Sitting of 1 July 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Belfast Harbour Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
West Bromwich Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
London United Tramways Bill (by Order),
Read the third time, and passed.
Sligo Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders Bill,
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Closing Orders made under the Act by the Council of the undermentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland:

Urban districts of Lisburn and Lurgan

[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL RELIEF FUND.
Copy presented of Report to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales by the Executive Committee of the National Relief Fund on the Administration of the Fund up to 31st March, 1918 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL WAR SAVINGS COMMITTEE.
Copy presented of Second Annual Report of the Committee [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
Copy presented of the Post Office Savings Bank Amendment (No. 3) Regulations, 1918, dated 1st June, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copies presented of Raw Beef and Raw Mutton Fat (Licensing of Purchases) Order, 1918; Order Amending the Potatoes Order, 1917; Butter and Margarine Rationing (Special Districts) Order, 1918, Directions; and London and Home Counties (Rationing Scheme) Order, 1918, Directions; made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JOINT COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Order, dated 28th June, 1918, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entitled the National Health Insurance Act, 1918 (Date of Commencement), Order, 1918 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    ENEMY TRADE.

      STORAGE OF GOODS IN UNITED KINGDOM.
      Brigadier-General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he has any official information, showing that stores of raw materials and foodstuffs in this country at one time belonged to Germans or Austrians; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to requisition and use such commodities for urgent national need, with a view to freeing tonnage; (2) say how much cotton, cotton piece goods, wool, woollen piece

      1369
      goods, jute, hemp, leather, hides, rubber, coffee, and tea are held and stored on neutral account in the United Kingdom; whether he has official information showing that these goods are held on enemy account; and in how many instances has the ownership of these goods been transferred since July, 1914?
      Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is taking steps to prevent raw materials being held in this or neutral countries for account of enemy countries after the War?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Stanley): It will be convenient to take these three questions together, and I shall be glad to take the opportunity of explaining briefly the situation. The question of the possible danger to national interests of the storage of goods in this country held directly or indirectly on enemy account has been constantly present to the Board of Trade, and any available evidence of such storage has been carefully scrutinised. As regards goods held directly on enemy account, the matter is comparatively simple. Such goods are required by the Trading with the Enemy Amendment Acts, 1914 and 1916, to be reported to the Public Trustee, and Orders may be issued by which goods so reported, or the proceeds of their sale, are vested in the Public Trustee. I am taking steps to have statistics compiled of the quantities of the goods (specified in the second question) which have been reported to the Public Trustee. In the case of food supplies and tobacco vesting orders have already been made, and I will consider, in consultation with the Public Trustee, the extension to other commodities of a similar procedure.
      With reference to the storage of materials or goods on neutral account, the matter is much more complicated. The ownership of goods is continually changing; and in the case of many classes of commodities when stored in a public warehouse, transfer of ownership is effected very simply by the transfer of a warehouse certificate or similar document, so that it is a matter of great difficulty to trace the actual ownership of such goods at a given moment, and any information obtained will quickly become obsolete unless returns are required at frequent intervals or an obligation is imposed upon traders to report all dealings in and holdings of goods on foreign
      1370
      account. It has not so far seemed necessary or desirable to impose upon traders so serious a burden, and the Board of Trade have directed their attention mainly to the total quantities and whereabouts of the stocks, rather than to their ownership at any given time. I rely on the powers which I am seeking under the Imports and Exports (Temporary Control) Bill to enable the Board of Trade effectively to control the export of any class of goods, whether held on foreign account or not, to undesirable destinations.
      I have, however, been looking carefully into the question of the information at present available as to the total stocks of essential goods and materials. In many cases, including moat of the classes of goods specified in the second question of the hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch, a large measure of control is already exercised, and in these cases stocks are watched with care, and so far as is considered necessary such stocks can be and are requisitioned to meet the national necessities. I have, however, come to the conclusion that as regards a number of articles further steps should be taken to extend and improve the information available as to stocks. I am now considering the precise steps to be taken for the purpose. I doubt, however, whether it will be expedient to give publicity to the particulars when obtained.
      Sir R. COOPER: Are we to take it that His Majesty's Government recognises that under the conditions of war which prevail it is necessary to take special steps on the conclusion of war to preserve the raw materials of this country first for Britain and her Allies before allowing them to go to neutral or foreign countries?
      Sir A. STANLEY: As I said in my reply, the Imports and Exports (Temporary Control) Bill will deal with that. A full opportunity will be given when that Bill is debated.
      General CROFT: Has not the right hon. Gentleman's Department been informed that no less than forty-one firms in Holland have changed their German names to Dutch?
      Sir A. STANLEY: I have no knowledge of that myself.
      Mr. BILLING: Why is it unnecessary and undesirable to impose restrictions on

      1371
      the traders of this country to prevent them juggling with stocks in the interests of the enemy?
      Sir A. STANLEY: I think those who have a knowledge of this particular business will understand my reply.
      Mr. BILLING: The people of the country do not.

      PATENTS (MOTOR PLOUGHS).
      Sir EDWARD CARSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether a patent, numbered 115,118, has been granted on the application of Max Burg, engineer, of 18, Defreggerstrasse, Berlin-Treptow, and the firm of Stock Motorpflug Aktien-Gessellschaft, manufacturers, of 48/49, Kopenickerstrasse, Berlin, S.O. 16, both in Germany, dated the 21st of May, 1917, covering an invention relating to improvements in motor ploughs; whether the application for this patent was signed by Messrs. Chatwin, Herschell and Company, as patent agents for the applicants; whether the patent was accepted on the 2nd of May, 1918; and, if so, will he explain why a patent has been granted in time of war to enemy aliens in Berlin, the effect of which is to prevent or restrict improvements in motor ploughs by British inventors?
      Sir A. STANLEY: No patent has been or will be granted to the applicants during the War. The complete specification, which was filed as stated in the question, was accepted on the 2nd May last in accordance with the procedure followed in dealing with applications for patents by alien enemies. This procedure, which has been followed throughout the War both by the British Empire, the Allies, and enemy countries, permits such applications to be made and accepted, but no patent can be actually granted during the War. In the meantime it is open to any British subject to apply to the Board of Trade for a licence to use the invention to which the application relates. As I stated in reply to a recent question in this House, the United States Government has quite recently made an alteration in its practice in this matter, which makes it necessary to consider whether any modification is expedient in our own procedure; we are in communication at present with the United States Government on the subject.
      Sir E. CARSON: How can the patent agents communicate and deal with Germans in Germany, procure their inven-
      1372
      tions and specifications and drawings and file them here, without being guilty of trading with the enemy?
      Sir A. STANLEY: As I understand the matter, this arrangement was made in the early part of the War, not only in this country but in those of the other Allies. I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that no patent is involved. They can only file their specifications, and it certainly does secure to the people of this country the advantage of any new ideas which the Patent Office may have.
      Sir E. CARSON: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this at an early opportunity.
      Mr. PENNEFATHER: Are British patents now being filed and accepted in Germany?
      Sir A. STANLEY: Patents are not accepted or issued, but specifications are accepted. The latter are not barred in Germany any more than in this country.
      Sir H. COWAN: Is the licence granted by the Board of Trade under the condition that the patent will not continue to be in force after the conclusion of the War?
      Sir A. STANLEY: Obviously the object of this arrangement is to continue the practice prevailing before the War with regard to specifications. The licences issued are only good for the period of the War. Their continuance after the War would be determined by the peace conditions.
      Sir H. COWAN: If the enemy licensee to which the patent is granted should choose to work it after the War, will that cause the licence granted to a British subject during the War to be terminated?
      Sir A. STANLEY: That depends on the terms of peace.
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: Is there any difference between the procedure followed in the British Patent Office with regard to a patent held by a German and the procedure followed in the German Patent Office with regard to a patent held by a British subject?
      Sir A. STANLEY: There is no difference.
      Mr. BILLING: Why has it been necessary to wait for three and a half years, until America took action, before considering the advisability of taking action in this country?
      Sir A. STANLEY: The United States is, in a sense, one of our Allies, and we desire to consider their views.
      Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that we shall follow all their examples and intern all enemy aliens in this country?

    BUSINESS NAMES.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Regulation laid down by the Business Names Act that the name and nationality of the directors of every firm shall appear on the notepaper of that firm is considered to be carried out if these particulars appear only on the back of the notepaper, and in a microscopic type?
    Sir A. STANLEY: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. BILLING: What is it proposed to do to firms who adopt this practice of endeavouring to evade the Act by putting their names in microscopic letters on the back of the paper?
    Sir A. STANLEY: Prosecute them.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to prosecute any instance I bring to his notice—may I ask if he will?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I cannot answer until I have the information in front of me.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any applications have been received from firms of enemy origin for exemption from the Regulations laid down by the Business Names Act that the names of their directors and particulars of their nationality should be printed on their notepaper; and, if so, whether any such exemptions have been granted?
    Sir A. STANLEY: In only three cases have any such exemptions been granted, one of these being a postponement for six months.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman name the cases?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I cannot now.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether Messrs. Fuerst Brothers, of 17, Philpot Lane, have been fined for contravention of the
    1374
    Business Names Act; whether this firm is supplying the Government with chemicals; whether the directors are of British nationality and, if not, at what date they came to be naturalised; whether one of the members has changed his name from Fuerst to Forster; and, if so, on what date the change of name was authorised?
    Sir A. STANLEY: Proceedings were instituted by the Board of Trade against Fuerst Brothers, Limited, for failure to make proper disclosure under the Companies (Particulars as to Directors) Act and each of the directors was fined. I understand that the company has supplied Government Departments with chemicals. All the directors are British subjects, two of them, who were naturalised in 1882 and 1884, respectively, being of German birth. I understand that one of the directors changed his name from Fuerst to Forster in February, 1917.
    Mr. BILLING: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether Fuerst gave any reason for changing his name? Was it that his children could pronounce it better?

    OMNIBUS SERVICES, CROYDON DISTRICT (RESTRICTIONS).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade if any motor omnibuses have been withdrawn from service in the Croydon and Ilford districts on Sundays; how many omnibuses have been withdrawn; and if general instructions have been issued by his Department to the omnibus companies that they are not to increase their services when the municipal tramway services have been reduced in the interests of war economy and coal saving?
    Sir A. STANLEY: Four omnibuses have been withdrawn from the Sunday service in the Croydon district, and nine in the Ilford district. The omnibus companies have been requested not to increase their services on tramway routes, where, to secure economies in the consumption of fuel, tramway services are reduced.

    WINES (IMPORTATION).
    Mr. TICKLERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether wines are being regularly imported into this

    1375
    country from France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal; if so, how many shipments have been made from each of these countries since 1st March last; what quantities of wines from these countries have been entered since that date, and what quantities from Australia and Africa; whether he is aware that permission to export wines from the Commonwealth of Australia and Africa has been refused, the reason given being the shortage of shipping; and what is the policy of His Majesty's Government in a trade which is being developed to help our Allies at the expense of an Imperial industry?
    Sir A. STANLEY: The policy of His Majesty's Government is to save shipping tonnage for essential needs. For this purpose it is necessary to restrict the use of tonnage for the importation of wine on long voyages such as those from Australia, South Africa, and America. On short voyages from the Continent wine can be admitted more freely without interfering with essential imports. The quantities of wines entered since 1st March from each of the countries named are as follows: France, 850,422 gallons; Italy, 86,822 gallons; Spain, 363,403 gallons; Portugal, 872,681 gallons; Australia, 9,201 gallons, South Africa, 49 gallons.
    Mr. TICKLERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any deputation has recently waited on him with a view to obtaining even small shipments of wine from Australia; who constituted the deputation; and, seeing that, as the result of the refusal to help these growers, the industry in which their entire capital is invested, and which means much to the Commonwealth of Australia, is on the verge of disaster, will he say what steps he proposes now to take?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): I presume that my hon. Friend refers to my interview on the 6th March with the High Commissioner for the Commonwealth of Australia and the Agents-General for the Australian States. As regards the last part of the question, I can only refer my hon. Friend to the Departments concerned.
    Mr. TICKLERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many officers and men at present serving in His Majesty's Forces have been drawn from the wine industry in Africa and the Com-
    1376
    monwealth of Australia; and whether, during their absence, restrictions have been placed upon the export of their stocks upon which they hoped to maintain their families whilst serving the Empire?
    Mr. HEWINS: I have no information on the subject.

    GERMAN MISSIONARIES, INDIA.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether all Geman missionaries in India have now been interned or repatriated; and, if not, how many still remain and under what conditions do they remain?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): More than two years ago the great body of missionaries of enemy nationalities were repatriated from India. About fifty men were granted exemption on account of age, infirmity, long residence in the country and the like, and they are no doubt still in India. A larger number of women, mostly nuns, were also for similar special reasons allowed to remain in India. For some of these persons residence in particular places, such as monasteries and convents, has been appointed. In other cases special restrictions of the kind have not, I understand, been thought necessary and have not been imposed.
    Colonel YATE: Was the right hon. Gentleman's attention called to an article in the Indian papers stating that it has been ascertained that amongst the worst slanderers of the English are—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must give notice of that. The right hon. Gentleman cannot be expected to know the contents of all the Indian papers.

    ANGLO-AMERICAN MILITARY CONVENTION.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at what date the Anglo-American Military Convention was ratified, and at what date will printed copies be available?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): Ratifications have not yet been exchanged, but copies of the Convention will be available on the day on which ratifications are exchanged.

    RUSSIA.

      MR. KERENSKY.
      Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Kerensky has arrived in this country at the invitation of the British Government or otherwise; whether he is of military age; and, if so, whether, after passing the medical tests, he will come under the provisions of the Anglo-Russian Military Convention?
      Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I have no information about the second, and the third, therefore, is, as far as I am concerned, purely hypothetical.

      FINNISH INDEPENDENCE.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that when the Soviet Government of Russia recognised the independence of Finland this independence was granted to a Soviet Government of Finland of anti-German sympathies, and that Pecheneg, on the Murman coast, was ceded by Russia to give a friendly anti-German Power an outlet to the sea, that on the Soviet Government of Finland being destroyed by bourgeois Finns, aided by German soldiers, the Soviet Government of Russia has declined to ratify Finnish independence, and has protested to the German Government against the use made of the Murman coast by the German submarines acting with Finnish support; whether this country or the Allies will offer, or has offered, to the Russian Soviet Government naval and military assistance to preserve the Murman ports to Russia against Finland and German influence; and whether he can safely give information concerning any action already taken?
      Lord R. CECIL: The facts are, I believe, substantially as stated by the hon. Member in the first part of the question. In the event of any invitation being received from the Soviet Government for Allied naval or military assistance in defending Russian territory against Germany, it will receive sympathetic consideration, but I am unable to make any further statement at the present time.

      BLACK SEA FLEET.
      Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information showing
      1378
      that Russian sailors succeeded in sinking war vessels in the Black Sea in order to prevent their falling into German hands?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): Full information has not been received, but we have reason to believe that some Russian vessels have been destroyed as suggested in the question. On the other hand, it is the fact that a large part of the Russian Black Sea Fleet has fallen into German hands.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      ITALIANS (GREAT BRITAIN).
      Mr. WATTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Italians are being called up in several parts of Scotland for military service; and that usually, when the terms of the Convention with Italy are pleaded before the tribunals there, the applications of the National Service representatives are dismissed as incompetent and the men are not called up, but that the War Office is ignoring such dismissals and insists on these men joining the Colours in this country; and will he say whether this action has the sanction of his Department?
      Lord R. CECIL: I am afraid I know nothing of the facts alleged in the first two parts of the question, and am therefore unable to answer the third.
      Mr. WATT: If the right hon. Gentleman gets a proof that the War Office is overriding the Italian Convention, will he take any action?
      Lord R. CECIL: I will wait till I see the proof.
      Mr. KINGasked how many of the 6,233 Italians of military age in this country under call on the 29th May, 1918, have now joined the British Army; how many have been exempted from military service; how many of the other Italians under investigation at the end of May have had their cases settled; and how many of the 12,900 Italians in this country on the military register have now joined the British Army?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): There is no information which I can usefully add to that given to the hon. Member on 29th May.
      Mr. KING: Is it not useful because it is embarrassing to the Government?
      Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his Department in Scotland, and in particular the A.R.O. in the town of Stirling, are insisting on Italians joining the Colours in this country, notwithstanding the fact that tribunals have given exemption to such men, on the ground that the Convention with Italy held such service to be incompetent; and whether this action of the military in overriding the civil tribunal has his sanction?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I am afraid I do not understand my hon. Friend's question. Perhaps he would give particulars to the Minister of National Service, who is responsible for recruiting in Great Britain.
      Mr. WATT: Surely the right hon. Gentleman's Department is overriding the Convention with Italy in calling up Italians in this way?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot see how my Department can override that, because I am not responsible for it.
      Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of National Service refuses to give any information on this subject; therefore it must come from the War Office?
      Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the telegrams sent out calling up these Italians are sent from the War Office and not the Ministry of National Service?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I should like to see those telegrams, because I am not aware of any telegrams sent out from the War Office calling up anybody.

      EVASIONS OF MILITARY OBLIGATIONS.
      Major NEWMANasked whether the enlistment of men of British birth in Ireland under the terms of the Military Service Act has now begun; will he say what datum line of residence in Ireland releases a man from the obligations of the Act; how many men does he reckon he will obtain by this compulsory enlistment of British born; and will he say if the numbers so obtained will count towards the 50,000 Irish exempt from the Act which are expected as voluntary enlistments by next autumn?
      Mr. BECK: Arrangements have been made, and will shortly take effect, for securing for miltary service those men who have gone to Ireland from Great Britain to evade their military obligations. It is obviously undesirable to give particulars prematurely of the steps which are being taken. I am unable to give an estimate of the number of men who will be obtained for service, but the men so obtained will not count towards the 50,000 Irishmen who, it is hoped, will be obtained by voluntary enlistment.
      Major NEWMAN: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what the datum line of residence will be?
      Mr. BECK: I do not think it is a question of the datum line of residence. It is a question of those legally bound by the Military Service Act passed in this country.
      Mr. BILLING: Was the National Service Department consulted by the Government before this new Irish rule was instituted?
      Mr. BECK: I had better have notice of that question.

      CALLING-UP NOTICES.
      Mr. BILLINGasked the Minister of National Service if he is aware that calling-up notices have been issued signed by the name of Hoffman, and upon presenting these papers before a tribunal men have to report to a chairman by the name of Rosenfeldt; will he given the nationality and origin of these officials; and whether he will state their age and peculiar suitability for the position they hold?
      Mr. BECK: I cannot find that there is any person of the name of Hoffman in the employment of the Ministry of National Service, but inquiries are being made at the branches of the Ministry througout the provinces to ascertain whether anyone of that name is in fact signing calling-up notices. As regards the chairman of a tribunal to whom the hon. Member refers, I must refer him to the Local Government Board, which is the Department concerned with tribunal administration. The Minister of National Service neither appoints members of tribunals nor has any control over them.

      RECRUITING OFFICER, BRADFORD AREA.
      Mr. BILLINGasked whether a Mr. Ferdinand Holtzmann is Army recruiting officer or holds any position in the recruit-

      1381
      ing office at Bradford; if so, whether this gentleman is British-born or naturalised; and, in the latter case, at what date and on whose recommendation was he accorded papers of naturalisation?
      Mr. BECK: I am informed that Mr. Holtzmann is a recruiting officer in the calling-up department of the office of the Ministry of National Service in the Bradford area. He is a natural-born British subject, having been born in this country in 1873.
      Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman answer that part of my question as to what are the peculiar abilities of this gentleman for this post? Is he of military age, and what is his grade?
      Mr. BECK: He was born in 1873, but until the hon. Member put his question down I had not heard of this gentleman, but I will inquire.

      AGRICULTURAL AREAS.
      Mr. WALTER ROCHasked the Minister of National Service whether it is his intention to call up the full quota of men allotted in the agricultural areas; and whether he will state precisely in what cases the calling-up notices will be suspended in accordance with his recent promise?
      Mr. BECK: No; as already explained, instructions have been issued suspending as from 27th June until after the harvest the sending of notices calling up for military service agriculturists in England and Wales. General instructions have been issued that any such notice dated later than 26th June is not to be enforced.
      Mr. ROCH: Will not that arrangement work out most unfairly? Is it not a fact that in some areas the calling-up notices will be suspended under this promise, while in others they will operate completely?
      Mr. BECK: I think the President of the Board of Agriculture has already stated that this sudden suspension will work very hardly on some farmers who tried to do their duty.
      Mr. ROCH: Does the hon. Member not think it is important to get in the harvest in all the counties and not in a favoured few?
      Mr. BECK: This is not my responsibility. An agreement was entered into by
      1382
      which agriculture would spare these 30,000 young men, and I really am unable to state what the effect of the calling up of these 30,0000 young men will be. I know that very elaborate arrangements are being made for supplying additional labour for the harvest.
      Mr. ROCH: Is the hon. Gentleman not responsible for the result of the action taken by his own Ministry, and did he not consider what the result of such action would be in the middle of the harvest?
      Mr. BECK: I am certainly responsible, but this agreement was entered into at the time of the crisis in March.
      Mr. BILLING: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the public of this country look to the Government Departments to work together in the interests of the country and not in the interests of the respective Departments?

      CONSCRIPTION (IRELAND).
      Major Sir H. HAVELOCK-ALLANasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the uncertainty which still surrounds the Government's Irish policy, he will mention a definite date after which, should voluntary enlistment have proved a failure, Conscription would be applied to Ireland in the same manner in which it has already been applied to England, Scotland, and Wales?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I can add nothing to previous statements on this subject.

      BURNLEY TRIBUNAL.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been drawn to the language used by the chairman of the Burnley Tribunal on 17th June to an applicant who came before him to apply for a renewal of his exemption; and whether, in view of the fact that this language is typical of the chairman of this tribunal, he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. S. Walsh): My right hon. Friend is having inquiries made into the matter.

      RE-ENLISTMENT (SPECIAL TERMS).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is yet in a position to announce the terms

      1383
      on which the Government propose to offer special re-enlistment terms to discharged men who otherwise can claim the benefits of existing concessions re further service?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The terms under which discharged soldiers, who are excepted from military service under the recent Act will be accepted if they volunteer for further service, will be announced immediately in an Army Council Instruction.

      MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
      Mr. ROCH: I beg leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of calling attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the action of the Minister of National Service in calling up agricultural labourers in the middle of the harvest, to the detriment of the gathering of the harvest.
      The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a Quarter past Eight this evening.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      HARVESTING (LABOUR).
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state the arrangements made for the ingathering of the coming harvest, in view of the depletion of agricultural labour?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): We are again organising a considerable supply of additional local labour which is available for harvest time. This labour we propose to supplement—

      (1) By convalescent soldiers from the convalescent camps, under arrangement with the War Office. We have also consulted the Dominion authorities as to the possible release of their convalescents for the harvest.

      (2) War agricultural volunteers, who are now being enrolled.

      (3) School boys from the public and secondary schools.

      (4) Women from the Land Army, which has been carrying on a successful recruiting campaign.

      1384

      (5) Local authorities and chief constables are being asked to release as many men as possible, and the Road Board has been approached as to the release of roadmen.

      (6) The Air Board and the Admiralty have issued instructions that men in camps are to be encouraged to volunteer to assist local farmers whenever their services can be spared.

      (7) An additional supply of German prisoners.

      Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there will be an adequate supply of skilled labour for the working of self-binding machinery during the coming harvest?
      Mr. PROTHERO: That is our great difficulty. The withdrawal of a very large number of horsemen obviously renders that somewhat doubtful. I hope it will be met.
      Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that quite recently the Home Office dealt severely with policemen assisting on allotments, and will he take steps to see that any policemen who come forward to assist with the harvest will not be penalised for so doing?
      Mr. PROTHERO: I was not aware of the fact brought forward by the hon. Gentleman. Of course, the police have given us very valuable assistance throughout previous harvests, and I hope they will continue to do it.
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can yet say whether the prospective supply of agricultural labour available after this harvest can, or cannot be, better employed in the interests of food production in cultivating land already ploughed rather than in breaking up extra land now under grass?
      Mr. PROTHERO: I assume that the question refers to the harvest of 1919. The greater the shortage of skilled labour, the greater the need of concentrating it on good land. In the interests, therefore, of food production, some cases will occur where the available labour may be more advantageously employed in breaking up suitable grass than in cultivating the poorest land now under the plough.
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will represent to the Army authorities the

      1385
      necessity of releasing some of the skilled agricultural labour recently taken for the purpose of securing the harvest?
      Mr. PROTHERO: The recent decision of the Cabinet that further calling-up notices to men employed whole-time in agriculture should be suspended until after harvest is the utmost concession that was found to be possible under existing circumstances.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that there is a great risk of a large portion of the coming harvest not being harvested at all?
      Mr. PROTHERO: I am well aware that there is such a risk. I hope we shall be able to guard against it; I am not confident.
      Mr. MOUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a large number of counties which have endeavoured to work up to time, the concession to release a number of these men by the suspension of the calling-up notices is of very little use at all, seeing that calling-up notices have already gone out?
      Mr. PROTHERO: A wholly illogical position has arisen, and the counties which were the most active and loyal in carrying out the directions to find their quota are penalised.
      Mr. ROCHasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the position which has arisen in many counties owing to the recent call up of agricultural workers; whether he is aware that in many areas it will be impossible to gather the harvest owing to lack of labour, and that in some cases farmers will be forced to graze their hay and other crops; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
      Mr. PROTHERO: In answer to this question I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I have just given to the right hon. Member for South Molton on the same subject.
      Mr. ROCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to run the risk of this wastage of some portion of the harvest?
      Mr. PROTHERO: I am personally not prepared to run any risk of that sort, but the decision is that the war necessity for men is paramount; that being so, the risk must be run.
      Mr. ROCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman really prepared to say that for the sake of releasing 15,000 men for six weeks it is worth jeopardising the harvest?
      Mr. PROTHERO: That is a question for the Government to consider; and the Government have decided that it is.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Will the 15,000 be available for this year's campaign?
      Mr. PROTHERO: I believe that the 15,000 men will be available towards the middle of September.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If the President of the Board of Agriculture tells us that he is not confident that a large part of the harvest may not be wasted this year owing to lack of labour, will he tell the House of Commons what steps he has taken to avert that danger?
      Mr. PROTHERO: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply I have just given to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton.
      Mr. ROCH: I beg to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that I shall seek to move the Adjournment of the House upon this question after Question Time.

      SUGAR.
      General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what Department is responsible for the failure to commence building operations at the Kelham sugar estate in Nottinghamshire; whether the capital can be raised; and whether the sole reason that the factory has not been commenced is the refusal of the Minister of Munitions to grant permits for the machinery and buildings?
      Mr. PROTHERO: The delay in pushing on this project has been due not to the failure of any Department to commence building operations or to grant permits for priority, but to the generally recognised necessity for all labour, machinery, and building materials to be devoted as far as possible to strictly war work. It is inevitable that other work, such as the building of a sugar beet factory, must stand aside for a time. But I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that as soon as it is found possible to proceed, this work will be taken in hand. I may add that the British Sugar Beet Growers' Society, in whose hands the arrangements for the erection of the factory have been placed, are now engaged with plans to carry the matter forward.
      General CROFT: Supposing the War continues, will it not be a tremendous loss in tonnage if this factory is not built; and the same in regard to margarine?
      Mr. PROTHERO: Not unless we can get the seed for growing sugar beet.
      General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, owing to the delay in proceeding with the Kelham estate, the Board propose to do anything in connection with the Cantley factory?
      Mr. PROTHERO: For reasons stated to the hon. and gallant Member in reply to a question on 27th February, the Board do not propose to attempt to resuscitate the Cantley factory during the War.
      General CROFTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the Sugar Commission has any power to inquire into and make recommendations on sugar production within the British Empire; and whether there are any representatives of the sugar producers included on the Sugar Commission'!
      Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): Such a power has not hitherto been deemed by the Royal Commission to come within its terms of reference, but to belong rather to the Ministry of Reconstruction. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.
      General CROFTasked whether His Majesty's Government have now decided on a definite policy for sugar production within the British Empire; and, if so, when can he make an announcement on this subject?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster on the 10th of April last.
      General CROFT: Is he aware of the great concern of the Dominions, especially the West Indies, in regard to the future situation? Is the Government shortly going to make any statement?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am well aware of the interest taken in this matter all over the Empire, but I cannot promise to make a detailed statement on the subject, which is being considered.
      Sir R. COOPER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the Minister of Reconstruction will deal with this problem at all?

      HALTON LODGE FARM, RUNCORN.
      Mr. BRUNNERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the case of Halton Lodge Farm, Runcorn; whether he is aware that William Lewis, 4, Grange Road, Runcorn, is the last man left on the farm with any skill; that there are only three discharged soldiers and two boys employed; that Lewis is called up for service; and that before the War thirty-six men and boys were employed; and what steps he proposes to take to gather the crops?
      Mr. PROTHERO: The Department have no information as to this case. Inquiries are, however, being made, and the result will be communicated to the hon. Member.
      Mr. BRUNNERasked the Minister of National Service whether his attention has been called to the case of William Lewis, 4, Grange Road, Runcorn, agricultural labourer on Halton Lodge farm, Runcorn; whether he is aware that this man is the last left with any skill, and that he is called up for service; and whether he proposes to provide a skilled substitute?
      Mr. BECK: My attention has not been called to the case in question. I may, however, inform the hon. Member that no man engaged in the agricultural industry can be called up for service unless made available by the agricultural executive committee. I presume that this procedure was followed in the case in question, but if the hon. Member informs me that this is not so, I will cause inquiries to be made into the circumstances of this enlistment.
      Mr. BRUNNER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there must be whole time employment in agriculture on certain dates; and if men come into agriculture after that date they cannot receive a certificate from the agricultural committee; and is it the practice of the National Service Department to take the last skilled man on any farm?
      Mr. BECK: I do not want to bother the House in view of previous discussion, but a certain number, 30,000, Grade 1 agriculturists were proposed to be released during the last emergency—all under thirty-one; beyond that we have touched no whole-time agriculturist.
      Mr. BRUNNER: Does my hon. Friend propose on this particular farm to help to get in the hay crop?
      Mr. BECK: Oh, well, I never really heard of this particular farm until I saw my hon. Friend's question.
      Mr. G. LAMBERT: Are there not hundreds of such cases?
      Mr. BECK: My right hon. Friend must be aware—and I am as much interested in agriculture as he is—that if we had not released these young men older men must have been taken to fill their places.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that the extra calling-up is due to the failure of the Government to enforce Conscription in Ireland?

      MOTOR TRACTOR PLOUGH.
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked if any preference is given in terms of conditions to the importation for private use of any make of foreign motor tractor plough?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): No preference is given in terms or conditions for importation for private use of any make of foreign motor tractor ploughs.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Is it not a fact that the Ford tractor is allowed special privileges for importation?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I said that no preference is given.

    MUNITIONS.

      NATURALISED GERMANS.
      Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Munitions whether any naturalised Germans or persons of German parentage are employed in his Department; if so, the number and the nature of the work in which they are engaged; and whether he will consider the advisability of such work being carried out by purely British subjects?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I have nothing to add to the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the question on this subject by the hon. Member for the Hertford Division on the 26th June.
      Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the actual facts I have asked
      1390
      for have not yet been given to the House; under the circumstances, may I press for a reply to my question?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: My right hon. Friend has stated that this is only a small part of a much larger subject, and that it is not desirable to deal with it at present and until the larger question has been considered.
      Sir F. HALL: Am I to understand that in the Ministry of Munitions there are a very considerable—or a considerable—number of men of German parentage, and cannot steps we taken to replace them by either wounded soldiers or civilians who are of British parentage?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I hope my hon. Friend will not understand that, because, if he does, he will be wrong.
      Sir F. HALL: I should like to have the figures.

      EXEMPTIONS.
      Mr. W. NICHOLSONasked the Minister of National Service the number of exemptions given to men in Grade 1 and Category A by the Ministry of Munitions; and whether certificates of exemption have been granted to men of Category A who are engaged only in clerical work?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I have been asked to reply to this question. The number of men in Grade 1 and Category A on the headquarters staffs of the Ministry of Munitions to whom exemptions from military service have been granted is 365, of whom 253 are exempt under the Schedule of Protected Occupations. The remaining 112 (with one exception) are men possessing special experience and training, and include heads of departments and sections, administrative officers lent by railway companies to deal with the transport of munitions, and trained permanent Civil servants. The one exception is engaged on clerical work, and his case is now under review.

      LABOUR COSTS.
      Sir F. HALLasked if the arrangement under which contracts for the supply of munitions are paid for on a prime cost basis plus percentage, including a percentage on labour costs, is governed by Regulations made by the Treasury; whether such Regulations provide that only such labour costs shall be paid for as arise from the observance of

      1391
      the Government's Fair-Wage Clauses or arbitration awards; and if, having regard to the extent to which irregular labour payments are made by contractors to attract workmen now that leaving certificates are no longer necessary, the Treasury will take steps, with a view to safeguarding the financial interests of the country by pressing for a more satisfactory system of contracts, which will make it incumbent on contractors to quote an inclusive price for labour charges?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Ministry of Munitions contracts of this type now contain provision that the percentage of profit shall be based on the rates of wages current on the date of the contract, and that neither the contractor nor his sub-contractors shall pay rates of wages or bonuses in excess of the standard current in the district without the previous authority in writing of the Minister. With a view to ensuring that only such rates of wages and war advances shall be paid as have been approved by the Departments concerned, representatives of the Labour Department co-operate, where necessary, with the Investigating Accountants of the Ministry to check the rates of wages charged under contracts where the Ministry is directly interested in the costs. As has previously been explained, contracts on the cost and percentage basis are restricted to a minimum and are only adopted where owing to the amount of work being indeterminate there is great difficulty in arriving at a fixed price.
      Sir F. HALL: Are we to understand now that no contracts are placed at a percentage over and above the cost, and that, therefore, the contracts considered by the Government for controlling wages are on a fixed basis, and are that way now?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think my hon. and gallant Friend must read my answer. Contracts based on a percentage of costs have been reduced to a minimum but not abolished altogether, and on those that do exist there is no additional profit by reason of increased wages.
      Sir F. HALL: Then the contractor does not get a percentage on the labour?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: He does not get a percentage on the increase. If the hon. and gallant Member will look at my answer he will see that the point is covered.

    BUILDING OPERATIONS, SPONDON (DISCHARGES).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Minister of Munitions whether nearly 100 discharged soldiers who have been engaged on building operations at Spondon, near Derby, have received their notices; and whether their places have been taken by Irishmen who have been specially brought over from Ireland?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I have made inquiries into this matter, and presume that this question refers to certain constructional work which is being undertaken by Messrs. McAlpine for the British Cellulose Chemical Manufacturing Company, Spondon. As the building operations in question are nearing completion, it has been necessary to discharge a number of workmen, for whom employment can no longer be found. Amongst these is a certain proportion of discharged soldiers. The report that Irishmen have been specially brought from Ireland to replace these men is without foundation.
    Sir R. COOPER: Is it the fact that Irishmen have taken the places of the discharged men?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: It is not the fact in this case.

    MOTOR OMNIBUSES (FINANCIAL GRANTS).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Munitions if any conditions as to cheap fares being charged to workpeople travelling on the various routes were made with or imposed on the London General Omnibus Company when grants were given for motor omnibuses by his Department; and can he state whether the omnibus company allow any passengers to travel on any of these subsidised routes at workmen's fares at the same prices as municipal tramway services allow workpeople to travel on their systems?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative, but cheap return fares have been in-

    1393
    stituted by the London General Omnibus Company at the request of the Ministry; these cheap return fares are restricted to the employés of the Royal Arsenal. The London General Omnibus Company have never issued workmen's tickets. The fares charged by the company are in some cases the same as those charged by the competing tramway service. In some cases they are higher than the tramway charge; in no cases are they lower.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Munitions if the amount of the grant to the London General Omnibus Company for motor omnibuses in South-East London for the year ended 30th June, 1918, will be much larger than that paid for the year June, 1917, and if the present negotiations going on are for a still further increase, or whether it is for further routes to be added to the services at present subsidised?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The amount claimed by the London General Omnibus Company for the year 1917–18 will be larger than that paid for the year 1916–17. The negotiations at present proceeding are for a revision of the existing arrangement with the company, including the provision of additional services on existing routes.

    CUSTOMS OFFICES, GREENOCK.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Treasury in bow many cases the Customs and Excise officer at Greenock has handed over his taxes during 1918 to sheriff officers to collect; in these instances was any effort made to find out whether the taxes were unpaid because the breadwinners of the households were at the front fighting the battles of the nation: is he aware that in several instances it was so, yet 10 per cent. was added to pay such sheriff officers' fees, which were in every case exacted; and was it the duty of the collector of taxes to collect these himself, and for which he is paid?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I am informed that in approximately 495 cases the persistence of the taxpayer in ignoring the repeated applications of the collector has necessitated resort to the sheriff officer. It clearly devolves upon the taxpayer himself if he claims that circumstances of a personal nature such as those referred to
    1394
    make it impossible for him to meet his legal liability, to bring the facts to the knowledge of the Collector.
    Mr. WATT: Is it not an extraordinary thing that the agents of the Department of the hon. Gentleman are mulcting the relatives of the soldiers who are fighting at the front?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I can assure my hon. Friend that if such facts are brought to the notice of the collectors the cases will receive very careful consideration.

    GERMAN BANKS.
    General CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to closing the German banks, he has considered handing their business over to the Bank of England or to other London banks with a view to winding them up and attending to any necessary business?
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to expedite the liquidation of the German banks in this country the Government will invite offers from British banks or financial concerns for all their disposable assets, retaining only in the hands of the custodian such securities as cannot now be sold; and, if not, will he state the reasons against the adoption of such a course?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: After making inquiry, I am of opinion that the proposal in these questions is not practicable, but I am again considering whether the winding-up of these banks can in any way be hastened, and hope to be able to make a statement on this subject shortly.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what are the objections to inviting British banks and finance companies to tender for these assets?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It really is not possible to give all the reasons in answer to a question, but perhaps my hon. Friend will see me about it.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give a Committee of this House access to the books of the German banks for the past ten years so that we may ascertain, if possible, where some of the finance has gone?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice.

    LOCH DOON AERODROME.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have considered the Report of the Select Committee on the Loch Doon scandal; and, if so, what action they intend to take regarding such of the officers responsible as still remain in His Majesty's service?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: His Majesty's Government have given most careful consideration to the Report referred to. It is our duty to weigh against any errors of judgment in this case the great services, and they cannot be rated too highly, which have been rendered by the officers in question to the rapid development of our Air Forces. After taking every circumstance into account, the Government do not consider that any action against these officers is called for.
    Sir W. ESSEX: Will the right hon. Gentleman have placed in the tea room or somewhere convenient a large scale ordnance map, so that hon. Members may satisfy themselves how much landing space was originally on this site?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I really do not think that any useful purpose would be served by that. I am sure that the object of my hon. Friend was not to punish particular officers, but to prevent the same thing happening again, and that we hope to prevent.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the officers responsible are the same officers who were responsible for the hopeless inefficiency of our Air Service two years ago, and, under these circumstances, does he not think that some action most necessary and advantageous in the public interest?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I entirely disagree with the hon. Member. I think that there has been nothing more remarkable than the success which has characterised the development of the Air Service.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this success was only rendered possible—[Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member kindly hand in his question.
    Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order. You were proposing to permit me to put a question. You have no idea what that question is. Therefore, you are not in a position to judge whether—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That was the very reason why I asked the hon. Member to hand it in.
    Mr. BILLING: Am I to understand, if the behaviour of hon. Members is not compatible with the dignity of this House, that you propose to rule out any supplementary questions?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I was passing no reflection upon the conduct of any hon. Member. All I did was to ask the hon. Member to hand in his question. It can then be dealt with as an ordinary question.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether any special inquiry has been instituted or is contemplated into the matter of the Loch Doon aerodrome?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford applies also to this question.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that had it not been for a complete change of command, the increased efficiency of the Air Service would not have been made possible?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I am not in the least aware of that fact.
    Mr. BILLING: He is not aware of what takes place in his own Department.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to make interjections. I have warned the hon. Member, and if he cannot conform to the ordinary Rules, I may have to ask him to step outside.

    SIEMENS BROTHERS AND COMPANY, LIMITED (MR. CHAUVIN).
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Prime Minister whether Mr. Chauvin, managing director of Siemens, who are Government contractors, is a German naturalised since the outbreak of the War; whether his name was previously Von Chauvin; whether, on the winding up of the business as an enemy concern, it was a condition of purchase that Mr. Chauvin's services should be retained; whether, in view of the close relations of this firm to the Government in the production of war material, he will consider the possibility of employing a manager who was British-born; and whether Mr. Chauvin was also a director of the Deutsche Bank?
    Sir A. STANLEY: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. Mr. Chauvin, whose name was previously von Chauvin, is of German birth and has been naturalised since the outbreak of war. So far as I am aware he has never been a director of the Deutsche Bank. On the sale of the shares of Siemens Brothers and Company, Limited, there was no condition with regard to the retention of Mr. Chauvin's services, and the agreement under which he now acts as managing director of the company was, I understand, entered into by the new directors appointed by the purchasers of the shares.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Will my right hon. Friend answer that part of the question which asks whether there is no person of British birth who can do this important and delicate work?
    Sir A. STANLEY: It rests with the shareholders of the company. I have no control over the matter.
    Sir E. CARSON: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the purchase was a real purchase, and not a sham purchase, in order to keep the same German manager?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I am perfectly clear on that point. The sale of these shares was a bonâ-fide transfer. The company is thoroughly British, and is bound by the model Clause, which ensures that it shall permanently remain British.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Has the right hon. Gentleman the authority of the Public Trustee for stating that it was not a condition that the services of this man should be retained?
    Sir A. STANLEY: Yes.

    ALIENS.

      ADVISORY COMMITTEE (RECOMMENDATIONS).
      Sir H. DALZIELasked the Prime Minister whether in certain cases the Home Office have declined to intern alien enemies in this country, notwithstanding the recommendation of its own Advisory Committee that such persons were dangerous to the State?
      Mr. HEWINS: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I
      1398
      understand that in no case have the Home Office failed to intern any person whom the Advisory Committee reported to be dangerous.
      Sir H. DALZIEL: "Reported to be dangerous!" That is not my question. Does my hon. Friend state that no person was recommended to be interned by this Committee, consisting of two judges and many influential Members of this House?
      Mr. HEWINS: If my hon. Friend will put any cases, I will have them investigated.
      Mr. BILLING: Answer the question!
      Mr. SPEAKER: The question relates to persons who are "dangerous to the State."

      RELEASE FROM INTERNMENT CAMPS.
      Captain BARNETTasked the Home Secretary whether Johannes Becker, twenty-six years of age and about 6 ft. high, who applied to the St. Pancras Food Control Committee on the 22nd instant for a food card, has been recently released from the Alexandra Palace or other in-internment camp; whether Becker has been interned since the first month of the War; and whether he has been released at the present juncture to enable him to engage in munitions work or for some other and what reason?
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the release of Johannes Becker and his conduct when demanding a food card from the St. Pancras Food Committee; whether he said he had been released in order to make munitions; and whether he will consider the advisability of sending him back again into internment?
      Mr. HEWINS: In the absence of my right hon. Friend and the illness of the Under-Secretary, I have been asked to answer these questions. The hon. Members are no doubt referring to Friedrich Lebrecht Becker, a German aged thirty, with a British-born wife and fifteen years' residence in this country, who was released under licence on 6th June for special employment on skilled work at Kilburn. Becker was interned at the beginning of the War, subsequently released in November, 1914, and again interned in the summer of 1915. He was licensed to the employment at Kilburn at

      1399
      the request of the Ministry of Munitions, after consultation with the War Office. I find that he behaved improperly when applying for a food card at the office of the St. Pancras Food Committee, and I am informed that he will be reinterned at once.
      Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that he is only being reinterned because of behaving improperly in regard to a food card, and, if that is the reason, why has he been interned on two previous occasions; and will the hon. Gentleman give the actual reason for this German being interned?
      Mr. HEWINS: I think my answer was quite complete, and I do not propose to add anything.

      GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
      Sir F. HALLasked the Postmaster-General whether any naturalised Germans or persons of German parentage are employed in the Post Office; if so, the number and the nature of the work upon which they are engaged; and whether he will consider the advisability of such work being carried out by purely British subjects?
      The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on the 26th ultimo to similar questions by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
      Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any Germans employed at the Clapham High-street Post Office?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
      Sir F. HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any naturalised Germans or persons of German parentage are employed in his Department; if so, the number and the nature of the work upon which they are engaged; and whether he will consider the advisability of such work being carried out by purely British subjects?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I am afraid I can add nothing to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. Member for Hertford on Wednesday last.
      Sir F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is to be understood that all the heads of the various Departments to whom I have put this question have put their heads together with the idea of evading this question and keeping from the House information that it desires to have?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is only responsible for his own Department.
      Sir F. HALL: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention to the fact that from each Minister I have received the same reply couched in the same words?
      Mr. SPEAKER: It may be an evidence of their truth.
      The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir F. HALL:
      65. To ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any naturalised Germans or persons of German parentage are employed in the War Office; if so, the number and nature of work upon which they are engaged; and whether he will consider the advisability of such work being carried out by purely British subjects?
      Sir F. HALL: In consequence of the stereotyped reply, I will not trouble the right hon. Gentleman.

    LUXURY TAX (FRANCE).
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet received the Report from France on the working of the Luxury Tax; and, if so, will he lay it upon the Table of the House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have received a certain amount of confidential information from the French Finance Minister, but nothing of a nature which could be made public.
    Mr. LOUGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to get a further Report which may be published?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I do not think that it will be possible to get any Report of that kind which can be published. Its value to me would be at once gone if it were not treated as confidential.

    POST OFFICE (PENSIONED OFFICERS).
    Sir H. HAVELOCK-ALLANasked the Postmaster-General whether he will favourably consider the granting of a war bonus to the pensioned officers of the Post Office service on a basis similar to that which has already been granted to all officers in the Post Office service whose wages and salaries do not exceed £500 a year?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I have been asked to reply to this question. I have nothing to add to my previous answers to similar questions on this subject.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether the German prisoners employed at an aircraft factory in Lancashire are now out on strike; and, if so, whether any inquiry is being made?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. and gallant Friend has asked me to answer this question. The reply is in the negative.

    WAR OFFICE.

      MILITARY STAFF.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUELasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what steps are now being taken by the War Office to review the military staff at the War Office, as recommended by the Select Committee on National Expenditure?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: A Report on this subject from a Committee of the Army Council is now being considered, and will be sent to my right hon. Friend as soon as possible.

      TEMPORARY WOMEN CLERKS.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction among the temporary women clerks employed at the War Office with the favouritism shown in granting promotion; and whether, seeing that the work is largely of a very simple character, promotion for special work will be given to senior clerks and not to juniors for no
      1402
      reason apparently except that they are on friendly terms with the heads of their Departments?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir; I am not aware of any dissatisfaction as is suggested, and I can assure my Noble Friend that each case of promotion is carefully considered and dealt with on its merits. If he has in mind any particular case, I will look into it.

    VENEREAL DISEASE.
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the assurances given by the War Office that, in cases under Regulation 40D under the Defence of the Realm Acts, the soldier would give evidence in open Court against the woman are in a large number of cases not being fulfilled; and what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware of any assurance such as suggested, but, on the contrary, it has been stated in reply to questions put by my hon. Friend on this point that there is no authority to give directions as to the evidence to be called before magistrates.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Before giving the reply that he was not aware of these assurances, had the right hon. Gentleman in mind the letter written by Sir Reginald Brade, on behalf of the War Office to the National Union of Women Workers, in which he said: "It is necessary for the soldier—"
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that.

    AIR RAIDS (GERMAN TOWNS).
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why the air offensive over Germany is in abeyance; and whether this is in consequence of any negotiations on this subject introduced into the Hague Conference on Exchange of Prisoners of War?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the AIR MINISTRY (Major Baird): There is no foundation for the suggestions contained in this question.
    Mr. BILLING: Is it necessary for the independent Air Force to make application to the War Office before they can initiate any raids on Germany?
    Major BAIRD: That is not the question on the Paper.

    HAY SALES (IRELAND).
    Mr. ARCHDALEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the recent order of the administrative area officer, Ireland, stopping the sales of standing grass by auction, in the only way possible to sell it for meadow, will cause the loss of quantities of grass seed in the first-crop grass, a valuable crop both to the farmer and the nation; and has any practical man been consulted as to the effect it will have in Ireland on the hay crop where thousands of acres of meadow are sold by auction every year at this time?
    Mr. FORSTER: As regards the first part of the question, I am afraid I can add nothing to my reply on Thursday last. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. ARCHDALE: Is it not a fact, that if a man with an acre of meadow has not a weighbridge he would have to travel 64 miles to weigh his meadow?

    SOLDIERS' FURLOUGH RATION ALLOWANCE.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if the ration allowance issued to a married soldier sent on furlough pending discharge is only 1s. 4d. per day for seven days, which is insufficient to provide him with a proper amount of food at the present prices; and, if so, whether he will take any action in the matter?
    Mr. FORSTER: The question of increasing this rate, which is issuable only in the case of men whose wives are in receipt of separation allowance, is under consideration.

    STAFFORD INFIRMARY HOSPITAL.
    Sir WALTER ESSEXasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Stafford Infirmary, Stafford,
    1404
    is, and has been, receiving many wounded soldiers; whether the cost to the institution is 4s. 6d. per bed per day, but that the Government allowance is only 3s. 3d. per bed per day; and whether, in view of the straitened circumstances of this institution, he will increase the contribution?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am inquiring into this, and will communicate with the hon. Member later.

    ARMY PAY.
    Mr. LINDSAYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if the increase in Army pay announced in October, 1917, is being paid to the troops in Palestine and Mesopotamia?
    Mr. FORSTER: As regards Palestine, the answer is in the affirmative. So far as I am aware that is also true of Mesopotamia.

    ALLOTMENTS TRESPASS, BELFAST.
    Colonel SHARMAN-CRAWFORDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if his attention has been called to a case tried in the Belfast County Court last Monday in which certain plotholders brought an action for trespass against an officer of the Army Service Corps in his official capacity; if he has read the remarks made by the judge; and will he see that the people affected are properly compensated?
    Mr. FORSTER: My attention had not previously been drawn to this case, but I am making inquiries and will acquaint my hon. and gallant Friend of the result as soon as possible.

    INDIA.

      WATER POWER.
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India what steps the Government of India propose to take to inaugurate an early investigation into all possible sources of water power in India, with a view to a thorough hydrographic survey of the whole of India with regard to electric power?
      Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India propose to constitute a small Com-

      1405
      mittee of electrical, mechanical, and irrigation experts to visit the different Provinces and, after conference with the local officers, to examine promising sites and to report whether a detailed survey is worth undertaking. The local Governments are being asked to collect information, both physical and commercial, in advance, in order to facilitate the Committee's investigations.

      EXPORTS (ADULTERATION).
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India what steps have been taken by the Government of India to put a stop to the mixing, adulterating, and watering of Indian-grown cotton; and whether any legislation has yet been introduced to prevent the adulteration of other Indian exports?
      Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India are now considering, in consultation with the chambers of commerce in India, the measures to be adopted to prevent the adulteration of Indian products, including cotton. Similar inquiries are being undertaken by the Indian Trade Commission in London. Special legislation has not been introduced, and hitherto the view held by the Government of India is that it would be extremely difficult to carry such legislation into effect, that trade would be seriously hampered, and that, as a practical remedy, such measures would prove ineffectual. While keeping an open mind on the subject, the Government of India consider that the proper agency for dealing with these abuses is the trade itself—either by an arrangement between exporters and buyers that the latter should insist on freedom from adulteration or by the establishment, under the control of chambers of commerce, of some system under which the purity of products would be certified before export.
      Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that some system, at any rate, is inaugurated to put a stop to this adulteration, and not leave it entirely to local option?
      Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. and gallant Friend no doubt will have read the remarks of the Viceroy upon this very subject.
      Young Persons (Imprisonment).
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Home Secretary whether he will state the number of persons under the age
      1406
      of fourteen at present in prisons in England awaiting trial or on remand and under sentence; the number of persons between the ages of fourteen and sixteen in prisons in each of those two categories; and for what reasons the persons awaiting trial or on remand were, committed to prison instead of being sent to places of detention or remand homes?
      Mr. HEWINS: On 28th June there were in prison one boy under fourteen and twelve boys between fourteen and sixteen. There were no girls under sixteen. The boy under fourteen had been found, on 24th June, guilty of wilful murder and insane, and he will be removed to a suitable institution at the earliest possible moment. Of the twelve boys between fourteen and sixteen, four were committed on conviction, six on remand or awaiting trial, and two on postponement of sentence. All were certified by the Courts to be so unruly or depraved as to be unfit for places of detention.

NATIONAL PARTY OFFICES (RAID).

  QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: I desire your permission, Mr. Speaker, to ask your ruling on a question of privilege in connection with something which happened on Tuesday of last week. I desire to say that, as I left very early on Wednesday morning for the North of England, this is the first opportunity I have had of asking your ruling on this subject. It is in connection with an Order under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, of which I should like to read a paragraph to show you what it is:
  "I, Colonel V. G. W. Kell, C.B., being a competent military authority under the said Regulations, do hereby authorise you Lieutenant Colonel G. Stanley Clarke to enter, if need be by force, the premises known as 22, King Street, St. James's, London, at any time of the day or night and to examine, search, and inspect the same or any part thereof and to seize anything found therein that you have reason to suspect is being used or intended to be used for any purpose prejudicial to the public safety or to the defence of the realm or in contravention of the said Regulations."
  The question I desire to put to you, Sir, is this, whether a Member of this House, acting, as he believes, in the interests of the nation, if he uses information in the House of Commons with a view to exposing a public scandal, when it is

  1407
  authoritatively stated that he came by that information innocently, is liable to have his offices or the offices of his associates or his private dwelling-house ransacked by soldiers and other Government agents; and whether such action does not constitute a violation of the privileges of a Member of Parliament?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The question of the violation of the privileges of Members of Parliament is not a question for me. That is a question for the House. If the hon. and gallant Member had wished to take the sense of the House upon it, his proper course would have been to have formulated a Motion suggesting what the breach of privilege was, and to have submitted it to the House. If it had appeared to me that primâ facie there was some breach of privilege, it would have been my duty to have allowed the hon. and gallant Member to have proceeded with it at once. I give no decision—I am not called upon to do so—and I make no pronouncement whatever as to whether there has or has not been any breach of privilege. I am not in a position to do so. I do not know what privilege the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests exists. I should be very doubtful whether there was any privilege in Members of Parliament to be outside the law, and to be in a position to break the law without being subject to visitations from the military or the police. I have never heard of such a privilege. But I do not inquire with regard to that. I take the point, which I am bound to take, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he wishes to raise a matter which is a breach of privilege, is too late. The matter was first mentioned in the House last Monday by the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself. On Tuesday I understand a visit from a competent military authority took place. On Wednesday a question was asked here by the hon. Gentleman sitting on his left and a reply was given. If it be alleged that any breach of privilege took place on Tuesday it should have been raised on Wednesday, when the reply was given by the Under-Secretary for War, or at the very latest on Thursday. Therefore I am bound to say nothing has arisen which would take this question out of the ordinary coarse. It is always open to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to put a Motion down and find his own time for bringing it out. All I say is that I could
  1408
  not accept any Motion at present which would set aside the ordinary Rules of the House.
  General CROFT: I thank you for your ruling, Sir, and I beg to give notice that on an early occasion I will call attention to this matter. I realise that under your ruling notice ought to have been given at once. I want to ask the indulgence of the House to make a short personal statement in connection with another side of this question. I shall endeavour to keep altogether free from the actual debating points of this case. It seems to me to be a question which clearly reflects upon the honour and integrity of my colleagues and myself. On a certain occasion I charged a certain Member of this House with having, whilst in Government employment, asked for and obtained preferential advantages of great value for a private firm of which he was the largest shareholder, which advantages were denied to competing firms. These facts were not disputed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the official Liberal party, who censured me on the ground that I was the possessor of secret Government documents. Immediately the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith) sat down my hon. Friend (Sir R. Cooper) rose on my behalf to deny the imputations made. He unfortunately did not catch your eye until about an hour later, when he very explicitly stated that the correspondence was sent anonymously, and was neither sought nor asked for by any of us, and in order to make doubly sure I acquainted the Press that evening with the whole of the facts, and they appeared, I think, in practically every paper the next day. In spite of the declaration of the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Cooper) and myself, a raid was made upon the office of the National party at 22, King Street, St. James's, by officers of the Army and their attendant satellites. I submit that this action impugned the good faith of my hon. Friend and myself, for it clearly indicated that our word was not accepted, and that these officers went to seek evidence which would involve those who had placed the information before Parliament. I have not the remotest idea whether this information came from the office of Messrs. Harris and Dixon or from the Government Department, or from the private house of the right hon. Gentleman himself. Obviously there would be copies of this correspondence in

  1409
  all three quarters. They are not marked confidential or secret. Presumably some clerk in the business, or some officer or clerk in the Government office, considered it proper in the interests of the country that the transaction should be made public. Whoever he or she is, the individual appears to me to have risked his or her career in the interests of the country, and more than that I know nothing whatever about this subject. It was suggested that I should lay this matter before the Prime Minister for him to give his judgment upon, but I had the suspicion that possibly he might take the same view as was taken by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith), that it was a trivial irregularity, and I think the House will agree that that was borne out by his speech. That is why I placed the matter before the House and read this document. These are the whole of the facts, and I understand the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Cooper), in my absence, expressed the belief that I would hand it over to the Government. I am at a loss to understand why I was not asked to hand this document over, when I had it in my hand in this House, if it was wanted; and I am still further at a loss to understand why the raid was made, and although the House has permitted me to say this, one does not want to use strong language, but I feel, personally, that it was an outrage and an insult.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is taking advantage of making a personal explanation to help exculpate himself and to inculpate others. That is quite contrary to the practice here, and cannot be permitted. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has anything to say in explanation of his own conduct, the House will be prepared to listen to him, but will not be prepared to listen to charges made against outsiders or others.
  General CROFT: I bow to your ruling. I am, of course, prepared to give this document to the right hon. Gentleman who represents the War Office, or to any member of the Government who may ask me for it, but I hope the Government will completely exculpate all my colleagues and myself, because it seems to me there has been a good deal of misapprehension, and I think it involves the whole question of the privileges of a Member of Parliament.

SUSPENSION OF MR. BILLING.
Mr. BILLING: I beg leave to move the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER called on Mr. Roch.
Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order, Sir. I asked your permission on Thursday last, in the event of the Government taking no action in this matter, to move the Adjournment of the House to-day, and, having regard to certain other matters which have occurred and meetings which have taken place in this country on Sunday, I now beg to call your attention to the fact that I gave notice of my desire to move the Adjournment of the House on Thursday last.
Mr. SPEAKER: Since then, the hon. Member may have observed, a blocking notice has been put down on that topic, which will prevent this question coming on.
Mr. BILLING: Might I, in my ignorance of Parliamentary procedure, ask what a "blocking notice" may be, and whether it is in the interests of the enemy or of this country that such a notice should have been put down?
Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will consult either Gentlemen sitting on his right or left, they will be in a position to tell him.
Mr. BILLING (later): On a point of Order. May I ask where one can discover—they are not on the Order Paper to-day—that any blocking Motions exist for the benefit of preventing a Debate taking place on the question of naturalised aliens in this country?
Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will Kindly look at the Order Book, he will see that it stands on the last page of the Notices of Motions. [MR. HOLT:—Presence of Aliens in the United Kingdom.—To call attention to the presence of aliens, and, in particular, to enemy aliens and aliens of enemy descent, antecedents, relationship, and association, and the businesses, trades, professions, and occupations which they are carrying on; and to move a Resolution.]
Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that all that it is necessary to do, to prevent free speech in this House on so urgent and important a question as the intern-

1411
ment of enemy aliens, is for one of the friends of the Government to put down a blocking Motion?
Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot undertake to instruct the hon. Member in the elements of Parliamentary procedure.
Mr. BILLING [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"]: I am not going to sit down all the time Germans are running about this country.
Mr. SPEAKER: I call the attention of the House to the continued disorderly conduct of the hon. Member for East Herts, and I call upon the hon. Member to leave the House during the remainder of the sitting.
Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order—
Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot listen to any further points of Order. This is not a Court of law. If the hon. Member will not carry out my injunction to leave the House the House will probably consider the question of suspending him.
Mr. BILLING: I am here to do my duty, and I have no intention of leaving the House. I have no intention of leaving this House until the question of the internment of enemy aliens in this country is allowed to be discussed.
Mr. SPEAKER: I will not be shouted down by the hon. Member, and I warn him that if he does not carry out my orders he will stand the chance of being suspended by an Order of the House, and that suspension will last some little time.
Mr. BILLING: I feel it my duty to say—and I ask you to consider—
Mr. SPEAKER: I name you, Mr. Billing, for disregarding the authority of the Chair.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I beg to move, "That Mr. Billing be suspended from the service of the House."
Question, "That Mr. Billing be suspended from the service of the House," put, and agreed to.
Mr. SPEAKER: I call upon the hon. Member to withdraw in consequence of the decision of the House. Do I understand
1412
the hon. Member disregards the authority of the House and will not submit to the Orders of the House?
Mr. BILLING: I am doing what I conceive to be my duty.
Mr. SPEAKER: I ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the hon. Member.
The Serjeant-at-Arms approached Mr. Billing, who declined to withdraw.
The SERJEANT-AT-ARMS (having advanced to the Table): The hon. Member refuses to obey your order.
Mr. SPEAKER: I shall suspend the Sitting of the House until such time as the hon. Member has left, and I call upon the officers to remove him while the House is suspended.
Sitting suspended, under Standing Order No. 21, at Ten minutes after Four o'clock.
The hon. Member for East Herts having been removed, Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair at Twelve minutes after Four o'clock.

LUXURY DUTY.
Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury) moved: "That Mr. Tyson Wilson be discharged from the Select Committee on Luxury Duty.
Mr. PRINGLE: In view of the statements which have appeared regarding the proceedings of this Committee, the House is entitled to a statement as to the reason why it is necessary that a Motion should be put down that the hon. Member for Westhoughton be discharged from the Committee. It may be said there are other members on the Committee who also desire to be discharged but obstacles have been placed in their way, and it is due to the House that the Noble Lord should tell us the reason why in this particular case the request was granted.
Mr. KINGrose—
Mr. SPEAKER: Only one speech is allowed.
Lord E. TALBOT: I put the Motion down at the request of the hon. Member himself.
Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings in Committee on the Education Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  EDUCATION BILL.
  Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 11 th June.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Clause 14 (Prohibition Against Employment of Children in Factories, Workshops, Mines, and Quarries) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  EDUCATION BILL.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Employment of Children Attending Elementary Schools.)
    (1) The local education authority, if they are satisfied by a report of the school medical officer or otherwise that any child is being employed in such a manner as to be prejudicial to his health or physical development, or to render him unfit to obtain the proper benefit from his education at school, may either prohibit, or attach such conditions as they think fit to, his employment in that or any other manner, notwithstanding that the employment may be authorised under the other provisions of this Act or any other enactment.
    (2) It shall be the duty of the employer and the parent of any child who is in employment, if required by the local education authority, to furnish to the authority such information as to his employment as the authority may require, and, if the parent or employer fails to comply with any requirement of the local education authority or wilfully gives false information as to the employment, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings.
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) after the word "child," to insert the words "or young persons."
    The object of this Amendment is to extend to young persons the benefits which this Clause provides for children. It is desirable, I submit, that the education authorities shall have this power. Why, I ask, should we in this matter stop short at children? Why not extend these benefits to young persons; why not extend them to boys and girls of fourteen years of age and upwards who are just entering upon employment? That is a time when the
    1428
    intervention of the local education authority is really more requisite than it is for the children. It is well to bear in mind that factory hours are very long—sixty-five per week—and some of the processes in which these young people are engaged are very trying to their health. Moreover, there are a large majority of the children who, not working in factories or workshops, do not get the benefit of the services of the certifying surgeon. They are engaged in occupations in which there is no legal limit as to hours. No doubt hon. Members will remember that the Boy Labour Committee had evidence before it showing that children were employed on land and in shops for something like eighty hours per week. That sort of thing is absolutely wrong, and it would in my opinion be a good thing for the local education authority to have power to intervene on their behalf. Money will in future be spent on young persons from an educational point of view, and there are very strong arguments indeed for seeing that the money we are spending on these young persons is not wasted by reason of the long hours they may be compelled to work in, it may be, unhealthy occupations.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): While I am quite prepared to believe that some further regulation of the hours of employment of young persons would be desirable, I am unable to accept the Noble Lord's Amendment. Clause 15 provides that the local education authority, if it has evidence that the health of a child is being prejudiced by employment, shall have power to prohibit such employment or to attach conditions to it. The Amendment proposes to extend this provision to young persons. Such a course is hardly compatible with the provisions of Clause 10, which has been already assented to by the Committee. Sub-section (5) of Clause 10 provides that the local education authority may require that a young person shall be exempt from employment not only during the hours of the continuation schools, but also for a further period not exceeding two hours on any day. If the Noble Lord's Amendment were accepted the local education authority might insist that a young person should be exempted from employment not only for two hours, but altogether, or, at any rate, for a very much longer period, and the possibility

    1429
    of so drastic and so uncertain an interference with the hours of industrial employment would, I feel, be resented not only by the employers, but also by the young persons themselves. For that reason the Government is unable to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir F. BANBURY: Before this Clause is added to the Bill I should like to say a few words on it. I am extremely glad that the President of the Board of Education did not accept the Amendment of the Noble Lord, which would have the effect of allowing the education authorities to prescribe the amount of work, if any, which a young person up to the age of eighteen should be allowed to perform. May I point out to the Committee that a person of that age is supposed to be worth 30s. a week, and if they were to be taken away from earnings of that character and ordered about by the Board of Education as to what work they should or should not do, it would be absurd? I object to this Clause altogether. First of all it is contradictory. I am not at all sure it is in order. Clause 10 prescribes that under certain conditions which are laid down the local education authority can do certain things. They can prohibit the employment of children under certain conditions. This Clause goes further. It contradicts Clause 10, because it says that the local education authority may either prohibit or attach such conditions as they think fit to the employment of the child in this or in any other manner notwithstanding that the employment may be authorised under the other provisions of this Act. Therefore, the effect of this Clause nullifies the previous Clause, because after the Committee have already decided that certain conditions should apply, this Clause comes along which says that the previous conditions shall be rendered nugatory if the local education authority think it is right. Therefore in this Clause we are overruling the decision already come to in Clause 10, and on a point of Order I submit that this Clause is out of order.
    The CHAIRMAN: This Clause deals with a child who is under fourteen. Clause 10 deals with a young person—that is, with persons over that age. Therefore there is no contradiction.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Perhaps that is quite true, but there are other Clauses which we have passed which deal with the employment of children under fourteen.
    Mr. FISHER: Clause 13.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Clause 13 lays down the method under which a child under the age of fourteen shall be employed. It is stipulated that such child shall not be employed on any day on which he is required to attend school before the close of school hours on that day, nor on any day, before six in the morning or after eight in the evening. Under that Clause the child can only be employed under those conditions. Clause 15 interferes with that and renders all the conditions nugatory. Therefore, I submit that Clause 15 is out of order.
    The CHAIRMAN: Still I am against the right hon. Baronet. Clause 13, which we have passed, says that certain children shall not be employed at all. The present Clause says that if certain children, other than children dealt with under Clause 13, are engaged in employment of a prejudicial character, the local education authority may take certain steps. Therefore, the Clauses are complementary and not contradictory.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The first Sub-section of Clause 13 does not say that a child shall not be employed at all. It says
    "shall not be employed on any day on which he is required to attend school before the close of school hours on that day, nor on any day, before six o'clock in the morning or after eight o'clock in the evening."
    That is to say, he may be employed on Saturday between six and eight and on days on which the school does not meet. He can also be employed even on days on which he is required to attend school, provided he is not employed before the close of school hours on that day. Therefore, if the school closes at four o'clock he can be employed, say, between six and seven. If he is so employed, which we have authorised, Clause 15 says that he shall not be so employed. That that is contemplated is clear from the words
    "notwithstanding that the employment may be authorised under the other provisions of this Act or any other enactment."
    Those words must have some meaning, and the meaning is surely this, that under this Clause the local education authority have power to prevent a child being

    1431
    employed if they think right, although a previous Clause gives power for the child to be employed. That may be a good thing or a bad thing, but I submit that it is not in order at the present moment, because we have already passed Clause 13, which provides that in certain circumstances children may be employed during certain hours.
    The CHAIRMAN: This is an additional provision.
    Sir F. BANBURY: If that is your ruling, then I suppose I am wrong. However, I object to the Clause altogether, because I object to the local education authority setting itself up to decide whether or not certain children are to do certain things. If it is necessary that the children should not be employed at all, then Parliament should lay down rules and regulations for that purpose. As it is, there is no appeal. All that is requisite is a report of the school medical officer "or otherwise." It looks as if the school medical officer can merely make a report that in his opinion the health of the child was injured by certain employment, and that report would be submitted to the local education authority for them to deal with it. I submit that the local education authority are not the proper people to whom that report should be submitted. If it is to be submitted it should be submitted to the magistrates, who are an independent authority, and who could be trusted to weigh the evidence and give a proper decision. The local education authority by the very fact that they are the education authority are prejudiced. Their desire would be to keep the child at school, and the consequence would be that they would support the report of their own official. It must be remembered that it is not the report of an ordinary doctor, but of a school medical officer. Therefore, if the parent of a child objects, all that he can do is to appeal from the official who has made the report to the official's employer. We all know how departments, especially Departments of State, are prone to support their own officials when their decision is called into question, and the local education authority will be biassed in favour of their own official. What is meant by the words "or otherwise"? Does it mean that a school medical officer may make a report or that if the local education authority consider it right the hon.
    1432
    and gallant and learned Member opposite (Major Hills), who is very much interested in this subject, may make a report that in his opinion the health of a child is being injured by employment during school hours? Would he come under the term "or otherwise"? This is an important point.
    Major HILLS: The words are sui generis.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have heard the question asked why Acts of Parliament were made so incomprehensible and the reply has been, because lawyers could not exist if they were made clear. We ought to have Acts of Parliament made clear, and the words put in such a way that they can be understood by the people. The fathers and mothers of the children will have to interpret these words. It might be held that anybody could make a report under these words "or otherwise." Would it be possible for a schoolmaster or a schoolmistress to make a report to the local education authority that in their opinion a certain child has suffered in health through their employment?
    Mr. FISHER: That is so. It would be possible.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Then, if that is the case, it makes this Clause much worse than I thought it was. Surely it cannot be right that a schoolmaster or schoolmistress shall have the power of saying in face of previous Clauses which we have passed that a certain child shall not be employed because in his or her opinion it would be injured.
    Mr. FISHER: A schoolmaster can make a report to the local education authority, but the local education authority must be satisfied.
    Sir F. BANBURY: We have gone a long way in the direction of establishing official authority over the life and limb of the subject, but I did not suppose that we had gone so far as to say that the local schoolmaster or schoolmistress has merely to say, "John Jones, you are not to do any work." I knew that there was the formality of appealing to the local education authority, but it is more than likely that the local authority would support their own official. In these circumstances, I hope that the Committee will not consent to add this Clause to the Bill. There are already sufficient Clauses in the Bill dealing with employment, and if this Clause

    1433
    is left out, and if it should appear on Report stage that some further provisions are necessary, it will be possible to insert a new Clause not so drastic and more easily understandable.
    Mr. FISHER: Clause 15 is distinguished from Clause 13 in this way: Clause 13 applies to children generally, and Clause 15 applies to the individual child. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that when Clause 13 was under discussion I was pressed very strongly from many quarters to regulate or restrict to a further degree child labour on Saturdays and Sundays. I gave a pledge to the Committee that I would examine the matter further, and if I were in a position to make a practicable recommendation on Report stage I would do so. Meanwhile Clause 15 has been specially drafted to meet the difficulty raised by Saturday and Sunday employment. Assuming that it is impossible or impracticable to regulate in this Bill child labour on Saturday or Sunday, we provide by Clause 15 that a local education authority, if satisfied that the individual child is unable to obtain proper benefit from school through excessive or improper employment, shall be able to limit or regulate that employment. That is a very modest, limited step, but one which I think will command the general assent of the Committee. I have, in fact, in my fond moments hoped that this was a Clause which would meet with the enthusiastic support of the right hon. Baronet, not perhaps in his quality as a philanthropist, but as an economist. Surely he will realise that it is the worst posible form of economy to spend great sums of money on elementary education while taking no steps to secure that the child benefits from the education which the taxpayers and the ratepayers pay for!
    Major HILLS: In reference to the point raised by the right hon. Baronet, I think it is clear that the words "or otherwise" must depend on the report of a school medical officer, the reason being that the report has got to be on the health or general development of the child. Unless that is shown to suffer the local education authority can take no action. I also desire to point out that, in my opinion, this Clause does not go far enough. I do not believe that you will get a satisfactory Bill from the education standpoint alone until you lay down a comprehensive limit of hours of employment and of school labour. Under the Clause, as I read it, I
    1434
    the decision is left to the school medical officer and the local education authority, and on that you are bound to get very divergent practice. I do not ask for a very high standard. I think that there must be a certain amount of flexibility, but I do think that there ought to be a maximum number of hours per week which the child shall spend in employment.
    The CHAIRMAN: This matter was debated, as far as young persons are concerned, on Clause 10, and we must not go back to that point on this Clause.
    Major HILLS: I do point out to my right hon. Friend that this Clause is really limited in scope, and that the education authority can only take action when actual injury to health and physical development is proved, and though a child might be employed in a way which exhausted its mental powers, and thereby prevented that child from receiving the full benefit of its education, the education authority can take no action until it proves that the child's health or physical development is injured by that employment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten to read on—
    "or to render him unfit to obtain the proper benefit from his education at school."
    That is another condition as to which the schoolmaster can give a decision, and be is the sole authority on that point.
    Major HILLS: There, again, I think that the words are read in the sense of the preceding words.
    Mr. DENNISS: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the President as to the necessity for this Clause. I only rise for the purpose of having it made clear to us, if possible, by an amended Clause on the Report stage, if the right hon. Gentleman's intention is really to be carried out. I happen to have been construing Acts of Parliament pretty frequently in the course of the last forty years, and this does not carry out the intention of my right hon. Friend, because even on the point of employment rendering the child unfit to obtain benefit from education, the whole Clause seems limited to something prejudicial to health or physical development, which can only be certified upon by a medical man, so that a medical report is a condition precedent. That seems to me to exclude altogether the idea that

    1435
    the teacher, or any third person, can make a report on which the local authority would be justified in acting. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman means the Clause is sufficient, but if not it should be amended on Report, and perhaps he can carry it a little further.
    Mr. BIGLAND: We are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for calling our attention to the Clause, because these words "or otherwise" do certainly need enlargement or removal. The position of parental authority should in some way be rectified. Fathers and mothers resent the fact that somebody or other comes to them and says, "This child is not able to receive full value from its education." That is a very disputable point, and when fathers and mothers are hard put to find the necessary means to carry on their home, and a child is earning 10s. or 15s. a week by working two or three hours in the evening, I think that the question of parental control should be considered by the President, and that we are justified in asking him in some way to amend or alter these words "or otherwise" on the final stage of the Bill.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) has come into the House. He is a great authority on these legal points. We have had two authorities on the other side who have expressed the opinion that "or otherwise" means some medical authority. I put to the right hon. Gentleman the concrete case whether these words would not include the schoolmaster or the schoolmistress, and the right hon. Gentleman said that they would. Unfortunately we have no Law Officers of the Crown present. I do not know why they are not here for the discussion of a Bill upon which complicated legal questions arise. In a matter of this sort we should know where we are. I am surprised that there are no Members of the Labour party here when we are discussing a matter affecting not only the welfare of the child, but of the parents, who are to be subjected to all sorts of inquisitions.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: There is a Member of the Labour party.
    Sir F. BANBURY: There is only one (Mr. Snowden), and he has concealed himself at the end of the House, but I would like to have his opinion upon this
    1436
    matter. As I interpret the words, they mean that if a child has done a little work the previous evening, and is somewhat tired the following morning—a matter which has nothing to do with health—the teacher may make a report to the local authority, and say that the child must not be employed. I may call attention to Sub-section (2) of this Clause. Our lives are being made sufficient of a burden to us every day by the number of forms which we have to fill up, and the number of officials who come round asking what we are doing and whether we ought not to be doing something else, without having more of them put upon the wretched people of this country. Sub-section (2) says:
    "It shall be the duty of the employer, and the parent of any child who is in employment, if required by the local education authority, to furnish to the authority such information as to its employment as the authority may inquire."
    That means that the employer or the father of the child would be worried continually to fill up some horrible form to say what actually the child is doing. My experience is that forms are always drawn in such a way that they cannot possibly be filled up truthfully, because these forms are drawn up under the impression that everybody is in exactly the same position, whereas, as a matter of fact, various circumstances are always arising. Jones may fill up the form correctly, and Brown, who is in a different position from Jones, does not, or cannot, fill it up in the same way, and Brown is asked why he cannot say "Yes" or "No," or whatever the answer may be, to some particular question in the form. Citizens have been unfortunately asked to fill up all kinds of forms, and they have not always been able to satisfy the officials recently or more previously appointed, and that parents of the children will be very much in the same position in regard to this form required by the local education authority. That authority may be a very good one, but it was never intended that it should have power over the proceedings of subjects in this kind of way or that it should go to the employer and ask how he employs people. Are the liberties of Englishmen to be abolished altogether, and are we to go back to the old days when no man knew whether he was to be alive the next day or not? The latter part of Sub-section (2) says—
    "and, if the parent or employer fails to comply with any requirement of the local education

    1437
    authority, or wilfully gives false information as to the employment, he should be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding 40s."
    I say all that is entirely wrong. The only member of the Labour party who was present I see has just left the House, which shows the interest the Labour party take in the working man and the liberties and rights of the British citizen. After all, there is no greater tyranny than the tyranny of the bureaucracy. It is far greater than the tyranny of any emperor or any monarch; and every single Bill that we are passing now gives fresh power to some bureaucrat or to some official. I see my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) is present. He is very sound on all these matters, and I hope we shall have his view upon this Clause. If anybody will divide with me against the Clause, I am prepared to go to a Division.
    Mr. FISHER: I should be very glad to look into the point raised by the right hon. Baronet, although I have faith in the Clause as it stands.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Penalties on Illegal Employment of Children and Young Persons.)
    The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), has Already been covered, and the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) is consequential upon a previous one.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Power to Promote Social and Physical Training.)
    For the purpose of supplementing and reinforcing the instruction and social and physical training provided by the public system of education, and without prejudice to any other powers, a local education authority for the purposes of Part III. of the Education Act, 1902, as respects children attending public elementary schools, and a local education authority for the purposes of Part II. of that Act as respects other children and young persons or persons over the age of eighteen attending educational institutions, may, with the approval of the Board of Education, make arrangements to supply or maintain or aid the supply or maintenance of—

    (a) holiday or school camps, especially for young persons attending continuation schools;

    (b) centres and equipment for physical training, playing fields (other than the ordinary playgrounds of public elementary schools
    1438
    not provided by the local education authority), school baths, school swimming baths;

    (c) other facilities for social and physical training in the day or evening.

    The CHAIRMAN: The first two Amendments, standing in the names of the hon. Member for West Ham (Colonel W. Thorne) and the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Charles Duncan), are not in order. With regard to the next group of Amendments, standing in the names of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire and the hon. Member for Haggerston, I would point out that on Clause 3 we had a long discussion and two Divisions on the question of military or non-military physical training, and the hon. Member for Haggerston (Mr. Chancellor) moved an Amendment in one sense, and another in the opposite sense was moved by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto). Both Amendments resulted in a Division, and both proposals were negatived. That seems to rather dispose of the question so far as this stage of the Bill is concerned.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: The previous discussion referred only to children at continuation schools, and these Amendments refer to children in elementary schools, and I think the point is distinct.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: On the same point of Order. The discussion in the earlier stage related to the possibility that the education authorities might wish to have these powers in respect of elementary schools. We are now considering the specific plans that the education authority may be authorised to carry out, and it is not repeating the former Debate to enter upon the question raised by the Amendments to limit the power of the education authority.
    The CHAIRMAN: There is a slight difference on which there might be some discussion, but I do not think we should go back over the whole ground again.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), after the word "camps," to insert the words "of a non-military character."
    I should like to say at the outset that we have no desire to raise a long discussion on the general question of military training. So far as I am concerned, I am content with the discussion that took place at an earlier stage of the Bill, and I do not think it would be right to go over the ground again. There is an essential difference between the previous Clause and the

    1439
    Clause now under consideration, as this Clause mentions specific plans and methods of work that the local education authorities are to be encouraged, under this Act of Parliament, to carry out, and they are to apply to the Board of Education for approval. I do not think that there is very much disagreement on this question in any part of the House. I believe that Members of the House who are keenest for the military training of our youths would not be glad to see that question considered as a separate question, and not as an educational question which does not raise the general subject of the defence of the Empire. I believe I am right in saying that the Board of Education, in drafting the Bill on these lines, have in their mind, when they use the phrase "school camps," camps of an educational character, camps which will develop the physique of the boy and better fit him to acquire a position in life—camps for only the physical development of the youths, to teach them how to care for their physical, moral, and mental well-being. I think that the physical training camps contemplated are those which will be of an educational character.
    There are two kinds of camps in operation in this country. The right hon. Gentleman and many Members of this House are associated with camps of an educational character, where the best possible work is being done for the boys under conditions that could not prevail in the school. There is another kind of camp which is simply a military training camp, where boys are drilled and taught the use of the rifle. We want to be clear that it is the educational camp which the education authorities are to be encouraged to set up, and it is on that ground we should like to have these limiting words inserted in the paragraph, in order to make it clear that the Board of Education is not suggesting to the local education authority that they should set up camps where military drill could take place and the use of the rifle be taught. I wish to remove what I thought was a misapprehension on the occasion of the last Debate, when it was suggested by some hon. Members, in the course of the discussion, that, if you take the question of physical training, you could not distinguish between military physical training and non-military training. There is no point in that objection at all. These educational camps are organised for
    1440
    physical training in all its educational aspects, and I think it is that kind of physical and educational training which the President of the Board of Education has in mind. These camps have been organised in different parts of the country simply and solely that the boys may have suitable physical training, apart from any military aspect of physical training, and it is from that point of view that I move the insertion of the limiting words of the Amendment, though I do not want in any way to limit the initiative of the local educational authorities to found these educational physical training camps.
    Mr. FISHER: The Government is unable to accept the limiting words suggested by the hon. Member, very much for the same reason which led me to decline a similar Amendment on an earlier Clause. At the same time, in order that there may be no uncertainty as to the position of the Board of Education in this matter, I may state that so far as the Board is concerned there will not be military training in the strict sense of the term. Military training is a matter for the military authorities, and I have every reason to believe that the War Office have no desire either that the Board of Education or local education authorities should promote or subsidise military training in the ordinary sense of the term. Our desire is that the youths of the country should have the advantage of as good a physical training as possible, so that they will be developed by the time they might be required for military service. Even from the war point of view, there is no desire that strict military training should be begun by the education authorities, and it has been the policy of the Board of Education, in the past, while encouraging the growth of such organisations as Cadet Corps or Scouts, to avoid anything in a sense which might be regarded as strictly falling within the limits of military training.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said that he does not actually dissent from the Amendment of my hon. Friend, which approves of a purely physical training for youths, that is of an educational character, and that such training should not be extended or diverted to training of a purely military kind. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is in agreement with the purpose of my right hon. Friend, and I understand that the War Office agree with that purpose and simply want boys

    1441
    at the age of eighteen to be properly trained from the physical point of view. If they can be sure of that the Army can then add the military training in a very rapid time. But let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that unless some safeguard is introduced into this Bill there is a very serious danger indeed that the purpose which he himself has in view will not be carried out. He speaks of the policy of the Board of Education, but he will not himself be at the Board of Education for ever, and he himself must know that there is a strong and organised movement to introduce military training into the schools. He must know that the movement is supported by Members of this House and of the other House, that it is backed by Mansion House meetings, and that there are regular, powerful societies which are existing for that very purpose. I therefore wish to suggest to him from the point of view of his own desires it would be wise to introduce some precautionary words into this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman said the reasons for objecting to the Amendment were the same as those he gave in the last Debate on this subject. I have been looking at that Debate, and I find that there was only one reason that he gave, namely, that he said it was impracticable in the actual words of any Bill to draw a line between the place where military training ends and physical training begins. I quite agree with that. I know that in physical training you have to perform the more elementary movements of squad drill and so on, but I would point out that although it might not be easy in the early stages to draw the distinction, there does arrive a stage where there is a very sharp distinction, which can be put into the terms of an Act of Parliament or that is, the stage when rifle and bayonet exercise and musketry drill are given. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that there can be no possible use from the physical point of view of teaching rifle and bayonet drill. [An HON. MEMBER: "They could not get the rifles!"] They could get dummy rifles. Rifle drill with dummy rifles is being taught now even in elementary schools. I say there can be no possible use from the physical point of view of rifle drill, and I am sure that every physical instructor would say that that kind of drill undoes the effect of physical exercises. It cramps the body and develops the muscles on one
    1442
    side of the body out of proportion to those on the other side, and it is positively harmful from the physical point of view. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me his opinion on that point. I have myself, lower down on the page, an Amendment which excludes drilling with rifles or dummy rifles, and I suggest that that Amendment meets the only objection that he urged. I hope, therefore, that he will, at any rate, see his way to accept my very moderate form of words.
    Sir WATSON CHEYNE: I hope the President of the Board of Education will not hamper himself by accepting the Amendment. It is almost morbid, the argument that because a boy is taught to march or to shoot he will, therefore, be wanting to go and kill somebody. I believe that after the experience of this War it will be ages before there is a war again. There is no longer any chivalry or pleasure in fighting; it is pure savage butchery, and I do not believe that whatever sort of training you give to children you will inculcate any idea of fighting into them, except to defend their own country. I think it is a perfectly fantastic idea, while, on the other hand, there is an immense deal to be got out of a semi-military training. Look at the Boy Scouts. They are militarily trained, and they would be cut out by putting in these words. They have been most valuable in the military work of the country. When I first began going to Chatham to do my work there these Boy Scouts were an awful nuisance, stopping me and inquiring where I was going. They did their work splendidly, and I should be extremely sorry that it should be interfered with. From the point of view of health, surely the outdoor exercise involved in military training is of the greatest value. You have only got to look at the recruits at the present time. I have seen them coming up—shop boys, thin weeds, of no earthly use at all, apparently, and in three or four months' time you would not recognise them. They have become such splendid specimens of manhood. Physical training is all very well, but there is nothing more dreary than merely moving your limbs about. You want a purpose in it, and you do not want to do it simply as a matter of schooling. The boys themselves object to that. The sort of exercise that I advocate has another advantage in that it inculcates discipline, and it has a still greater advantage in that it teaches the boys to work together. They cannot

    1443
    form fours unless they know that they must give way to other boys and that they must not put themselves entirely in the forefront. The sort of instruction that they get in being taught to march and in such military movements is the very best thing the boys can get for their health. Then, again, it lasts a good while. You want to keep these children out of the slums and employ them when they are out of school. At present they play football. I think football is a diabolical game, but it only lasts a short time, whereas they can go for a whole day on a route march and take their lunch with them and have quite a nice time, while it keeps them away from all bad associations, idleness and waste of time. As regards teaching a boy how to shoot, I have two or three boys, and I began teaching them how to shoot when they were very young, with rifles and fowling pieces, and I do not think they have any more desire to shoot their friends or other people, except Germans, than anybody else.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Those who support this Amendment should indeed be grateful for the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down. When this question was raised in the earlier stages of the Bill we had an assurance from the President of the Board of Education that his Department had no intention of giving to physical training in the schools anything of a military character. But it is quite clear from the speech of the hon. and gallant Member that he desires, and no doubt his influence would be exerted to secure, that the physical training even in the schools should have what he described as an object. He quoted the instance of the Boy Scouts, but the Boy Scouts are not part of the educational organisation of the country. They are quite outside, and they will not be touched at all by anything that the Board of Education or the local education authorities do under the powers conferred upon them by this Bill. If outside the school parents desire to take advantage for their children of some military or semi-military training, it is their concern, but it should be entirely a voluntary matter. The hon. and gallant Member said that the people are now, if I may use somewhat of a vulgarism, so "fed up" with war and with militarism that there is no possibility of another war for generations to come. Why, then, should the hon. and
    1444
    gallant Gentleman desire that boys should be taught to shoot? He seems to think that teaching children to shoot has no effect upon their moral character. The use of a gun is in order to kill, either human beings or animals, and therefore you are inculcating into the minds of the children in their very early years the idea of slaughter. Then, again, if I may quote Shakespeare,
    "How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds Make ill deeds done,"
    and if you are going to train up children with the idea that they must be taught to kill, you may depend upon it that sooner or later they will find an opportunity for exercising the attainments which they have reached. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said it was important that children should be taught to work in co-operation, but surely training children in militarism is not the only way in which co-operation can be attained. All healthy games require co-operation. I do not know if the hon. and gallant Gentleman's objection to football extends to cricket, but just as much co-operation is needed in cricket as in any kind of military activity, and therefore arguments of that nature are altogether fallacious. Since this matter was last vented in the earlier stages of this Bill it has been discussed by the Labour party, and I am in a position this afternoon to express the view of the organised industrial opinion of the nation on the question of the physical training of children. The great Conference which met last week in London, and which was attended by 1,000 delegates, representing trade unions and political Labour parties from every part of England, Scotland, and Wales, passed, without a single dissentient, a resolution demanding that in physical training in the schools there should be no military bias whatever, and I know that those deputies, in giving expression to that view, were expressing practically the unanimous view of the working classes of this country. I hope the President will not be influenced at all by the quite irrelevant speech of the hon. and gallant Member.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I, too, want to thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir W. Cheyne) for the remarks he has made. I understand he puts himself in direct opposition to every authority on this matter, and expresses the view that military training for children of tender years

    1445
    is an advantage to their physical development. Do I understand that to be his position?
    Sir W. CHEYNE: I certainly think that marching, especially route marches, which take up more time than a game, the country air, the rest, and lunch out of town, give an aim which adds very much to the pleasure of the day.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: And to shoot?
    Sir W. CHEYNE: And shoot. Why should they not shoot? It trains the eye, especially if shooting at a movable mark. I do not mean to shoot at a man.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Everything the hon, and gallant Gentleman desires to bring about could, except the use of lethal weapons, be included if this Amendment were passed. Boys can be taught to march, to act in unison, under a word of command—
    Captain CARR-GOMM: Signalling?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Signalling is not physical training.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: What we object to is that children of ten to fourteen years of age should be accustomed to think of themselves as little soldiers. The hon. and gallant Gentleman behind me (Colonel Yate) desires that they should. He wishes to infect the mind of immature children with the idea that their duty in later life will be to kill somebody on behalf of their country. Already that is being organised in elementary schools, and pressure is being brought to bear upon the children in elementary schools—I give as an example the action of the Alloa School Board in Scotland—to join these Cadet Corps. Undoubtedly the training will be of a military character—the use of weapons, the accustoming of the mind to forming part of the Army later in life. If that is to be done, surely fourteen is early enough to begin it. You have the evidence of every expert who has investigated this matter, except the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir W. Cheyne)—it has been given in conference after conference—that military training in the use of weapons is really derogatory to the proper physical development of the children; and, if it is not excluded, it will be brought in. That is certain. The hon. and gallant Gentleman behind me has advocated it being compulsorily brought in in elementary schools. Lord Cheyles-
    1446
    more at the Mansion House, advocated it being compulsorily brought in in public elementary schools, and we object to the compulsion of parents to make their children undergo training to which they might otherwise object, and which will become part compulsorily of the educational system under the local authorities. If these camps are conducted by the local authorities, boys who get the advantage of the camp will have to undergo this training, whether their parents like it or not. If the parents desire that they should join the Boy Scouts or the Cadet Corps there can be no objection to it, but what we object to is a compulsion which will be possible unless excluded. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as an educationist, as one who desires that this Bill shall be effective from an educational point of view, it would not be better to remove this cause of offence by definitely removing military training from the training of these children? What you do with the young people who attend secondary schools has nothing to do with this particular Amendment, but that young children should have forced on them, against the wishes of their parents, and in order to get the advantage of these recreation camps, the undergoing of military training is, to my mind, an outrage on the rights of the parents and an outrage from the moral point of view. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will be walling in this case, at any rate, definitely to exclude that kind of teaching from these camps, and will accept the two Amendments I have down later in connection with this matter.
    Colonel GREIG: I think the President will be well advised to stand by the attitude he has announced to the House. While, on the one hand, the Member for Edinburgh (Sir W. Cheyne) may have gone too far with regard to purely military exercises in camps, on the other hand, we have had that considerably counterbalanced by the views of a small number of Members on the other side of the House. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) was the last exponent of the views of those who regard any military training as inculcating ideas of the slaughter of other human beings. I am not going further into that, and I will only say that that view naturally comes from Members who take the view of the hon. Member that slaughter of the kind he indicates is really a monstrous thing, and is not slaughter which may be perfectly

    1447
    justified in the defence of one's country. It is rather extraordinary to hear from those hon. Members, particularly from a democrat like the hon. Member for Blackburn, arguments in favour of inserting in this Bill words which would materially hamper the control of the local authorities who are to sanction these school camps. That was the basis of the whole of the arguments on the last occasion—leave it to the local authority to say what shall be the kind of training. If we have Members like the hon. Member for Edinburgh and others and large bodies outside bringing pressure to bear on the local authorities to take one view we may be quite certain there are large bodies who will look after the matter from the other side. By far the best way is to leave it to the local authority to decide what shall be the character of the training in the camps. There was one hon. Member who was so against this military training that even from his own point of view he could not have gone far enough, because if you are to exclude everything that may tend to this soldiering spirit why not exclude the Navy too? Why not non-military and non-naval training? You might actually exclude swimming and signalling, both of which things are extremely useful from the naval point of view.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Not under this Amendment.
    Colonel GREIG: This Amendment will do this; it will weigh the balance down unfairly on the side of the views of the hon. Members who have advocated it.
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: On the last occasion I spoke in opposition to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Haggerston (Mr. Chancellor) and in agreement with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down (Colonel Greig), who followed me, and I voted in that sense in order to keep the Clause as it had been left by the President. I am bound to say that I feel some little difficulty in the present matter because it is a different one, dealing with much younger children.
    Mr. FISHER: No; not with much younger children.
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: They may be, some of them, surely! The Clause says:
    "As respects children attending public elementary schools."
    Mr. FISHER: Go on!
    Sir G. GREENWOOD:
    "And a local education authority for the purposes of Part II. of that Act as respects other children and young persons—"
    Mr. FISHER:—
    "or persons over the age of eighteen."
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: But the children in public elementary schools are included. My difficulty is that I do not quite know, if this Amendment is accepted, what interpretation will be put on the words "of a non-military character." I should certainly be as opposed as my hon. Friends to putting rifles in the hands of these children to teach them to shoot or to do bayonet exercises. On the other hand, yon might have a boy as a bugler or marching about and forming fours, and that might be said to be of a military character. If words could be devised to exclude a really military character of the camp, I certainly would not go as far as the hon. and gallant Member for Edinburgh (Sir W. Cheyne) and say it would be a good thing for the children of that age—whatever it may be after—to learn bayonet exercises, to shoot, and so on. If something of that kind could be devised, I should be very glad. I am rather in a difficulty as to whether to support this Amendment or not.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I am in agreement, as I think, with the President in considering that military training is undesirable for these young children on the ground that it is not the right kind of physical training for them to be exposed to, and I understand also that the President gives his assurance that he has no intention of giving a military colour to this physical training. It does seem to me, however, that the Amendment which my hon. Friends have proposed is not very well calculated to achieve the objects they have in view. They propose to qualify physical training given in holiday camps and in these centres in this way, that it shall not be of a military character. If you look at the Clause, that physical training is intended to supplement and reinforce the instruction and social and physical training provided by other means, I am not at all sure whether what they propose would not be quite different from what they really want. If, for instance, you say it is only in these centres for specific training that the training should not be of a military character, I am rather inclined to think that the implication would be that the ordinary physical training might be of a military character.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: There is a complementary Amendment to meet that.
    Mr. ROBERTS: The complementary Amendment ought to be in the words we have passed—"For the purpose of supplementing and reinforcing the instruction and social and physical training," etc. I put it to my hon. Friends that if they succeeded in getting the President to accept this they might, perhaps, give persons a ground for interpreting the effect of their action as meaning that in the ordinary course you might have training of a military kind, and that it was only in camps and these special centres that this military training to which they object is to be ruled out. I suggest that they should not press the Amendment.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to accept the proposal that rifle drilling with real or dummy rifles should be excluded?
    Mr. FISHER: No; and for this reason: This Clause mainly deals with voluntary organisations. They may not be organisations within the school at all. It enables the local education authority to assist the voluntary organisations. It might enable the local education authority to assist the Boy Scouts, and I think some embarrassment might be caused if the local education authority were to exclude from the system the admirable educational work of a voluntary organisation on the ground that the voluntary organisation had a side which might be described as military. Let us suppose a Cadet Corps with some educational side, doing really good work, and the local education authority and the Board approve of the educational work of that corps, I submit that it might be desirable that the local education authority, with the sanction of the Board, should assist the educational work of that organisation. I have already said that it would not be competent for a local education authority to provide arms or uniform, or any of the implements of a strictly military description. That is a matter which, if it is to be done at all, would have to be left to the War Office, and, under our existing system, the uniforms and rifles of such organisations as Officers' Training Corps are not a matter for the Board of Education, but for the War Office. But I do think it might hamper the local education authority in their work of assisting organisations, which might be doing extremely good
    1450
    work among the population of our industrial towns, if they were precluded from assisting good educational work by reason of the fact that that work was, to some extent, intermingled with work which might be described as work of a military character.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I think I understand now that the right hon. Gentleman would approve of education money being used to subsidise military organisations, but not: for the purpose of rifles and instruments of military training. But, even under his auspices, the London County Council did vote some time ago £900 to pay the fees of scholars who entered secondary schools on condition that they joined Cadet Corps, and that this subsidising, therefore, of Cadet Corps out of education money has his approval.
    Mr. FISHER: Not as such.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: What difference is there in spending money in that way and in buying rifles? The funds, if provided in that way, tend to maintain the corps, and the money that they otherwise would have to provide has been provided, and they are able to buy rifles and things of that kind for military training. You really cannot divide these things. Unless this Amendment, or something like it, is accepted, what we are going to do is practically to endorse what I call the irregular and improper action which some education authorities have already adopted by deliberately making our education of a military character; in other words, to build up militarism at a time when we are trying to destroy it in other parts of the world, and to perpetuate the very kind of thing that has led to this War, and which if not killed at the end of this War, will lead to other wars. We are undoing in our Education Bill what we are professing to do by the War. I think it is lementable, and I shall certainly support the Amendment on a Division.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Are we really to be asked to support an Amendment of this kind? You are going to give power to local education authorities to subsidise things which are necessary, and you seek to put upon them a clog by the words of the Amendment, which nobody seems to be able to translate correctly. What is strictly the meaning of a "non-military camp"? It would put a clog on splendid work done by voluntary organisations in school camps. If you support them at all,

    1451
    support them as they exist now. The hon. Member for Haggerston (Mr. Chancellor) thinks that if you are to have military camps you will be teaching the people militarism, which is the cause of the War. Is there the slightest risk of our people becoming Prussianised in that way? Nobody who has had to do with the working classes believes that. Those of us who have talked with the members of workmen's clubs know how sorry they are that this sort of drill was neglected in the past. Would they have been any the worse if they had known a little bit more of drill and discipline before this War came on? I think if my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir G. Greenwood) voted for an Amendment of this kind it would be very much misunderstood outside, and I do hope the Committee, if it goes to a Division, will vote against it. I do press my hon. Friends not to take to a Division this point, which is really almost a reductio ad absurdum, when you say you are to have a camp of a non-military nature. It would lead to endless disputes. Should we not be making ourselves ridiculous if we put such an Amendment in? The question of boys learning to shoot has been raised. I do not think I could be called a bloodthirsty or military person, but I think I should have lost a great deal of pleasure as a boy if there had been a law against that. We should make ourselves ridiculous amongst most people brought up in the country.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: I must confess I was surprised at the undemocratic attitude of the hon. Member for Haggerston towards this particular Clause. He seems to be afraid to trust local education authorities to manage their own affairs. He wants to tie them up by Clauses in an Act of Parliament so that they shall not have this question as to how best to serve the children entrusted to their care. No one has less sympathy with militarism than I have—militarism in its broader sense, not in its narrower sense. After all, as I take it, what this Clause proposes to do is to give the children in the schools some of the opportunities that children whose parents are able to pay for education are able to afford at present. Unless parents are well off, such education practically ends with school hours. Now one knows in great public schools it is not merely the training got in the schoolroom
    1452
    that develops the character of the boy, but the training in spare hours, on Saturday afternoons and in the evenings—that is to say, the training on the cricket and football fields, in the racquet court, and the swimming bath. But one knows that in those schools it has been found that there are a great number of boys who do not take to cricket and sports of that kind, but like to go into the Boy Scouts, Cadet Corps—I am not afraid to use the words "Cadet Corps"—or, as in great towns, organisations like the Church Lads' Brigade. Does my hon. Friend suggest that because a boy is poor, because his parents cannot afford to pay for that training—the training of his character—the education authorities shall not be allowed to assist and pay something towards his fees?
    My hon. Friend referred to the attitude of the London County Council. The London County Council says that they are prepared to pay the fee of any boy who wants to join a cricket club in connection with a secondary school. Then it was pointed out that some boys prefer to belong to a Cadet Corps, and the London County Council, very rightly and properly, said, so long as the boy's parents desire him to have this kind of training, and so long as the boy wishes to take advantage of it, they were prepared to pay his fee just as much for a Cadet Corps or Church Lads' Brigade as for a cricket club. That, I think, is the proper way to look at it. If you are going to lay down, as my hon. Friend suggests, that a boy can go into any form of training so long as it does not come by any sort of interpretation under the word "militarism," you are going to exclude any form of organised drill. The principles of drill are based on the experience gained in drilling soldiers. If you are going to suggest that because that physical training is in some way analagous to that for the training of a soldier, you are going to exclude the very best form of physical training that experience has taught. As a matter of fact, I quite agree that for younger boys by far the best form of training is that of Boy Scouts, but, even in the case of Boy Scouts, there has to be a certain amount of military discipline and a certain amount of military organisation. I hope my hon. Friend will not take a line which, after all, does play rather into the hands of the militarists, because by taking this absurd line you are helping those who want to get

    1453
    the Cadet Corps entirely in the hands of the War Office and the military authorities. If you have them under the control of the education authorities, the education authorities will be able to see that the training given is of an educational character, that it is good for the physique of the boys, and that there is nothing of an objectionable nature. After all, it is not compulsory on these boys to go to these Corps. It is no part of the Bill. All it suggests is that if parents desire their boys to go into a camp or into a Cadet Corps, or into anything for social betterment from the educational point of view, the authorities shall be permitted to pay the fees if the boys are too poor to pay, or if the cost is too great for them to bear.
    General CROFT: I would like just one word before we go to a Division on this subject, and that is in connection with the experience in Australia. I believe when the Australian cadet system first came about that those gentlemen who hold similar views to my hon. Friend the Member for Haggerston were most emphatic in their opposition. I desire to say that from what I have heard on all sides there is hardly anyone in Australia who would now desire to go back on the training given to young boys in Australia, because of the extraordinary results which have in general accrued. I would also ask the hon. Member to remember that Australia is perhaps the most democratic country in the world. So far from being militarist, it is perhaps the only Dominion in the Empire which has not adopted uni-
    versal service, although there have been supplied from there the largest quota in this, and many other things, by voluntary effort. I would ask my hon. Friend to consider the fact, which has been pretty well proved. This Dominion training has done much for the development of the character of the youth, for the prevention of crime, and for the general all-round development of the youth of the nation.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Has not this matter been largely decided by the Continuation Schools Clause, when the House decided against a similar Amendment to this, and also against an Amendment prescribing military training? That decision surely ought to govern the decision in this case!
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: This applies merely to children.
    Sir R. ADKINS: If it is merely children, then it is important that you should have specific military and specific non-military training left out even more than in connection with those of older age, who come much more within the ambit of this controversy. I suggest that the House, having once decided to leave this open, should scrupulously refrain from putting in words which restrict in either direction. Under the circumstances, if the matter is pressed to a Division, I shall vote with the Government.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 21; Noes, 135.

    Division No. 57.]

    AYES.

    [5.49 p.m.

    Alden, Percy

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Anderson, W. C.

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Arnold, Sydney

    Glanville, Harold James

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Hudson, Walter

    Snowden, Philip

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Martin, Joseph

    Mr. Whitehouse and Mr. T. Richardson.

    NOES.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Currie, George W.

    Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Brookes, Warwick

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Barnett, Captain, R. W.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir James B.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Mid)

    Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glos., E.)

    Cheyne, Sir W. W.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)

    Beach, William F. H.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Geddes, Sir A. C. (Hants, North)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Coats, Sir Stewart A. (Wimbledon)

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Croft, Brigadier-General Henry page

    Gretton, John

    Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Hanson, Charles Augustin

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arton)

    Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. George H. (Norwich)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    M'Kean, John

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Macleod, John Mackintosh

    Robinson, Sidney

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Hills, John Walter

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Hinds, John

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Stewart, Gershom

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. M.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Marriott, John A. R.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Ches., Knutsfd.)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

    Thomas, Sir A. G. (Monmouth, S.)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

    Tickler, T. G.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Mount, William Arthur

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

    Neville, Reginald J. M.

    Whiteley, Sir H. J.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Newman, Major J. R. P. (Enfield)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Jones, J. Tewyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

    Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Partington, Hon. Oswald

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leeks)

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Larmer, Sir J.

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Younger, Sir George

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Pratt, J. W.

    Edmund Talbot and Capt. F. Guest.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir D. Maclean): I think the last Amendment covers the following two on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Haggerston, who desires to insert the words "other than military" after the word "training"; together with other Amendments standing the the names of the hon. Members for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse), for the West Houghton Division (Mr. Tyson Wilson), and for Northampton (Mr. Lees-Smith). In respect to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Yate)—"at the end of the Clause to add the words, 'and at least one-fourth of the hours allotted for attendance at continuation schools shall be devoted to such physical training'"—I think it is covered by Clause 3, and does not arise on Clause 17.
    Colonel YATE: Would it be possible to put forward a somewhat similar Amendment for the Report stage?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We have not arrived at that stage yet, but between now and then I shall be quite willing to talk the matter over with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I should like to ask two questions: Is there any idea, or has any estimate been made of what the expense is likely to be? And, secondly, is there any limit either in this Bill or
    1456
    anywhere else as to the amount the local education authority can spend? What I really am most desirous about is the point as to whether there is any limit at all as to the amount which the local education authority can raise and spend upon swimming baths and similar provision.
    Mr. FISHER: The limit upon local extravagance is imposed by the desire of the ratepayers coupled with the approval of the Board of Education.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: We all know you cannot spend more than 1d. rate and so forth in some matters, but there appears to be no such limits as regards the things under discussion; therefore, it seems to me, that the local education authority can spend any amount they like.

    CLAUSE 18.—(Medical Inspection of Schools and Educational Institutions.)
    (1) The local education authority for the purpose of Part II. of the Education Act, 1902, shall have the same powers and duties with reference to making provision for the medical inspection and treatment of children and young persons attending—

    (i) secondary schools provided by them;

    (ii) any school to the governing body of which, in pursuance of any scheme made under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889, any payments are made out of any general fund administered by a local education authority as a governing body under that Act, and any school of which a local education authority are the governing body under that Act;

    (iii) continuation schools under their direction and control; and

    1457

    (iv) such other schools or educational institutions (not being elementary schools) provided by them as the Board direct,

    as a local education authority for the purposes of Part III. of the Education Act, 1902, have under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section thirteen of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, with reference to children attending public elementary schools, and shall also have the powers exerciseable under that paragraph as respects children and young persons attending any school or educational institution, whether aided by them or not, if so requested by or on behalf of the persons having the management thereof.
    (2) The Local Education Authorities (Medical Treatment) Act, 1909, shall apply where any medical treatment is given in pursuance of this Section as it applies to treatment given in pursuance of Section thirteen of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendments standing in the names of the hon. Members for South Notts (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck), Berwick (Sir F. Blake), and York (Mr. Rowntree) ought, I think, to come as new Clauses.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "and treatment" ["medical inspection and treatment of children"].
    My Amendment to omit a couple of words will be followed later by an Amendment to insert at the end of the Sub-section words to the following effect: "And the medical officer, after inspection, shall report to the local education authority by whom he is appointed."
    6.0 P.M.
    This is an important Amendment, because it tends to lessen some of the onerous duties and responsibilities which this Clause throws upon the local education authority. When I was speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill I pointed out that there were two Clauses in this Bill which were of a highly contentious character, and which I thought must be amended if the Bill had ever to become an Act of Parliament. One was Clause 10 and the other was Clause 18. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education was good enough to accept and to introduce Amendments to Clause 10, which, I am quite certain, have expedited, and will expedite, the passage of the Bill through the House. I very much hope, therefore, that he will show the same spirit of concession in regard to the Amendments standing in my name on Clause 18. It will be seen that the Amendment I am moving deals with the marginal title, "Medical Inspection of Schools and Edu-
    1458
    cational Institutions." The question of treatment does not appear in the title although it occupies an important place in the Clause itself. Important as medical inspection is—and I am strongly in favour of it being given in connection with the institutions named in this Clause—the question of medical treatment is a far more important one than that of inspection. Therefore it is a little strange that the marginal title should differ so considerably from the provisions of the Clause as to have omitted from it altogether the words "and treatment." I cannot help thinking that under any circumstances some Amendment to this Clause as drafted is absolutely necessary, because it will be seen that it extends the power of the medical officers of the board to medical treatment of large numbers of persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen for whom medical treatment is already provided. Let me draw attention to the words of the Clause, which provide that the local education authority shall make provision
    "for the medical inspection and treatment of children and young persons attending—

    (i) secondary schools provided by them;

    (ii) continuation schools under their direction and control; and

    (iv) such other schools or other educational institutions (not being elementary schools) provided by them as the Board directs."

    There are a large number of pupils in the secondary schools provided by local authorities above the age of sixteen. In our continuation schools compulsory attendance would be required some years after the appointed day for all persons between sixteen and eighteen, and although by the Amendment of the President compulsory attendance will not be insisted upon for some years I am hoping that our local education authorities will do what they can to encourage the attendance of young persons even after the age of sixteen. Therefore we may assume that a large number of young persons will be attending these continuation schools between the ages of sixteen and eighteen. No definition is given of educational institutions, and if in moving this Amendment I obtained some definition of what is understood by educational institutions I really should not be moving it in vain. Educational institutions must certainly include technical schools which are at present aided, and in some places provided, by the local education authority,

    1459
    and from the statistics I have obtained I find that a great majority of the students in those technical schools are between sixteen and eighteen years of age, and therefore it will be seen that the extension of the duties provided in this Clause would enable these medical officers of the local authorities to give medical treatment to these young persons in the secondary schools and the continuation schools and also many of our polytechnic institutions. But the Clause goes further and provides that a local education authority for the purposes of this Act shall have the same powers
    "with reference to children attending public elementary schools as respects children and young persons attending any school or educational institution, whether aided by them or not, if so requested by or on behalf of the persons having the management thereof."
    We are limiting it between sixteen and eighteen years of age; otherwise it might be supposed that these powers would enable local education authorities to give medical treatment to persons of any age whatever. We know that a young person is defined as between sixteen and eighteen, and I am restricting my observations to them. This means that in any one of these institutions, if those who have the management thereof request the local education authority to provide medical treatment for those young persons, the local education authority will be enabled to do so, or may be required to do so, without even consulting the young persons themselves as to the medical practitioner they would like to be employed, or without any reference to the parents. I do not know that the protest of a parent against the employment of a medical officer appointed by the local education authority would have any effect in preventing that officer from attending these young persons. It will be remembered that at the age of sixteen all young persons employed, and a large number of other persons, come under the National Insurance Commissioners, and are required to contribute, and their employers are required to contribute, and the State contributes toward the provision of medical attendance for these young persons. The result of this Clause therefore, if carried in the form in which it stands, would be that the State would contribute twice over for the medical attendance for the same set of people, and that, notwithstanding the fact that the young persons themselves and their employers are contributing towards the cost of medical
    1460
    attendance, they might be required to receive medical attendance from the medical officer of the local education authority.
    We know that doctors often differ, and it is quite possible that the treatment which these young persons would receive would be less satisfactory than if it were in the hands of one doctor only. I think that the President would be well advised if he would take back this Clause altogether and bring it up on the Report stage, after having considered more carefully some of the difficulties to which I have referred. If the Clause were limited to the attendance on young persons between fourteen and sixteen, it would be a great advance on anything that at present exists, and would remove to a certain extent the difficulties. But even that would not be wholly satisfactory, and for that reason I think it would be advisable for the right hon. Gentleman to undertake to reconsider the Clause. There is another argument which seems to me stronger than any I have advanced on this point, and it is that this House and the whole country has been looking forward to the introduction into this House of a Bill for the establishment of a Ministry of Public Health.
    The CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss that subject now, and I shall have to deal with it on an Amendment that comes later. Is the hon. Member speaking on the Clause as a whole or on the Amendment?
    Sir P. MAGNUS: On the Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is the Amendment to leave out the word "treatment?"
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Yes. I was appealing to the President of the Board of Education and asking him whether at the present time it was really advisable to increase considerably the powers of one Department of State, having regard to the possibility in the near future of the establishment of a Ministry of Public Health, which would deal with all these matters and which would prevent one Department from trespassing on ground which would be covered by another Deparment. I feel there are many other hon. Members who are better qualified to speak on a medical subject such as this than I am. There is my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities (Sir Watson Cheyne) and my colleague in the London University. I want to ascertain whether the medical

    1461
    Members of this House consider that the Amendment which has been put down in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities would meet the difficulties to which I have referred.
    I shall be very unwilling to press my Amendment to a Division if the hon. Baronet will state that in his opinion his Amendment will meet the requirements of the medical profession and obviate the difficulties to which I have referred, and, of course, providing that my right hon. Friend is willing to accept it. In order to obtain an answer from my right hon. Friend on the two particular questions I have put, namely, what he means by medical treatment and what is meant by educational institutions, I think it right formally to move this Amendment. If medical treatment means nothing more than the local medical officer should give advice to the students in attendance without treating them personally himself my objection would not hold, but until I get some satisfactory information I feel it my duty to bring this Amendment before the Committee.
    Mr. FISHER: While I feel myself unable to accept the Amendment which has been moved to omit the words "and treatment," I am ready to accept the Amendment which has been put down by the hon. Baronet the Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities, which, I think, covers part of the ground which occupied the speech of my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend at the end of his speech put to me two questions. First of all, he asked me what was meant by treatment. He wished to be assured that if the local education authorities were empowered to provide treatment they would pay due consideration to the desires of the parents and to the opportunities of the private practitioner. That was really the meaning of his question, and I think I can give him a very satisfactory assurance on both points. Under our existing law, the local education authority is bound to provide inspection, and it has also power to provide treatment. Under this Clause, it is proposed that the duty of inspection and the power of treatment should be extended from the elementary school to the continuation school. What happens with regard to treatment? The medical officer who inspects finds some defects which require to be followed up by treatment.
    1462
    The parent has the opportunity, and indeed is encouraged, to employ a private practitioner, and perhaps it may interest the Committee to know that at the present time there are 226 authorities who employ part-time officers, and forty-seven only who employ whole-time officers for the purpose of treatment. That will show the hon. Member that as things are abundant use is made of private practitioners in the matter of treatment and that in the majority of cases part-time officers only are employed. Then my hon. Friend put to me another question. He asked me what was meant by other institutions. It is very difficult to find a phrase which will cover all the possible cases in which it may be desirable to provide inspection and treatment Let us take evening schools. Let us take art schools. [An HON. MEMBER: "School Camps!"] An hon. Member suggests school camps. There again it might be desirable to have inspection, and in any case I think, ex abundanti cautela, it is desirable to have some general word which will cover cases which might not be adequately covered by the use of the term school.
    Sir W. CHEYNE: I should like to make a few remarks on this question, although the right hon. Gentleman has very kindly acceded to the Amendment which I have put down. My opinion is that treatment should be left out, but I have put down that Amendment because, if treatment were not left out, I did not want it to be left without something being done to mend matters. Therefore, in supporting the hon. Baronet who has moved this Amendment, I am supporting a view which I hold in contradiction to the Amendment which I have put down. I have no wish whatever to decry the existing arrangements as regards inspection and treatment which operate in elementary schools up to the age of fourteen. This Clause deals with children from fourteen to eighteen. The treatment which occurs during the earlier period is of a different character from the treatment which would occur at this period. In the earlier period the treatment is quite rightly more or less limited to troubles which interfere with education. We may call them educational diseases. The treatment really does not deal with things other than those which interfere with education. For instance, the teeth of young children are attended to. That is most important and of the greatest value as affecting the nutrition of the child.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Are there no defective teeth after fourteen years of age?
    Sir W. CHEYNE: Then there is the question of eyesight. We have eye clinics where we treat defects in eyesight which interfere with education. There are certain things which interfere with breathing and which therefore incapacitate the child, such as tonsils and adenoids, and we have treatment for them. There are sudden contagious conditions which arise and which have to be dealt with, such as ringworm. We have also physical disabilities which are treated by physical exercises. These practically are all educational diseases which are treated in ages from five to fourteen, and if one reads the report of the medical officer for 1916 he will see what immense benefit children have derived from being treated in that way. There is this point to be made with regard to the elementary treatment: These children are attending school continuously. They are both known to the teachers and to the medical officer who inspects the school, and everything is quite right. I am not making the slightest objection, except that if there is a health authority set up I think it will have to come under that authority. It is quite a different thing when we come to young persons above fourteen who do not attend every day, but only for three or four hours twice a week. The Noble Lord has suggested that a dentist is required after fourteen, but we may hope that the teeth have been attended to before the age of fourteen is reached.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK indicated dissent.
    Sir W. CHEYNE: Well, we will let that slide. We then come to the question of eyesight. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir W. Collins), who is a great authority on eyesight, may have something to say in regard to that matter, but I would suggest that by the time the age of fourteen is reached many of the defects have been corrected, and that it is only a question of going on and getting spectacles. Practically all the educational diseases have been attended to by the time the age of fourteen is reached, and the medical officer in his report—I quite admit it is a very sanguine report, but still the man does his work well—speaks very strongly of the enormous advantages that the children have derived. What
    1464
    diseases are you going to treat in these children who only attend school occasionally? Supposing a child is taken ill one day after he goes to school, are you going to send the school doctor to his home to treat him? What would the parents say? What would you say if your boy were taken ill on Saturday and because he did not go back on the Monday the school doctor arrived to see him? I do not think you would like it. There is very little that can be done when the child no longer attends regularly except to give him a bottle of medicine. I remember once reading what was put up in the window of a doctor's surgery, "Hours of attendance such-and-such hours in the morning and such-and-such hours in the evening. Bottle of medicine and advice, 4d. Superior ditto, 6d." I suppose the educational doctor is going to give "superior advice." I cannot see the object of continuing the treatment after the child has ceased attending school regularly. When you come to the ages from sixteen and eighteen you have a young person who has a panel doctor. Are you going to send the educational doctor to a person who has got a pane! doctor? It is quite true that you are going to do it for nothing, but so far as the person is concerned so does the panel doctor. I do not suppose that the panel doctor would very much mind if the educational doctor did attend him, but still it would be a slight upon the panel doctor, about whom the Prime Minister told us such wonderful tales when he expressed surprise that anyone should wish to continue his own doctor. There is not a word about medical treatment in the Scottish Education Bill, and I have not heard anyone grumble about the absence of it. They may be a hardier race, but I do not think that accounts for it. The Secretary for Scotland, in going into the details of his Bill, had not a word to say about medical treatment, or even medical inspection. I think what really ought to happen is that these young persons should be medically inspected, and then, if anything wrong is found, the parents or the panel doctor should be communicated with. If it were something requiring treatment at some clinic, I do not suppose that either the boy or the parents would object to his being treated there, but surely some time or other the child grows into a young person when he chooses for himself whether he shall be treated by a family doctor or a panel doctor!
    Sir H. NIELD: The Committee is fortunate in possessing a Member who is able to give it personal advice on a subject of this sort. I, who have no particular interests to serve, rise in the interest of the public to ask whether it is desirable that an Englishman's home, which has hitherto been regarded as his castle, should be invaded, as it is now by law, by nine separate medical visitants, with two added by the legislation of this Session, making twelve in all if this Clause passes? On the 4th December the British Medical Association had an interview with the President of the Board, and certainly the conclusion to which they came when they left his room was that he was prepared to concede the omission of the words "and treatment" in so far as they meant following the child to the home and treating it in the same way as an ordinary practitioner would treat it. Apparently that was a misapprehension.
    Mr. FISHER: No; I have accepted the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Edinburgh University (Sir W. Cheyne) on the distinct understanding that that would meet his wishes. I may say that I am very much surprised at the attitude he has taken up.
    Sir H. NIELD: You are referring to the last speaker?
    Mr. FISHER: Yes.
    Sir H. NIELD: That makes it perfectly clear that, like a cautious man, my hon. and gallant Friend was prepared to take half a loaf rather than be without bread altogether. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he had been in public life, as represented by this House, for a longer period, he would have known that that is a policy which is an extremely discreet one where one is obliged to deal with the elector and to deal with matters of public concern. I understood that, although the hon. and gallant Member for Edinburgh University put down this Amendment in anticipation of the other one having been withdrawn or defeated, he was none the less of opinion that the Amendment now before the Committee was the proper one.
    Sir W. CHEYNE: That is exactly what I was trying to say. I did not realise, when the right hon. Gentleman spoke about my Amendment, of which he approved very much, that he was asking me to withdraw my support from the
    1466
    Amendment now before the Committee. I understood that he was asking me if the Amendment which he had had drafted, or which was drafted for him, would meet my views. Of course it does. It gives me everything I want, and I accept it with the greatest of pleasure. I told him at the time that I considered that the proper thing to do was to leave out the words "and treatment." Therefore, I am breaking no bargain.
    Sir H. NIELD: When the deputation from the British Medical Association left the right hon. Gentleman's room they were under the impression that the words "and treatment" would be omitted from the Bill. I have only one other thing to say, so far as the present position of parents in relation to the children attending one or other of these schools to which this Clause is supposed to apply. I am quoting from the circular of the British Medical Association:
    "When we remember that it is possible already to have a poor family with at least nine medical practitioners interested in its physical welfare and provided by local authorities, the in-advisability of this new complication is evident. Taking, for example, a large family in a non-county borough and assuming, what is quite possible, that one child is mentally deficient, the following medical officers might be actively interested in the family—the county medical officer of health, with his tuberculosis officer, the county mental deficiency officer, the borough medical officer of health, with his school medical officer, the child welfare medical officer, the medical officer appointed to attend cases of measles and German measles, the insurance practitioner, and the Poor Law medical officer."
    Since this circular was issued two others have been appointed, the medical man in charge of maternity and infant life and the pre-natal clinic. To these you are going to add another, if the right hon. Gentleman insists upon retaining the words "and treatment," and unless the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Edinburgh University is accepted. From an experience of twenty years in this House I say it will be most desirable that the Committee should insist upon having some definite promise as to what is meant by the domiciliary service of the proposed Clause. It will be most necessary to prevent the right of another doctor to come in to determine, on top of all these other medical officers who have the right of entry, the course of treatment which is to be administered to a child who is already attended to so prolifically by the State in

    1467
    the various Departments which care for the young. Something ought to be done, and the whole of this could be done better if it were put under a Ministry of Health.
    Sir W. COLLINS: I have not spoken on this Bill since the Second Reading because I was anxious, as far as possible, to expedite its course through the Committee stage, but having been challenged by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I venture to make one or two remarks. I have received communications from Constituents who are graduates in the universities represented by the hon. Baronet the Member for London University (Sir P. Magnus) and the hon. and gallant Member for Edinburgh University (Sir W. Cheyne). They are rather hostile to the proposals in this Clause of the Bill. I cannot recollect having received any representations from any of my Constituents in Derby on the subject. I therefore refrain from making any comment. I listened to what the President of the Board said and well remember, what he does not, the Debates in 1907 on the question of the provision of medical inspection and medical treatment As the right hon. Gentleman correctly stated, at that time it was clearly laid down that medical inspection was compulsory upon the local authority, that proper medical treatment was optional to the local authority, and that neither inspection nor treatment were compulsory on the parent or child. Since the State age of education has been raised the question has naturally also been raised as to how far these powers of medical inspection and treatment should apply to these later ages and to these other educational institutions. I can understand that there is a good deal to be said in favour of pursuing the same course in regard to these institutions and these ages as was followed regarding the earlier ages and the elementary institutions. I gather that the medical profession, or at any rate some members of it, view with some alarm this extension of medical treatment, especially in the case of secondary school children. It is quite true, as the last speaker indicated, that there is a great multiplicity of public medical treatment available to parents and children at the present time. It is rather difficult to discuss this question and the further extension of the State providing medical treatment without raising those larger questions, on the one hand, of the Insurance Act, which is a matter of history, and, on
    1468
    the other hand, of the Ministry of Health, which is a matter, apparently, of vaticination and some doubt. It is certainly the case that the medical profession has been largely municipalised. If some reformers could have their way it bids fair to be largely nationalised in the future. It is very difficult to discuss, as it were, piecemeal these questions of the further extension of public as against private treatment which are included in this Clause.
    I understand that the President expressed some surprise that the hon. and gallant Member for Edinburgh University should not be content with the Amendment which stands in his name on the Paper, and which I gather the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept if the Amendment now under discussion were withdrawn or defeated. I gather from the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh University that it would then be understood that the education authority, in making arrangements for treatment, would consider how far they could avail themselves of the services of private medical practitioners, and that that is intended to meet a criticism raised by the British Medical Association and other bodies. If the hon. and gallant Member for Edinburgh University is satisfied with that, I have no doubt it will satisfy those whom he represents. But I remember that in the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, and also in the Provision of Meals Act of about the same date, powers were given to the local authorities to utilise the assistance of voluntary agencies. In the earlier reports of the medical officer of the Board of Education the use of voluntary hospitals was recommended rather than the employment of school clinics. In recent years, however, the reverse has rather obtained, and the school clinic is coming to the front and the voluntary agency—it is also the case with regard to feeding school children—is fading into the background. It is the old story that when the State steps in and makes a provision of this kind the tendency is for it to extend over the whole field and for private and voluntary work to disappear. That has not, however, been the case with regard to the voluntary hospitals. Many said that by the Insurance Act of 1911 the State would shoulder the burden of the voluntary hospitals. During the War, if it had not been for the voluntary hospitals shouldering the burden of the

    1469
    State military patients would have been in a very sad case. I hope that the day of the voluntary agency or of the private practitioner is not past. If the hon. and gallant Member for Edinburgh University is content with this attempt to meet him, which I confess I consider is a rather feeble one, I do not wish to disturb the harmony which appears to exist between him and the President of the Board of Education.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Like some hon. Members who have spoken, I have no personal interest in this question. Unlike my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) I do not care twopence about the domestic castle. That argument leaves me very cold indeed. I cannot understand the attitude taken up by the hon. and gallant Member for Edinburgh University (Sir W. Cheyne) who, if I understood his speech aright, laid down the proposition that the medical work was so well done during the school age that there was no need to carry it on afterwards. He quoted in his support the Report of Sir George Newman. I am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend has not really studied that Report or he would not have made such a statement. If he had read Sir George Newman's Report he would have seen that so far as defective vision is concerned the number of children who leave school with it is greater than the number with it when they enter.
    Sir W. CHEYNE: They are treated.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Yes, but at the same time they are so imperfectly treated that, with the bad lighting of the schools and the small character of the print, on the whole, the result of the educational course is to impair their vision. In the same Report the hon. and gallant Member will read that half the children in the schools leave with defective teeth. He might also take heart of grace from the statement that the work of the education authorities does not in the least interfere with the vested interests of the doctors, for the simple reason that the defects of the children would never have been discovered if it had not been for the medical inspection. I often wonder what this House of Commons exists for. It is often supposed to be a faithful reflex of the opinions of the people of this country, but as I sit here I cannot help thinking it really
    1470
    and truly exists to represent vested interests of many kinds. I am tired of it all myself, and I am very sorry indeed that the President of the Board of Education has given way in a slight degree. All I care for is to see the adolescence of this country growing up as fine, active, and vigorous a people as we can get. I do not care how you get it as long as you do.
    Sir W. PEARCE: I think we ought to hear rather more what is the attitude of local education authorities on the subject. I think it puts an onerous duty upon them, and, to my mind, it becomes a question at what period of inspection the treatment should be discontinued. It has to be discontinued under present conditions at some period in the child's or a growing person's life, and I understand under this Clause it would be possible to carry inspection and treatment right up to the age of eighteen. I do not speak as an authority myself, and I think the Committee ought to know what are the views of the local education authorities on assuming such duties—whether they think they would be onerous or costly, or that it is really necessary and worth undertaking in the improvement which we all hope may be effected in national health.
    Mr. FISHER: It is only a power—not a duty.
    Sir W. PEARCE: I understand that inspection is compulsory. Although the treatment is not compulsory, I feel there is a possibility of a very heavy extra duty being put on the local education authorities, and I should be glad to hear from the President whether he is supported by them or whether he has received any protests.
    Mr. FISHER: No protests.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir W. CHEYNE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words,
    "Provided that the local education authority shall not establish a general domiciliary service of treatment by medical practitioners for children and young persons to whom this Section applies, and in making arrangements for their treatment the local education authority shall consider how far they can avail themselves of the services of private medical practitioners."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: What does the Amendment mean? Does it mean that you are to have inspection of all the children? I merely want to have it put into English. Inspection is compulsory upon every child.
    Mr. FISHER: Not compulsory on every child. The local education authority is compelled to provide inspection, but the parents of the child may refuse.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Supposing there are fifty parents who consent to inspection. I presume that domiciliary service of treatment, whatever that may mean, is to ensue. What does this provision mean? Are the fifty children inspected by the medical inspector to be treated or are they not? If so, what is the meaning "shall not establish a general domiciliary-service of treatment"? It means that in every case where there is inspection, the medical officer is entitled to follow the person consenting and treat him at his own home. My Noble Friend, who is rather inclined to brush aside all discussion on these points, said that what he wished was the welfare of the children. There are others in the House who desire the welfare of the children. The whole object of the Committee stage is to see that what we are doing is in the best interests of the children at large. That is the reason why what knowledge we have ought to be put at the disposal of the Committee to help our discussion and see whether we are doing what we all require. I do not know whom my Noble Friend employs as his doctor, nor for the moment do I mind. I want the very best treatment for him. Does he get the best treatment by having three or four different doctors? I am very much afraid that may be the result of adopting an Amendment of this kind. There is the family doctor who looks after the person, and by this Amendment apparently you are to have power to have the child inspected and you are to have the inspector follow him and give him treatment.
    Mr. FISHER: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The effect of the Clause coupled with the Amendment will be this: First of all, the local education authority will be compelled to provide inspection. That inspection may or may not be accepted by the parent. Let us suppose that the parent of children at a particular school accepts. The inspectors discover certain ailments and notify the parent. The local education authority is empowered to provide treatment, but it is debarred from establishing a service of municipal doctors who will take the treatment out of the hands of the general practitioners. That is the object of the Amendment.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for putting so clearly what he wants to do, but I do not think the Amendment will carry it out. The inspector comes, and finds, we will say, ten children suffering from some form of trouble, and the parents are notified. By this Clause they are entitled to provide that the inspector may follow and give treatment to the children who have consented to inspection. It is that power which I am cavilling at. What is the possible object of putting in this proviso if there is not to be a domiciliary service of treatment when we know inspection is voluntary in itself, and once the inspection has become voluntary there is nothing in the Clause to prevent the inspector following each of the ten cases and looking after them in the home, and these very big words, which I do not quite follow the meaning of—"a general domiciliary service of treatment by medical practitioners"—would have no effect, because the inspector who inspected the ten cases would have power to follow into the homes and deal with the children whom he had diagnosed in that particular form?
    Mr. FISHER: Not without the consent of the parents.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Of course not. There is no question of the consent of the parents here, because the whole of the inspection can only be done with the consent of the parents, but the inspection having been begun with the consent of the parents, the local education authority provides a medical man who can follow and treat as well. That is the Clause as it stands, and I cannot see that this proviso makes the slightest difference one way or the other—in fact, it only serves to mystify anyone who has to read it. It does not add or take away from the power which exists that in each case where there has been inspection the doctor can follow. Where there is no inspection, of course he cannot. I think the Amendment is unnecessary and will only obscure the meaning of the Bill.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I do not quite see how far this goes. What some of us are exceedingly anxious to do is to facilitate in every way the health of the child, but to avoid all overlapping at a time like this, when we all look forward to a proper health authority and do not want to have any part of the ground still more cumbered than it is to-day. Therefore what we want to know is, Does this admit of the educa-

    1473
    tion authority arranging with the Insurance Commissioners or any other body for this private practitioner? It may be perfectly right, but one wants to know where we are. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, in some form or other, if not now on the Report stage, will see to it that there is no more overlapping. It is in the spirit of preventing that, which will be an obstruction to all kinds of local administration in matters of health, that I am now speaking in protest.
    Sir W. CHEYNE: It is simply to prevent overlapping that the Amendment is moved. Take it yourselves. You have children at school. The doctor reports to the parent that the child has such-and-such a thing the matter with him. Having your own doctor, in whom you have complete confidence, you would not like a man from the school coming in, and you would say, "No; I am not going to allow your doctor to treat."
    Sir W. ESSEX: I feel that the President of the Board of Education desires what many Members and I myself desire, but I fear he may easily be led into a false position. I will not say anything ungenerous at the moment about the action of medical authorities under the Clause more than this, that in my years of attendance in this House I have always found it necessary to watch very closely when the medical authorities are on the warpath. I know how very strong their organisation is, and I therefore want that in this House we should, while appreciating the high services the community owes to the profession, see that they are not out more for their own interests than for those of the children with whom we are more immediately concerned. That may seem ungenerous, but I hope it will not be so interpreted. What can a school authority in a country town or a provincial borough understand to be the meaning of the phrase "domiciliary service"? It is admitted that the parent may have the right of inspection, and further, if he so wishes, to have some attendance at least from the medical officer. Is there to be no limitation to that, and, if there is, how much is to be measured out to the child, should it be a case of emergency, and at what particular point shall someone have the power to step in and say, "Now the voluntary doctor must come along"? I suggest to the hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Cheyne) and to the right hon. Gentleman that there should be a clear demarcation of
    1474
    the various interests here concerned, but keep the principal eye upon the interests of the child. You cannot define the lines of professional etiquette where one man's interest ceases, or one man's generous spirit will take him, and another interest begins. The right hon. Gentleman ought to consent to this being taken back and considered on Report with the assistance of the Mover of it, and they should endeavour to get some definite form of language, even by means of another Clause, which will give real guidance in precise and clear language to the small local provincial authorities who may have to interpret, sympathetically or otherwise, the provisions of the Bill.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Two different questions seem to be involved in this matter: one is the interest of the private medical practitioner in distinction to that of the public medical officer. That has been very fully discussed on an Amendment which I understand is acceptable both to the medical profession and also to the Board of Education. The other point, which is perhaps much more important, is that of the right organisation of our public health service as between the education authority on the one hand and the public health authority on the other. There has been a good deal of friction in the past in this matter—there has been overlapping and sometimes contradiction. What I am concerned with is this, that it must not be taken that this House is determining that issue by passing this Clause. It may be said afterwards, when proposals for a Ministry of Health comes forward in the House of Commons, that this House has already decided this question, as between the local education authority on the one hand and the public health authority on the other, by passing a Clause which shows if to be the wish of the House of Commons that these matters should be under the education authority. I should be glad if my right hon. Friend can make a reassuring statement on that point and tell us that what is done to-day is really done ad interim, and that the whole subject may be open to review when we come to consider the general question of public health administration.
    Mr. FISHER: I am very glad to give my right hon. Friend and the Committee the assurance which has been asked for. I do regard this as an ad interim arrangement. We as a Board have had experience of the

    1475
    admirable results of the system of compulsory school inspection which has been the result of the establishment of a school medical service. All we are proposing to do in this Clause is to extend these admirable results which have been obtained within the sphere of elementary education to the continued education which is being provided for in this Bill. Assuming that a Ministry of Health is established hereafter, I think that that Ministry will in due course of time take over or supervise the medical functions now entrusted to the school medical service.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: May I request my right hon. Friend the President to consider, between this and the Report stage, the possibility of introducing into this Amendment words which will prevent the overlapping of medical attendance, which it is feared may occur as between the panel doctor appointed under the Insurance Commissioners and the medical officer appointed under the local education authority? It seems possible that young persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen may become subject to treatment by both these doctors, and that cannot be considered to be an advantage either to the patient or to the public service; therefore, I hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to introduce into the Amendment words which will prevent this undue overlapping, and the consequent additional cost.
    Mr. FISHER: The Board is, of course, fully conscious of the dangers of overlapping, and they will confer with the Insurance Commissioners before sanctioning any arrangement for giving medical attendance to these young persons. But I would submit to the Committee that these are matters rather of administration than questions which can be settled by the introduction of words here.
    Mr. WING: May I suggest, in view of what has been said, that the Amendment be withdrawn, inasmuch as it has been pointed out that there is a possibility of conflict between the school doctor and the panel doctor.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 19.—(Nursery Schools.)
    (1) The powers of local education authorities for the purposes of Part III. of the Education
    1476
    Act, 1902, shall include power to make such arrangements as are appropriate to the industrial and housing conditions of the area and may be approved by the Board of Education for—

    (a) supplying or aiding the supply of nursery schools for children over two and under live years of age (or such later age as may be approved by the Board of Education) whose attendance at such a school is necessary or desirable for their healthy physical and mental development; and

    (b) attending to the health, nourishment and physical welfare of children attending nursery schools.

    (2) Notwithstanding the previsions of any Act of Parliament the Board of Education may out of moneys provided by Parliament pay Grants in aid of nursery schools, provided that such Grants shall not be paid in respect of any such school unless it is open to inspection by the local education authority and unless that authority are enabled to appoint representatives on the body of managers to the extent of at least one-third of the total number of managers, and before recognising any nursery school the Board shall consult the local education authority.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "such."
    To save the time of the Committee, as I have two other Amendments on the Paper which are consequential, I will deal now with the question of principle which is involved. The Amendment which I am proposing, taken in conjunction with the complementary Amendments, would cause the first part of Clause 19 to read:
    "The powers of local education authorities for the purposes of Part III. of the Education Act, 1902, shall include power to make arrangements,"
    as set forth. The words I am moving to omit are words which will seriously limit the powers of the local education authority in supplying and aiding nursery schools. The Bill as drafted provides that they can make such arrangements as are appropriate to the industrial and housing conditions of the area as may be approved by the Board of Education. Therefore if no alteration in the Bill takes place, it means that the local education authority will not be able to move in the matter of the provision of nursery schools except in districts where the industrial and housing conditions are very bad indeed. You may have an experimental and progressive educational authority which desires to institute or aid these nursery schools, but unless they can show that the industrial and housing conditions are of a most serious character they may be, and probably will be, prevented under the terms of this Act from instituting or

    1477
    aiding these nursery schools. I think the Committee will have every desire that these nursery schools should be instituted. This is a point of fundamental importance, and it would be taking a very narrow view indeed if we say these schools are only to be founded in districts which are extremely unhealthy and at the lowest point of the social scale, viewed from the standpoint of physical conditions. Nursery schools are good not only for poor districts but for the ordinary typical districts of the country, and it would be really fatal to the development of these nursery schools to prevent the local education authority having power to establish them in any ordinary typical district. I hope my right hon. Friend will see that this is an Amendment which can only improve his Bill, and which at its highest value would merely give the local education authority power to make these experiments with nursery schools unfettered by having first to consider whether the industrial and social conditions are so bad as to be a justification for the establishment of the school. A moment or two ago I saw present here the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks) and I noticed also another hon. Member (Colonel Thorn), both of whom I am sure will realise the fundamental importance of my Amendment to the districts they represent. It is quite possible, if the Bill is not altered as I suggest, there will be no opportunity in these districts for the local education authorities to institute these nursery schools, and it may be in fact that in the future the local authority would take a very narrow view in the matter. It is that which I wish to avoid.
    Mr. KING: I will give way to the President if he wishes to speak, but I wish to say that I regard this Amendment as so fundamentally important that I must support it.
    Mr. FISHER: I shall be very glad to accept the Amendment. The words which the hon. Gentleman is now proposing and the omissions which he will hereafter move were originally inserted in the Clause with a view to giving the local education authority some indication of the areas in which it might be most desirable for them to establish these schools. There was no idea of limiting their action in the matter, and as obviously there is a good deal of substance in what the hon. Member has said as to possible interpretation of these words, I agree to their omission.
    Mr. KING: I must congratulate the President of the Board of Education, and also the hon. Member who moved the Amendment—the latter especially because he is a Scottish Member. There has been a good deal of iguorant and stupid prejudice in some quarters of the House, even on the Treasury Bench, against Scottish Members taking part in this discussion. Those Gentlemen are educationists, and I think they have done very good service in the part they have taken in these Debates.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I am not aware of anyone on the Treasury Bench who has expressed any such view.
    Mr. KING: I do not suggest it was anybody connected with the Board of Education.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "as are appropriate to the industrial and housing conditions of the area and may be approved by the Board of Education."—[Mr. Whitehouse.]
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow University, is a hypothetical Amendment.
    Sir W. CHEYNE: I hope this decision does not preclude my speaking on the Motion, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Sir A. SPICER: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, a), to leave out the words "or aiding the supply of."
    My object is to secure that these nursery schools shall be provided and maintained by the public authority, as if these words are left in they would enable the authorities to make grants for starting schools. There is, I believe, a necessity for these schools, but they should be public elementary schools, with all the privileges and rights that that term includes. We have for fifty years been trying to obtain a national system of education, and this Bill marks a very great advance in that direction. It does seem to me that public education should be in-the hands of public authorities and not of private individuals, and again the provision of these private nursery schools would undoubtedly tend to increase the number of denominational schools. It is quite true that there cannot be much denominational

    1479
    education in such schools, but the whole administration of the nursery schools in private hands would be calculated to lead in that direction. I think there would be a tendency towards denominationalism We all know what the denominational difficulties in the past have been and the undesirable controversies which have arisen. We Free Churchmen who are still suffering under what we think are grievances in the Act of 1902 did hope that in any new Education Bills these matters might be righted and solved once for all. We are very anxious that this Bill should pass, and therefore we are willing to leave in abeyance these difficulties; but if nothing is done in this Bill to get rid of difficulties that exist at the present time, surely we ought not to do anything that runs the risk of increasing these difficulties in days to come.
    Mr. LEWIS: In this connection the Board contemplates the establishment of two types of nursery schools—namely, those that are provided by the local education authorities, and those provided by voluntary institutions. They are intended to be informal and unofficial in character, without any of the rigid traditions attaching to elementary schools. The Board of Education consider that very great advantage will result from their establishment by persons who have a special and personal interest in them, and if a good nursery school is established by a private individual there is no intrinsic reason why the local education authority should not assist it. The matter is entirely and absolutely at the option of the local education authority, and if they wish to assist a school of that kind it does not appear to be clear why they should be prevented from doing so. In this respect their position would be very similar to that which obtains under several Education Acts. Under the Provision of Meals Act, 1906, the local education authority may assist voluntary organisations for the provision of meals, and, under Section 13 of the Administrative Provisions Act, 1907, local authorities may assist voluntary agencies which provide playing centres, vacation schools, vacation classes, recreation grounds, etc. That power has been extended for the purpose of providing physical training, etc. In the department of higher education the local education authority have the widest powers of assisting or not assisting voluntary places of higher education as they think fit. The
    1480
    result of the acceptance of this Amendment would be that if a nursery school was established in a town under private auspices, and the local education authority saw that it was doing good work and deserved encouragement, the only thing they could do would be to establish a competing nursery school themselves, because they could not assist in any way the continuance of such an organisation.
    My right hon. Friend (Sir A. Spicer) referred in this connection, and I was surprised to hear him, to the denominational controversy. He referred to the grievances which still exist. I am not here to bolster up in any way the denominational position, but I would ask any member of this Committee how can denominationalism in any real sense of the word enter into these schools, where little things from two to live years of age are brought? For heaven's sake do not let us bring our denominational controversies into this, I might almost call it, sacred sphere. How can any possible harm be done to children between two and five by the fact that they meet in a nursery school under denominational auspices? I think they have every reason to be thankful that religious feelings, emotions, and aspirations inspire good people to undertake voluntary work of the kind. It seems to me that the religious stimulus is one that keeps the work together. In a place of this kind, belonging to a particular church, constant relays of workers would be provided, and I think we shall do wisely to harness all the denominational feeling which arises out of religious feeling to the work of carrying on these nursery schools. Notwithstanding what my right hon. Friend has said, I am thankful that denominationalism does not enter into this question in any shape or form. I am thankful to believe that in the stress and strain of war denominational feeling and all those fierce passions that used to surge in this House upon this question are subsiding; but, even if they were in existence at the present time, I think we could safely say that we shall be absolutely secure in making this provision, knowing that there will be no denominational result to those who are brought into these schools.
    Mr. KING: I am rather surprised at the speech to which we have just listened. It seems to me to be either not very candid, or ingenious or else to be ignorant of the facts. We are approaching this question

    1481
    —can a local authority aid the supply of nursery schools? The local authority ought either to supply and pay for the schools themselves, or, if there is a voluntary body going to do it, they ought to do it. Supposing I come forward and say that I have got a piece of ground, and if you will give me the money to put up a nursery school upon it, I will let you have the ground, and for two years you can use the place for a nursery school. I should go to the local education authority and get the whole building put up for a nursery school and make what conditions I liked. That is the possibility of giving great facilities and opportunities to denominational, political and all sorts of societies and institutions, by saying that they are doing it in the interest of nursery schools. You ought either to supply the biddings yourselves or you ought to say to the institution, "You supply the buildings and we will give you a Grant under proper rules. We will give you a Grant not for supply, which means buildings and equipment, but we will give you a Grant for maintenance." Maintenance and the provision of buildings are two totally different things. They are kept clearly apart in the affairs and accounts of the Board of Education, and the people at the Board of Education know that much better than I do. When you are talking about aiding supply, you are mixing two things altogether. You do not say whether you mean provision or maintenance. You are in a fog yourself and you do not tell us.
    The Amendment puts the point very clearly. It makes it quite clear that we want the local authorities to do everything they can to support the maintenance of schools, but to supply them with buildings, that is a totally different thing. "We have had four returns from nursery schools last year. I believe I am the only Member to look up this point. If you look through the list of these institutions, of which there was a large increase last-year, you will find that a very large number are sectarian institutions. Why should people who want to look after the care of children establish nursery schools in, say, a place like Stepney, and why should they be institutions with high Catholic names? I commend them for it, but this very fact points to the conclusion that there is danger here in establishing a new kind of denominational, sectarian institution. By refusing to see the point of this Amendment, and by failing to see the
    1482
    difference between provision and maintenance, you are giving colour to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend. I do not want to raise this miserable, pettifogging, sectarian question, but you are doing it yourselves by your muddle-headed way of bringing this proposal forward. It is not our fault that it has been raised, but yours. If I have spoken strongly, it is because I see clearly and understand the matter. I do think that some consideration more than the treatment it has received should be given to the Amendment.
    Sir J. YOXALL: I can assure the hon. Member that local education authorities are not very ready to extend rate aid to institutions of this kind. They prefer, in most cases to provide nursery schools themselves, and if any local education authority does propose to subsidise an institution of this kind which is directly and distinctly denominational and exists for the sake of proselytising, I feel quite sure that the local opinion and the clash of opinion in that locality—because there are men there who feel just as strongly as my hon. Friend—will prevent that kind of thing taking place. There need be no fear in regard to subsidising such institutions as the Passmore Edwards Institute, the Edith Rendel Nursery School, the Margaret MacMillan School, and other institutions of the kind in various parts of the country, instituted by philanthropic men and women in a wider human sense and not in a denominational sense, and similar institutions instituted by holy women for the benefit of children. Institutions of that kind will not be, and I do not think they can be, denominationalised and sectarianised in the way that is feared. I can assure my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment that I am with them in opposing any attempt to sectarianise schools of this kind, but I do not fear that the attempt will be successful. I believe that local education authorities are already planning how they shall themselves provide their own nursery schools, and I do not think there is much to be feared in regard to such institutions. This work cannot be carried on without the active interest and assistance of the teachers, and the teachers of the country are determined that the work shall not be denominationalised, and shall not be under the control of any church whatever, and that they will do their duty to the State.
    Mr. KING: The Committee does not understand the question with which we are dealing. I have before me the return given only a few months ago in response to the demand by the hon. and learned Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland). The people who are now getting the nursery school Grants include the Royal Free Hospital, the St. Pancras Dispensary, the Charing Cross Hospital, the Westminster Health Society, the General Lying-in Hospital—
    Sir C. HENRY: Is my hon. Friend talking about day nurseries or nursery schools?
    Mr. KING: What are called here in the Bill nursery schools, which comprehend almost every imaginable thing from the teaching of the prospective mother, who has never yet had a child, and all the processes of birth and bringing up from the earliest days of the children. The Board of Education are giving Grants in this connection. Last year they gave £10,500.
    Mr. LEWIS: For day nurseries.
    Mr. KING: It is all in together. The whole of the nursery school business is something very much more extensive even and informal than the Committee generally realise.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, a), after the word "schools," to insert the words "or nursery classes in elementary schools."
    Mr. LEWIS: This Amendment and one which follows are not necessary, because there is nothing to prevent nursery classes at present being carried on in connection with any public elementary schools. If the hon. Gentleman is thinking of classes attached to elementary schools and not in public elementary schools, there will be no difficulty in getting a Grant for the nursery part of the organisation.
    Mr. KING: As these Amendments do not seem to conflict with any principle which the Board of Education have in mind, I think that they ought to be accepted.
    Mr. LEWIS: They are wholly unnecessary.
    Mr. KING: I do not think they are. They clearly point out an alternative. The Hoard of Education say that it can be
    1484
    adopted. If so, why not put it in the Bill. I have got a particular reason for desiring it, because in my opinion there are at the present time, in some of the highest and best elementary schools, nursery classes where you see, if you go in, much more of the mattress lying on the floor with the children on it than rows of children poring over desks and books, where there are opportunities for playing and kindergarten work for much more than the three hours, and in my view the solution of the nursery school question in the crowded districts is not to get new societies coming in and new schools supplied, but to get actual working classes in the schools which are already there. In that case you get the elder scholars bringing their younger brothers and sisters to nursery classes in the same building instead of having to take them to a building in an adjoining street or some distance away.
    Mr. FISHER: I have no quarrel in point of substance with the hon. Member, but I think that it would be very confusing if, in a Clause which is intended to confer a new power upon local education authorities, we were to confer a power which already exists and which is exercised freely.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir C. HENRY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, a), to leave out the word "two" and to insert instead thereof the word "three."
    The hon. Member for North Somerset has not distinguished between the crèche, or day nursery, and the nursery school. As I understand the object of the right hon. Gentleman is to further as far as possible nursery schools as distinct from creches. If that is the object, I appeal to him to have the age at which children enter nursery schools three instead of two. Up to the age of three children are far better eared for and have far greater advantages in crèches than in nursery schools. As my right hon. Friend is aware, the extension of these crèches or day nurseries is proceeding very satisfactorily. They are to a great extent supported by voluntary contributions, aided by Grants of the Board of Education, and I hope that the work of these crèches or day nurseries will be advanced and not restricted, which would be the case if the little ones when they arrive at the age of two years have to be transferred from the crèches to the nursery schools. I do not think there is any advantage in the

    1485
    nursery schools going below the age of three. In these crèches they get proper food. They are taken there in the morning when the mothers go to work, and in some instances they are left there from Monday morning until Saturday evening. I am certain that if you leave the nursery schools age at two you will, to a considerable extent, hamper these day nurseries and restrict their use.
    Mr. DENNISS: This is a matter of experience. I do not know what experience the right hon. Gentleman has in this matter, but as the father of eight children and the grandfather of some others, I must say that two is too young an age at which to send the child to what is called a nursery school as distinguished from a crèche. Those who know what are the powers of these young children will realise that two years is an age at which a child may be injured by going to a nursery school. A crèche is the proper place for a child of that age.
    Mr. FISHER: I agree entirely with the view of my hon. Friend that in general it is desirable that children should not go to a nursery school until the age of three. But this Clause was settled after a considerable amount of discussion between the Board of Education on the one hand and the Local Government Board, which deals with crèches, on the other. It was felt that in general it would be desirable that there should be some overlapping between the two authorities and the two types of organisation, and for this reason: While no doubt it is in general desirable that children should not attend the nursery school until they reach the age of three, it may happen very often that the older children of a family attending the nursery school have some young brother or sister under the age of three, and just approaching the age of three, and it may be very desirable that that younger member of the family should go with the older brothers and sisters to the nursery school.
    Sir W. CHEYNE: The whole of this question is one of extraordinary difficulty. No doubt you must have crèches and day nurseries and night nurseries, and the question is whether you can call to their assistance the system of nursery schools which you are proposing. I see by the Bill that paragraph (b) provides for "attending to the health, nourishment, and physical welfare of children attending nursery schools." There is nothing about education in that, and my opinion is
    1486
    that up to the age of four or five years the less there is of education the better. Up to three years of age the children are already provided for in crechès and day and night nurseries, and though none of these institutions take the place of a careful mother, yet there are mothers who are not able to attend to their children and are obliged to leave them in the care of crechès or day nurseries; and, in view of these children having to be left at those institutions, if a little education were really necessary to be given, perhaps the education authorities could send a teacher to give such instruction as might be wanted. I think that the authorities could in that way come to the assistance of these institutions, while, later on, the local education authority would be in a position to ask the assistance of the Ministry of Health to carry out medical treatment. I think it is desirable that the authority looking after the welfare of the child should have the assistance of the education authority in the way of teaching by the kindergarten system or in some other way until the child is six years of age and able to go to the elementary school. The matter, as it stands, is not at all clear, and I shall be glad if the President of the Board of Education would look at it from the point of view I suggest, so that the local education authority and the authorities of the crechès and day nurseries could help one another as opportunity and time rendered necessary.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, a), to leave out the words "whose attendance at such a school is necessary or desirable for their healthy, physical and mental development."
    In a further Amendment I propose to move to insert, instead of these words, the words,
    "The provision of a sufficient number of such nursery schools shall be the duty of all local education authorities."
    I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment?
    Mr. FISHER: I am afraid I could not accept the hon. Member's Amendment. I think it is absolutely necessary to keep to the proposal of the Clause.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words,
    "(2) Such nursery schools as are aided, maintained, or supplied by any local education

    1487
    authority, shall be public elementary schools within the meaning of the Education Acts, 1870 to 1918."
    I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is willing to accept this Amendment?
    Mr. FISHER: I am unable to accept the Amendment for the following reasons: There are, I think, two main distinctions which may be drawn between the schools which it is desired to establish and those which are called public elementary schools. In the first place, the local education authority provides the public elementary schools, and parents are compelled to send their children to them, whereas in the case of the crechès or nursery schools the local education authorities are not compelled to provide them, nor are the parents compelled to send their children. In the second place, children attending the nursery schools will be of a very tender age, and I think the Committee will agree that the combination of these two factors render it undesirable to make the elaborate provisions with respect to Conscience Clause, notice and the like, which attach to public elementary schools. These are the two main considerations which militate against the acceptance of the hon. Member's Amendment.
    Mr. DENNISS: Is there not another objection, and are not the words proposed inconsistent with the words already passed, and would they not, if accepted, be making day nursery schools public elementary schools? I think that is certainly an objection to the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "managers" ["body of managers to the extent"], to insert the words,
    "in such proportion as will, as nearly as may be, correspond to the proportion which the aid given by the Board of Education and by the local education authority bears to the contribution made from all other sources and in any case."
    This is reviving a very old provision in the Technical Instruction Act of 1889. That Act was passed by a Conservative Government, and, therefore, any Radical views which I have cannot come into this Amendment, the words of which are taken from a Clause of the Act of 1889, which embodied a principle that worked for fourteen years admirably in the then new
    1488
    type of schools which were started for technical education. The basis was simply this: If the local education authority gave so much money, it got managers in proportion to the amount it gave. If the county council gave so much money, it got managers in proportion to the amount it gave. That principle is quite straightforward, intelligible, and perfectly fair—the principle by which you have control according to the amount of money which you give. I cannot see any other principle so fair or so general in acceptance, or which has been worked so successfully. It was abolished by the Act of 1902, a very unfortunate thing; but we will not go back upon that. This principle worked well without any protest against it, and I think if it had been introduced into legislation at first, say, in 1870, and kept as a permanent principle in our educational legislation, it would have led, I believe, to doing away with sectarian and local controversies and interests, and we should have had better educational progress ever since. I appeal, therefore, to the President of the Board of Education to adopt this definite and practical suggestion as to the control of these schools by managers who will be really representative, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be returning to a very good principle, which gave a great deal of satisfaction.
    Mr. FISHER: I would point out to the hon. Member that as the Clause now stands it would be open to any local education authority to adopt the principle which he recommends with respect to representation, because the local education authorities are given a free hand to make such conditions as they think fit in regard to their grants with respect either to representation or any other matter. But quite apart from that consideration, I think the suggestion of the hon. Member would probably, if not certainly, be found to be embarrassing in practice, because the proportion between the public grant and the private contributions is not a fixed thing; it varies very much from year to year, and the Amendment would involve a constant fluctuation both in the numbers and in the two classes of manager. For these reasons I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The Motion for the Adjournment of the House will take place shortly, so I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman will state what stage he hopes to reach in the Bill tonight, and whether, if the Adjournment Motion is disposed of at an early hour—say, by ten o'clock—he proposes to resume the discussion on the Bill.
    Mr. FISHER: If the discussion on the Adjournment Motion is concluded within a reasonable time before eleven, I hope to proceed with the Bill.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: But what Clause does the right hon. Gentleman hope to reach?
    Mr. FISHER: It depends very much on the assistance which the Committee gives me.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: If the Adjournment Motion is under discussion at ten, will it be safe for us to go?
    Mr. FISHER: I do not know. There would then be a full hour or an hour and a half for the Bill.
    Mr. KING: I hope, as we have practically passed this Clause without any modification, we shall have some draft rules and suggestions for nursery schools at an early date. This is one of the parts of the Bill which we ought to get into operation as soon as possible, and there are a number of people who would be able to establish nursery schools, say, in houses, not requiring the large equipment and buildings incidental to starting new schools, but they ought to be able to be established very early in institutions and houses, and if we could have some draft rules and suggestions on that subject at an early date it would be most encouraging and helpful. This Clause has not taken quite the form that I like, but the aims and objects of it have my most hearty support and sympathy, and I should like to see them put into operation at the earliest possible moment.

    CLAUSE 20.—(Powers for the Education of Children in Exceptional Circumstances.)
    Where a local education authority for the purposes of Part III. of the Education Act, 1902, are satisfied in the case of any children that, owing to the remoteness of their homes or the conditions under which the children are living, or other exceptional circumstances affecting the children, those children are not in a position to receive the full benefit of education
    1490
    by means of the ordinary provision made for the purpose by the authority, the authority may, with the approval of the Board of Education, make such arrangements, either of a permanent or temporary character, and including the provision of board and lodging, as they think best suited for the purpose of enabling those children to receive the benefit of efficient elementary education, and may for that purpose enter into such agreement with the parent of any such child as they think proper.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I beg to move, after the word "living," to insert the words "or the poverty of their parents, or the fact that they have lost one or both parents, or have been deserted."
    This Clause is dealing with exceptional circumstances which would permit of special arrangements being made for the education of children, including the provision of board and lodging. "Exceptional circumstances affecting the children" is rather a vague term, and I think we ought to give some indication as to what is in our minds. I have put three definite matters in my Amendment. The first is the poverty of parents, the second is the fact that children may have lost one or both parents, and the third is the fact that children may have been deserted, and I think these are special circumstances which would warrant the making of these arrangements. I hope the President will accept my Amendment, which does not in any way narrow the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. FISHER: I am advised that the Amendment is already covered by the Clause as it stands, and I submit to the hon. Member that the insertion of his words would have, in effect, a limiting operation rather than the effect which he desires it to have. For this and other reasons I am unable to accept it.
    Mr. ANDERSON: May I hope, then, that special rules will be issued by the Board of Education giving an indication to local authorities as to the exceptional circumstances mentioned in the Bill?
    Mr. FISHER: The local education authorities will have, no doubt, directions.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir F. BLAKE: I beg to move, after the word "lodging," to insert the words "or the establishment of hostels."
    The Clause does away with a great difficulty that the local authorities have had. We have had to do these things by a subterfuge, such as giving travelling allowances to enable us to assist children

    1491
    who, owing to remoteness from their homes, were not able to take advantage of the educational facilities provided. I am quite prepared to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the words "of a permanent character" include this, but as the Clause rather went out of its way to include the provision of board and lodging, which I took to be of a temporary character, I suggest that you might accept my words as being of a permanent character. This would be especially useful in a district like the one from which I come, where we have a number of children coming from the hills, the children of shepherds. We have often to bring them down and educate them, and how we have done it has been by giving them a travelling allowance. We have found great difficulty sometimes in finding suitable lodgings for them, not only suitable so far as the homes of the people were concerned, but in finding somebody to whose care we could safely commit the children, and we have often desired to have such a power as is suggested in the Amendment. It may be in the Bill already, but the mere fact that you name it as a possibility removes it beyond all question of doubt. The words, I am sure, would be welcomed by such a local education authority as the one which I have in mind.
    Mr. FISHER: I would remind the Committee that the Clause as it stands does not exclude the provision of hostels for a number of children by the local education authority, but I think it is rather undesirable to specify the character of the arrangements to be made under this Clause. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member with his experience of Northumberland said, that there may be regions in which it is desirable to provide hostels. On the other hand, in general, children would be much better off in a private family than in a place of an institutional character, and I feel that if we specify hostels we do to some extent invite the local education authorities to provide institutions rather than to make arrangements for the boarding-out of children in private families, which is, I think, on the whole and in general, the most desirable type of arrangement to make. It is for these reasons that I feel unable to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. DENNISS: I think the word "hostel," being a board and lodging
    1492
    establishment, would come under the general words of the Clause, but the reason why I rise is to say that I do not quite agree with the President of the Board of Education when he considers that boarding a child in a private family is on principle better than having it in a hostel, or in a house similar to one of the boarding-houses in our great public schools. I was rather astonished to hear that he should think boarding children in private families, where there would be no provision for organised games or anything of that kind and where the children would probably not be looked after better than the children of such people usually are, that that is superior to affording children the discipline, the care, and supervision that would be given them in a hostel. I want to protest that I think the weak point of popular education in this country is the fact that there is no provision, either in the earlier Acts or in this Bill, for that which we all say is the finest form of education—i.e., the training of character, which is obtained in the great public schools by the boarding-house system, and the organised games, and the complete supervision, day and night, that the children of the classes with banking accounts have the advantage of. I cannot consider that this is an ideal system of education at all, when the principle of the training of character is left out of sight, and it was with surprise that I heard the President say that he considers taking children from their own parents' homes, and boarding them out in other parents' homes of a similar class, to be superior to putting them into boarding-houses which might be managed on the lines of the great public schools.
    Amendment negatived.
    Colonel Sir M. SYKES: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words,
    "Provided always that when a child is boarded out in pursuance of this Section the local education authority shall, if possible, and if the parent so requests, arrange for the boarding-out being with a person belonging to the religious persuasion of the child's parents."
    Mr. FISHER: I shall be very glad to accept that.
    Mr. KING: I think this ought to be explained somewhat, so that we might clearly understand what it means. A child has not a parent generally, but two parents, and what does the expression "the parent" mean? You might have differences of opinion between the parents, in the case, say, where one is a Churchman

    1493
    and the other a Methodist, and yet together they have one child. This is not a very practical suggestion.
    Major HILLS: May I ask how far the President proposes to go to-night?
    It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
    Mr. ROCH: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Some ten or twelve days ago I took an opportunity which offered itself on the Adjournment after eleven o'clock of calling the attention of the Minister of National Service to the serious effect which his policy of combing out the agricultural workers was having upon agriculture, and upon that occasion I restricted myself more particularly to the county which I represent, the circumstances of which I knew best. Indeed, at that time I was not aware how general, how far-reaching, and in some ways how disastrous was the policy which was being pursued by his Department. Ever since that day I have been inundated with correspondence from farmers, not from Wales only but from the counties, the Home Counties, Lancashire, and even as far north as Scotland—an unending deluge of correspondence, giving me the most piteous accounts of this comb-out, and the disastrous effect it is going to have on the coming harvest. Indeed, we had some opportunity last Thursday—a limited opportunity only—in the case of the Vote then down for the Ministry of National Service, to raise this question in a tentative fashion, but upon that occasion naturally the attention of the House was called to the perhaps more important matter which was affecting the calling up of the older men. In the course of that Debate, when the Under-Secretary for National Service was challenged on this matter, I think he showed, perhaps owing to the duplication and overlapping of Departments, that so far as the Ministry of National Service was concerned they were under a complete misapprehension as to the way in which their policy
    1494
    was being carried out, and were unable specifically to tell us in what way and on what basis the quotas allotted to the different agricultural districts had been arrived at. In the course of that Debate, when my hon. Friend was challenged on his policy, he stated, in reply to a question, that
    "My hon. Friend knows that we may be actually calling the men up, but the men are being found by the war agricultural committees."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1918, col. 1359.]
    That is a complete misapprehension on the part of the Ministry of National Service. It showed that, so far as they were concerned, they were working under a misapprehension that this quota had been agreed to by the agricultural committees throughout the counties, that they had agreed to it and were willing parties to the arrangement of calling up these men. That is a complete misapprehension. The exact position, as I think the Ministry of National Service ought to have known and as I am sure the President of the Board of Agriculture knows, is that the agricultural war executives have no responsibility whatever for fixing these quotas or for saying anything other than that it would be nothing but disastrous to allow that quota to be called up. The exact position was this: When the new Proclamation was enforced and what is called the clean-cut was made from eighteen to twenty-three, the power which the war agricultural committees had to vouch men and so exempt them was abolished altogether, and the sole power of the war agricultural committees was of recommending people and allowing them to go to the county tribunals. I lay stress on that point because, of course, the Ministry of National Service is responsible in that matter. It was made perfectly clear at Question Time to-day that the war agricultural committees are really powerless in this matter. That we knew before. My right hon. Friend opposite has often called attention to the genial characteristics of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Prothero), and has ventured to say that he was quite unfitted to deal with such a pushful and forceful person as the right hon. Gentleman who sits beside him (Sir A. Geddes).
    I will make very shortly the point I wish to urge upon him. First of all, let me say that I am reluctant to press the poor Minister of National Service. He has had a hard time, and it is only because the

    1495
    matter is urgent and because I am sure he does not appreciate it that I have taken the opportunity of again pegging away at a much harassed Minister. This quota of 30,000 was arrived at by some means or other, and I hope that whoever replies, whether it be the Minister for National Service or the President of the Board of Agriculture, will tell us how that quota was arrived at. We are told, on the one hand, that it was fixed on a basis of acreage, and, on the other hand, that it was fixed on a basis of population; indeed, various reasons have been given as to how this quota was arrived at. For myself, so far as I can form an opinion, it is that this was fixed on a basis of acreage, and I would point out to my right hon. Friend that while it might work justly in some cases it is bound to work unjustly in others. This would work, above all, most unjustly in the case of my own country, for in most of the counties of Wales some 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of the holdings are made up of small holdings, so that to take acreage as your basis—which might work well and be a fair basis in an English county with large areas of land of 300 or 400 acres under one holding—when you come to small holdings the fixing of a quota on the basis of acreage alone will be to denude some farms almost entirely of their labour. I venture to submit to my right hon. Friend that the whole basis of fixing this quota, unless some justification can be given, was wrong, is one that cannot work justly, and can only end in the disastrous effect which, I think, has been shown in the last few days.
    The second point I wish to make about the reason for this 30,000 men is this: Of these 30,000 now in the present state of agriculture some 80 per cent., if not more, must be skilled men, skilled ploughmen, skilled harvesters, skilled in the care of stock, and in the knowledge of machinery, most difficult in any circumstances to replace So the effect of this policy in combing out these men 1s to take suddenly from an industry which is now of the most vital importance practically all the skilled men which are urgently needed. I would point out to my right hon. Friend that in the course of the last year a special effort was made throughout the counties to plough up additional land. Some 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. of additional acreage has been ploughed up, and in the feverish campaign then being carried
    1496
    out by the Food Production Department, their agents, perhaps too zealously—I am not suggesting it was necessarily on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman—certainly gave the farmers the most specific assurance that if they went in for this increased culture their labour to reap the fruits would be safeguarded to them. That, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, was given in the most specific way, not in one case, but all over the country—that their labour would be safeguarded. The success of that policy has been shown, because the Food Production Department has been able to issue a statement of its work and to say that four-fifths of the food supplies of this country would be produced at home. It may be that the arable land has been ploughed up to this extent, but the effect of the National Service Department calling up men in the middle of the harvest is such that a large part of the labour may be flung away and that the four-fifths supply may be an empty dream. Indeed, I would like to emphasise on the Board of Agriculture that, while crops have been plentiful in some parts of the country, the promise is thin in others. There is not going to be this bounteous crop which at one time it was hoped to get, and it therefore behoves the right hon. Gentleman, as the custodian of the food production in this country, to watch with a jealous eye that such as there is shall all be safely gathered in.
    If it is necessary to emphasise that point, it is only necessary to look at the returns of submarine sinkings for last month, and to see that the hopeful prognostications that were made that our shipbuilding was going to increase rapidly, have, unfortunately, not been realised, so that the policy of food production at home is falling more and more on the right hon. Gentleman, and it is his duty to safeguard it to the best of his ability. With regard to these men, we were told that substitutes were going to be found. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what substitutes are being found? Will he tell us that in some hundreds of farms hay has been cut, and the farms have been denuded of their labour, in some cases not a man being left. The hay is lying on the ground, and what prospect is there that the corn will be garnered also? Many farmers have written to me telling me that unless labour is forthcoming it will be necessary to turn their cattle in the harvest field, and it may be even in the

    1497
    corn, and graze it—not as a process of obstruction, not to make difficulties for the right hon. Gentleman, but he will be the first to admit that, if there is no possibility of gathering in the hay or the corn, that is the best use they can make of it, and surely my right hon. Friend will not think it worth while, for the sake of 20,000 or 25,000 men for a month or two, to run the terrible risk the country will run if some step is not taken! It is hardly necessary to emphasise the point that the position is serious. Indeed, we had an indication of how serious it was from the fact that it was announced in the public Press that this matter had come before the War Cabinet, and I find in the "Times" of Thursday last this heading, "Harvest in danger. Prime Minister's call to the women." and in a manifesto, the tone and substance of which we could all support, the Prime Minister used these words:
    "These men must go; women will be first to say it. But the harvest is in danger for want of the work these very men would have done. Once again, therefore, as often before, I appeal to women to come forward and help. They have never failed their country yet; they will not fail her at this grave hour. There is not a moment to lose."
    With that manifesto we shall all agree, but there is an authority even greater than the Prime Minister with reference to agricultural matters, and that is my hon. Friend who controls the Sugar Commission, and sits for one of the divisions in Wiltshire, and he wrote a letter to the "Times." He is, if I may say so, a man who is not likely to criticise the Government unnecessarily—a man who would only do so if he felt compelled to do so. This is what he said:
    "Women are proving invaluable, but the limit of their utility in executing the more onerous tasks of arable industry is already reached."
    Those are the words of a practical man, and I need not remind my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, at all events, that there is work which women—be they ever so willing, be the manifesto of the Prime Minister never so inspiring—cannot possibly at this late hour fulfill. There are horses to be broken. There are now, owing to the depletion of horses for the Army, younger horses being used for agricultural machinery, for carting the hay, which requires thoroughly experienced men, and which women cannot possibly perform. There is the care of the agricultural implements and agricultural machinery, work
    1498
    which women hastily sent down to the different areas cannot possibly fulfil. I do, therefore, ask, is it worth, for the sake of these 20,000 men, to run the very serious risk the right hon. Gentleman is running now?
    There is another point. Troubles on the farmers have never come singly. My right hon. Friend knows—no one better—that excellent work has been done by sending men from the agricultural battalions to the farms—work which has been going on for many months past—and these men, after the infinite trouble taken by the farmers in trying to make skilled men of them, have to some extent become skilled. But what is happening now? The Ministry of National Service steps in again, and these men, who were in a low-grade category are now being graded 1, and they will be shortly taken away from the harvest. I can assure my right hon. Friend, if that kind of policy is going to be adopted towards the farmers, not only will the farmers lose heart, not only will they be disgusted, not only will they feel they are being humbugged about, and that all the promises, assurances, and fine words said to them amount to nothing, but they will not be able to carry on at all, and they will not, believe me, take these men at all if they are going to be taken away from them in that way. That is the general case which I put before my right hon. Friend. As a result of the agitation which has been carried on, we have had some small concession from the Minister of National Service, to which I should like to call attention. This concession, as I understand it, amounts to this, that notices calling up men as from 27th June will not operate until the harvest is over. I should like to ask, whoever replies in this Debate, what exactly is the meaning of this? Many hundreds of notices have been sent out since the Debate and this agitation. They are dated 26th June, but the postmark shows that they were only posted on the 27th. Does that mean that the Minister of National Service is trying to get behind a concession he has given, or what is the explanation of it? Will he tell us exactly what this concession means? Does it mean that notices sent out in that way will operate? Will it be the date of the notice or the date of the postmark? I hope he will make it clear exactly what the concession is. But I should like to point out how utterly unfair and unequal that concession is. The way

    1499
    it will work is this: Those districts which have been backward in getting their quota of men, those districts which have been fortunate enough in having some delay in having their calling-up notices will benefit; so that those districts which have done their duty will be penalised, and those which have made no real attempt to comply with the requirements will be put at an advantage. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether that is his intention, and whether that concession is the right way to do it? It is not a mathematical, scientific way of giving a concession, for it pays no regard to those localities on whom the burden is lying most heavily, and it will do nothing for those men who have tried to do their duty. Really that concession cannot stand as it does at present, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will put it on a more logical and fair basis before the close of this Debate.
    I will repeat once again the proposals I most strongly and urgently urge on the President of the Board of Agriculture. The urgent need for gathering the hay harvest does not require to be underlined; it does not require to be argued. Let him suspend the notices to all these agriculturists until the harvest is over. It cannot, I suppose, amount to more than from 20,000 to 25,000 men. It is all very well for tribunals and Members of this House to lose their heads almost, and say, "We must have men." Of course, men are wanted, but the Minister of National Service, at all events, knows how many thousands of men he has raised in the last three months—many, many thousands of men—and he really cannot seriously say that to delay the calling up of these men for a couple of months can really have any effective effect on the military contribution that is necessary this year. One does not require to have great military knowledge to know that 20,000 men who will be available in the late autumn for military service will have no really effective part in the protection of this country, or, indeed, in the campaign of this year. While those men can be of great value to the Army later on, their value now is not only as great, but it is greater than any service they can perform in the Army. I beg him, therefore, as a reasonable man, as a man who balances the risks and has to choose which risk is the one which he is least entitled to face, to say that the risk which should not be allowed at the
    1500
    present time is to the food supply of this country and the in-gathering of the present harvest. That is the first suggestion I would make.
    The second suggestion I would make to him is this: I believe that this quota in many of the agricultural districts is too high. I believe it is not a fair one. I believe that is particularly so in many of the Welsh counties. I believe that no quota can be fixed on any arbitrary basis that will do justice. But if you are going to have a quota it can be got upon a fairer and better basis than at present. The effect of this drastic combing out, as I pointed out on a previous occasion, fixed by an arbitrary age-limit, is not working fairly as between farmer and farmer. It has taken from those farms which have no accommodation, or, rather, are entirely dependent upon young and unmarried men for farm labour—it has fallen more heavily than it ought to have done upon them—while in respect of farms which, fortunately, have more accommodation, it has, in many cases, really not affected them at all. I believe that if the right hon. Gentleman allowed the agricultural executive committees to get as many men as they reasonably could get, and from as large an area as possible, he could get them with greater justice as between farm and farm, and without any loss of effective strength which they will contribute to the Army I invite him to do so. In many cases, I assure him, the agricultural executive committee have done their best not only to preserve their own industry, but to get him men. They have not been consulted about this quota. Their powers have already been taken away from them. They have not had a voice beyond getting him such men as they could in the best possible way. I invite him to reconsider his policy in this matter. Let him suspend these notices. Let him send the representatives of his own Department to the agricultural executive committees, and let them do their best, with him or them, to get that reasonable quota such as is in their power. These are the principle points to which I invite the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. There are hon. Members who represent agricultural constituencies in various parts of the country, and who feel more deeply on this matter. One does not like to attack any Department at a time like this. It is only because the policy which is being followed is one that is leading to disaster, is one which is not

    1501
    wise, is one which is now such a risky policy for the Government to follow, that I, at all events, have ventured, as I now do, to move, "That the House do now adjourn."
    Mr. HINDS: I beg to second the Motion.
    The House, I think, will agree that my hon. Friend has put the case in a most reasonable manner. I am sure that we have the sympathy, in this matter, of the Minister for Agriculture. We have had several deputations, especially from Wales, during the last few days, and I must, on behalf of those deputations, thank the right hon. Gentleman for the cordial and sympathetic manner in which he received those deputations. But the matter, after all is said and done, is a very important matter to the small farmers in Wales. Wales is a land of small holdings. It is quite different in this respect from England. The farmer himself is a working farmer. Our land in Wales was denuded of labour long before the War, simply because, especially in my own county of Carmarthenshire, we are so near to the industrial districts that practically all the men were carried away to the colliery districts and the other industrial parts of Glamorganshire prior to the War. Our people are not unpatriotic. When the War broke out they gave of their men to the very utmost of their ability. Some of us went up and down the country getting all the men we could, and the men came out splendidly. In regard to volunteers, as Lord Lieutenant I went through the county and got thousands of men to volunteer. We know that you require men to join the Colours today, but the simple point we are bringing before the Minister for Agriculture, as well as before the Minister for National Service, is the taking away of the men at present. We do not want to shield the young men from twenty-three to thirty-one, but the farmers have put corn into the ground, and, the matter having arrived at this stage, it is necessary that they should have sufficient labour to gather that corn. That is all we want—labour sufficient to get the corn in. In this matter we have not had very much satisfaction, if we have had any satisfaction at all. The right hon. Gentleman when we introduced to him on Saturday a deputation from the Welsh Union of Farmers took a great deal of trouble to point out that he was most sympathetic with regard to their difficulties, amongst other things in regard to their
    1502
    implements, for we cannot use the implements they do in England. We cannot take your implements even for ploughing, and so on. Our mowing and ploughing have to be done by hand. Welsh agriculture is quite different to English agriculture in that respect.
    Here is this Order to comb out, suddenly, after the men have cut up the land, and the harvest is upon them. No wonder that they are up in arms! They feel aggrieved because they urge that a pledge was given. It is said that you cannot give a pledge in war-time—that it is impossible to give any pledge—but it is only 15,000, 20,000, or 25,000 men we are asking for, and only asking for them to be left to the end of the harvest, so that the harvest may be gathered in. It is a very reasonable thing we are asking at the present time from the standpoint of the food of the country. We require the labour badly. We only want the men to be sent where the corn has been put in so that they may get the fruits of the ploughing or whatever the crop is that is there. In regard to the future—for we must look to the future!—after what has happened this year it will make these men—I refer to the farmers—that they will not plough up a single acre of land next year. You have got it into their minds that they have not been fairly treated. When you get that into the mind of a farmer, though he may be very slow-moving, you may try any method or even imprison him, but you will not get him to move, whatever you say, or whether or not you try to convince him that there is a national emergency. It is from that standpoint that we have brought forward the plea that we have to-day. I think I understand the position of the Minister for Agriculture. But what the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lambert) said on one occasion is perfectly true. The right hon. Gentleman has not got enough "devil" in him to fight the War Office in matters of this sort. It is for him to stand up and protect the rights of these men so that the harvest may be secured. In respect to the quota in our county we had to get 500 men. We have done our level best, but have only been able to find 440, and it makes us think that sufficient men have gone from the county on previous occasions. I do not understand how the number in the quotas was arrived at, but I believe that there was taken into account those who were previously taken from the county. It is not satisfactory. The pith

    1503
    of the whole matter is that we do feel the emergency of the present time, and we do not want to shield these men and keep them under this umbrella, but we do think it is more important at the present time to keep these men until the end of the harvest, so that the harvest may be gathered in the interests of the food supplies of the country.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): As President of the Board of Agriculture I very much sympathise with much that has been said about the present position, but I should like to get the House back to what is the real reason for the change that has been adopted. It is that there is at the present moment a predominant, overmastering need for men for military service. There are certain essential industries of this country which must be maintained. The Army and the Navy have their demand to make, the Minister of Munitions has his demand, the Minister for Agriculture has his demand, and the Minister of Transport, under which I include railways and shipbuilding, has his demand. Man-power is short all the way round. Five into one will not go, and from time to time some predominating demand comes into prominence which must, if we are to continue this War, be met, and at this moment the men are wanted for the Army. Acting on that principle, the Government has decided that all these essential industries have got to yield up a proportion of their man-power. As the War goes on this pressure is felt necessarily with increasing severity. Every industry from which we demand men says, "We cannot at all events be asked to render this amount of man-power up for the Army," and if you allow on each occasion such demands to be made and to be responded to, it ends in your not having the number of men that are required. May I just remind the House of General Haig's appeal to his men in April, 1918:
    "There is no other course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man. There must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall, and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight it out to the end. The safety of oar homes and the freedom of mankind depend alike upon the conduct of each one of us at this critical moment."
    There is no appeal for this country to send out more men, but just because there is no no appeal I venture to think that the appeal is stronger to everyone of us. Do
    1504
    we not feel that the men there realise that they may be overwhelmed by overmastering forces? Every man, not only that agriculture can spare, but every man that can be sent is needed there and needed now. It has been said these men will come too late. That is not the case. The men who are taken now will be in the fighting line between the middle of September and the beginning of October, and it may be that that will be the very critical moment, and we cannot really—
    Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Do I understand my right hon. Friend to mean that men are going to be sent into the firing line after three and a half months' training?
    Mr. PROTHERO: That is exactly what I do say. These men will be in time for the most critical period of the year. If you put off taking them until after the harvest, it will probably be too late, because that carries us on into the winter months. Therefore, if they are to go at all, they must go now. We must remember this, that it is one of our misfortunes in agriculture that a German offensive is probably imminent at the very moment when our harvest is being gathered in. You cannot get away from that fact. The summer months are the months in which the fighting is done and in which the harvest is gathered in. In view of that fact, the Government recognised that there was an overmastering need for men, and that need overpowers every other consideration, even that of food. They decided that all exemptions on occupational grounds should be withdrawn. You speak of me as a weak Minister, but you must remember this fact: The moment that decision is taken, all agriculturists are at the mercy of the Minister of National Service, and nothing I can do is of any avail.
    What did we do, which after all are the lines upon which the two previous speakers have proceeded? We proposed that we should be allowed, through our war agricultural committee, to find the men ourselves. Instead of setting a machine in motion which would have taken every man according to certain groups and ages—first every man of nineteen, then every man of twenty, quite irrespective of the nature of his employment or of his value upon the farm—we did secure that the war agricultural executive committees should have the power to allow certain men an opportunity of an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal. Then as to the others who were

    1505
    sent up from twenty-three to thirty-one it was agreed that we ourselves at the Board of Agriculture should distribute those 30,000 men which it was decided to call up as fairly as we could between the various counties, and that when a quota has been given to a county the war agricultural executive committee itself should find the men to make up that quota. That is the course which has been pursued. It was accepted by the Minister of National Service, it was approved and endorsed by the Cabinet, and that is the proposal which is now in force in the country. In fixing the quota—not of 30,000 men, because that does not come into the question—that was to be contributed by each county to make up the 30,000 men, we did this: We took the number of men actually upon the farms between the ages of nineteen and thirty-one; we took the actual arable acreage in each county, and we took the number of men who had been recruited for the Army in each county in past times. On the basis of those three sets of figures the quota was fixed, and I may say that I think every county in England and Wales has complained that the quota is unfair for it and over fair for its next-door neighbour. The conclusion I draw from that general disapproval is that the quota is reasonably fair all round.
    Mr. ROCH: May I ask whether, in fixing that quota, the right hon. Gentleman had regard to the number of small holdings, because surely it was a very relevant consideration?
    Mr. PROTHERO: Certainly. Take the case of Merionethshire. Merionethshire, I believe, has something like 2,000 small holdings.
    Mr. HAYDN JONES: No, 2,900.
    Mr. PROTHERO: Well, we will say 3,000. It will be just the same for my argument. I believe on one occasion one man obtained exemption from the war agricultural committee—it may not have been in Merionethshire—because he had a holding of ¾ acre. You have 3,000 small holdings. If Merionethshire is to contribute its proper quota, those small holdings for the time being must be lumped together. There is no other way of doing it. I know that a man may dislike it, but after all compare for one moment what we are asking the men on the farms to do to-day and what we are asking the men at the front to do. The men at the front have every day to go
    1506
    down into a veritable hell and face death in its most appalling form, but whatever they are asked to do they do with a simple, unquestioning courage and self-sacrifice which would put many of us here at home to shame. Compare their conditions with the conditions of the men on the farms, working in their own familiar peaceful surroundings, not risking their lives, their limbs, their eyesight, and their health for all time. After all, what is a few pounds out of their pockets or a few hours of fatigue for their bodies? We must remember that what we are asking from the men on the land is as nothing compared with what we are asking from the men whom we send to the front. I quite admit that agriculturists may quite fairly say to us, "You have induced us to plough up grass."
    Sir F. BANBURY: Ordered!
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. PROTHERO: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. His interjections are rather loud. "Ordered us," if you like. But I will say that out of about 100,000 "orders" that have been issued, probably there are only about 500 cases in which it has come as an order. It has been done cheerfully and willingly from patriotic motives. It is a sacrifice, an undoubted sacrifice, that we have asked them to make. We have asked them to incur the greater liabilities and the greater anxieties and the greater cost of arable cultivation in the country's interest, because, mind you, they are sacrificing their profit as well. No man can expect to make a profit the first year that he ploughs up grass. There is no doubt about that. Therefore, I fully admit that we have gone to the agriculturists of this country and said, "We do not deny that we are asking you to make a sacrifice." The sacrifice also applies to the landowners, who have sacrificed the capital value of their land. "We do not deny that we have asked you for a great sacrifice of money and that we have asked you to incur anxiety and responsibility." I have never made a single speech inside or outside this House in which I have put it on any other grounds. I know agriculture so well that I know if I had put it on the ground of profit it would have been an absolute fraud. I have put it to them on patriotic grounds, and throughout the length and breadth of this country the farmers have made the sacrifice and have made the effort. They have done it, no

    1507
    doubt, on the pledge and the guarantee that they would have the labour left to them. If they say that they are betrayed, I am bound to say that they have that amount of justification, that we did guarantee them the labour. The Cabinet in June, 1917, decided that the men employed whole-time in agriculture at the beginning of June, 1917, should not be taken from the land unless they were allowed to go by the war agricultural executive committees. I want to put it to the House that an overmastering necessity has arisen, and that we have got to take the men. I have found, in my own experience, that there has not been a single farmers' deputation that has come before me—and there have been many during the last ton days—who, when the point was clearly put before them, did not say, "After all, we are bound to let the men go." I think the hon. Member who seconded this Resolution will bear me witness that was the feeling of the deputation which he introduced from Wales. The patriotic feeling was strong. They had the Welsh vision and imagination to realise what was going on on the Western Front, and they themselves said, "Well, if the men are bound to go, we are willing to send them." They could not spare them. There was no question of sparing them.
    Mr. HINDS: I think the view of the deputation was that the right hon. Gentleman had put the case so strongly that, "If our land and our country are going, well, if you want these men, we will have to let them go."
    Mr. PROTHERO: That was what I was saying. It is the fact that I put it to them the other day, that this is no question of an ordinary war. We are really fighting for our very existence. If we do not pull through this War and we make a wretched peace, we will leave behind to our children and our children's children an unending heritage of war, because it is not a question as between nationalities; it is a question between two big principles which are irreconcilable. It is a war between military despotism and ordered democratic freedom. The one is a perpetual menace to the other, and until we fight it out to the end there will always be war to the end of the world, and the big cause of freedom is bound to win in the long run.
    1508
    I put this point to these Welsh representatives, and, as I say, they accepted the principle. They did not say that there were not cases almost inconceivably hard, but war is a hard thing, and cases must be hard, and will go on increasing in hardship until the end comes. The real point they made, as I understood it, was that of the harvesting of the present crop. That was the main point. If we could get in the harvest and save the harvest for them, then, while they did not accept, they acquiesced in the nation's necessity. The question of getting in the harvest I dealt with in an answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) to-day. I cannot be expected to say with absolute confidence that we have provided the right number of men in order to save the harvest. I cannot say that. When you reflect that practically every one of these 30,000 men is a skilled man, and that a great number of them are the key men of the industry, the men without whom a great mass of unskilled labour will be but an unmanageable crowd, you cannot expect that I should say that I am absolutely confident that we shall get the harvest in. But I do not think we shall lose much of it.
    I should like to remind the House what this demand for labour from agriculture really means in point of figures. It means something like 4 per cent. of the total male agricultural labour on the land today. If you add to that labour the German prisoners and the soldiers, agriculture to-day has more male agricultural labour than it had in November, 1916, even when the 30,000 men are gone. Here is the really vital point from the agricultural point of view. There is in this country a certain number only of men between the ages of nineteen and thirty-one. You may take it, roughly, that 30,000 men between those ages take 25 per cent. of that labour. The number of Grade A men among the whole number of men who are between the ages of nineteen and thirty-one was surprisingly small—unexpectedly small—and the result was that the choice was so limited that, as I have said before, it fell on the key-men of the industry, Even then, the fact remains that agriculture will have on the land more men than it had in November, 1916. It is quite true that many of them will be old men—the old age pensioners and men of that class. Still, they are men of some experience by now. They are growing in experience. The old age pensioner has

    1509
    probably more experience on the land than anybody else. After all, the men who are now on the land are men with some amount of experience. They are not the key-men—that is the worst of it—nor are they the horsemen. May I point out to hon. Members from Wales who have spoken that one of our greatest difficulties is to get Welsh farmers to accept any form of substituted labour. For instance, in Cardiganshire we offered then 120 skilled German ploughmen. They did not use one of them as skilled agriculturists. We tried to get them to take women labour. I know how difficult it is in Wales, owing to the lack of accommodation, to take women, but still they will not try it.
    Mr. ROCH: May I tell my right hon. Friend that in my own county we have not refused a single offer of women, but there is no place for the women to sleep.
    Mr. PROTHERO: That may be as regards my hon. Friend's own county—of course it is so, as he says it—but it is not our experience in other parts of the country. I have already admitted that the difficulty of accommodation is particularly great in Wales, still there is that difficulty that they will not use in Wales the labour we have offered. I know quite well that in Wales where you have not only to mow with a scythe, but even to thresh with the flail, that you cannot use machinery such as is usable in other parts of the country. But may I add that in fixing the quota as we did, we took those facts into consideration. We took into consideration the fact that on the Welsh hill farms you could not employ machinery. I believe the quota was reasonably well fixed. As to the notices that have been issued since 26th June, provided that they were issued after the receipt of the National Service telegram which was sent off on the afternoon of 26th June, they are invalid, and the Ministry of National Service has cancelled those notices and the men will be restored.
    Mr. H. JONES: Would a notice dated 26th June, written on the 26th, with the postmark of the 27th, and received on the 28th, be invalid?
    Mr. PROTHERO: You go by the postmark and it would be invalid. There is no doubt about that. Instructions have been sent down with that object. I have tried to deal with this situation quite frankly. I have placed it twice before the Government, who are perfectly well
    1510
    aware of the hardships that are being caused in country districts, but who feel that they have no choice in the matter and that the men have got to go. I may say—perhaps it is a personal note which I ought not to strike—that I have not only pleaded the cause of agriculture, as is my official duty, but I have pleaded it with my heart in it, because this change, this obedience to the overmastering necessity of the moment, means to a great extent the wrecking, or at all events the imperilling, of all the work I have tried to do for the last eighteen months. Therefore, the House may rest assured that the agricultural case has been presented to the Government, that they are aware of it, and that nothing but their sense of the absolute need of the men would ever have induced then to take the step they have taken, and, having taken that step with due deliberation, with all the facts before them, I feel that it is the duty of agriculturists, however reluctant they may be and whatever the personal loss that it may be to some of them, to try their best to meet the new situation with the same cheerful courage and patriotism with which they have met many previous difficulties.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: The House will, I am sure, agree that we have had a sympathetic, a patriotic, and an honest speech from the right hon. Gentleman. Far and away the most startling fact that he has announced is that these men who are to be called up at the end of June will be out in France at the end of September. Three months' training! That is a horrifying prospect to any of us.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to remove, if I can, the impression which has been created by that? My right hon. Friend was talking of all the men from agriculture who were brought under this Act, who have been taken in the middle of June. He said they would go to the line between the middle of September and the middle of October. That does not give, in any case, less than three months.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Even three months to face perfectly trained German troops! It has horrified me.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: In Scotland we have had boys of nineteen and twenty-one in the line within six weeks. I drew attention to it six weeks ago.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Then there is something wrong somewhere, to my mind. To even realise that the right Hon. Gentleman has made the announcement that these men are to be sent out to face these perfectly trained German troops after three months' training is unthinkable. That is the only word I can use for it. I pass from that because it is too serious for any discussion on an Adjournment Motion. My right hon. Friend has gone out of his way over and over again to allude to the hardship to the agricultural industry. If it will help those fellows out in France you may put every acre of land in the country out of cultivation; you may sacrifice every acre of harvest if it will help them. Therefore I hope we shall hear no more of this question of hardship. It is not a question of hardship. The right hon. Gentleman talked about farmers being a few pounds out of pocket. Does lie really think that weighs with the farmers of the country? I hope he has a better opinion of them. The farmers of this country will cheerfully bear their burden. They have proved that they will bear it. A good deal of ridicule and contumely has been levelled at young farmers staying at home. There may have been cases where farmers have kept their sons at home and sent their labourers. Those are selfish farmers, and deserve every condemnation. But that is not the general run of farmers. What I, and I am sure my hon. Friend (Mr. Koch) are here to ask is this one simple question, Do you want the harvest of 1918 or do you not? If you want it, we must have the men to harvest it. If you do not want it and are prepared to face the risk, the risk and the responsibility must be yours. The right hon. Gentleman proved a little too much. He said there will be only 4 per cent. fewer men as the result of this cut than there would have been had it not taken place—that is to say, these 30,000 men taken only reduce the aggregate of the agricultural population by 4 per cent. He told us there was more male labour on the land than there was in 1916. He said these labourers were getting more experienced, and he instanced the old age pensioners. The old age pensioners in our villages do not want experience; they want strength.
    But the problem is a very serious one. The Food Production Department wisely congratulates itself on its efforts in having broken up so much land in the country. There is something like 40 per cent. more
    1512
    acreage of wheat than there was in 1916, yet if the amount of male labour remains the same, how do you think you can harvest it? Machinery was in vogue in 1916. You cannot improvise machinery for the harvest. [Interruption.] I am afraid I know a little about agricultural machinery and harvesters. It is quite impossible that this corn can be cut by manual labour. It is quite impossible that it can be cut by the old-fashioned reaping machines. It must be cut by the self-binding reaper. Where are you going to get the labour to drive these self-binding reapers? Where are you going to get the men to use three horses in a self-binding reaper, especially on a field that is not too level? When the right hon. Gentleman talked about the labour he was getting at Question Time to-day—convalescent soldiers, war agricultural volunteers, schoolboys from public and secondary schools, women from the Land Army, local authorities and chief constables to release as many men as possible, the Air Board and the Admiralty to send instructions to men to volunteer to assist local farmers wherever their services can be spared, and German prisoners—there is no guarantee that any of these classes will be able to drive a self-binder. You have taken the young skilled horsemen. I do not complain of it if you say you are prepared to risk the harvest, but I warn you that you are risking the harvest. May I give an experience of my own? I was driving up from our local station the other day and I saw a Government corn drill beside the road. I inquired what had happened. A young fellow had got hold of the drill and put a pair of horses into it. He did not know the horses and the horses did not know the drill. The consequence was that away went the horses, and the poor fellow dropped off and cut his head open, and the drill was smashed almost irretrievably. Is that the kind of thing you are going to get with your self-binder, and is this the kind of labour you propose to send down to drive three horses in these machines? The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the labour on the land to-day is absolutely insufficient to get in the coming harvest, especially if it is at alt what we call in Devonshire a catchy one Where are the men coming from to drive the carts? Where are they coming from to make the ricks, and where are they coming from to thatch the ricks? These are all practical questions. I do not want to put them if the Government says we must

    1513
    sacrifice the harvest. The responsibility must be yours, but do, for Heaven's sake, know what you are doing and realise what you are doing!
    It was said by the Under-Secretary to the Ministry of National Service that the executive committee have had a chance. The executive committee have had no chance whatever. The Executive Committee for the county of Devon, of which I happen to be a member, had to find 950 young men. There was no choice about it, and we had to take men who were absolutely irreplaceable and indispensable for the land. The county of Devon and other counties have obeyed the behests of the Government quickly and promptly. Do you mean to say we are to be penalised because we have done our duty, and that you are going to leave those to go scot-free who have not done so? Is such a thing as that possible? Can it be tolerated? Our men were called up before the 26th of June, but because other counties have been slack in carrying out your behests you are now penalising us. Is that fair play to the counties which have done their duty? I am not going to labour this point, but I do put this to the Government frankly, Do not go out of your way to talk about farmers' profits. Do not talk about their being out of pocket. This is a national question. If you do not want the food; if you are prepared to risk the food, well and good, yours must be the responsibility.
    But I would point out that this food question is not yet entirely settled. We are having beautifully warm sunny weather now, but there is the winter coming, and then there will be a different state of affairs. I think it our duty to warn you that in this matter of food production you are running grave risks. Let me give the House two or three figures showing what the submarines have done. In 1917 we built about 1,180,000 tons of shipping, but we lost nearly 4,000,000 tons. We were, therefore, 2,800,000 tons down. This year in the first five months we built 629,000 tons of shipping, we have lost 1,146,000 tons; we are 517,000 tons down. Thus in the two periods I have mentioned we have a total net loss of over 3,000,000 tons of shipping. Now shipping is all-important to bring over the great American armies which are gathering in the United States and which we hope soon will be on the Western Front. I hope the Government will realise the responsibility of gathering in the harvest,
    1514
    and I would suggest to them that it would be well, if they want to get the harvest in, to allow these young fellows in agriculture—the executive agricultural committees will be able to point them out—to allow them to come home for a month in order to secure the corn harvest of 1918.
    Captain Sir C. BATHURST: I find myself in no small difficulty to-night, because although I was for something like six or seven years a most active critic of the Minister of Agriculture, and I think I can truly claim that during this War whatever I may have felt I have done my utmost in no way to embarrass the Government on agricultural topics, yet I say I feel myself in a difficult position because, as part of the Government machine, I may be deemed to be one who necessarily accepts what the Government decide, and does so in no critical spirit. The difficulty I find myself in is this, and I fancy it applies to a good many others for the time being who are working in this War in a voluntary capacity. I have, unfortunately, a conscience, and I could not conscientiously approach my Constituents, as it will be my duty to do in the course of a few months, and say with perfect honesty and with a clear conscience that I have done my best to study the interests of agriculture, and through them the interests of the nation, if I had remained absolutely silent in this House, to which as their representative I have been sent, when I have felt deeply conscious that the policy of the Government is not altogether wise so far as agricultural production is concerned, and if this country is to be fed, and adequately fed, during the remaining period of the War. I hope that the Leader of the House will forgive me if I venture to say that to me at any rate the extremely patriotic and inspiring speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture has failed to carry a full measure of conviction. Of course, I realise most fully the magnificent work which the Minister for Agriculture has done, not only in maintaining a largely-increased production of food, but by his stirring appeals to the farming community, to the patriotism and unselfishness of a community, which I think all must admit has in the past shown itself to be amongst the most patriotic people in this country, he has inspired in them a degree of patriotism and self-sacrifice which it is wholly impossible to imagine

    1515
    in any other industry in the country. It is mainly owing to the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman that these sacrifices have been made.
    I regret the right hon. Gentleman found it necessary to refer in the course of a Debate like this to the amount of profits which the farmers may make or lose as the result of the Government's policy, or to refer in any way to the personal standpoint. I think those considerations are absolutely irrelevant So far as I am aware there is scarcely a single young man of military age employed in farming who is not ready and eager to join his fellows at the front, and to take his part in fighting the battles of his country. But this is not a personal matter, and it should not be looked at from a personal standpoint. We have to consider whether we can with perfect security for the future, and in the national interest, allow these absolutely indispensable skilled men to be taken away from the farms regardless of whether or not in the opinion of the agricultural executive committee, or of their employers, they can be spared, and the food production maintained. The right hon. Gentleman, after telling us that only some 4 per cent. of the total male population would, in fact, be taken for the Army under this latest comb-out, had to admit that the choice is so small that it involves taking the key-men in thy industry. Horse-keepers have been regarded as key-men in the agricultural industry. They are absolutely irreplaceable on most farms. The same applies to enginemen. They are in my county beginning to be combed out in order to supply this somewhat illogical quota which each county is asked to contribute. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman making his patriotic appeals to the farmers in my own county, and I have to admit, after reading the speeches he made to similar audiences in various parts of the country, that there is no more valuable coadjutor of the Minister of National Service than the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture. That speaks in volumes for the right hon. Gentleman's self-restraint and patriotism. But I venture to wonder whether, bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman is the champion of the agricultural interest, and is the person mainly responsible to see that the food production is maintained, he has allowed his self-sacrificing
    1516
    patriotism to carry him further than reason would justify. As regards this illogical system of fixing the quota for counties according to the arable acreage in each county and to the number of men, actually recruited for the Army in past times, I would point out that there is a very large number of men who have been recruited not only for the Army, but for the Navy and also for munition works and other works of public employment. In my own Constituency there are a very considerable number of men employed upon the roads who have been taken by the Road Board for road construction.
    Mr. PROTHERO: Those are all included.
    Sir C. BATHURST: If they are all included, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being able to get those figures with any precision. I would like to know whether all the voluntary recruits before Conscription commenced have been taken into account?
    Mr. PROTHERO: Yes
    Sir C. BATHURST: There is no industry which has contributed a larger proportion towards man-power voluntarily than the industry of agriculture. My right hon. Friend replies in the affirmative, that they have been taken into account. Yet he admits that there are key-men being taken under the quota system. If that is so, he is travelling along the path which, I suggest, is going to lead in the direction of serious food scarcity, if not famine, before this War is over. My right hon. Friend and the Minister for National Service have to admit—reluctantly, no doubt—that we have a very strong case which at the time this comb-out was fixed was not fully appreciated. Only last week they cancelled a large portion of the withdrawals which had previously been decided upon. Surely that is an evidence that in the scheme originally agreed upon between the two right hon. Gentlemen there was an excess of zeal which determined upon withdrawing these men from agriculture, and he now admits that it ought not to be done until the harvest is over.
    Mr. PROTHERO: I think that is not really what I said. On the 26th June an arrangement was made that the calling-up notices should cease, and the notices that were issued after that date are being cancelled for the future until after the harvest.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many had been called up before that date?
    Mr. PROTHERO: I cannot tell you offhand, but it is a very small proportion that is left.
    Sir C. BATHURST: Whether or not the proportion that is left is small, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague were induced for some reason or other to vary the original intention of the Government in this regard. The right hon. Gentleman has proceeded in this matter, and for the last twelve months, on the principle that we are, so to speak, in the last ditch. If we were in the last ditch I would have nothing more to say. If the necessity for men is so great that we can afford to take the key-men from agriculture, at the time when we have increased our arable area by 30 or 40 per cent., and we are budgeting for our food supply to the extent of forty weeks from our own production—if, in spite of that, the right hon. Gentleman says the needs of the Army are so great that these men must be taken, then I have nothing more to say. But I find it very difficult, in the face of all that has been said by various Ministers of the Crown, including the Prime Minister, that we are in so extreme a position as the announcement made this evening by the right hon. Gentleman, and which he has made before agricultural audiences, would make one believe. What I find fault with in this scheme of the agricultural comb-out is that there is no proper provision for the replacement of the men taken away. Unfortunately, the agricultural industry, above all others, is so constituted temperamentally that they do not see their way to embark upon an enormously increased arable acreage and at the same time to part with men who were never more valuable to them than they are at this crisis, without any prospect of the men being replaced either by volunteers, or German prisoners, or women. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are some districts in England in which German prisoners, who are expert horsemen, or otherwise expert in agricultural operations, who will be warmly welcomed, if only he can provide them at once? Gloucester is one of them. I may tell the right hon. Gentleman, and I would like to tell the Leader of the House, that there is, on the borders of Gloucestershire, a standard shipbuilding
    1518
    enterprise which is being run by the Government, and there are a large number of German prisoners employed there, as well as British troops and other workmen. Of these German prisoners, I am informed on the authority of the Adjutant in Command that not less than 100 of the men were expert agriculturists in their own country, and he is prepared to spare them to render them available for agricultural employment in the neighbourhood if the War Office will replace them with men of less value. Here is an offer which agriculturists—we, at any rate, in Gloucester—would be only too glad to grasp, but the War Office has decided for some reason that it is unreasonable, and they refuse to assent. There is a sheer waste of good, skilled agricultural manpower which the officer in command is prepared to render available for agricultural purposes, but which the War Office, for some reason best known to itself, is not prepared to spare and to replace those men with other labour less valuable to agriculture.
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, assuming, as we mast assume from what he has told us, that we are at the end, or very nearly at the end, of our tether so far as military necessity is concerned, that he has any confidence that when next autumn comes and these men who are now left temporarily to gather the harvest will be called up to the Colours that those farmers who to-day admittedly are doing their best to produce increased quantities of corn are to be able to carry on their agricultural operations with the same zeal during the coming autumn? From what I hear, the farmers, although they are more amenable to Government appeals and pressure than ever before, are more anxious and more genuinely apprehensive as to the future developments on their farm than they have been at any time during the War. If the right hon. Gentleman seriously thinks that when next October and November come that he is going to be able to budget in the light of what he has said for forty weeks' home supply from home-grown food to meet cur national requirements, I very much fear that he will be grievously disappointed.
    Mr. HAYDN JONES: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite when he says that the concession that the notices after the 26th instant are the only notices which are to be cancelled means that those local authorities who have done their duty

    1519
    are to be penalised in favour of those who have not done their duty. I think the situation calls for more drastic action than that. I am not one of those people who think that farmers should be specially favoured, and I have said that in my own Constituency. Last Thursday I met hundreds of farmers in my own Constituency, which is mainly agricultural, and one of the things I said to the meeting—I do not think it was a very popular thing to say—was that farmers have been doing remarkably well for years, and that they must be prepared, with every other part of the community, to make sacrifices to the common end that we are all fighting for. The farmers never demurred to what I said. It is not a question of declining to make sacrifices, but it is the desire to meet a situation which, if not met fairly and squarely, will land the country in exhaustion. It is a question of getting the harvest in, and I am perfectly certain, knowing the country as I do, that you have already denuded the farms of so much labour that it will be a matter of impossibility to get the harvest in. It is true that you offer substituted labour—German prisoners. In my county I have seen none of them, and I am perfectly certain that they have never been offered and never refused. You talk about women labour. I do not think there is a single woman who has been offered in my county who has not been accepted. You talk about schoolboy labour. How is that type of labour going to handle a scythe? It is not a question of the mower and reaper. It is a question of the scythe. What about horses? Do you want schoolboy or woman labour to handle horses? You have denuded my county of the essential labour to get in the harvest.
    The war agricultural committee attempted to do its duty. It went through the list of available men three times endeavouring to meet the quota. The names went up to the National Service regional office at Wrexham, and they were forty short, on Wednesday last. I attended a meeting of farmers, and we had a telegram from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture saying that all calling-up notices issued after that date were cancelled. My county, though we were only forty short, was deluged with calling-up notices arriving on the 28th inst., everyone of them dated on the 26th. That is not playing
    1520
    the game. I have not any doubt whatever that instructions were given to date these notices and to put them in the post late on the evening of the 26th after the decision of the War Cabinet. I can produce any number of envelopes, everyone of them with the postmark of the 27th, some of them of the 28th, served on men. I will give one case as an example. A widow lost her husband last February. She had two young sons. The war agriculture committee take one of those sons, and the National Service people in their wisdom take the last son—from a farm with a thousand sheep to shear within the next few days, forty-eight head of cattle and seven horses, and an enormous amount of arable land, and they leave that immense farm to the tender mercy of a widow who has never had any experience, and of one soldier who has never done a day's work on the land and has been sent on there!
    That is the method of the National Service Department, in their desire to get men. It is one thing to get men, but to take men from the land and to denude large farms of that kind is not the best thing in the national interest. What is the object of sending notices of this kind? This is sent out with the calling-up notice to men, not only to men up to twenty-three, but to men older than twenty-three. I could have understood this notice if it were sent to men up to twenty-three, though I think that it is a rather drastic notice to send, but in the case of men over twenty-three I do not see the justice of it. It says:
    "Please note the fact that your red voucher issued by the war agricultural executive committee is not sufficient reason for the return of this notice, and that it is too late to make a claim to the tribunal. This notice must therefore be complied with even though you have not been notified by the local agricultural committee that you have been released by them to join the Colours."
    In other words, men who have never been selected by the local war agricultural committee, and have never had a chance of bringing in a plea before the tribunal, get a calling-up notice saying that every right of appeal is taken away. I want to know on what authority and by whom this notice was issued?
    Another thing. What about the boys of eighteen on the land? If they have been served with notices after the 26th, are these notices also cancelled? Because in my county every boy of eighteen has been served, and although we were only forty

    1521
    short, scores of these notices have been served subsquent to the 26th instant. That is not playing the game. We want to get our harvest in. I do not think that there is a single farmer in my Constituency who wants to shield a single man. If there were, I would be the first man to condemn him. I think that the farmer ought to make sacrifices like any other member of the community. But I do say that the farmer is entitled to consideration, which he is not getting at the present moment, with labour, and you are failing to keep you have promised to keep him supplied with labour, and you are failing to keep that promise. At the very moment when he needs the labour most, when we have 500,000 sheep to shear within the next few weeks, you take away the experienced men who know how to shear and leave the inexperienced men. And on top of that you have the hay harvest and the corn harvest. This is a most short-sighted piece of policy on the part of the Government. There are only 30,000 men in the aggregate. They are not going to affect the War one way or the other, but they will mean a great deal in regard to the food supply of the country. The agricultural committee in my county met to-day to consider the very serious situation in which the county is placed, and they consider that all calling-up notices issued to farm workers subsequent to the decision of the War Cabinet on last Wednesday morning should be cancelled.
    The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir A. Geddes): As has already been stated, instructions have been issued that all calling-up notices issued—that is to say, bearing a postmark after the date of the 26th; anything bearing the postmark of the 27th—are cancelled. It is quite impossible, in issuing calling-up notices from the Registry Department, which are passed on to the Recruiting Department, to stop action then and there. The instructions are that the postmark settles the date, and that has already been announced to the House to-night.
    Mr. JONES: Does that apply to boys of eighteen?
    Sir A. GEDDES: To all calling-up notices to males employed on agriculture, including the boys of eighteen.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: How many does that affect?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I cannot give an accurate statement; the returns are coming through still from the country.
    Captain WRIGHT: When a man responds to the notice will he be returned home?
    Sir A. GEDDES: The notices are cancelled, and the individual who received the calling-up notice will have the official cover bearing the postmark, and he will have the evidence of the date of the notice and the posting in his hands.
    Mr. H. JONES: In many cases the individual may not have seen the notice of cancellation, and manifestly it would be unfair that the man should join up, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that nobody should join up on notices posted on the 27th, and that the men who received such notices should be sent home. It would be manifestly unfair to except some and allow others to remain at home.
    Sir A. GEDDES: So far as possible that has been done. The suggestion that we are trying to catch men is, I think, really unfair. I do not think that it is the reputation of the Department that they try to catch people, or trap them on technical points. We have been most careful throughout not to trap and catch people in that way.
    Mr. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how these boys in Merioneth were called up at the very time that the war agricultural committee were doing this work? This was done behind the back of the agricultural committee, the notices being dated the 26th and posted on the 27th.
    10.0 P.M.
    Sir A. GEDDES: I cannot tell with regard to any particular area what occurred, though I have no reason to think that what the hon. Member says is incorrect. The instruction was to deal with the men who were on the list of the war agricultural committee. I do not know exactly what happened in Merioneth, but I can assure the House there has been no attempt to trap people on a technical point. The calling-up notices were prepared in the ordinary course by the Registration Department and handed to the Recruiting Department, and in 99 per cent., even 100 per cent., of the cases there has always been a delay consisting of one, or even of two days, between preparation and issue, and therefore it is to be ex-

    1523
    pected that a calling-up notice dated the 26th would be delivered on the 27th, or it may be even the 28th. It is inevitable that it should be so, having regard to the machinery.
    Mr. JONES: I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation, but there are several things connected with my own country in regard to which this explanation does not satisfy me. The telegram, which I have already read, urges that not only should the notices be cancelled, but that all the men already posted should be temporarily released for the harvest; otherwise the crops cannot be got in. I join in that appeal. I submit that the course which I suggest would affect an enormous saving to the country in the matter of food. It is necessary that we should have the men to get the harvest in, and if we fail to obtain them, the blame will not be that of the farmers, who have done their duty. I think this is a very important matter, and I would point out that if we are going to treat the farmers badly this year, how can you expect them to treat us well next yea? I make an earnest appeal to my right hon. Friend to release these men for a short period, and by so doing the Government will gain the good will of those who, I know, are doing their very best for the country.
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have no special knowledge of the agricultural case, and therefore I must claim the indulgence of the House in intervening on one particular point which has arisen out of the Debate, that is the amount of training the men are to receive. I think that is a point so important that the House will agree that it overshadows, in itself, all that we have listened to in this Debate hitherto. Certain observations fell from the President of the Board of Agrculture as to training, which I believe were no more than obiter dicta, and were perhaps made without any great premeditation, but the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) promptly referred to what the right hon. Gentleman had said, and there arose one of the most remarkable incidents in the Debate. I do not rise to make observations with the intention of causing mischief; the subject is far too grave for that. None of us want to do anything to thwart the Government in getting the men. I myself have served three years in one way or another, and I have only been
    1524
    demobilised at the present moment. The speech of the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether intended or not, can only tend to produce correspondence, and must necessarily give rise to a sheaf of questions. In justice to the military authorities themselves, I think it would be very desirable if the Leader of the House could make some clear pronouncement on this matter.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it would be right if I pointed out what I should say is obvious to the whole House, that the real difficulty in dealing with the problem before the House to-night is that it is quite impossible for anyone representing the Government to state fully the considerations which have induced us to take proceedings of this kind. That is the real difficulty in this case, and no better illustration of it could be given than the point to which my hon. Friend has just referred. In the course of his speech the President of the Board of Agriculture dealt with the question of getting the men now for the new campaign. Calculations were made. He was speaking on the 1st July, and he said that these men would be available in France.
    Mr. KENNEDY JONES: He said in the firing line.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: What my right hon. Friend meant was that they would he available in France between the middle of September and the middle of October. That is a fact. What always happens is that three months' training is given to the men here at home, although, in some cases, under the present necessities, I believe they have been sent to France after ten weeks' training; but three months is the amount which is usually given at home. They are then sent to France for at least another month's training. That is a principle, and so far as the boys are concerned, to which special reference was made, it has been said over and over again by the War Office that, under no circumstances, will any boy be put into the firing line until he has had at least four months' training. I think it is a great pity that it is necessary for me to say even this in the House of Commons, and it is one of the difficulties of a Debate of this kind. I think it is unavoidable, but do not let the House be under any delusion, or rather under any misapprehension. There is nobody in any degree responsible for the carrying out of this War who

    1525
    does not realise that our men are greatly handicapped by having to go into the fighting with training for so short a time. We all recognise it, and when it is said, as I think my right hon. Friend said, that that is one of the serious things that has come into this Debate it is perfectly true, but it does not really, depend on any authority here. We have throughout the whole of this War been faced from the very beginning with this terrible handicap that we are creating a new Army from its foundations. We have to put it in the line when the necessity arises, and it is not possible for us to give the training which would have made that Army much more formidable even than it is.
    Having risen for this purpose—and I hope I have entered as fully as possible into the point put by my hon. Friend—I should like to say a word or two about the general position. I have, of course, no direct dealings with either of the Departments responsible in this matter, but there is no question about which I ought to know better if hearing it constantly discussed and hearing all the arguments put forward would enable me to understand it. It is a great mistake to suppose that he one in the House regards this as a question of hardship on the part of the farmers, and nobody, I think, could have made his meaning plainer in that respect than my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture. What he said was this—and I am sure that every hon. Member will agree—that, looking at it from the point of view of hard cases which have been brought to our notice over and over again, in the Cabinet and to the President of the Board of Agriculture, from the point of view of the hardships on the farmers, they arise from the fact that we have urged, from patriotic motives, that the farmers should plough up new land, and they have responded, and if they do not get the labour, not only will that be wasted to a considerable extent, but they will lose enormously through what has happened. In dealing with cases of that kind, surely my right hon. Friend is expressing the feeling of every Member of the House in saying that we regret these hardships, and we would do our best to prevent them, but, after all, these particular hardships are as nothing in comparison with the dangers and sacrifices which are being made by the men who are facing the enemy.
    The real question is whether or not what we are doing is in the national
    1526
    interest. That is the whole thing. Here, again, I really am in a position that it is quite impossible for me to give all the facts and all the knowledge which have influenced us in coming to a decision in the matter. We know just as well as every Member of this House that we will be beaten just as much as if our Armies failed if we are not able to feed the people of this country. We know that perfectly well. That therefore is the danger which we have got to keep constantly before our minds. On the other hand, it is no exaggeration to say—and I think every Member of the House really will understand it—that the pressure of danger varies as the War goes on, that we have got to a certain extent to adjust the available resources of the country, which cannot go all round, so as to meet the need which for the moment seems the most vital to the Government of the country. That is the whole position looked at from that point of view. I am not going to say anything which reflects any more on the feeling of the House of Commons than it does on the members of the Government themselves, but remember that we are all influenced, and it is impossible to avoid it, by the danger which faces one at the moment. Suppose that this discussion had been raised during the fortnight after the 21st March, does anyone doubt that the feeling in this House would have been much more strongly emphasised as to the necessity of getting the men than it is now, when we have had a lull of so many months in that danger? But nobody can foresee the future. At any moment a new attack like that of the 21st March may be made. Therefore as a Government we have to weigh the dangers on one side and the dangers on the other, and with a full sense of responsibility—for I agree with my hon. and right hon. Friends in that matter that it is a great responsibility—we have to decide as best we can what is the danger which is most menacing and in what way we can best use the forces available for the nation. That is our position.
    The hon. Member who spoke last said 30,000 men will not have a great influence on the War. We cannot look at it in that way. Remember that these are 30,000 not only A 1 men, but young men. They are the very kind of men who can be placed in the front lines. These 30,000 men represent the vital force which is needed to supply between three and four divisions, in the fighting in which we are engaged,

    1527
    and you cannot say that that is not important. But it does not stop there. The most difficult question, I think I may say, which the Cabinet have had to decide in the last six months, and perhaps longer, is precisely the use which we are to make of the available man-power of this country. We have had the representatives of agriculture over and over again before us on this point, but they are not the only representatives who come to the Cabinet. I could quite imagine, if all the facts were known and if hon. Members of thus House were informed exactly what the position is—I can quite imagine a Debate arising in the House as to the taking away of coal miners, and one which would make a case, perhaps, not quite so strong, but almost as strong as has been made to-day for agriculture. And more than that, we have to decide—we have had to take a decision this week—on the relative importance of purely military demands for man-power. The sending away of any fit man does at least endanger the rapid supply of munitions of war of a particular kind, which is a military necessity, and which are urgently demanded at the front to-day. We have got to decide between them. If the House of Commons were to hear case after case of this kind and to judge it on its merits as it is presented, I have not the smallest doubt that the result would be that a tremendous number of the men who are now going to the front would be withdrawn and our forces would be left much weaker than they are.
    It is a case of relative danger. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) said, "If the Government say we are in the last ditch, then there is not a word more to say." At all events it has been said, "If you are in the last ditch there is not a word more to be said." I do not say we are in the last ditch. I do not think we are in the last ditch; but no one who knows what happened on the 21st March, who knows that a similar attack is probably imminent now, and who realises, as we all must, that it is not going to be settled by one attack or two attacks, but that the whole aim of the German military strategy of this year is to wear out all our reserves, and defeat us through reserves not being there—anyone realising that must realise also that the first duty of this Government to-day is to make it as certain as we can make it that we shall not suffer a defeat this campaign which
    1528
    will render anything that we may do next year useless, whatever that may be. I really am very unwilling to make a speech at all on this subject, but I must put this to the House of Commons, and I am sure they sympathise with me when I do it.
    The longer the War goes on the more difficult it becomes in every department of national life connected with the War. The difficulties become every month greater. It must be so. These questions, such as the right use of man-power, as I have said, cannot be decided by a discussion in the House of Commons, where one side of the case is put—and a very good case put, for I do not want the House to think that I minimise the seriousness with regard to what is happening to agriculture. I do not want them to imagine that I do not realise as well as every Member who has spoken that for the Government one year to urge the whole agricultural community to plough up new land and then in a subsequent year to run the risk—I do not put it higher than that—of not getting the whole of the harvest, with the greater risk that the programme will not be carried out—I do not wish any Member to imagine that we do not realise how serious that is; but I put this to the House. If there is one thing on which those responsible for the War, with all the facts before them, must be left to decide, it is precisely questions of this kind. I do not say to the House of Commons, "You have to give us a blank cheque." I admit freely that in these matters mistakes are very likely to be made. It is quite possible, for instance—I think it would be difficult, though it is quite possible—that the number of men who could have been got, if we had all been superhumanly wise, with less disturbance to national life. I think that is possible, but everyone is human, and to err is human. Mistakes may be made, and I do not for a moment suggest that when the House of Commons finds anything that looks like a bad method it should not call our attention to it. More than that, I think that this Government, like any other Government, and as much as any other Government, has been ready to take advantage of any hints which come from the House of Commons or anyone else. That is true, but in the main, realising, as the House must, the problem the Government have to face is one which is becoming increasingly difficult, it must be left to

    1529
    them to decide in what way the resources of the country shall be used in the conduct of the War.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has put a very good case from his point of view, and I want to say one word from the farmer's point of view, especially with regard to the speech of the Minister for Agriculture. It is not a fact that the farmer is thinking of whether he is going to lose money. What the farmer is thinking of this: he has been asked to make great sacrifices to cultivate more land, with the promise that the labour will be left to him so as to cultivate that land, and, with the assurance that it was necessary for him to make the sacrifice, he has ploughed up grass land in order that the country might be provided with food. Now he is told that, not only is the food question so unimportant that the men are going to be taken away, but it is practically thrown in his face that he objects because he is afraid he is going to lose money. I feel quite certain if the farmers of this country are told that it is necessary for the salvation and welfare of the country that they shall sacrifice these men, they are prepared to do so. But in that case do not let them have any interference from Government Departments or agricultural committees. The farmers are perfectly willing to make the sacrifice if left to manage their own affairs in their own way. They will be perfectly willing to lose money and to make the best of a bad job, but not to be harassed by officials of various Departments telling them to do things it is utterly impossible for them to do. I do not want at the moment to go into the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman as regards the plouging up of grass land, which has been an abject failure in many cases. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to laugh, but his own officials have seen instances where the result has been an absolute failure, and in many cases, where something has been grown, it will not pay for the cost of the seed. What the farmers do feel is that they have been harassed by officials who know nothing about the matter, and have been told to do—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Those matters are not within the scope of the leave obtained, which is confined to a definite subject.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I thought, on the Motion for the adjournment of the House,
    1530
    one had a little scope, and the right hon. Gentleman himself raised the matter. But I will not pursue it. It is quite sufficient for me to say that it will be absolutely impossible for the whole of this harvest to be got in. If it is more important to have men than food, then the men must be got and the food left. The getting in of the harvest is not the only thing. There will be the preparation of the land for next year's harvest, and if there is not labour to do that, not only will this year's harvest be lost, but a considerable portion of next year's harvest will be lost. The right hon. Gentleman knows better than I do as to whether the question of food is, comparatively speaking, so unimportant that he can afford to run the risk. If he can, I feel quite certain the farmers as a whole will assist him in every way they can, but they do ask that if they make this further sacrifice they shall be left in the future to manage their own business in their own way without interference from anybody else. If it is necessary to do this, it must be done; but it must be done in a proper way, and it must be done with some consideration for those people who have done what they have been asked to do by the Government, and have now been thrown over.
    Colonel GRETTON: This Debate has been initiated by hon. Members from Wales, who seem to think that this matter has pressed particularly strongly upon their counties. I will not discuss the matter from that point of view. I was rather surprised to find that the two English Members who intervened in the Debate joined in the general geremiad that has been hurled at the head of the Agricultural Minister. I do not take their view. I believe that the farming community have resources, determination, and ingenuity to meet even this heavy drain upon their means. Here and there we find, as in every community, men who grumble, and who will not exert themselves to meet the necessities of the case. My experience of the farming community is very different from that which appears to have been the lot of some, judging from the remarks we have heard here to-night. Farmers are deserving of praise. They do not easily adapt themselves to new methods, and undoubtedly a crisis has come over the agriculture of the country. Still, I do not see there is any reason why we should be spared from meeting the position in having to give up these men.

    1531
    There is no question that the men are required. I wonder, though, whether other sections of the community are being pressed as hardly as are the agricultural section. We see in, for instance, the particular district that I represent ironstone workers and numbers of young fellows of military age working at aerodromes and so on. They are getting very high wages, and having very easy times. I refer now to the Army at home. It is an exceedingly wasteful employer of labour. In an agricultural office which I frequent I have seen a notice that the Army is prepared to release men who are not proceeding abroad, or actually in the Armies abroad, for the service of their former employers, so that they may return to the land. That is a most valuable concession, and one which will, to some extent, meet the urgency of the situation. After all, the men who can be released in this way, and who are not really required for fighting purposes, but are wastefully employed in the Army, can be sent back to their agricultural counties for the agricultural committees to deal with. There is need for ploughmen and horsemen. These men will do much to meet the situation. Then, again, there will be draining and ploughing for this coming winter. I am certain, however, that with the good will of all, and with the increasing efficiency of women, we shall get through. Many women have turned out to be extraordinarily efficient. The other day I saw five women haymaking. Two of them developed a strong determination to work all day in loading hay on wagons and would not stop. They really would go on the day after. Women have risen to the emergency, and have found that they have got a strength and an adaptability that men did not at all believe they possessed when they first began to employ them. In these and other ways, especially in the matter of the substitutes provided by the National Service Department, we shall arrange by one means or another to stop the gaps in the most urgent cases, and as time goes on to find the men to supplement the labour we have got. I hope in this matter the Board of Agriculture or practical farmers will not be misled this season by the appearance of the harvest last year. They did very well last year. Labour was found for the harvest, but it was a very short harvest. The crop was a light one. The promise this year is that the crop will not be so light. The area of
    1532
    land is very much greater. A greater effort will have to be made to supply the required labour. The agricultural committee is prepared to make the effort required with very few exceptions. With good will on the part of the Government Departments and some effort to carry out the promise to release men from the Army not required for fighting purposes we shall manage to scrape along. I did not think it right that there should be one general chorus of despondency when I believe, as a matter of fact, the difficulty can be got over by good will on all sides.
    Sir NORVAL HELME: I have a suggestion to put before the Government that when the President of the Board of Agriculture or Board of Trade or Local Government Board has a question placed before him which primâ facie carries with it a case for inquiry, the head of that Government Department should have the right of communicating with the military authority and saying, "Please hold up the calling up of this individual until we have had an opportunity of advising you upon the case." I say this because of the great difficulty in which the war agricultural committes in the counties are placed. In the county of Lancashire, with all the desire possible to stand by the Government, I am under a firm belief that mistakes have been made. Certain individuals have asked that their sons or men in their employ should not be released for service, and the war agricultural committee of the county could not see its way to grant that request. Consequently, calling-up notices were issued, and in two cases I was asked if I could use my influence with the Board of Agriculture to deal with the cases. I want to recognise how courteous a response was made. In one case a farmer in my Constituency asked that his son might be continued in his exemption. He is a farmer with 1,000 acres of land, with sheep and lambs running into four figures. He had a younger son in Class 3 totally unable to do the work, and the farmer asked that his other son might be exempted, and the President said he would kindly look into the matter. Here may I acknowledge the generous consideration which the National Service Department gave. They immediately said that the case might be deferred for five days to give time. Unfortunately five days were not sufficient, because the Board of Agriculture discovered that they had not the power to deal with it.

    1533
    I asked the chairman of the war agricultural committee in Lancashire, and he authorised me to say here that the Government were giving Lancashire an impossible task, and they could not have it both ways. They were asked to find a definite quota of men, and they could not do it without interfering with the food supplies of the county. Here is this farm of 1,000 acres of land. The farmer has this one son, who is the shepherd, and he went at the end of the five days, joined the Army, and this farmer found himself in this unfortunate position. He went to shepherd his sheep, and the dogs would not respond to his call; and other difficulties arose. That farmer has already put so many more acres of land under crop, and he asked me to put this question to the Board: Is one man sufficient to do this shepherding and all the rest of the farm work, seeing that the other younger man is not physically strong? He is in that position. I am not pleading for individual cases. I am pleading for a principle, and I think that the heads of a Department ought to be in a position to judge, and ought to have the right to ask the War Office to hold back until they themselves have given their decision. I have another case in which a farmer asks for help. His eldest son is at the War. A second son has gone into the Army, and there is a young child left. He has 340 acres. I want to press the Government, where it can be shown that the men cannot do the work, not to leave the war agricultural committee in the difficult position in which they are placed. The hon. Member for the Tavistock Division (Sir J. Spear), who has gone to meet a son back from France, asked me to say that he would have been able to give cases of which he has an abundance, and that he desired to raise his voice in support of the plea that careful consideration should be given to agriculture.
    Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and negatived.

  EDUCATION BILL.
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment, at end of Clause 20, to add the words,
  "Provided always that when a child is boarded out in pursuance of this Section the
  1534
  local education authority shall, if possible, and if the parent so request, arrange for the boarding-out being with a person belonging to the religious persuasion of the child's parent."—[Sir Mark Sykes.]
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: If the right hon. Gentleman looks closely at the words of this Amendment, which he has accepted at short notice, he will see that they carry a meaning which perhaps he did not realise at the moment. The Clause provides that certain children in exceptional circumstances shall go to a school where arrangements for boarding and feeding children is part of the plan. The Amendment assumes that the only boarding-out which occurs will take place with private families, and it is therefore in partial contradiction to the meaning of the Clause itself. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish, by accepting this Amendment, to deprive himself of the power of taking advantage either of hostels or schools with boarding-out arrangements. Has he considered that very important aspect of the Amendment which he has now accepted?
  Mr. FISHER: I do not see the inconsistency which the hon. Member has brought to my notice. Under the operation of the Clause, the local education authority may make such arrangements either of a permanent or temporary character, including the provision of board and lodging, as they think best suited for the purpose of enabling these children to receive the benefit of efficient elementary education, and may for that purpose enter into such agreement with the parent of any such child as they think proper. Then the Amendment goes on to state, in effect, that the local education authority, in entering into such agreement with the parent, shall so far as possible pay attention to any desire which the parent may express with respect to the religious persuasion of the person with whom the child is boarded out. I see no inconsistency.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment—after the words last inserted, to add the words,
  "If any Act is passed in this or any succeeding Parliament bringing to an end the functions of boards of guardians under the Poor Law, a local education authority may, with the approval of the Board of Education, accept and maintain any Poor Law school or other institution for children which may be transferred to it"—

  1535
  standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson) is too hypothetical. With regard to the Amendment—after the words last inserted, to add the words,
  "Provided that no parents may be compelled to send their children to schools established under this Section providing board and lodging"—
  standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanarkshire (Mr. Whitehouse), it is quite unnecessary. There is no compulsion possible under this Clause.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: On a point of Order. I want to suggest, with great respect, that Clause 20 is not clear and that unless some modifying words are put in it is by no means certain that a parent could not be compelled, where other schools are not available, to send his children to a school contemplated under this Clause where a child would be boarded and fed. I suggest that that pont is not clear, and that it would be reasonable to discuss the question whether the assent of the parents should not be necessary before the child is taken away from the home to a boarding institution.
  The CHAIRMAN: It seems to be a very remote possibility, but I will not stand in the hon. Member's way if he thinks it worth while to put the point.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, after the words last added, to add the words,
  "Provided that no parents may be compelled to send their children to schools established under this Section providing board and lodging."
  I only move the Amendment in order to receive the assurance which I am sure the President will be able to give, that no young person shall be compelled to go to a boarding school if the parents do not wish it.
  Mr. FISHER: I am perfectly willing to give the hon. Member that assurance. I am advised that the purpose of this Amendment is already secured in the Clause.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow
  1536
  and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik)—[At end of Clause to add the words "(2) The Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act is hereby amended so as to include physically defective children as well as those mentally defective"]—should come as a new Clause.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  EDUCATION BILL.

    CLAUSE 21.—(Power to Aid Research.)
    With a view to promoting the efficiency of teaching and advanced study a local education authority for the purposes of Part II. of the Education Act, 1902, may aid teachers and students to carry on research in or in connection with an educational institution.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I nave put down an Amendment to insert, after the word "aid," the words "approved educational institutions within its area, and may also aid." This would enable a local education authority not only to aid students and teachers to carry on research work, but also to aid institutions in which such research work is carried on. It may save time if I may be allowed to move the Amendment in another form, by moving to add, at the end of the Clause, the words "and with that object may aid educational institutions." With your permission, Mr. Whitley, I will reserve the few words I have to say until that Amendment can be moved in its proper place.
    The CHAIRMAN: There is no need to-put the Amendment at this place.
    Sir J. LARMOR: I beg to move, after the word "on" ["carry on research"], to insert the words "any investigation for the advancement of learning or."
    I heartily welcome the principle contained in the Clause, and the reason why I put down the Amendment was with a view to eliciting from the President some sort of definition of what is intended to be conveyed by the very ambitious word "research." I have looked at the end of the Bill and find there is no definition of "research" there. I confess that when any person tells me that he is engaged on research I look upon him with a considerable amount of suspicion. The word research, which entered into these matters with a very laudable definition no doubt, has in time come to have a meaning which makes one rather creep at the idea. In the time before the War one heard questions and complaints in this House that the Government was advertising for research chemists for Woolwich Arsenal at

    1537
    a wage of £3 a week, and we are accustomed to see people of ordinary standing as analytical chemists advertising in the trade journals for research assistants at £1 a week, or something like that. While cordially approving the principle that encouragement towards the advancement of knowledge should be an essential part of the training of the teachers, not because they are going to advance knowledge very much, but because the effort to do so will be of extreme value to them, and give them a different point of view, I cordially accept it, but I do not like the notion of teachers under training going about and telling the world in a superior way that they are engaged in research. It is an attitude which the people who have most right to use such language are never guilty of taking up. I am afraid I have been very critical on the matter, but research is an invention of this century.
    Mr. FISHER: In order to save time I may say I shall be quite happy to accept the Amendment.
    Sir J. LARMOR: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, I hope the Committee has not misconceived the object with which I moved it, but I wished to make it clear that these people were not unduly to go about assuming an air of importance which their betters did not assume and which probably they would not assume except to the weaker members of the fraternity.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words "either within or without its own area."
    I move this for the purpose of getting an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman. The position at present is that there is power in the education authority to support an institution outside its own area. It was suggested to me that this Bill in some way restricted that power. I do not think it does, but I have put the Amendment down in order to get an assurance.
    Mr. FISHER: I am happy to give the hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance for which he asks.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir J. LARMOR: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words "of university rank."
    1538
    The supervision of advanced studies of this kind is a very difficult and delicate matter, and one on which the local education authorities will do well to have every assistance they can from the universities, which are accustomed to it. It is a matter on which a good deal of cant, and even humbug, have been perpetrated. Universities and university institutions are accustomed to it, and would be able to judge whether it is being done with effect or whether it is merely a superficial affair. I should hope that something will be added in the nature of my Amendment, so as to secure that in institutions in which this higher kind of teacher is required the teacher shall be of university rank or subject to the supervision of university authorities.
    Mr. FISHER: It is with great diffidence that I part from the hon. Member for Cambridge University on a matter affecting scientific research; but there is one considerable practical objection to the Amendment in the form as it is moved. There would be great difficulty in determining what constitutes an educational institution of university rank. There are a number of institutions on the border line, and the insertion of these words would give rise to great disputes as to the legality of expenditure incurred under the Clause. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment.
    Sir J. LARMOR: I have no wish to press it against the judgment of my right hon. Friend, but I would press my point that these technical colleges and institutions would be very much better with some sort of affiliation to a university centre, and if such affiliation can be promoted by putting some such words as these into the Bill which would give an advantage in that direction, I hope the President will bear the suggestion in mind.
    Mr. KING: There must be some protest against this. We have great respect for the universities, but they do not contain all the information or education in the world, and I should like to see young fellows sent out not only to America, but also to the Continent to make research. I can imagine many ways in which they could do most admirable work to carry out the intentions of the Clause without having anything to do with a university.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words "with the object of aiding educational institutions."

    1539
    I am very glad indeed that the President has accepted the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University. I should be very sorry indeed if the, word "research" were understood to signify research carried on for commercial purposes which would in any way interfere with the excellent work done by the Department of Research. I think, therefore, in view of the Amendment made, that we might add these words; it would be an improvement. It frequently happens that students and teachers in institutions which are not university institutions are carrying on investigations intended to advance learning which are of the utmost value. I know of two demonstrators in two technical institutions who were carrying on investigations of that kind and had no means of obtain ing assistance from the Government who have since become professors at two universities.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words,
    "Provided that such research shall not include experiments under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876."
    This Clause is very brief. It provides that
    "With a view to promoting the efficiency of teaching and advanced study a local education authority for the purposes of Part II. of the Education Act, 1902, may aid teachers and students to carry on research in or in connection with an educational institution."
    Other words have been added by the Amendment of the hon. Member for London University. I have no intention to raise the whole question as to the right or wrong of what is called vivisection, which I prefer to speak of as painful experiments upon animals. It is perfectly true that I and a very large number of persons, both inside and outside this House—and the list includes some of the very best and the greatest names of Englishmen, either living or dead—object absolutely to painful experiments upon animals. We think it is a great moral wrong, and I have never heard a principle by which it can be justified. I am quite aware that some people think that we are fools and fanatics for holding these opinions, but that does not trouble us in the least. In fact, considering the quarter from which these epithets come, we take them as a compliment. This is not a question whether painful experiments
    1540
    are right or wrong. I wish to propound two propositions which ought to command the general assent of the Committee. The first is that in view of the fact that a great many persons, be they right or wrong, object absolutely to these experiments, on the ground that they cannot be justified, and that they are a great moral wrong, these experiments ought not to be put upon public funds. I do not see that there is any answer to that. People object to pay for religious education of which they disapprove, and we object just as strongly, perhaps more strongly, to being called upon to pay for things which we hold in utter detestation as a great moral wrong. The second point is that whether vivisection is right or wrong it ought not to form part of the education of young persons, male or female, at our State-supported public schools. That is a proposition which ought to meet with universal support. Such education may be very appropriate for Germany. It would coincide with the German temperament to teach young people by painful experiments upon animals; but it is not suited for the higher education of English or Scottish boys and girls and young people.
    11.0 P.M.
    It may be said that we have no intention of doing any such thing, but the word used in this Clause is "research." I look upon that word with holy horror, because I know that the advocates of painful experiments upon animals conceive only one thing by research—that is research by vivisection. There was, and I believe that there still is in this country, a society known as the Society for the Defence of Research. That was simply a vivisection research society. There is no need in this country for a society for the defence of any other research. We have had a very painful experience of what is meant by the word "research" in the National Insurance Act. Section 16 of that Act provided that the sums available for defraying the expenditure on sanatorium benefit each year shall be, first, 1s. 3d. in respect of each insured person, and, second, 1d. in respect of each such person payable out of moneys provided by Parliament, and it goes on to provide that the Insurance Commissioners may retain the whole or any part of the money so payable out of moneys provided by Parliament for the purposes of research I myself put down Amendments, and my hon. Friend the Member

    1541
    for Haggerstqn (Mr. Chancellor), the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Alden), the hon. Member for Biggleswade (Sir A. Black), and others, put down Amendments for the purpose of raising the question, but as a result of the guillotine closure those Amendments were never discussed, and now we find that a very large part of the funds is used for research which takes the shape of painful experiments upon living animals. And these are not pinprick experiments. I myself by question have drawn attention to some cruel experiments on dogs and cats. The parathyroic glands are cut and the sciatic nerve is severed, and the animals are kept days and days under observation until they either die or are destroyed. That is all done in the name of research, and is paid for out of public funds, so that we have a State endowment of vivisection.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: On a point of Order. If the hon. Member is allowed to continue the Debate on these lines, with regard to the advantages or disadvantages of vivisection, or whether these experiments are carried on so as cause pain to the animals, the Debate must continue for a considerable time, and necessarily Members who take a different view must have an opportunity of replying.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not see where the point of Order comes in. I think that the hon. Member is entitled to put his arguments before the Committee. It is not always necessary to elaborate debate.
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: I am not surprised that the hon. Baronet the Member for London University raised the point of Order. I was giving an example of how research work is now being considered under the National Insurance Act, so that moneys which ought to be applied to sanatorium benefit are now applied to these experiments which we hold in abhorrence and detestation. We want to guard against a further extension of this State endowment for painful experiments upon animals. We do not want it to be brought in under cover of an Education Act. I need hardly remind the President of the Board of Education that one of the greatest of our teachers, a man who bears an immortal name, John Ruskin, resigned his professorship at Oxford rather than be a party to the endowment of vivisection in the university. We who are hostile to painful experiments upon animals are often accused of being inimical to science. I utterly repudiate that charge.
    1542
    I have always been a humble worshipper in the temple of science, though I may not have penetrated beyond the vestibule; but the path of science is strewn with the corpses of dead delusions. I know that science and scientists are not convertible terms. I know there are certain things which Professor Huxley warned us against as pseudo-science. I know that things are done in the name of science which are a disgrace to the name of humanity. This is a thing that ought not to be brought in under cover of an Education Act and the higher education of British boys and girls. I have the greatest possible respect for the science of physiology, but it is not the only science. There is also the science of ethics, and I think we owe much greater reverence to the science of ethics than to the science of physiology. I put this Amendment before the Committee, for really I do not think it can be intended that boys, young men, and young women in the course of their education should, in State-supported schools, be taught lessons in painful experiments upon animals. If that is not intended, then I cannot see why this Amendment should not be accepted. Of course I know that the students and teachers would not be licensed to conduct these experiments, but they might be sent to classes where these experiments are carried on. Those who think with me think that that would be in the last degree detrimental to them.
    Mr. FISHER: I think the Committee will agree with the Government in the opinion that an Education Bill is not the place in which to discuss the merits or the demerits of vivisection, and I may further add that the Amendment which has been proposed by the hon. Member would not have the effect of preventing experiments upon living animals, nor, I believe, limiting the number of these experiments. It would merely have the effect of preventing a local education authority from assisting a young person to undertake post-graduate research at any university in the medical department of which some such experiments were already undertaken it would have the effect of raising a doubt whether a local education authority was justified in assisting, as many local education authorities already do, universities in the medical departments of which such experiments are carried out. I think that would be an unfortunate result, and the acceptance of the Amendment would not negative the principle to which the hon.

    1543
    Member objects—possibly quite rightly objects. Even if the Amendment were carried these experiments would continue to be assisted in many cases from public funds, and I do feel that a question of this importance should be dealt with separately, should be treated as a whole and in relation to the requirements of medical science, and it would be somewhat unfortunate if this Committee, in settling this particular Clause in the Education Bill, should attempt to deal with a principle of such far-reaching importance.
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: Is it intended then that vivisectional research should possibly form part of the higher education in the schools? Is that part of the right hon. Gentleman's intention? I have not had a word of sympathy.
    Mr. FISHER: I think that under the operation of the Clause it would be competent for a local education authority to give assistance to a poor young man who had gifts for research and who desired to enter the medical profession.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The Clause goes a little further than that. I have just studied it, and it says:
    "May aid teachers."
    The right hon. Gentleman says that the effect of the Clause would be that, if there were a capable young man desirous of entering the medical profession, the local education authority might give him certain assistance in learning certain matters connected with vivisection. That may be so, but why teachers?
    Mr. FISHER: Because research is useful.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Then the Clause goes considerably further, and enables public money to be used for assisting teachers, and students to practice research, and research which involves experiments on living animals. That may be a good thing or a bad thing, but I really do not think that that is a thing which ought to be put in an Education Bill. We are wandering very far. I had occasion earlier in the Debate to criticise a Clause which dealt with the employment of children, and enabled a local education authority to demand from parents and employers particulars of the work which the children were doing, and to say, "In our opinion we do not think you ought to do that work. Therefore, you cannot do it." That
    1544
    seemed to me to be going a little too far, but if now, after a discussion which is supposed to deal with education and continuation schools, in addition to settling where children are to be employed, we are giving out of public money to enable local authorities to instruct teachers and students to research involving experiments on living animals, to which a great many people object and think quite wrong, it seems to me that we are, in a very empty House, and after a long Debate on very serious matters connected with the War, going to pass something very far-reaching which is going to affect a great number of people who have no idea what it is. I think the right hon. Gentleman might give us some assurance that this will not be permitted. I do not think the majority of the country understand that under the Education Bill their money is to be taken for something to which many of them object. It really has nothing whatever to do either with elementary or secondary education, and I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us some hope that he will either accept the Amendment or move one on the Report stage.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not wish to accuse the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fisher) of discourtesy, but I hope I made my point politely, and I do think he might have given a moment for reply. There is an opportunity now on the Question that the Clause stand part, and I hope that he will say a word, if it is only that he cannot accept my suggestion.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I think it would be a great pity if the powers of these local authorities under this Clause were confined merely to enabling teachers and students to follow advanced courses of research in educational institutions. I hope the President is going to make suggestions in regard to the use of this Clause to the local authorities, and I sincerely trust that one of his suggestions will be that the local authorities will make it possible for teachers and students of the right kind to travel in foreign countries, and particularly in America, to study the educational problems and methods of other countries.
    Mr. FISHER: I should be sorry to lay myself open to any imputation of discourtesy to the right hon. Baronet. That is the last thing I should wish to do. There seems to be a great deal of misconception as to the meaning of this very innocent word "research." The very last significance I attach to the word is the significance attached to it by my right hon. Friend. Research is a very wide term. It covers all forms of research—literary, historical and scientific, and this Clause was first suggested to me by a great municipality in the North, which had a first-rate technical college, and which desired some assistance towards the prosecution of a particularly valuable form of industrial research which would be very valuable to the local industries. As things stood, while this technical college could receive assistance from the Board of Education and from the rates for education, it was unable to receive assistance for research, in spite of the fact that it is well known to all teachers that a teacher who is doing a little original work is worth five times his value to his pupils, as there is nothing so stimulating to the pupils who attend the teacher as the knowledge that the teacher is extending the boundaries of knowledge. I look to very great results upon education in this country for the passing of this Clause. At the same time, I freely admit that the Clause may in certain rare instances be used to assist not individual students, but universities, and as universities possess a medical department, and as in the medical department it is possible under conditions carefully safeguarded by the Home Office for such experiments to be carried on, I take it that the contribution from the local education authority to a university would, if the Amendment were carried, be eliminated. I think that is an objection to the acceptance of the Amendment.
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: I am very sorry that this discussion came on at this time of night. If it had come on earlier, and there had been more Members present, I should certainly, for what it is worth, have taken a Division upon it. We now
    1546
    know that there is to be a further State endowment from funds contributed by the general taxpayer—by myself and others—for this thing which we look upon with abhorrence as a moral wrong. The President says, "Oh, but this is carried on at universities, and the local authority ought to be able to subscribe to the universities even although they do carry on research of this description." But we want to narrow it down. He talks of other research—dyes and things of that sort. We are all for that. Let money be applied to that, but why should you not say, in this particular case at any rate, it shall not be done at public expense and in the course of higher education? I lament excessively the line which has been taken, and I must say I think in this case the President and the Government have been guilty of a monstrous injustice.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The hon. Member said had this Debate occurred at any other time he would have pressed this question. It is only fair to say there is a very large number of Members here who disagree with everything he has said and who have not joined in the Debate because we have debated this matter frequently. It would be monstrous if the President gave way on this matter and selected this most useful branch of research to hold it up to obloquy and to exclude one branch of scientific research from the Education Bill.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six minutes after Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  AFFORESTATION.
  AFFORESTATION.
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SALARIES).
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SALARIES).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  TEA.
  TEA.
  GRASS LANDS (PLOUGHING).
  GRASS LANDS (PLOUGHING).
  QUEEN MARY'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS.
  QUEEN MARY'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (TRANSPORTATION BRANCH).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (TRANSPORTATION BRANCH).
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES.
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES.
  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT.
  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT.
  TRADE ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
  TRADE ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ARMY PAY DEPARTMENT.
  ARMY PAY DEPARTMENT.
MUNITIONS.
  ALLOY STEEL (AERO ENGINES).
  ALLOY STEEL (AERO ENGINES).
  WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEES (INSPECTORS).
  WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEES (INSPECTORS).
ALIENS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MUSWELL HILL SHOOTING CASE.
  MUSWELL HILL SHOOTING CASE.
  WOOL CONTRACTS.
  WOOL CONTRACTS.
  RAILWAY TRAVELLING (RESTRICTIONS).
  RAILWAY TRAVELLING (RESTRICTIONS).
  RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS.
  RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS.
  Irish Police (Fay and Allowances).
  Irish Police (Fay and Allowances).
  Clubs Registered.
  Clubs Registered.