success in Germany. They are specifically advocated in Germany on the ground that they turn out most useful machines for the production of wealth. They turn out a child, it may be as a chimney sweep, or an operative, with his trade at his finger-tips, so that directly he takes employment he has been so well trained at the evening classes that he is a far more efficient worker than otherwise he would be. It is, in fact, doing what the right hon. Gentleman suggested, which is recollecting that the children of the country are the capital of the country, and that money spent on their education is money which is spent repro-ductively for the production of wealth. That is the point of view which has gained complete acceptance in Germany. I do not think it ought to have complete acceptance in this country. After all, what

  1981
  is education? The very meaning of the word "education" is that you draw out of a child the best that you can. You build up character. You build up individuality. That is the whole Scottish system. The Scottish system is directed primarily towards turning out a child as a reasoning individual, capable of seeing both sides to a question, one who is able to stand on his or her own feet, and not specialising in any particular trade or in any particular faculty. That I believe to be true education. It is diametrically opposed to this German system of education which is now being introduced into this House by the right hon. Gentleman [HON MEMBERS: "No, no!"]
  Mr. FISHER: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend, but it may be that I did not explain myself clearly in that respect.
  10.0 P.M.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: I listened very carefully to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I certainly heard him allude to the money spent on education being reproductive in the interests of the commanity. I want to spend the money so that it is not reproductive for the benefit of the community, so that you get a reasoning individual who shall not be a machine. This German system of producing machines I want to protest against. You want to produce men who will not produce wealth for other people, but for themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Surely there is some difference in the different points of view? Consider what the German children are taught in their schools. They are taught eight to twelve hours, every apprentice receiving instruction in citizenship, general knowledge, religious instruction, a taste for good literature is given, one of the subjects is also the contractual relations between employer and employed, the functions of local authorities, and the Central Government and the obligations of citizenship in relation to both. Nothing is drawn that is not made in the workshop. That is the system which is going to reproduce capital! "The technical education of the apprentice," says Dr. Kerschensteiner, "is never planned with the view to letting him make masterpieces."
  Surely the House must see that that system is not what we want, and not what we ourselves got at school. We all remember the fight that went on when we were at the public schools, the struggle between
  1982
  the desire to specialise in order to get into a particular trade and the wider meaning of the humanitarians who said you should get general knowledge and general learning. I appeal to the House: What was it we learnt at the public school? The first thing we learnt was not to suffer injustice ourselves nor allow it to anybody else. That was the best lesson we ever learnt at school. Does that come out of these trade continuation schools? Surely, the sort of teaching we got at school is the sort of teaching we want the working classes to get; not to teach a particular trade which shall turn out useful machines for the benefit of other people? I was not surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the employers of this country—I presume he meant specifically Sheffield—were supporting these trade continuation schools. They do in Germany. Do not, however, let us be carried away.
  Mr. FISHER: I am sorry to interrupt again. I was not dealing with trade; I was speaking of the continuation schools.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman may not have used the word "trade," but in his speech he pointed out that he was supported by employers and employed, so as to turn out people who are better capable of dealing with trade. I am within the memory of the House, but if I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman so much the better. What I want to warn the House against is being carried away by the German system of education when we in this country have a far better system. The next point I want to deal with is the question of teachers. In his speech the right hon. Gentleman made what was an eloquent tribute about the way in which so many people have gone into the teaching profession in spite of the pay. I know, of course, that an enormous number of these teachers arc primarily-interested in the teaching and not in the pay. They go into the profession. They work like niggers at it. Tributes are paid to them here. Their pay is going to be raised. Let us not forget that it is the best of these teachers, the men who have been most unselfish, who have devoted their lives to teaching, who are in too many cases now being sent to prison as conscientious objectors. They are very often known to be conscientious objectors before they are called up. They are doing work which is obviously of national importance. They are now being refused

  1983
  permission to continue teaching. Of course they are people of a certain amount of character and upbringing, who have strength of character, and who infinitely prefer to go to prison before undertaking work of which their consciences do not approve. I have lately had the case of three teachers brought before me. They have simply said: it is a question of Wormwood Scrubs. Surely we might let them alone, and allow these people who have been so devoted to the teaching profession, who are probably Socialists or something of the sort, to do the useful work they are doing, rather than to snap them up in this way, and put them into places where they are not only of no use to the community, but an expense and burden upon the community? The teaching profession is in an extremely difficult position at the present time. Everyone knows that every local authority is trying to get teachers, and cannot get them. Do not let us unnecessarily cut down the number of teachers by these men, who are cranks, I admit, but who at the same time have a real devotion to teaching, and whom we can ill spare at the present moment. I must apologise to the House for taking up so much of its time at this late hour, but I think these points I have made are ones which ought to be put before the House, and considered by the right hon. Gentleman. The first point is whether you are justified in taking money from the taxpayer—that is, from the general production of the country— and using that money in relief of rates, thereby giving a present, in an increase of annual value, to landlords, particularly in the agricultural districts, The second point is whether we ought not to watch very carefully this tendency towards turning out the working-class children as good machines to produce dividends for capitalists instead of as good men standing up for their own rights. We do not want too much discipline in the schools. We want people to be taught to think, and not to do as they are told. What we were taught at school was to do as we thought right, regardless of consequences. The other point is to remember that the question of raising the school age, and compulsion for evening classes, is going to be one which, if the country had an opportunity of voting on it, they would turn down at once. The parent has a rooted objection to having his children sent any longer to school.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member will try and do what he has previously been told, and avoid that topic, which is one for legislation.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: I know. It has been dealt with on the other side of the House, and I am the only Member on this side who has dealt with it; but I apologise for dragging it in again. The three points are the doles to landlords, the direction in which our secondary education is moving, and that it is a crime to-the parents of this country to compel them to send their children to school without having had an opportunity of voting on the question.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: I have often admired the qualities of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down, and I have the opportunity to-night to express my admiration of his ingenuity, I think to have succeeded on the Education Estimates in discussing doles to landlords, the taxation of land values, and conscientious objectors is an achievement of which he may well bo proud. I hope he will not think it is in any disrespect, or for want of interest in his speech, if I turn to a totally different subject, because I want to say a few words on the subject of education. I was very much struck in the speech of the President of the Board of Education—which I only refrain from expressing my admiration for because I remember the penalty which attaches to those of whom all men speak well—by the one question he put as testing the whole question of the educational system of the country. He said the question was, Is the country getting value for its money? The same question may be put —it really is the same question—in rather a different form, and in a form which I think brings home to our minds a truer aspect of the question. I would rather say, Is the pupil getting value for his time? I put it in that way, because I want, if I may, to call attention to what appears to me to have been an omission from the review in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not, of course, at all complain of that omission. He had a very large subject to deal with, and he could not have introduced more topics. But there is one aspect of the whole educational problem which I am sure he has not left out of his mind, and which I hope he will not allow to escape his energies and attention in the future, and that is the method of education itself. He has

  1985
  been dealing, and the House has been dealing, to-night mainly with the machinery of education, the payment of teachers, and so forth; but there has been very little said about the actual method by which knowledge is acquired by the pupil. The right hon. Gentleman said, with reference to teachers, that all depends upon the personal element. Of course, that is profoundly true, and it is especially true when you come to distinguish between good and bad methods in the teaching itself. But the right hon. Gentleman appeared to me to say immediately afterwards that the good or the bad teacher, the personal element, was a matter which depended very much upon the payment of the teacher. At all events he connected that in his speech with the question of raising the pay of teachers, which, of course, I am absolutely in agreement with him, is a very desirable and very necessary object. But I think we should not imagine that a mere raising of the payment of the teachers is going to dispose of that question of the personal element on which he himself rightly says all depends.
  Part of the system he has outlined was a system of nursery schools for children under five years of age, and when his system has become a complete working scheme it may be taken—I will not use the phrase "the rung of the ladder" after the warning we have had from the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) just now—that the first step on the highway will be that nursery school. The right hon. Gentleman told us very little about the character of these schools, which are to be the initial step on the educational highway. I suppose, we may take it for granted that they will really be in the nature of Kindergarten. But I am afraid that in this country the Kindergarten system, which must be applied to children of that age in some form or other, has been far too much a mere amateur playground, or an ill-considered, unthought-out mixture of play and elementary lessons, rather than any real contribution to the whole scheme of education of which the Kindergarten ought to be a part. We would seem to have taken the Kindergarten out of the whole Pestalozzian system of education, using it as a sort of mixture, or cross, between the nursery and the school, without really building upon it, and the system of which it is a part, a complete
  1986
  idea and science of education as a whole. We do not carry it out, and in that connection I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his improvement and reform of education is going to embrace any reform of method.
  My criticism, I confess, may not be entirely up-to-date. I do not confess to have exact knowledge as to the methods pursued at the present moment, but I am very well aware that that in a comparatively recent time a sound method of education was not to be found in the great majority of elementary schools of this country. I do not know whether the teachers who are very highly trained—and I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said on that point—are now trained, as they certainly were not a few years ago, not merely in the subjects they have to teach, but in the science of education itself. After all, teachers who have to teach in elementary schools have not only to learn for themselves their reading, writing, arithmetic, history, science and what not, but the first thing they have to learn is to teach, which is a very difficult thing, and there are very many men of the very highest intellectual attainments, many men with very high university degrees who may be perfectly incapable of imparting to other people the knowledge they have themselves. On that point I agree with one remark that fell from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down, when he said that education did not coensist, or ought not to consist, of merely emptying great loads of knowledge into the mind of the child, but of drawing out of the pupil what is there already—in other words, that the first step in the whole system of education, and the underlying principle of it, ought to be rather more a stimulant to the reflective faculty of the pupil than offering to the mind of the pupil a given quota of knowledge on one subject after another. I do not believe, so far as my knowledge goes in this country, that the intimate connection between teaching as such, and such sciences as psychology and physiology are sufficiently studied. That is one particular in which, I think, the method in Germany is superior to our own. Of course, these principles of education are as old as, and even older than, education itself. I was rather struck by seeing an article in one of the magazines this month by a lady who called her article "Courasre in Education." She speaks of one particular school where a new experiment was being

  1987
  made in the method of education. Well, the new experiment was one in which I myself took a great deal of interest more than twenty years ago, but it is older than that, because it is a method of education which you will find in Plato. It is a method of education which, from time to time, has been inculcated at different periods by thinkers upon this subject, but which has never, so far as I know, except in Germany, been really systematised in the schools of a country—I mean the system which began, although it might have been earlier still, but at all events found expression in Plato. In more modern times it is to be found in writers like Rousseau, Pestalozzia, Froebel, and in our country in Herbert Spencer—whose work on education, I think, of infinitely more value than his great volumes on "First Principles"—and our education reformers, with the single exception, so far as I know, of Matthew Arnold, in his famous Report, have really never introduced it to our consideration. Some years ago, when Professor Sadler was at the Education Office, he produced some valuable papers issued as Miscellaneous Reports which I read with great interest many years ago and, unless there has been a very recent importation, the principles which he laid down and claimed from various foreign systems, especially from Germany, have never really permeated our educational system, and certainly has never reformed it. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the three R's are acquired in the first school year. I do not know whether he said they really are acquired in the first year, or that they ought to be acquired; but if he meant the latter then I agree with him, but if he said that they are so acquired I think he was too sanguine.
  Mr. FISHER: I said that one might expect the three R's to be acquired by the twelfth year.
  Mr. R. MCNEILL: I agree that under a sound method the three R's might be expected to be acquired in the first year. There should be a certain amount of proficiency in reading, writing, and arithmetic in the first year of the teaching of these subjects. The proposition I wish to put forward is this: I remember many years ago when I was taking a good deal of interest in this subject and writing upon it in the London Press, I had a visit from
  1988
  Professor Sonnenschein, of Birmingham, who discussed with me educational methods, and he pointed out to me a method which he himself had devised and put into practice, and he showed me by results that the average elementary school failed to produce the ability to read in children after several years of teaching, and that several years passed without the children being able to acquire the art of reading, whereas he had taken a number of children who were not specially selected and by a totally different method, which he explained to me, he showed that he was able to take the average child and before that child had been learning for a year he was able to read and write comparatively difficult composition, and this was done by a method which he had devised. I asked him why it was that his method had not been taken up by the Educational Department, and whether he had approached them or not, and he replied that he had put his method and explained all the facts to the education authorities at Whitehall, but he had never been able to get them to adopt it, on account of some copyright in the old-fashioned text-books. For this reason he had never been able to get his new method introduced.
  I know the impression that he produced on my mind by his experiments. I remember he pointed out how necessary it was to take writing before reading, and, having started with writing, the method was to take the two hand-in-hand together, and by working on his system within a very few months it was possible to produce very considerable proficiency both in reading and writing. I agree with what I thought the right hon. Gentleman said, that you might expect by a proper and sound method to get proficiency in two of the R's, and possibly a certain amount of proficiency in the third R within a year of the child coming under instruction. That, of course, is by a method which we have never adopted, and therefore when we are starting out as the right hon. Gentleman is doing upon a completely new departure, and certainly on a new system in the education of this country, I think it is very important that the actual method to be pursued should not be lost sight of when these other important reforms with regard to the payment of teachers and grants of money and the connection between one kind of school and another are being introduced. We ought to remember, as the hon.

  1989
  and gallant Member said, that education really is something which ought not to be a task imposed upon unwilling minds; it ought really to be the satisfying of a natural curiosity; and, if some such principle as that is recognised and if the method of teaching is grounded on a principle of that sort, it will, in my opinion, do far more to produce the sound basis of education we require than all these other reforms, important though I think them to be.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman, in his extremely eloquent speech, told us that economy was in the air. I should like economy to be, not in the air, but upon the earth, and not only upon the earth, but in the offices of the various Government Departments which are concerned with the spending of money. The right hon. Gentleman has so manufactured his Department as to have created a wind, and which will keep economy neither in his Department nor upon the earth, but in the air, because he proposes that at this particular time we should spend something like £4,000,000 upon increasing the benefits, if they are benefits, of education. I do not want to go into any discussion as to whether the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman are a benefit to education, or whether education requires improvement, but, even supposing it is so, I do not think that is the proper moment to carry out that task. We have other tasks to carry out; and, however excellent the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman may be, this is not the moment that he should come forward and propose an immense increase of expenditure. I understood him to say that this £3,500,000 is only an instalment. I am not quite sure whether I am correct in my figures, but I think the present expenditure on education, including this £3,500,000, amounts to something like £40,000,000. If that is only an instalment, there is a vista opening up before us in which economy will not be in the air, but in another place still further remote than the air or the clouds.
  Mr. HOGGE: Where is that?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know. It is not where economy ought to be. On the 2nd April an answer was given by the right hon. Gentleman in response to a question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough). This is what he said:
  1990
  "Figures for elementary education—expenditure of local authorities out of rates: 1902–3, £6,620.000; 1907–8, £10,467,000; 1915–16, £14,266,000."
  It is all worked out for me.
  "Increase 1915-lfi over 1902–3–1 16 per cent."
  That is in only fourteen years.
  "Expenditure of the Board of Education: 1902–3, £9,310,000; 1907–8, £11,413,000; 1915–16, £12,913,000. Increase 1915–16 over 1902–3–39 per cent.
  It might be said that these figures do not afford much comparison unless you show that the number of children has greatly increased, because it stands to reason that if the number of children has greatly increased so the expenditure would greatly increase. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman gave the figures of the increase in the number of children as follows:
  "Number of children in average attendance at public elementary schools: 1902–3,5,038,252; 1907–8,5,301,241; 1915–16, 5,306,411. Increase 1915–16 over 1902–3–5–3 per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd April, 1917, col. 975.]
  Therefore while the expenditure out of rates had gone up 116 per cent, and the expenditure by the taxpayers had gone up 39 per cent., the increase in the number of children was only 5.3 per cent. That shows beyond doubt that there has been an enormous increase in the expenditure during the last thirteen or fourteen years. As to the expenditure on secondary education, apparently no figures could be given with accuracy with regard to 1902–3, and the first figures given are those for 1907–8. Even there, there has been an enormous increase of something like 70 or 80 per cent, in about eight years. That appears to be a matter for very serious consideration. When we remember that if the War continues for another year we shall have a debt of something like £6,000,000,000, with an annual charge of £300,000,000, however good the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman are, however necessary they are, we must cut our coat according to our cloth. We cannot afford to enter into all these great ideas. One hon. Member said that the Education Department
  "is now presided over by a Gentleman with high ideals."
  I think it is, and in ordinary times, and if we were a very exceptional nation with an overflowing Exchequer, high ideals might be a very good thing, but at the present moment, when the Exchequer is certainly not overflowing and when we are in the middle of the greatest crisis which this country has ever seen, a little common sense is better than high ideals.
  An HON. MEMBER: What about low ideals?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not believe in ideals at all. I do not care whether they are high or low. I want facts. The right hon. Gentleman I thought almost proved too much. He gave us some very interesting anecdotes of what had taken place in some correspondence which had passed between an officer in the Army and an officer in the Navy. The officer in the Navy used, I think, some unparliamentary language which I should not like to repeat. [An HON. MEMBER: "In the House!"] Yes; in the House. I am quite willing to repeat it to the hon. Gentleman outside the House. But putting it in Parliamentary language what it came to was that though the officer in the Navy had a very poor opinion of the Board schools he was bound to admit that the present system—and I wish to lay emphasis upon the present system—was so good that it had produced almost an ideal officer and an ideal sailor. I think I am not exaggerating when I say that was what the right hon. Gentleman told a very pleased House and an officer in the Army practically said the same thing. If we have such an excellent system that it produces such excellent officers and such excellent men, why go and spend a lot more money on something which is already so good that it apparently cannot be improved? You cannot carry on the War if you have not got money, and you have to carry on the War to a finish before you begin to do all this in education and in other things, and however good the system and the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman are they cannot bear fruit for, at any rate, a good number of years, and, therefore, one might well wait until the War has been concluded successfully, as I feel sure it will, before we embark upon an expenditure of £3,500,000, which will, by the admission of the right hon. Gentleman, in a very short time exceed that sum by a very large amount.
  There is another point I should like to mention. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman upon it, and I am not at all sure that it requires a great deal of money to carry it out. I understood him to say that the child was influenced in its educational career more by the influence and by the nature of the teacher than by the actual learning that it acquired; that is to say, if a child has a sympathetic teacher, who teaches him
  1992
  high ideals, it probably will be inculcated with those high ideals, which will remain with it throughout its life, whereas the ordinary education is apt to be forgotten. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that really what impresses the child is the nature of the teacher. It is not so much what the child is taught, but the nature of the teacher. The important thing is whether a teacher is a man of high ideals, who impresses upon the pupil that the first thing in life is to go straight and be honourable and honest. I think that is what the right hon. Gentleman meant. I have conveyed it in very inferior language; he conveyed it in very superior language; but I think that is what he meant, and I agree with him. But is it necessary to spend any sum of money to impress that on the child? Apparently it has already been produced with the money we have spent. Therefore, why choose this particular time to ask the House of Commons to spend an enormous sum upon something which, according to the right hon. Gentleman, is already there? There is another point which I should like to make. I do not want to be led astray and to discuss anything which requires legislation because, as we all know, in Committee of Supply we cannot discuss anything which requires legislation. But unless I am very much mistaken, a considerable amount of this £3,500,000 will be spent upon something which does require legislation. What is the position which the Committee is in at the present moment? It is going to vote a sum of £3,500,000, or thereabouts.
  Mr. LOUGH: £15,000,000.
  Sir F. BANBURY: No; the supplementary sum is £3,500,000. I quite admit the education expenditure is much larger, but I presume the Committee is unanimous in voting the original Estimates, and that therefore they really do not come into the question. The original Estimates do not vary from the Estimates of last year; if they do vary they are rather less and therefore they do not arise. The only real question before us is whether or not we should vote this increased sum, which is something like £3,500,000. I do not know whether we shall have another day in Committee to discuss this. I presume we shall, because this is a very important subject, and everyone knows you cannot discuss a matter of this sort so thoroughly on Report as you can in Committee. Once we have got the Report

  1993
  stage it passes from all control of this House, and there is no further opportunity to discuss it until the Consolidated Fund Bill comes, unless, of course, legislation is introduced. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman finds he cannot introduce the legislation which will be necessary—
  Mr. FISHER: No legislation is required for this sum.
  Mr. HOGGE: That is the worst of it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Is the whole of the £3,500,000 to be spent upon matters which do not require legislation?
  Mr. FISHER: Yes.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I understand from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lough) that there is a sum of something like £400,000—
  Mr. FISHER: No.
  Mr. LOUGH: It is so.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman says the whole of this sum can be spent without legislation.
  Mr. FISHER: That is so.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Then I have nothing further to say, because my point was that legislation was necessary and that it might not be obtained, and that therefore the money might have to go back to the Old Sinking Fund.
  Mr. PRINGLE: This Committee has no security that the money will be spent in accordance with the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman unless you have legislation.
  Mr. LOUGH: Is not the fresh money voted £3,800,000, of which £400,000 is for secondary education; and though a Bill will not be required for the money, a Bill will be required for some of the purposes mentioned by my right hon. Friend—for instance, to compel employers to give the facilities?
  Mr. FISHER: My right hon. Friend is in error. No legislation is required. The money will be spent under Regulations.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Legislation may not be necessary, but unless legislation is passed Parliament may have no security that the money will be spent in accordance with the formula of the right hon. Gentleman. It is to be spent in accordance with Regulations laid down by the Treasury.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the hon. Member is entitled to make a speech. It is nearly ten minutes to eleven, and I understand that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lewis) is going to make a statement.
  Mr. PRINGLE: We are not going to let this through to-night.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I quite accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but this matter is one of importance to the country in the carrying on of its industries. The country at present is taxed very heavily, and large sums of money are being borrowed, and taxation cannot be paid or money raised unless our industries are carried on successfully. If you take away labour, which is the foundation of all industries, in order to give certain educational facilities, you may be doing a certain amount of good in one direction, but you may also be inflicting tremendous injury to the industries of the country. I would therefore appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to restrain his educational ardour until afterwards.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lewis): I am sure that my right hon. Friend has every possible reason to be gratified with the general reception which the Committee of the House of Commons has given to his new scheme. It has been received with a chorus of congratulation, and if he will allow one who has the happiness to be his subordinate, notwithstanding that fact, to join in that chorus of congratulation, I will venture to say that we have had no more interesting evening on the Education Estimates in the course of more than a score of occasions on which I have heard an annual statement by a Minister of Education. Perhaps I may be allowed to say, as a very old Member, that my right hon. Friend has initiated one of the greatest advances ever made in the history of education in this country, and I feel that the teachers of our country will regard to-day as a red-letter day in their history. I have not risen earlier because I was anxious that as many Members as possible should have an opportunity of addressing the Committee, and I have only time to reply to a very few of the criticisms that have been made. We have had some most helpful and suggestive speeches, and I feel sure that my right hon. Friend will give due weight to all the suggestions that have

  1995
  been made in the course of the Debate. Perhaps I should add this: whatever attention, or inattention, the speeches of hon. Members may receive in this House, there is one place, at any rate, where they are conned again and again, namely, at the Board of Education, and every Member who has spoken to-night may be quite sure that every suggestion which he has made in the course of this Debate will be very carefully considered. Some of the criticisms we have heard in the course of the Debate have already been answered by my right hon. Friend in advance. An hon. Member expressed his deep sense of relief at the fact that for once we have had an education Debate absolutely free from anything in the nature of partisan or party rancour. I am sure we all agree in feeling that the course of the Debate has been one which has conduced to the interests of education as a whole.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Sir J. Yoxall), than whom no one is more entitled to speak on the subject of education, commented upon the unsatisfactory condition of the staffing of the elementary schools during the War. I have had some inquiry made into that question, and I am glad to be able to inform the House that although the school staffing has suffered to some extent, and suffered considerably, still the reduction in the number of teachers has not been as great as is generally supposed. In fact, the reduction in the actual number of teachers is comparatively small, although I am free to admit that the reduction is inevitable at the present time.
  Mr. BARLOW: On a point of Order, Sir. Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to speak without these continual interruptions from Members on the Back Benches behind me?
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Member above the Gangway in the Chair or not?
  Mr. LEWIS: I am speaking under circumstances of a little difficulty, and it is very seldom that I address the House in Committee. I was referring to the result of the inquiry that I have made on behalf of the Board of Education with regard to the staffing of the schools at the present time, and I have taken at random a number of districts, and schools in several towns throughout the country, and I am able to give to the House the assurance that
  1996
  the staffing of the schools has on the whole been remarkably well kept up, although, owing to the substitution of less efficient for more efficient teachers, the quality of the staffing has undoubtedly diminished. Two hon. Members, in the course of the Debate, have referred to the education that is given in our rural schools. I am glad to be able to say that there has been a very great improvement in that respect, and that even during the War a considerable improvement has taken place in that regard. We have now no less than 3,000 schools which have taken up the subject of gardening, which is very popular both with the pupils and the teachers. The Departmental Committee over which I presided had some most interesting facts given to it by the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Food Control Department (Captain Bathurst), in which he described the results of school gardening upon the general progress of schools in this country. The information which he gave us was of a most remarkable character. The Committee may rest assured that the Board are doing everything in their power, even in the difficult circumstances of the present time, to improve rural education, and as soon as the War will allow them to do so the Committee may be satisfied that the Board will strive under the guidance of my right hon. Friend to make every possible progress in this direction.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham has not altogether surrendered to the charms of the formula which was set forth by my right hon. Friend and has expressed some apprehension lest the local education authority should not make the fullest and best use of the Grants which will be placed at their disposal. I would ask him to bear in mind that the Board of Education do retain the power in their hands before paying the Grant in any future year of having regard to the provisions made in the whole area for maintaining an adequate and suitable staff of teachers. If the Board arc not satisfied then, as my right hon. Friend has already said, they may withhold or reduce the Supplementary Grant. In addition to that, my right hon. Friend has expressed the intention of establishing a minimum scale of salary for teachers. That being so, a considerable portion of this additional Grant must necessarily be absorbed in that. To that extent, therefore, my hon. Member may be assured that the interests of the teachers will be safe-

  1997
  guarded. As regards what remains of the Grant, the position is this: of local education authorities who now desire to do their duty by education but having a large child population and having a low assessable value, and at the same time having spent as much as they possibly could afford on education, are in a position of being wholly unable to do anything more, such authorities will receive a generous share of this Grant, and when they receive that share they will receive a further three-fifths of what they may desire to spend on teachers' salaries. I therefore hope my hon. Friend will consider that the interests of the teachers have been duly safeguarded. We shall all, I am sure, watch with great care the manner in which this Grant is to be administered. There were other questions I should have been glad to enter upon, and, notwithstanding what my hon. Friend has said, I would very earnestly appeal to him to allow this Vote to pass to-night.
  Mr. HOGGE: I have a lot of suggestions to make.
  Mr. LEWIS: The situation is this: The local education authorities want to know what the position is with regard to those Grants. The Grants will be distributed to the local education authorities in accordance with the principles laid down by my right hon. Friend. What objection can there be to passing this Vote and, if it is desired, to have another discussion upon the subject; by all means let us have another discussion on the Report stage.
  Mr. HOGGE: I have a lot of suggestions to make now.
  Mr. LEWIS: I can only conclude by making that appeal to my hon. Friend. There has been great unanimity of feeling in the House on the whole. I hardly ever heard a large Grant of this kind proposed which has aroused more general support, and in the circumstances I do hope my hon. Friend will allow it to pass.
  It being Eleven of the Clock, the Deputy-Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  SUMMER TIME (IRELAND).
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  11.0 P.M.
  Mr. DILLON: I desire, in accordance with the notice which I gave at Question Time to-day, to raise the question of the application of the Summer Time Act to Ireland. The Chief Secretary, before the Easter Recess, in reply to a question that I put to him, said that during the Easter Recess he would make inquiries into this matter, and that he hoped that a good-humoured trial would be given to the new time scheme for Ireland, and that if it was found that the application of the Summer Time Act to Ireland caused any real and serious inconvenience, the Government would reconsider the matter. All that I forecasted has been more than justified by the result of the application of the Act to Ireland, where, I think it is not generally known in this House, the situation has been enormously aggravated by the application of Greenwich time since last summer. The Greenwich Time Act was applied to Ireland under most extraordinary circumstances. It was introduced here one day without any proper notice being given to the Members for Ireland, and it was met immediately by a very strenuous opposition. As soon as it became apparent that the majority of the people in Ireland were against it, the Government made up their minds to abandon the Bill, when certain Gentlemen, a very limited number of the Irish Members, who desired the application of Greenwich time to Ireland, blocked another Bill which was very much desired by the Irish party in connection with the reconstruction of the City of Dublin, and one of those Parliamentary bargains took place, and, after prolonged negotiations, the number of Irish Members who had blocked the Greenwich Time Bill were induced to withdraw their opposition, under the threat that if they did not do so the other Gentlemen would not let Dublin be reconstructed. Such a system of altering the time of a country without giving the people any opportunity of expressing their opinion was, in my opinion, an absolute outrage. I ventured at that time to warn the Government privately that by introducing Greenwich time to Ireland they would land themselves in a

  1999
  terrible difficulty when the time came to raise the question of the re-application of the Summer Time Act to Ireland. There was a good deal of discontent in the rural districts already, and not unnaturally, because the alteration of the time in Ireland affected them a great deal more than the alteration here affected the people of this country.
  The meridian of time, even under the old system, passed through the City of Dublin, and we were all run on Dublin time. We in the West of Ireland are twenty minutes behind Dublin time. In the western quarter of Ireland and in the South-West of Ireland, under this new system the clock is ahead of the sun by an hour and three quarters instead of an hour. Even in Dublin it is ahead of the clock, by practically an hour and twenty-seven minutes. The result is that the inconvenience and annoyance that was created even by the Summer Time Bill of last year has been enormously aggravated, and the whole rural world is in revolt against it. The Chief Secretary knows perfectly well that, practically speaking, ninety-nine out of every 100 of the rural population of Ireland are up against summer time, and all the more bitterly against it since it has come on the top of Greenwich time. After all, Ireland is pre-eminently an agricultural country. There are special circumstances this year which entitle it to special consideration. The Chief Secretary has pointed out that the Irish people have responded splendidly to the appeal to increase agriculture and tillage. They have acquitted themselves in the most admirable fashion. They are considerably hampered and annoyed by the application of this summer time. I have been deluged with letters and resolutions of public bodies from all parts of the country and by letters from farmers, protesting in the most violent way against the inconvenience and, as they say, against the loss which has been inflicted upon them by this Summer Time Bill. The details have been put before the Chief Secretary.
  But there are one or two points to which I wish to refer, because they are to a certain extent fresh. The first of these points is the extremely ludicrous position that has arisen. In most parts of the country the Ecclesiastical authorities have decided that they would not at all recognise the new time. The church clocks are now on the old time, and they are the guide of the people all around. Trade
  2000
  is affected by it, for the banks are closed when the people get in to do their business. Everything is upside down. The country goes on one time, and when the people go into the towns they are late. The confusion is even of a more ludicrous character in some districts. One newspaper has told us of a town where the convent bell was rung at twelve o'clock Greenwich time, and the parish church bell was rung according to the Irish time, the result being that the spiritual exercises of the people were turned upside down, and some people who were extremely particular had to say the Angelus twice. Really, the situation has been perfectly ludicrous, and almost intolerable.
  The other point I wish to deal with is this. There is no doubt, and it was frankly admitted that one of the difficulties the Government had to deal with and which they allege as a reason for not acceding at once to our request was that there is a certain amount of difference of opinion in Ireland on this subject. There is. That is quite admitted. In the cities and towns summer time last year was quite popular. I do not think it is so popular now on account of the Greenwich time. Summer time last year in the towns and cities and even in small country towns was quite popular. People liked it. But Greenwich time has spoilt that to a considerable extent. There is no doubt, however, that still in the towns and cities there is a considerable body of people who approve of summer time. I have been greatly surprised in receiving a considerable number of letters during the last two days from workers in the towns appealing to me to get this Bill repealed and summer time removed from Ireland. I received from Castlewellin, a town which, as the Chief Secretary knows, is a milling town in the north of Ireland, a letter from a worker in the mills, in which he said it was intolerable. I have not the letter with me, but so far as I recollect it, he said that the young people working In the mills had to be there at six o'clock; and now, under the new time, they had to get out of bed at a quarter past four by the sun in order to get to the mill at the same time. That is really outrageous. A quarter past four is what he stated, because the mill time under the new summer time in Ireland started at 4.30 by the sun. Although I was informed and led to believe that the City of Belfast was entirely in favour of summer time, I received

  2001
  to-day a letter from a gentleman who describes himself as the secretary of the Workers' Union, a body of which the Vice-President is Mr. Tom Mann—it is an association spread over the three countries —and the general secretary is Mr. Charles Duncan, a Member of this House. It says:
  "Dear Sir—The members of the above branch of the Workers' Union respectfully request you to protest on their behalf against the application of the Daylight Saving Bill to Ireland, as they find it inflicts hardship on them.
  A good many working men in Dublin have taken the same view, and I am surprised, because I thought they were in favour of it. Shop assistants are in favour of it because it lets them out on a summer afternoon, and it is quite natural that they should be in favour of it. I am, however, greatly surprised to find that in the cities and towns a percentage of the working classes are against the Bill. The third class which is protesting violently against the Bill are the teachers and managers of schools. I have had several letters saying that it inflicts the gravest hardship on the children, who are compelled to go to school at these unreasonable hours. I believe a change has been made in a good many of the schools, and that a good deal of dispute has arisen as to the hour at which the rolls are to be called between the managers and the Board of Education, which, I believe, approves of the Summer Time Bill.
  My own view is, that at all events for this year, until we reconsider the whole question of the Greenwich time, the Government ought to withdraw by an Act of Parliament, which I believe it is necessary to do, this provision from Ireland, in view of the great strain upon the agricultural community and the almost universal demand from the agriculturists of Ireland, that it should be withdrawn; and then some investigation could be entered into before next year to see whether anything could be done on this whole question. I am convinced of one thing, that if you persist in applying Greenwich time to Ireland, it will be intolerable to continue this in Ireland. I doubt very much whether in any case the agriculturists will consent to the application of summer time, but I am quite certain that if you persist in Greenwich time the whole thing is absolutely ridiculous. It was long thought to be good for farmers to put the clock an hour in advance in summer, but in a damp climate like that of Ireland to put the clock an
  2002
  hour and forty minutes ahead is really a reductio ad absurdum. I really ask the right hon. Gentleman to give some assurance to the people of Ireland with regard to this matter.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The real question now is whether, in view of what is admittedly a greatly divided state of opinion in Ireland, the time is proper for a legislative measure which would certainly produce some new discrepancy in Ireland, and not only in Ireland, but in the United Kingdom. It is no doubt a cause of some resentment-in Ireland that the change from the old Dublin time to Greenwich time should have been followed by what is called Summer Time, or Daylight Saving, as it was called by the late Mr. Willett, who was, I will not say its inventor, but a public-spirited citizen who pressed it upon this country, I think, to the common satisfaction and advantage of all of us on this side of the Channel. I cannot help thinking that this question would not have arisen in anything like such an acute form if the situation had not been exaggerated a bit by the coincidence of the two changes. I am very much inclined to think that the adoption of summer time would have been welcomed in Ireland after a little experience of it, just as it has been welcomed in this country after one season's experience. I doubt if there is anybody in this country at the present time who does not delight in the services of an hour added to the lighter part of the day. I think that it was an Irish poet who gave us the sound advice:
  "For the best of all ways
  To lengthen our days
  Is to steal a few hours from the night."
  Mr. DILLON: Yes; but he stole them in a totally different way.
  Mr. DUKE: We have not the same convivial spirit to devote those hours to the purposes to which I suppose the poet expected them to be devoted. The change from ordinary summer time is not a matter which has caused any extreme difficulty to us. Summer time was introduced last year, and when I took office it was in operation without any sort of complaint so far as I have heard and during the period of last autumn Greenwich time was in operation in the West and South of Ireland when harvesting operations, which were late, were in active progress.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: It will be later this year.
  Mr. DUKE: That, unfortunately, is likely to be the case. At that time I did not hear a single complaint about the change of time. I was then the person to whom it would be proper to address any complaint, but I did not receive any at that time. In that state of the case the question came to be considered of applying summer time again under the Act of Parliament, which provides for its application. Opinion in Ireland was very much divided. Urban opinion was strongly in favour of the change of time. The workmen were strongly in favour of it, but the employers in the country were opposed to it. The commercial classes were also in favour of it, while the railway management unanimously pressed upon the Government in the strongest possible way to introduce a new discrepancy in time would inflict a substantial injury on business people. It so happened that the Act which at first provided summer time provided for its renewal in subsequent years, and for this year in terms which did not provide for the renewal in Ireland except by an Order in Council which applied to the United Kingdom.
  The demand that was made that the Order in Council should not be issued, or should not be issued in the only form in which it could be authoritative, was an attempt which would have prevented Great Britain from having summer time at all, although the people of Great Britain, by an overwhelming majority, were in favour of it. It was welcomed by the overwhelming majority in this country. There can be no doubt that there would have been much stronger resentment if the Government had refused to issue the Order in Council when it was issued than there was now. I regret very much that the feeling which exists has grown up, and to some extent stimulated, in Ireland. I think there has been an exaggeration of the difficulties caused by the discrepancy of time, so far as the agricultural classes in Ireland are concerned. Anybody who has any acquaintance with the subject knows there are conditions affecting Irish agriculture which make this an important question not to be lightly dismissed. I regard it in that spirit, but there cannot be any reason or sound sense why the bells of two chapels in the same town should be rung at an hour's interval. The same religious and social considerations exist, and there are no moral considerations involved, because, after
  2004
  all, the time at which the clock works is not fixed by any sort of law. There is this strong feeling, and it is based on the fact that farmers are finding a practical difficulty in getting their workmen to recognise the change. If it were a matter of Administrative Order, it might be worthy of consideration whether the application of Greenwich time to Ireland should be continued. It has to be a matter of consideration whether a new discrepancy ought to be introduced. There are those strong differences of opinion to which I have referred. The hon. Member says, and I take note of what he has told me on this subject, that opinion is growing more strongly against the change.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: In the towns, too.
  Mr. DUKE: Inconvenient as it is, to my mind, that there should be two standards of time between two countries so closely bound together by material interests as this country and the adjoining island, if there were anything like unanimity of opinion I should be compelled to advise my colleagues that effect ought to be given to that unanimity, but there is no unanimity of opinion, and when there is no unanimity of opinion and nothing like a consensus of opinion, no one who has had any experience of legislative action would rush in to decide against one side or the other. I have taken and I shall continue to take every step I can to ascertain what is the settled opinion of the Irish people about this matter, what are the practical considerations, and how the new time is being found to work. I said in answer to a question that I thought, if a fair and good-tempered trial were given, probably summer time could be made to work. I cannot conceive how it could fail to be made to work if the people generally desired it or how it could affect a man's day's industry, whether the clock says six, seven, eight or nine o'clock when he begins.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Oh, yes! You put a premium on his extra time in the evening.
  Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member says that we are going to have wages fixed in Ireland by legislative means, and that it may deal with hours as well as the-amount.
  Mr. LUNDON: The best thing you can do is to become a farmer for six weeks, then you would know the difference.
  Mr. DUKE: I say that this is a matter which shall be closely watched. I will take what means I can to ascertain what is the settled opinion of Irishmen engaged in practical business, acting without resentment or pique or any cause of the kind, but really because their interests are affected; and, if I come to the conclusion before the material time arrives that some action ought to be taken, then I shall submit the matter to my colleagues in His Majesty's Government in order that what is necessary may be done.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that he does not think there would be any difficulty if there were good intention, in settling this matter. He said that he did not see any difficulty whether a man came at eight, nine, or ten o'clock in the morning, as the number of his working hours would be the same, and if the matter were approached in an amicable spirit he did not see why there should be any difficulty about an arrangement. The right hon. Gentleman has apparently forgotten the very important fact, seeing that you are fixing wages, that you put a premium on evening work. If I were an agricultural labourer, I do not think that I would be inclined to consent to any change in the present time, because the most important hours of the
  2006
  day to a farmer once the harvest begins, whether it is the hay or the corn harvest, are the late hours of the afternoon.
  It being Half-past Eleven of the clock. Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, till Monday next.

  PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
  The following Petitions were presented during the week, and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
  TUESDAY.
  Intoxicating Liquors (Prohibition during the Period of the War and Demobilisation),—Petitions for legislation; from Darvel, Lochwinnoch, and Newport (Fife).
  WEDNESDAY.
  Intoxicating Liquors (Prohibition during the Period of the War and Demobilisation),—Petitions for legislation; from Fenwick, Glasgow, Langholm, Stranraer, and Wigtown and Stranraer.
  THURSDAY.
  Intoxicating Liquors (Prohibition during the Period of the War and Demobilisation),—Petitions for legislation; from Innerleithen and Walkerburn.
NATIONAL SERVICE.
  PRACTICAL RESULTS AND COST.
  PRACTICAL RESULTS AND COST.
  APPOINTMENTS AND TRANSFERS.
  APPOINTMENTS AND TRANSFERS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (ACCOMMODATION).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (ACCOMMODATION).
  ARMY SUPPLIES (SURVEYOR-GENERAL).
  ARMY SUPPLIES (SURVEYOR-GENERAL).
  RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.
  RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.
  COMMITTEE ON THE BLIND (REPORT).
  COMMITTEE ON THE BLIND (REPORT).
  MINISTRY OF SHIPPING.
  MINISTRY OF SHIPPING.
  IRISH PRISONERS (LEWES AND AYLESBURY).
  IRISH PRISONERS (LEWES AND AYLESBURY).
  IRELAND (REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE).
  IRELAND (REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE).
  INCOME TAX (DEDUCTIONS).
  INCOME TAX (DEDUCTIONS).
  CIVIL SERVANTS (SALARIES).
  CIVIL SERVANTS (SALARIES).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  FOOD PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT.
  FOOD PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT.
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  SPIRITS (MANUFACTURING MATERIALS).
  SPIRITS (MANUFACTURING MATERIALS).
  BLACK CURRANTS.
  BLACK CURRANTS.
  MILK.
  MILK.
  BRITISH CEREALS (PRICES, PRODUCE, AND ACREAGE).
  BRITISH CEREALS (PRICES, PRODUCE, AND ACREAGE).
  VOLUNTEER DRILLS.
  VOLUNTEER DRILLS.
  IRISH REBELLION (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
  IRISH REBELLION (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
  TUG "WEXFORD."
  TUG "WEXFORD."
  NAVAL OPERATIONS (REPORTING RESULTS).
  NAVAL OPERATIONS (REPORTING RESULTS).
AIR SERVICES.
  OFFICERS' UNIFORM DISTINCTION.
  OFFICERS' UNIFORM DISTINCTION.
  AIRSHIPS (DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION).
  AIRSHIPS (DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION).
  GROSMONT ACCIDENT.
  GROSMONT ACCIDENT.
  PILOTS (TRAINING).
  PILOTS (TRAINING).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (CHINESE SEAMEN).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (CHINESE SEAMEN).
  ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).
  ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).
  SHIPPING LOSSES.
  SHIPPING LOSSES.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS.
  TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS.
  MEDICALLY REJECTED MEN.
  MEDICALLY REJECTED MEN.
  RECRUITS (CLASSIFICATION).
  RECRUITS (CLASSIFICATION).
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  IRELAND.
  IRELAND.
  JEWISH SOLDIERS.
  JEWISH SOLDIERS.
  TRIBUNALS (MILITARY REPRESENTATIVES).
  TRIBUNALS (MILITARY REPRESENTATIVES).
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  SOLDIERS AT FRONT (LEAVE).
  SOLDIERS AT FRONT (LEAVE).
  KINMEL PARK CAMP (DEATHS).
  KINMEL PARK CAMP (DEATHS).
  ARMY OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
  ARMY OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
  MACHINE-GUN COMPANIES (TRAVELLING KITCHENS).
  MACHINE-GUN COMPANIES (TRAVELLING KITCHENS).
  ROYAL MUNSTER FUSILIERS (NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS).
  ROYAL MUNSTER FUSILIERS (NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS).
  PRESS CENSORSHIP ("MORNING POST" TELEGRAM).
  PRESS CENSORSHIP ("MORNING POST" TELEGRAM).
  NEWSPAPERS (FOREIGN CIRCULATION PROHIBITED).
  NEWSPAPERS (FOREIGN CIRCULATION PROHIBITED).
  GERMAN ARMY (1919 CLASS).
  GERMAN ARMY (1919 CLASS).
  TARGET-PRACTICE RODS.
  TARGET-PRACTICE RODS.
  ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY (GUNNERS' EFFECTS).
  ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY (GUNNERS' EFFECTS).
  ARMY HORSE RATIONS.
  ARMY HORSE RATIONS.
  ARMY PAY.
  ARMY PAY.
  WOOL PRICES.
  WOOL PRICES.
  HAY SUPPLIES
  HAY SUPPLIES
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  GOVERNMENT WORKERS (WAR BONUS).
  GOVERNMENT WORKERS (WAR BONUS).
  ARMY PAY CORPS (LODGING ALLOWANCES).
  ARMY PAY CORPS (LODGING ALLOWANCES).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (TRANSFERS).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (TRANSFERS).
  GERMAN INTERNED PRISONERS (EMPLOYMENT).
  GERMAN INTERNED PRISONERS (EMPLOYMENT).
MUNITIONS.
  MINERAL DEVELOPMENT (IRELAND).
  MINERAL DEVELOPMENT (IRELAND).
  SKILLED MEN TRANSFERRED.
  SKILLED MEN TRANSFERRED.
  MESSES. VICKERS, LIMITED (DISCHARGES).
  MESSES. VICKERS, LIMITED (DISCHARGES).
  NEW MOTOR CARS (PERMITS).
  NEW MOTOR CARS (PERMITS).
  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC) ANNAN.
  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC) ANNAN.
  CLEVELAND IRONSTONE MINES.
  CLEVELAND IRONSTONE MINES.
  DISABLED SOLDIERS (ARTIFICIAL LIMBS).
  DISABLED SOLDIERS (ARTIFICIAL LIMBS).
  SUMMER TIME (DORSET VICARS' ACTION).
  SUMMER TIME (DORSET VICARS' ACTION).
  RE-ENGAGED POLICE PENSIONERS.
  RE-ENGAGED POLICE PENSIONERS.
  NEWSPAPER RETURNS.
  NEWSPAPER RETURNS.
  BOARD OF TRADE (ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL INTELLIGENCE).
  BOARD OF TRADE (ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL INTELLIGENCE).
  SHIPBUILDING.
  SHIPBUILDING.
  FREIGHT BATES.
  FREIGHT BATES.
  SHIPPING (EMPLOYMENT).
  SHIPPING (EMPLOYMENT).
  CULTIVATION OF LANDS ORDER, 1917.
  CULTIVATION OF LANDS ORDER, 1917.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (TRANSFER OF MUNITION WORKERS).
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (TRANSFER OF MUNITION WORKERS).
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Government Employés, Ireland (Wages).
  Government Employés, Ireland (Wages).
  Treatment of Tuberculosis (County Heath).
  Treatment of Tuberculosis (County Heath).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Lismore Salmon Hatchery.
  Lismore Salmon Hatchery.
  Fishing Industry (Helvick).
  Fishing Industry (Helvick).
  Elementary Schools.
  Elementary Schools.
  Seizure of Pamphlet (Birmingham).
  Seizure of Pamphlet (Birmingham).
  Coal Mines (Safety Appliances).
  Coal Mines (Safety Appliances).
  Unemployment Insurance (Ireland).
  Unemployment Insurance (Ireland).
  Telephone Service (Drogheda).
  Telephone Service (Drogheda).