Sitting of 2 July 1918

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

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

Maidenhead Gas Bill.

South Suburban Gas Bill.

Ordered, That the Bills be committed.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER Laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords].

Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Private Bills [Lords] (no Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER Laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Calthorpe Estate Bill [Lords].

Scarisbrick Estate Bill [Lords].

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

GAS BILLS.
Brentford Gas Bill (by Order),
Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [20th March] further adjourned till Tuesday, 23rd July.
Cannock Gas Bill (by Order),
Hampton Court Gas Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 23rd July.
Liverpool Gas Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 16th July.
Longwood and Slaithwaite Gas Bill (by Order),
Yeadon and Guiseley Gas Bill (by Order),
Cardiff Gas Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 23rd July.
Commercial Gas Bill (by Order),
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 16th July.
Hastings and St. Leonard's Gas Bill (by Order),
Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Bill (by Order),
Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 23rd July.
Portsea Island Gas Light Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 16th July.
Richmond Gas Bill (by Order),
Southampton Gas Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 23rd July.

SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. GILBERT: I object.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Sir Donald Maclean): I do not know if my hon. Friend who has objected to this Bill notices the Motion which is down in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means on page 206 of the

1549
Order Paper. It is a matter of agreement that the Bill should go forward with all these disputed gas Clauses cut out. I do not know whether in those circumstances the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his objection and allow the Bill to proceed.
Mr. GILBERT: I understood that all these London Gas Bills were to be considered together. I understood that from what was said regarding two other Bills which affect London—the Commercial Gas Bill and the Gas Light and Coke Company Bill—which were postponed till 16th July. We Member who are connected with London certainly thought that all the London Bills would be taken together and not split up.
Sir D. MACLEAN: The promoters of this Bill have agreed that these disputed Clauses should be struck out. They have one or two other domestic matters in the Bill, and I hope that on that understanding the hon. Gentleman will allow the Bill to proceed.
Mr. GILBERT: I am very sorry I must object to this Bill.
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 16th July.
South Shields Gas Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 16th July.
Swansea Gas Bill (by Order),
York Gas Bill (by Order),
Basingstoke Gas Bill (by Order),
Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 23rd July.
Alliance and Dublin Gas Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 16th July.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders Bill,
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Glasgow and South-Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill (by Order).
Read a second time; to be considered To-morrow.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local authority, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:

City of Nottingham

[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JOINT COMMITTEE) REGULATIONS.
Copies presented of Regulations made by the Commissioners, and dated 28th June, 1918, entitled the—

National Health Insurance (Inquiries as to Medical Practitioners and Chemists) Regulations, 1918;

National Health Insurance (Associations of Approved Societies) Regulations, 1918;

National Health Insurance (Unclaimed Proceeds of Stamp Sales) Regulations, 1918;

National Health Insurance (Reserve and Transfer Values) Regulations, 1918;

National Health Insurance (Exempt Persons) Consolidated Regulations, 1918;

National Health Insurance (War Occupations) Regulations, 1918;

National Health Insurance (Arrears) Regulations, 1918,

[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 28th June, 1918, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Appeal from Insurance Committee Audit) Regulations, 1918 [by Act; to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir Daniel Goddard reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B; The Attorney-

1551
General for Ireland, Mr. William Boyle, Mr. Dawes, Mr. Grant, Captain Bennett-Goldney, Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare, Colonel Sir John Hope, Major Hunt, Mr. Ernest Jardine, Major Lane-Fox, Sir Francis Lowe, Colonel Wheler, and Colonel Penry Williams; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Montague Barlow, Colonel Boles, Mr. Bridgeman, Mr. Ernest Craig, Mr. Denniss, Mr. Holt, Colonel McCalmont, Mr. Neville, Colonel Orde-Powlett, Mr. Pulley, Mr. Runciman, The Solicitor-General for Scotland, and Captain Wright.
Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee, That they had added to Standing Committee B the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Trade Boards Bill): Major Barnston, Sir Rowland Barran, Colonel Bathurst, Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, Mr. Denman, Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Keating, Mr. James Mason, Sir Maurice Levy, Sir Robert Newman, Mr. Perkins, Mr. George Roberts, Mr. Rowntree, Mr. Scanlan, and Mr. Somervell.
Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee, That they bad added to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Education (Scotland) Bill): Colonel Ashley, Mr. Boland, Mr. Broughton, Mr. Dillon, Colonel Du Pre, Mr. Goldstone, Major Sir Charles Hunter, Sir Joseph Larmor, Mr. Butler Lloyd, Mr. Macmaster, Sir Philip Magnus, Mr. Marriott, Mr. Alexander Richardson, Colonel Staveley Hill, and Colonel Weston.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    STEEL EXPORTS TO FRANCE.
    Mr. THOMAS WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether, in connection with the supply to France of tin-plates and steel, the system of having only one buyer, the Comité des Forges, for all British exports from this country to France was initiated and maintained at the request of the British Government; if so, whether the
    1552
    policy will be reconsidered, in view of the dissatisfaction being expressed amongst manufacturers and merchants both in this country and in France regarding the monopoly at present enjoyed by the Comité des Forges; (2) whether he is aware that the activities of the Comité des Forges de France are giving concern to manufacturers in this country; that this body, which is a private association of the principal French steel works, holds the monopoly of imports into France; that British merchants were, and are now, able to supply tin-plates and steel at much lower prices than the Comité des Forges are now charging the French consumer; and whether he is prepared to receive and consider the views of British merchants on this matter!
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord R. Cecil): I venture to refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Mansfield on the 13th of June, to which I have nothing to add.

    POLISH NATIONAL COMMITTEE.

      REPRESENTATIVE IN LONDON.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Mr. Ladis-Sobanski is exercising the functions of a Consular Agent for the Polish National Committee at 2, Upper Montagu Street, Russell Square: whether the Foreign Office acknowledge Mr. Sobanski's right to act in respect of enrolling Poles for the Army, legalising documents requiring Consular attestation, and granting or visaing permits or passoports to leave England; if so, what Polish Government does this gentleman represent; and whether there exists now any Polish Government not under enemy domination?
      Lord R. CECIL: Count Ladislas Sobanski is the representative in London of the Polish National Committee, which has been recognised by all the Allied Governments as the most practicable channel through which to deal with Polish communities and interests in each country. The Committee has for this purpose been granted the right, subject generally to the control of the British authorities, of exercising certain functions in some degree analogous to those exercised by Consuls. It does not claim to represent

      1553
      any Polish Government. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
      Mr. KING: Are Russian subjects of Polish origin or domicile allowed to enlist under the auspices of Mr. Sobanski rather than under ordinary military authorities here?
      Lord R. CECIL: I am afraid I do not in the least understand the question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down.
      Mr. KING: Yes; I will.

    CHINA.

      IRON-MINING CONCESSION.
      Sir CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a Japanese syndicate have obtained possession or control of an important iron-mining concession in the Yangtse River area; whether this area is one more particularly reserved for British enterprises; and, if so, whether the British Ambassador or Foreign Office were consulted before the concession was asked for or granted?
      Lord R. CECIL: His Majesty's Government are aware that negotiations are proceeding for the acquisition by a Japanese syndicate of the Feng Huang Shan Iron Mines near Nanking, but they have no official information that the negotiations have been concluded. The mines are situated in the Yangtse River area, which His Majesty's Government have always regarded as their special sphere of interest in China, in the sense that British subjects possess a prior claim to the favounrable consideration by the Chinese authorities of applications which they may make for industrial concessions in that region; but they are of opinion that neither British nor any other foreign claims to spheres of interest in China should be pressed so far as to be inconsistent with the principle of the "open door." The anwer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
      Sir C. HOBHOUSE: As no prior favourable consideration has been given to British interests, will my Noble Friend make such representations to the Chinese Government as will ensure delay in the final grant of this concession until full consideration of British interests has been assured?
      Lord R. CECIL: I will certainly consider that. Of course, British interests do not vitally affect this arrangement.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.

      RECONSTITUTION OF UNITS.
      Colonel YATEasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether the decision was made known on the 2nd May, 1916, that first-line Territorial units temporarily disbanded under pressure of military necessity would be reconstituted as units on the termination of hostilities and would be brought home as units, has been communicated to the Yeomanry regiments which have been broken up in order to strengthen Regular Cavalry regiments; and, if not, will he have that decision communicated to them without delay?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): The statement made by my predecessor on the 2nd May, 1916, to which I presume my hon. and gallant Friend refers, was made at a time when only a comparatively few Territorial Force units had been disbanded. As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epping on the 11th June, it is impossible to give any pledge in this matter until we are in a position to come to a decision as to the composition of the Army which it will be necessary to maintain after the War. It is, however, the intention that first-line Territorial Force units which have been broken up should be reformed at the end of the War, if the circumstances obtaining at that time permit of such a course.
      Mr. T. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear to these men what their position really is, because there is a great deal of misapprehension?
      Brigadier-General CROFT: Will consideration be given to the fact that when the first line Territorial units were called up, on the outbreak of war, they had no time to put their affairs in order—will that be considered in any matter of demobilisation?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: That fact will certainly be taken into consideration. With regard to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. T. Wilson), I cannot say anything more definite than I have said on this question.
      Colonel YATE: Will due consideration be given to this on the termination of hostilities?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: As I pointed out in my answer to the original question, I do not think the pledge was more than what I have just stated—that if it were at all possible these units would be reconstituted and reformed after the War.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      MALTA (COMPULSORY SERVICE).
      Colonel YATEasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether the Army Council have yet come to a decision on the question of the introduction of compulsory service into Malta and the calling out of all men there of military age for service, either in combatant units or Labour Battalions, as may be deemed best?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: It is not proposed at present to introduce compulsory service into Malta.
      Colonel YATE: If compulsory service has been introduced in the Channel Islands, is there any reason why it should not be introduced in the Mediterranean islands?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am told that all the facts were considered by the various Departments concerned, and that is the conclusion at which they arrived.
      Colonel YATE: Has the right hon. Gentleman had brought to his attention the speech of the Governor of Malta on the 15th March to two battalions of the Malta Militia, asking them to come forward and represent the honour of their country at the front, and to the miserable response given to that speech; and will the right hon. Gentleman not take steps to enforce it?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I have not seen that speech, but I am quite prepared to consider it.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Are the Roman Catholic hierarchy supreme in Malta?
      Lord R. CECIL: Not that I am aware of.

      WOMEN DOCTORS.
      Sir ROBERT NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether
      1556
      he is aware that women serving as whole-time doctors in, the Army and doing precisely the same work as their male colleagues receive neither military rank nor status, thereby being deprived of equal pay, ration, and travelling allowances, as well as a gratuity; that they have their letters censored and suffer under many disabilities owing to their not holding commissioned rank; and whether, under these circumstances, steps will be taken to grant women temporary commissioned rank, thus removing these grievances and at the same time showing a just appreciation of the services rendered by women doctors in connection with the War?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): My hon. Friend has been misinformed. Women serving as whole-time doctors in the Army for service at home and abroad receive the same pay, ration, travelling allowances, and gratuity, as temporary commissioned officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps. Those serving for home duty only on temporary engagements are treated in the same way as civilian medical men similarly employed. All officers have their letters censored. It is not proposed to grant commissions to women doctors.
      Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it advisable to give the same rank or commission to the women who are rendering such excellent service and are doing men's work?
      Mr. FORSTER: I do not quite follow my hon. Friend. I have just said that in regard to pay, ration, travelling allowances, and gratuity they do get the same.
      Sir A. S. BENN: I said "commission"—the same rank?
      Mr. FORSTER: No; not commission.
      Sir R. NEWMAN: Has the hon. Gentleman received any communication from the Medical Women's Federation, who have unanimously decided to press the Government by all means in their power to grant temporary rank to medical women serving in the War?
      Mr. FORSTER: I do not think I have seen that.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is it sex or incompetence that prevents them getting commissions?

      RECRUITING (IRELAND).
      Major NEWMANasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether the amount of the recruiting reward which is to be paid for each recruit obtained in Ireland under the recent voluntary recruiting scheme has been settled; and have arrangements been come to between the War Office and the Irish Government as to who actually is to get the money, whether the officials appointed by the Irish Government or the present, staff engaged on the work of recruiting?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The details of the new voluntary recruiting scheme in Ireland are still a matter of consideration between the civil and military authorities in Ireland, and no doubt the question of the payment of rewards for recruits obtained is one of the points receiving consideration.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this recruiting scheme is actually to be put into operation?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I believe it is being started now.
      Mr. KING: May we know exactly what Department or Departments it is that is responsible—is it the National Service Ministry or the Irish Office?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: It is neither.
      Mr. KING: Is it the War Office?
      Major NEWMAN: Before this scheme comes into effect will it be published?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think so; but I will make inquiries.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that recruiting in Ireland is being left in the hands of the War Office on account of the success with which it dealt with recruiting in Ireland in 1915?
      Colonel Sir JOHN HOPEasked the Minister of National Service what provisional arrangements he has already made for applying the Military Service (No. 2) Act, 1918, to Ireland in the event of the equitable ratio of recruits from Ireland not being obtained under the voluntary scheme; and if, considering the arrangements which he has already made, he can estimate the period which must still elapse between any final decision of the Government to apply the Military Service Act to
      1558
      Ireland and the actual posting to units of the first Irish recruits under a compulsory system?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): In view of the decision of the Government that Ireland should be asked to obtain a certain quota of recruits by voluntary enlistment, the application of the Military Service Acts to Ireland has been postponed. In the meantime no useful purpose will be served by stating what arrangements have been or will be made for the application of the Military Service Acts to Ireland in the event of the voluntary enlistment not providing the required number of recruits.
      Sir J. HOPE: Have any steps been taken to reduce the period which the Prime Minister said, on the 9th of April, it would take to apply the Military Service Act to Ireland?
      Mr. BECK: I think my hon. Friend had better address that question to the Leader of the House.
      Sir F. HALL: What hopes have the Government of raising 50,000 men in Ireland between now and the 1st of October?
      Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that the Department of National Service have nothing to do with recruiting in Ireland? If it has, cannot the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the necessary preliminary steps, which are bound to take some time, are being taken by the Government, in view of the possibility of the failure of voluntary efforts?
      Sir J. HOPE: Have no steps been taken by the Ministry of National Service?
      Mr. BECK: I had better have notice. We have nothing to do with voluntary recruiting in Ireland.
      Sir J. HOPE: I did in my question ask if any arrangement had been made.

      AGRICULTURAL VOLUNTEERS.
      Major NEWMANasked the Minister of National Service whether the intimation that men over forty-five years of age can enrol for agricultural work will be made retrospective and to apply to all men of over forty-five who have not actually been posted to a unit on 22nd June, in view of the shortage of labour for agriculture?
      Mr. BECK: Men over forty-five years of age in any grade are eligible to apply to enrol as War Agricultural Volunteers up to and including 6th July, even if they are actually under call for military service. The only exception is in the case of men who have exercised all their tribunal rights and been finally refused exemption.
      Mr. HARRIS: What rates of pay will they be paid, and will they receive separation allowances?
      Mr. BECK: I must have notice of that question.

      RECRUITING APPOINTMENTS (IRELAND).
      Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if any salary, and, if so, its amount, is attached to the various recruiting appointments which are from time to time notified as being made by the Irish Government; and will he say if the gazetting to military rank of civilians to aid in Irish recruiting carries with it the regulation pay and emoluments?
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Samuels): Salaries will be paid in the case of some of the appointments to the staff of the Irish Recruiting Council, although most of those who are acting are doing so voluntarily. The personnel of the staff and the salaries that may be paid to its civilian and military members have not been yet fully arranged.
      Major NEWMAN: If an hon. Member or anybody else is gazetted a colonel for Irish recruiting purposes, is he paid the full salary of a colonel?
      Mr. SAMUELS: The arrangements have not been fully completed yet.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is the appointment made without any stipulation as to salary?

      16TH MANCHESTER REGIMENT.
      Mr. MORRELL (by Private Notice)asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will make inquiries into the case of certain men belonging to the 16th Manchesters, now stationed at Cowshott Camp; and in particular if he will ascertain whether these men, who were all category B 2 men, were marched past the doctor and all marked as fit for general service, without undergoing any individual medical examination; whether he is aware that these
      1560
      men include some who are practically cripples and others who are subject to epileptic fits; and whether he will take any action in the matter?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I will make inquiries at once.

    SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
    General CROFTasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware that there are men at present serving in Salonika who have been absent from home for over three years; and whether arrangements can be immediately made to see that these men are given leave?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: As I stated on Thursday last, in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, owing to the restricted facilities for transportation, leave for troops serving at Salonika and other theatres of war in the East is necessarily limited. I can, however, assure my hon. and gallant Friend that everything possible, consistent with the military situation, is being done to increase the numbers to whom leave is granted. Preference is given to men who have served longest without leave.
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the possibility of granting greater facilities for leave to the men of the Yeomanry Division now serving in France who left England more than two years ago, and have not since had an opportunity of visiting their homes?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: As my hon. Friend will realise, the military exigencies of the moment only allow a limited number of troops being granted leave. When the situation permits of a resumption of this privilege, I am sure the Field-Marshal will give every consideration to cases, such as those mentioned, where leave has necessarily been postponed.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will a prior claim be recognised?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir; I will make a point of placing it before the Field-Marshal.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Under-Secretary of State for

    1561
    War whether he will consider the possibility of arranging that Driver C. Rawson, No. 19015, Royal Field Artillery, should be sent home, his mother having recently lost her husband and three sons, of whom two were killed on active service, Driver Rawson being her only surviving adult son?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This case will be forwarded to the Commander-in-Chief concerned for his consideration.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: This is the case of a pledge being given in this House—is it not?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes; I believe it is such a case. I am bringing it before the notice of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief.

    GENERAL SIR F. MAURICE.
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked what were the emoluments of General Sir F. Maurice as Director of Military Operations; and what is his present allowance from Army funds?
    Mr. FORSTER: As Director of Military Operations General Sir Frederick Maurice received £1,500 per annum. He is now in receipt of £225 per annum retired pay.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that that is the price of General Maurice for telling the truth?

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      HARVESTING (LABOUR).
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Undersecretary of State for War if he will consent to the release of skilled agricultural labour recently called to the Colours for the purpose of securing the harvest?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer is in the negative.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Are we to take it that it is the final decision of the Government that no men are to be released for the harvest?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand that it is.

      TEA.
      Mr. T. WILSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether the Department has had a scheme laid before
      1562
      it by China tea importers representing the trade for the purchase of a further 3,000,000 lbs. of tea of the present crop; whether the firm offers to undertake the entire financing of the scheme; whether he will, in view of the shortness of the time in which this transaction can be carried out, state the decision of the Department in the matter.
      The hon. Member also asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (2) whether his Department has had before it a scheme for the purchase of a further 3,000,000 lbs. of China tea; and, if so, whether it has approved of it?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I have been asked to reply to these questions. A proposal of the character indicated by the hon. Member has been considered, but in view of the difficulties of tonnage and exchange, it is not thought desirable to sanction further purchases of China tea until those already authorised have been completed and shipped.

      IMPORTED GOODS.
      Mr. SAMUEL SAMUELasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (1) if it is the intention of the Government to provide steamers for the coming season for the transport of dates from the Persian Gulf to the United Kingdom or the Continent; is he aware that the shipping season commences at the end of September, and that it is important for the merchants to know what arrangements are being made on account of advances to the natives; and is he aware that the cost of packing is nearly 1½d. a lb. as against id. a lb. in normal times; (2) whether, in view of the shortage of tea and sugar in this country, he will consider the advisability of devoting the 26,000 tons of space which were last year devoted to the carriage of dates from the Persian Gulf to the transport of tea from Ceylon and India to the United Kingdom, or sugar from Java to the United Kingdom; and is he aware that sugar can be purchased to-day at about 12s. a cwt. in Java?
      Mr. CLYNES: I understand that the quantity of dates shipped last year from the Persian Gulf to the United Kingdom was approximately 11,400 tons. The fact that the cost of packing has materially increased will not be allowed to stand in the way of securing a limited quantity of next season's dates, if the necessary

      1563
      transport is available, and this will be decided in time to make the requisite arrangements. The paramount importance of essential foodstuffs is always borne in mind in settling subsidiary purchases.
      Mr. SAMUEL: Who was it shipped the balance of the dates? Was it the military authorities, or what Department shipped the balance over and above the 11,000 tons?
      Mr. CLYNES: I have no knowledge of any balance being shipped other than the 5,000 tons.

    ARMY OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, considering that officers are liable to be detained in the Service for the duration of the War although they have completed their time for full pension, there is any Warrant that authorises the withholding from such officers thus detained the pension or the deferred pay that is due to them on completion of the prescribed period of service; and, if so, will he quote the words of that Warrant?
    Mr. FORSTER: The authority is Article 498 of the Pay Warrant, the words of which are as follow:
    "Officers who shall, during a time of national emergency, be retained by our Army Council beyond the time when they are liable to retire from our Army, and officers taken into employment before the occurrence of a national emergency and retained in such employment during such emergency, shall not be deemed to be employed under the conditions of Article 496, and shall continue to serve under the conditions of pay, etc., previously applicable to them."
    Colonel YATE: Is there anything in that that deprives the officer of the deferred pay to which he is entitled?
    Mr. FORSTER: An officer is not entitled to retired pay until he has retired.

    SMALL HOLDINGS (EX-SERVICE MEN).
    Captain STANLEY WILSONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it is intended to take over any more of the Crown lands in the East Riding of Yorkshire for the formation of farm colonies under the Small Holding
    1564
    Colonies (Amendment) Act; and, if so, if he will arrange that the tenants who are to be dispossessed of their holdings shall be given at least eighteen months' notice of such intention?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): The suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member will be carefully considered if and when the Small Holdings Colonies (Amendment) Bill becomes law.

    KING CHARLES' STATUE.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the First Commissioner of Works why the statue of King Charles at Charing Cross has been sandbagged and covered with staging, and what the estimated cost of this work will be; if he will say if it is proposed to deal with other public statues in London in the same way; and, if so, how many and what statues they are?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on the 19th June to the hon Member for Portsmouth for the reasons for this work, the estimated cost of which is £450. It is not my present intention to have any other statutes similarly treated.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the hon. Gentleman not consider the claims of Oliver Cromwell for similar protection?
    Sir A. MOND: We will consider anything reasonable.
    Mr. WATT: Is it the case that this £450 was paid, not by the State but by the donor?
    Mr. HOLT: May I inquire whether this particular statue has been chosen as an indication of the Government's sympathy with statesmen who lose their heads?
    Sir A. MOND: The beautiful statue of the distinguished sovereign that I am protecting is one of the finest works of art in the Metropolis.
    Mr. T. WILSON: Why has the right hon. Gentleman not taken the same precaution with regard to Westminster Hall?
    Sir A. MOND: Because it is obviously impossible.
    Mr. T. WILSON: Why?
    Mr. KING: Does this £450, the estimated cost, include the corrugated-iron covering?
    Sir A. MOND: It includes the entire expense.

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT.

      SOLDIERS' VOTES (PROXY AREAS).
      Major ASTORasked the President of the Local Government Board if forms have been provided for proxy voters which their wives or other persons appointed as proxy voters may send for signature to soldiers serving in proxy areas?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Walsh): The Order in Council on this subject prescribing the forms to be used and making Regulations as to the mode in which proxy papers may be issued and cancelled was made last week, and will be obtainable in the course of a few days. The necessary forms are now being printed.
      Major ASTOR: Will not the delay mean that the soldiers in the proxy areas will not be on the first register of voters?
      Mr. WALSH: I do not quite understand what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means by delay. No delay in this matter has taken place beyond what was unavoidable in the conditions under which the work was done.
      Major ASTOR: Will the soldiers in the proxy areas be on the first register of voters?
      Mr. WALSH: It is very likely. Of course, the distance to be traversed and the whole of the conditions under which proxies have to be obtained, and guaranteed, are very difficult indeed, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman probably understands; still, it is very likely indeed that vast numbers of the soldiers will be on the first register.
      Mr. GULLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the proxy areas?
      Mr. WALSH: Well, the proxy areas, of course, can only be understood to be those very distant areas in which it is very difficult indeed for soldiers to come home to vote, Salonika, Palestine, Egypt, and East Africa—these areas strike one at once as being areas from which proxy votes will probably be exercised.
      Mr. GULLAND: Are France and Belgium to be proxy areas?
      Mr. WALSH: I think so. Undoubtedly, where there are soldiers who cannot get home to vote, there must necessarily be, if possible, arrangements made for them to record their votes.
      Mr. GULLAND: Will the soldiers in France and Belgium not be treated as absent voters—that is a very important matter?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman had better give notice of that. The question only deals with proxy forms.

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS.
      Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the increased cost of elections for local government purposes that will arise in London under the Representation of the People Act; whether he has received any representations on the matter from any of the London authorities; and whether he has considered, or will consider, the point with a view of introducing a short Bill in order to reduce the cost of all municipal and local elections in the county of London?
      Mr. WALSH: My right hon. Friend has received from the London County Council a communication with respect to the expenses of candidates at county council elections. The matter is receiving his consideration in relation not only to London County Council elections, but to county and municipal borough elections generally.

    RAILWAY TRAFFIC (DEMURRAGE).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn by the Incorporated Swansea and District Freighters' Association to the action of the Great Western Railway Company and other railway companies in demanding an undertaking from senders of any traffic to London waterside stations to pay any demurrage incurred upon railway trucks and sheets and barges detained under load beyond the free period; and whether, in view of the fact that when manufacturers have placed traffic on rail they have no further control and their liability is ended, he will make representations to the Railway Executive Committee on the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): My attention has been called to this matter, and inquiries are being made.

    COAL SUPPLIES.
    Mr. HAY MORGANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention had been drawn to the dearth of coal in Cornwall, and to the fact that, in consequence of this shortage, many merchants are closing down their businesses; and whether he will enable his zone representative to remedy this state of affairs and provide him with information as to what supplies may be expected during the coming weeks in preparation for winter needs?
    Mr. WARDLE: I understand that the Controller of Coal Mines has received representations on the subject of coal for the South-Western Counties. The immediate cause of the shortage which has been felt in certain localities is the "comb-out" of miners, the effect on which has been accentuated in the South-Western Counties by the recent strike in South Wales. My hon. Friend will be aware that a rationing scheme is to be introduced shortly, and while the amount of coal available for consumption will necessarily be reduced, I have every reason to hope that the arrangements which have been made will ensure a reasonable supply throughout the country. The Controller will be glad to look into any specific case of difficulty, if precise particulars can be furnished.

    COTTAGE PROPERTY (SUB-LETTING).
    Mr. MARRIOTTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the profits made by the tenants of small house and cottage property by sub-letting portions of their houses; and whether, in view of this method of profiteering, he is prepared either to propose an Amendment to the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Acts to enable the landlords of such properties proportionately to increase their rents or to limit the right of the tenants to profiteer by under-letting at increased rentals?
    Mr. WALSH: My right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to a few cases
    1568
    of the kind referred to, but he cannot undertake to promise further legislation on this subject at the present time.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Major NEWMANasked whether dependant's allowance is still being paid to the wives of Russian subjects who left this country ostensibly to bear arms against the Central Powers; and, if so, is it his intention to discontinue this payment except where the wife is a woman of British birth?
    Mr. WALSH: As I have previously informed my hon. and gallant Friend, the allowances to the dependants of Russians who returned to Russia for military service in compliance with the terms of the Anglo-Russian Military Service Convention are only paid in necessitous cases, and His Majesty's Government agreed to provide the necessary funds on the understanding that the sums expended will be recovered from Russia at a later date. It is not proposed for the present to discontinue the existing arrangements.

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
    Major ASTORasked the Minister for Reconstruction when he will be in a position to introduce a Bill setting up a Ministry of Health?
    The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): A Bill on the subject is under the consideration of the Government, but I am not able to make any statement as to its introduction.
    Major ASTOR: If an agreement as to departmental reorganisation is not arrived at soon, will the right hon. Gentleman refer the matter to the Cabinet for decision?
    Dr. ADDISON: It is before the Cabinet.

    MUNITIONS.

      GLYCERINE.
      Mr. MOLTENOasked the Minister of Munitions whether it will now be possible to arrange for the release of a suitable quantity of glycerine for the preparation

      1569
      of medicines of which it is an ingredient and meet a want which is pressing?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): Glycerine is released for medicinal purposes where it is indispensable, competent medical advice being taken in doubtful cases.

      ARMY RESERVE.
      Mr. KINGasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that J. W. Hulin, of 2, Heywood Terrace, Pill, Somerset, was an Army Reserve munition worker, and, though graded C 1, sent to work seven days a week in a Lincolnshire iron mine, walking two and a half miles night and morning to and from work, till after eight months' work he completely broke down; that J. W. Hulin has since then suffered from disseminated sclerosis, is a helpless cripple, without means, with a dependent wife and child, and has received no pension nor compensation for this work resulting in his physical ruin; and whether he will make a suitable allowance in this case?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: No representations whatever as to this workman's health or the difficult circumstances under which he is stated to have been working reached the Ministry of Munitions until a few days ago. Inquiry is being made into the case, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL PAPER.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the number of copies sent out of the special educational paper by the instructions of his Department; if they were paid for, the cost of the same and also of the postage to each school in the country; can he state what quantity of paper was released in order to enable this paper to be issued; whether it was paid for by his Department; whether the special feature of the paper to which his Department attached so much importance was not in the original number submitted, but was supplied by his office to this paper; if he can state if any of the staff of his Department are or have been members of the staff of this journal; and if he will give an undertaking that this special favouring of one competitive professional paper shall not occur again?
    Mr. CLYNES: The cost of printing the 28,043 copies sent out to schools was borne by the educational paper. These copies were sent post free, and the only direct cost to the Government was for the paper, the exact amount of which cannot at present be separated from other returns. I am not clear what was the special feature of the paper to which the hon. Member refers in the fifth part of his question; the answer to the sixth part is in the negative. Any similar application on behalf of any other educational journal will be dealt with on its merits in a similar fashion.

    RAW MATERIALS (WAR CONFERENCE DECISIONS).
    General GROFTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the resolution sent by the British Empire Producers' Organisation to His Majesty's Government urging the desirability of co-operation between the Government and the United States for the immediate purchase of raw materials necessary for industry during the period of reconstruction; and whether he can make any statement on this subject?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The question of the best methods of securing command of essential raw materials produced within the Empire with a view to safeguarding the industries of the Empire and the Allies during the reconstruction period has been considered by the Imperial War Conference now sitting, which has arrived at important decisions thereon. I hope that these decisions will in due course form the basis of discussions with our Allies and will lead to that co-operation which the hon. and gallant Member desires.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Will the decisions arrived at by the Imperial War Conference be published?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot give an answer to that. I am not acquainted exactly with what is being done.
    Mr. D. MASON: Will those decisions be submitted to the House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a question which I have already answered.

    ALIENS (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).
    General CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether a Return can be laid before the House of all men of German parentage at present in Government employ, stating if and when naturalised?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for East Herts on the 26th June, to which I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend.

    LORD ROTHERMERE.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Prime Minister whether Lord Rothermere has received a fresh appointment under the Government; if so, what is the nature of the appointment; and on what date was it conferred upon Lord Rothermere?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Lord Rothermere has been acting since 1st June in an advisory capacity in connection with the American and British overseas section of the Ministry of Information.

    TRADE BOARDS BILL.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister when it is intended to take the Committee stage of the Trade Boards Bill?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that the Grand Committee to which the Trade Boards Bill has been committed will probably take it next week.

    ALIEN ENEMIES IN UNITED KINGDOM.
    Sir H. DALZIEL(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of providing an early opportunity to the House for a discussion of the method of control of alien enemies in this country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I know how strong the feeling on this subject is in the House, and the sooner it is discussed the better from every point of view. I hope that it may be possible to arrange for it next week.
    Mr. KING: What Vote will be taken on Thursday? Could not the discussion take place on the same Vote?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman) has a question on that subject.
    Mr. PRINGLE: What form will the discussion take?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a matter for consideration. Probably the best form would be the Home Office Vote, but that must depend whether or not it is the wish of the House that the Vote should be taken.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: If the discussion takes place on the Home Office Vote, will it not shut out other questions which ought to be raised on that Vote?
    Mr. ALDEN: Are we to understand that this question will be taken in the absence of the Home Secretary?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope that the Home Secretary will be available next week.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what Supply will be taken on Thursday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We propose to take the Scottish Estimates on Thursday.
  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, 1st July.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  EDUCATION BILL.

    CLAUSE 22.—(Abolition of Fees in Public Elementary Schools.)
    (1) No fees shall be charged or other charges of any kind made in any public elementary school, except as provided by the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 1906, and the Local Education Authorities (Medical Treatment) Act, 1909.
    (2) During a period of five years from the appointed day the Board of Education shall in each year, out of moneys provided by Parliament, pay to the managers of a school maintained but not provided by a local education authority, in which fees were charged immediately before the appointed day, the average yearly sum paid to the managers under Section fourteen of the Education Act, 1902, during the five years immediately preceding the appointed day.
    (3) Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of Section nine of the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act, 1893, or of Section eight of the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899.
    The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment—to leave out Sub-section (1), standing in the name of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Larmor)—is equivalent to a negative of the whole Clause. The next four Amendments—in Sub-section (1), after the word "elementary," to insert the words "or secondary"; leave out the word "elementary"; after the word "school" to insert the words "or secondary school"; and at the end of Sub-section (1) to add the words "nor in any secondary school provided by a local education authority, or which is in receipt of Grants from the
    1578
    Board of Education"—standing in the names of the hon. Members for the Haggerston Division (Mr. Chancellor), for North Somerset (Mr. King), for Sunder-land (Mr. Goldstone), and for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse), raised the question of secondary schools, which was dealt with on Clause 1, when an Amendment was proposed to the same effect by the hon. Member for North Somerset and was negatived on a Division.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: On a point of Order. When this subject was discussed it had reference to the establishment of schools in the future, whereas the present Amendment deals with existing schools.
    The CHAIRMAN: In any case it would not come on this Clause, but, if a new Clause is brought up, I will consider it. It would not be appropriate on this Clause.
    Mr. BIGLAND: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words "and as hereunder mentioned."
    This Amendment must be taken in conjunction with a later and somewhat lengthy Amendment, which requires some little explanation. Under Sub-section (2) of Clause 22, exception is made with regard to matters under Section 14 of the Education Act, 1902, and it is rather necessary that we should go back in order that the Committee may understand what Section 14 of the Act of 1902 did. It really carried out an agreement that was entered into at that time with schools where fees were charged prior to 1902, and whereby those fees were to be allowed to be continued. There is a feeling of injustice on the part of many of the managers of these schools on account of their treatment under this Clause. The Bill has been kept pre-eminently free from all those questions of religion and all those old troubles between different classes of education which were so rampant in 1902, but this Clause rather introduces contentious matter which is felt very keenly in certain parts of the country. The Committee are probably aware that fee-paying schools were not at all prevalent in the South of England. They were built and carried on very largely in one part of Lancashire and Cheshire, but outside Manchester, Chester, Liverpool, Birkenhead, and a few other Lancashire towns, there were very few fee-paying schools. I should like to state one reason why

    1579
    some of these fee-paying schools were established. Those who really valued education found that there were a number of private schools that were very inefficient, but parents felt strongly that they should be at liberty to choose the school to which they sent their children, and they were prepared to pay a reasonable price to make the selection. These advanced workers in educational matters saw that if they erected suitable buildings and obtained the Government Grant and charged the parents fees, they could give a really good education. That was how some of these schools were started. Others were provided schools, in the ordinary sense of the term, whether Church of England, Roman Catholic, or belonging to the Free Church bodies. They were erected by people in the belief that they were really serving the best interests of national progress. In 1902 an agreement was arrived at between the Government and the managers of these schools. The agreement carried two points. In the first place, the managers of the schools granted the local education committee the use of their buildings for six days in the week, provided that they might have the use of them on the Sunday, and for such portions of the week when the education committee did not require them.
    That was a real compromise and a real bargain. In addition to that, the managers of the schools were allowed to continue the fees, with the proviso that the local education committees were to take charge of those fees and, in consultation, were to divide the amount in such proportions as might be mutually agreed. If they would not come to an agreement, the matter was to be referred to the President of the Board of Education to decide what proportion they should have. This led to an amicable arrangement, under which the managers of these schools receive about half the money paid in the form of fees. The other half is spent in this way: The managers of the schools meet after they have collected the fees, and where permanent alterations to buildings are required they still fall to the lot of the managers. Out of those fees the managers keep their buildings in repair from the capital point of view, while the local education authority keep the buildings in repair so far as ordinary painting and cleaning are concerned. The providers of these unprovided schools did a
    1580
    great national service when they erected these buildings and then practically handed them over to the country, free of charge, for educational purposes.
    Mr. KING: What next?
    Mr. BIGLAND: What objection does the hon. Gentleman take to that statement?
    Mr. KING: Get on with the War!
    Mr. BIGLAND: I know that in the town I represent many of the inhabitants subscribed thousands of pounds in order to put up these schools for the children of that town, even before free education was considered, and they performed a national service.
    Mr. KING: Is it not the case that ever since the free Education Act they have been receiving thousands of pounds from the taxpayers in lieu of fees, as well as the fees from the scholars? Of course they have!
    Mr. BIGLAND: I was about to explain to the Committee what happens with regard to these fees. Out of the amount of money received in my Constituency—I can speak with absolute knowledge—they have spent since 1902 on keeping up the actual fabric of the buildings £11,000, and they have received £2,800 from the portion of the fees which the local education committee handed back to the managers of those schools. In view of that, in common fairness and justice, those fees should be continued. The consequential Amendment which stands in my name reads:
    "In any school of the higher-grade type or in which fees have been charged of not less than threepence per week, fees may continue to be charged, and, if a non-provided school, the local authority shall repay to the managers such portion of the fees as may be necessary to cover the cost of the up-keep of the buildings and other expenses of maintenance which have hitherto been borne by them."
    That answers the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) as to how the money that is going to be paid out of the fees to the managers is to be spent by them on these schools. The Amendment further reads:
    "This arrangement shall continue as long as the schools are carried on to the satisfaction of His Majesty's inspector, and, in the event of any dispute, the decision of the Board of Education to be final. The local authority shall also have power to charge fees in any new school where they think fees will be for the educational benefit of the district, subject to the approval of the Board of Education."

    1581
    I ask myself and the President why Clause 22 should be introduced at all? It is only going to make friction in the country. There is no object to be gained, except the questionable object of equality. Some of us do not believe that in matters of education we should all be reduced to one plain, straight line of uniformity. We believe that in variety, such as is found in these schools, you have a little local friendly competition in the matter and the manner of administering the Education Acts. It is a good thing that there is this slight variety, and it should continue. I know that the President has no desire whatever to raise again the religious question in this House or in connection with this Bill, but I want to tell him that this Clause does raise that question in this way: The managers of these unprovided schools are the men who, in the past, have stood for religious teaching in all schools, and they have a constant fear that, if we weaken the position of these unprovided schools and gradually wipe them out of existence, the bulwark against the idea of secular education, which was so prevalent and may come to the front again, will be removed. I put it to my right hon. Friend that the fair and generous usage of the unprovided schools should be continued, and I sincerely trust he will accept this Amendment with a view to doing what I call simple justice. In 1902 it was agreed between the Government and the managers of these schools that these various matters should continue. The right is admitted in the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman saying that the payment of the money shall be continued for five years. If these managers are entitled to their money for five years, they are entitled to it as long as the buildings are used for the purpose for which they were handed over. I cannot conceive, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges the justice of the claim by providing in the Bill that the same money shall be paid for the next five years as was paid for the last five years, why that should not continue, and why this Clause should be introduced at all. The President admits the justice of the managers receiving their share of these fees for five years. Why is it not just to say that they should continue to receive the money for a still longer and an indefinite period? I trust that the President of the Committee will see that this Amendment is not a casual one, but that it goes to the root of a very
    1582
    important and strong national feeling with regard to the suppression of unprovided schools.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The question that has been raised by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Bigland) is by no means a new one in our educational discussions in this House. As I understand him, he has put forward practically two proposals. One is that there should be some means of differentiating between the higher grade schools where no fees will be charged and the schools where fees will be charged, and that mainly, I understand, on social grounds. The feeling in favour of having schools where fees are charged is based almost entirely, in the various towns where the practice still exists, on the desire of some parents to have their children taught in schools which they regard as of rather better social class than others.
    Mr. KING: Not at all!
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, that is the view that is held by those parents who pay fees.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: By some of them.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend (Mr. King) is no more justified in speaking for them than I am. I express it as my opinion and as a result of the experience I have had. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to speak on behalf of a sphere of national activity with which I am just as closely connected as he is. I am only stating what is the fact. I do not say they are justified in their view. What I observe is that although that may be the view of large numbers of parents, and a view supported by some Members of this House, it is not the view now held by the Board of Education, for they have in their proposals definitely adopted a doctrine which has often been preached here in the past and been pretty generally though not unanimously supported, that it is better to get rid of fees altogether in this class of school. With opinion such as it is in the country, I cannot see that much is gained by a continuance of the old practice. The minority which is in favour of this differential treatment of their or other people's children is a comparatively small one, and although we must recognise it as a social fact, it cannot be justified on purely educational grounds. I think the Board of Education has been

    1583
    well advised in ignoring these social grounds, and on purely educational grounds deciding once and for all that they are against the continuance of the practice, even in the higher grade schools. For that reason, in the first place, I would support the proposal which is put forward by the Government, and oppose that put forward by the hon. Member (Mr. Bigland).
    There is a second point, and here I think he was leading us on to most dangerous ground. He was quite frank about it that immediately you have raised the question of compensation for the absence of fees in schools which are denominational we get into the region of religious controversy. I appeal to the hon. Member, and those who support him, not to let us get a single hair's breadth into the religious region. The only possibility of our getting this Bill through with any degree of general support is that we should keep away from all religious controversy. This does not of necessity directly raise our old religious controversies, but anyone who has been in the House for any length of time and heard the discussions on other educational Bills knows that immediately you come to the question of compensation for fees to denominational schools you will have the right of the denominational school to exist as a separate entity at once challenged, I hold particularly strong views on that subject, but they are not as extreme as those held by some of my hon. Friends, and I was not unprepared to come to an arrangement on the subject. But if you do open the question, you have to remember that you will arouse a pretty strong controversy. It will be urged, as nearly all our religious controversies are, with a good deal of bitterness, and the only hope of the right hon. Gentleman getting his Bill rapidly through with the degree of general support which we all desire is that he should not be tempted on to any of this familiar ground of the past. I therefore suggest, although there may be a good deal to be said on the subject of differential schools, that to raise in any degree the second part of the discussion suggested by the hon. Member would take us into a sphere that we had much better avoid, and on that ground I appeal to him not to press his Amendment.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: There is an Amendment standing in my name of a more comprehensive
    1584
    character than this, and I greatly prefer it, but in the meantime, in case the right hon. Gentleman should decline ultimately to accept my Amendment, I should like very strongly to support the Amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Bigland). I do not think anyone who approaches this question can be insensible to the very strong appeal, which I believe will be endorsed in all parts of the House, which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Runciman). None of us desires to introduce the bitterness of religious controversy into the Education Bill, which we hoped might be entirely free from any such considerations, but I am bound to ask who is responsible for the raising of that question, if unfortunately it be raised? What, in the name of fortune, induced the President of the Board of Education to insert this Clause, with the hope of avoiding the controversy which we all desire to avoid, I cannot imagine! We who object to the Clause cannot, therefore, take any iota of responsibility for any controversy which in this connection may be raised.
    I foreshadowed on the Second Reading an intention to amend, and, if possible, omit, this Clause, and since then I have received an accumulating mass of testimony to what I can only describe as the dismay which has been excited in all parts of the country by the proposals contained in this Clause. I sometimes wonder whether the President of the Board of Education himself is aware of the extent to which this system of fee-paying schools, though their aggregate number is, I admit, not very large, permeates the provision of public education in this country. I differ a little from the hon. Member (Mr. Bigland). I think he underestimates very seriously their extent in other parts of the country. I have here a Return, for which the hon. Member (Mr. King) moved in 1914, of those fee-paying schools, and they do not at all bear out the description of their geographical distribution which has been suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Bigland). There are altogether 430 of them, very widely distributed, and the total fees taken amount to about £66,500 a year, of which only a small proportion, about £14,000 a year, is returned by the local authorities to the managers. I am perfectly prepared to be told that those figures, both of the schools and of the fees, are, in relation To the statistics of public education, quite insignificant. They are

    1585
    by no means insignificant in certain localities. For example, here is a Midland town. In Kidderminster, out of nine schools no fewer than four are fee-paying.
    Mr. KING: There are nine free schools and four fee-paying schools. The hon. Member must explain my Return correctly.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: Perhaps I may rely on the hon. Member for North Somerset to give the figures correctly later on. The point I was endeavouring to make is that the geographical distribution of these fee-paying schools is very much wider than that suggested by the Mover of the Amendment. What do you propose to do about these schools? You are proposing, as I understand the meaning of this twenty-second Clause, in these towns and counties—there are about 120 of them, I think—to prevent those parents who deliberately prefer to pay fees for their children from exercising what I regard as the elementary right of paying fees for the education of their children if they prefer to do so. I am totally at a loss to understand the reasons which have inspired the introduction of this Clause. Is it that you desire deliberately to upset—I cannot think it is—the compromise which was embodied in the Acts of 1870, 1891, and 1902, because the existence of these fee-paying schools is an essential part of the compromise embodied in that series of Education Acts? You are deliberately proposing by Clause 22 to reopen the basis of the compromise embodied in these Acts. Further, by the Amendment which has been put into the second or third edition of the Bill, you are proposing to hang up this matter for a period of five years. I quite understand the motive of that Amendment. I understand you desire to give a period of grace to these schools to arrange their affairs before they are finally extinguished. But there is an unfortunate side to that concession. You give notice that in five years' time these schools are to cease. Anyone who has any knowledge at all of human nature can foresee that in that period of five years you give a very ample opportunity for the reopening of the floodgates of controversy, which we all desire not to see reopened, but which we all desire to close.
    First, I suggest then that you are disturbing the basis of the compromise, and, in the second place, I desire to point out
    1586
    that the fact of the existence of these fee-paying schools does not in any way interfere with the right of free education which has been established and which we all desire to extend by this Bill. That right of free education was procured by the Act of 1891. Any parent desiring free education for his children can claim it and obtain it as a right, and it is only a minority of parents who for one reason or another—not only for the reasons adumbrated by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman), but for many other reasons very much more complex in some cases—prefer to pay and to make use of these fee-paying schools. May I remind the Committee that by the 14th Section of the Education Act of 1902 the local education authorities have full control over the fees charged in these non-provided schools? That is a point of very great importance which ought to be emphasised. Power is given to them to continue or discontinue such fees, and there is given to them under the same Section a limited power of dividing with the managers the fees so received. As a matter of fact, only a small proportion of fees are actually returned to the managers—about £14,000 out of £67,000. The amount which is so returned to the managers of non-provided schools is expended by them on the improvement of the premises and on equipment. All the money, therefore, which comes back to the managers is spent by them for the benefit of the children in their charge. That being so, I ask myself in whose interest is it that this change is proposed in Clause 22. Cui bono?
    4.0 P.M.
    Is it in the interests of the parents? They do not seem to think so. Parents, many of the best, most thoughtful and most considerate parents, feel themselves, and, in my opinion, rightly feel themselves, insulted by the proposal in this Bill, a proposal which I beg the Committee to observe is to prevent the parents from exercising a choice between free and fee-paying schools. I have received an enormous amount of testimony on this point. Some write to me to say that the fees are paid willingly. They are paid by that class of parent who can afford fees, such as foremen in works, small tradespeople, coachmen, gardeners, publicans, railway guards, and so on. Such parents welcome the fee-paying schools, because they know that their children will not have to associate with others whose homes are less

    1587
    satisfactory than they believe their own to be. These fee-paying schools are alwaysfull. In the majority of cases which are known to me the schools are not only full to overflowing, but there is in some cases a waiting list for admission to these popular schools that you propose to abolish. There are some districts, and here I am speaking of the South of England, where parents send their children a considerable distance by rail, bicycle, and so on, to obtain what they believe to be, rightly or wrongly, the benefits of these schools for which they are called upon to pay fees. I suggest, therefore, that it is not according to the wishes and it is not in deference to any claim of the parents that you are proposing this change. Are you proposing it in deference to the ratepayers? These non-provided fee-paying schools at the present time bring in a not inconsiderable revenue in relief of the rates. I think the hon. Member for Birkenhead told us that in Birkenhead alone since 1902 some £17,000 have been paid in relief of the rates. After that statement I think I need not pursue that point. Is this change desired by the local education authorities? If it were, they can adopt the change themselves. They need not come to this Bill for the power. The whole power is vested in the hands of the local education authorities. They can do what they please. It is for them to permit or to refuse the establishment or the maintenance of these fee-paying schools. They are entirely the masters of the situation, without any further legislation. And when they give permission let me remind the Committee they give it in deference to the very strong wishes of the parents. In Manchester, for example, the fees amount to something between £4,000 and £5,000 a year; in Liverpool the amount is £12,000 a year, and in Chester, a relatively small city, more than one-fifth of the whole of the children on the books are to be found in the higher grade schools of the city, and one-third of these, although in fee-paying schools, pay no fees. That is another point which should be borne in mind. In some cases a considerable portion of the accommodation in these fee-paying schools is by agreement with the local authority reserved for the free admission of children qualified by competitive examination to enter from other schools. So strongly do the
    1588
    local authorities realise the attractions of these fee-paying schools that I have heard of cases in which they have asked the permission of the Board of Education to charge fees themselves, in order to meet the competition of the fee-paying schools. If I had no other claim to urge on behalf of this Amendment it would be found in the parallel provision in the Education Bill for Scotland. I observe that in the seventh Clause of this Bill, Sub-section (a) of Section 1 runs as follows:
    "A scheme for the adequate provision throughout the education area of the authority of all forms of primary, intermediate and secondary education in day schools without payment of fees, and if the authority thinks fit for the maintenance or support.…of a limited number of schools where fees are charged in some or all of the classes."
    This includes, of course, secondary schools, but it is not confined to them. I suggest that you are legislating for England and Scotland on two different lines. You are proposing to prohibit these schools in five years' time in England, and you are going to permit their maintenance in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke just now suggested that those of us who are moving on this Clause are not actuated by educational motives. I frankly admit that all fee-paying schools do not stand on precisely the same footing from the educational point of view. I quite agree with my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment that much the strongest case is that of the schools of the higher grade type, in which fees of 3d. per week or more have been charged. These higher grade schools are at this moment full to overflowing. The President perfectly well knows that, and it is ample proof, therefore, of their popularity. So far as I am aware the President of the Board, in the course of these Debates, has never said a single syllable to justify the Clause which he is now putting to the Committee. I think that that reticence on the part of the right hon. Gentleman is characteristic of the tact and skill with which he is piloting this Bill through the House of Commons. But the time for reticence has now gone by, and this Clause must be justified on its merits or it must be deleted, as I hope it may be. There may be something to be said from the point of view of administrative convenience and expediency. I do not for a moment deny that, but I cannot believe that that and that alone is the motive

    1589
    which has inspired the production of this Clause. What is the motive? Is it educational?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now speaking to the Clause.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I intend my speech to be in support of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birkenhead.
    The CHAIRMAN: But the hon. Member is speaking about leaving out the Clause, whereas we are now on an Amendment. It is all right if we are not to have the speech twice over.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I can assure you the Committee will not have the speech twice over, but I thought it would, possibly save time if I now said all I have to say on the point. I was asking if the motive which underlies this Clause was an educational motive. If the President of the Board of Education will get up and say that, in his deliberate opinion, the sacrifice of these fee-paying schools is called for in the interests of educational efficiency, I will at once reconsider my own position in the matter. But I do not believe that he will do that. Then, if the motive be not educational, what is it? Is it anti-denominational? Is it a covert attack on the religious compromise? I hope not. The President has been most careful and most scrupulous to avoid raising, in any shape or form, this controversy, and by so doing he has earned the respect and gratitude of everyone who shares his own pure zeal for education. But I do not think he can expect those of us who believe as I believe, that in the end we cannot divorce religion from education, to take this Clause lying down. In its intentions it may have nothing to do with an attack on religious education, but I venture to submit that whatever the intention there can be no doubt whatever as to the result. After five years from the appointed day we shall have to surrender all the non-provided schools or forego those improvements and additions which are demanded, and rightly demanded, by the progressive claims of educational efficiency, or we shall have to reimpose the intolerable strain from which we were partially relieved by the Act of 1902. If the President of the Board of Education will repudiate the suggestion of motive, will he deny the effect? If the motive is neither anti-denominational nor educational, what is it? I can only attribute
    1590
    is, as previous speakers have done, to a desire for what I would venture to call pedantic uniformity—either that or a sort of inverted snobbery—a compulsory mechanical equality that no one shall be permitted to pay for education. How far are you going to carry that principle? Are you going to apply it to the rich? Or are you going to confine your prohibition to the poor, to the most honourable and self-sacrificing parents among the poorer classes? If that is the intention of the Clause, I venture to say it is class legislation of the most malignant type. It is not equality but sheer tyranny, and I for one will not be a party to its passing.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will resist the appeal of the hon. Member who has just spoken. No one recognises more than I do the hon. Member's enthusiasm and sincerity for education, but I cannot help thinking he has been living in a rather secluded atmosphere, and has got out of touch with the general desire of the population in reference to education. I think myself that this Clause is essential to carry out the purposes of this Bill, which has for its object the establishment of a national system of education, and as long, as we have these isolated survivals of the old system of special schools cut off from the general national system, so long are we prevented having a really national system of education. In London in 1904, when the Education Act, so far as it affects London, came into force, the county council had to face this problem, and there was very strong feeling, just as there is in some areas at the present time, that these schools should be retained. There was a campaign amongst certain interests for retaining them. However, the London County Council, under the guidance, I think, of the Member for Derby, took up a strong line and determined to abolish fees, and that course was taken. There was considerable discontent at the time, but I think I am entitled to say after fourteen years' experience there is now general acceptance of the principle and that those who were loudest on the insistence of the dropping of fees are now generally agreed that on the whole they have been fairly met, and that the children who attend their schools are placed on an equality with those who go to the schools provided by the county council. Therefore, I think that the fears which have been expressed

    1591
    are groundless, and in practice it will be found not only to be popular but to the general interests of the school which will be affected by this Clause. The President has, indeed, made a very generous provision to ensure that these schools shall be let down lightly, and I think the hon. Member for Oxford City will agree that the financial considerations are not considerable. Although the schools may now give some relief to the ratepayers in most parts of the country, at any rate the relief is infinitesimal. The hon. Member mentioned the case of Liverpool, which he suggested was deriving £12,000 from this source; but obviously in a large area like Liverpool that is not a matter of very serious consideration.
    These fees really are a survival of class divisions, and the hon. Member who last spoke in fact admitted that when he cited the cases of the publicans and railway foremen and other people who claim class superiority and prefer to keep themselves apart from their fellow workers. I know there are a certain number of black-coated working men who do not like to have their children associate with the children of the so-called working classes. What we want to build up is a national system which will appeal to all classes, bring people together, and make them realise that they belong to the same nation and have the same interests. To bring that about we want most of all to avoid the ideal of class war, and the notion that the interests of the various sections of the community are opposed. The Member for the City of Oxford spoke about hardship. He said that many of the parents want their children to go to these schools, but in many towns I have reason to know that the present system causes hardship. It is necessary often for the parents to send the younger children to the nearest school. The dangers involved in crossing the roads make that essential.
    Mr. BIGLAND: I can assure the hon. Member that wherever that happens they have the right to call for free places.
    Mr. HARRIS: The question of distance is a very vexed one. We have the same problem in London. Even where there are schools the natural instinct of the parent is to send the child, even though it involves some cost, to the most adjacent school, so as to save the child from the
    1592
    danger of crossing the road. In practice it does compel parents to send children very often to a fee-paying school. The Member for Oxford City who stated that these schools were not confined to the North of England is perfectly right. They are scattered about various areas all over the country. That makes it much more objectionable. If you had one national system providing for all types of schools, on the one hand, schools of entirely free places, and, on the other hand, a certain number of schools requiring fees, that could be defended. But the very fact that this system does not work out uniformly all over the country, but depends on the accident of local elections, and whether there should happen to be such schools provided by some private benevolence or some church or institution, makes the system unsatisfactory. The working man finds that one area is provided with this sort of school, and that in the next area, 20 or 30 miles off, owing to the policy of the education authority, no such schools are allowed and fees are abolished. If you are going to have a new national system, the Board of Education must take a firm line, and insist that the same system shall apply throughout the country. It will not appeal to English Members to be told that because Scotland is reactionary in this respect, England must necessarily follow that example. I admit that in many things Scotland leads the way, but sometimes it is penny wise and pound foolish, and in reference to the retention of school fees, I am certain that its parsimony is mistaken. We need not look to Scotland in this matter. Let us rather look to the Colonies, and the Dominions beyond the seas, where they have gone in for what is, in America, called the common school, where all children go irrespective of class, with the result that you have there a true democratic feeling. You do not have that class consciousness which survives in this country, and which, if in some respects good, is certainly a harm to our education system. We want rather to apply the principle of the old grammar school, where all classes worked together, and you had the squire's son and the labourer's son getting the common benefit of the same education. I hope that the President of the Board of Education will resist not only the proposal to omit the Clause, but also this rather subtle Amendment, and keep the Clause as it stands in the Bill.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The Committee will have observed that this Clause is subjected to a cross-fire of criticism. On the one hand it is attacked, as going too far. On the other hand it is assailed as not going far enough. Some Members have urged that fees should be abolished in secondary schools. Others argue that they should be retained in elementary schools. The Bill follows a middle path. It retains fees in secondary schools, it abolishes fees in elementary schools, and it provides for free education in continuation schools. In other words, it takes this line: Where education is compulsory it should be given without charge to the parent, but where it is voluntary, where the parent has the option whether or not to send his child to a particular type of school, there the parent shall be at liberty to pay fees. But it is from no desire for mechanical uniformity that the Government has proposed this Clause. The consideration of the question of fees was forced upon us by two circumstances. In the first place, the Committee will have observed that in Clause 38 we are proposing the consolidation of the elementary school grant. This involves the abolition of the fee grant. The foe grant, which was established in 1891, is the instrument which enables the Board to put pressure upon a local education authority who may desire to charge exorbitant fees. It is to sanction from time to time the regulation of fees in those schools which continue to charge them, and consequently it follows that if you abolish the fee grant you are compelled to consider in what way you should deal with the fee question. It brings the fee question up as a necessary consequence. Then there is a second reason, that in the Bill we are proposing very greatly to improve higher elementary education. We are proposing to make higher elementary education and practical education in the higher elementary schools mandatory upon the authorities. In other words, we are proposing to ask the local education authority to make such provision for higher elementary education as is now generally made—not universally—in fee-paying schools, and generally regarded as a consideration in respect of which fees are charged.
    Mr. MARRIOTTdissented.
    Mr. FISHER: I am not arguing the question. Those are, at any rate, two
    1594
    circumstances which appear to me to necessitate the consideration of the question of fees. As has already been pointed out, this question is a comparatively small one. There are at the present moment 437 elementary schools in the country, out of over 20,000, which continue to charge fees. It seems to be assumed that they are all denominational schools or schools of a particular denomination. That is not so. There is no denominational question involved. There are ninety-five council schools, thirty-one denominational schools, forty-one Wesleyan schools, one Congregational school, one Presbyterian school, fifteen Roman Catholic schools, and some 250 Church of England schools in which fees are paid. There, again, I think that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Bigland) was under the impression that, in raising the question of fees in this way, we were tearing up a solemn treaty contracted in 1902. I admit that if you could satisfy me on this point, I should be the last person to desire to press this Clause. But what has happened since 1902? My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford City, who is so well versed in this question, knows very well that under the settlement of 1902 it was within the discretion of the local education authorities to require the surrender at any time of this power of charging fees. In pursuance of that power a very large number of schools which charged fees in 1902 have ceased to charge fees now. For instance, in 1902, 610,000 children were being educated in schools which were charging fees exceeding 10s. a year in 1891, whereas in 1913–14 that number had sunk to 128,000. This means, as the hon. Member has pointed out, that without legislation, and simply in pursuance and in execution of the powers confided to local education authorities by the Act of 1902, fee-paying schools are constantly being converted into non-fee-paying schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford City seemed to assume that at the end of five years the Church of England schools—I think he was referring principally to them—which at present charge fees, would be extinguished as a result of the action of this Clause, but there is no precedent in the past and recent history of our schools for the extinction of fee-paying schools as a result of the action of the local education authority in withdrawing the power to charge fees.

    1595
    I really think that my hon. Friend has exaggerated, if I may say so, the results likely to flow from the passing of this Clause. I merely mention these circumstances in order to clear the air of what may be called the denominational issue. I do not raise, and I do not think anyone wishes to raise, the denominational issue in connection with this Clause. In order to be perfectly frank with the Committee, I may say that I have taken into consideration this question without parti pris, and my instruction as to the drafting of the Clause was that it was to be drafted in a way which might preserve the fee in those schools where it could be proved that the charging of fees was attended by educational advantage. Closer inspection of the whole problem, however, modified my views, and I will give to the Committee, quite frankly, what the conclusions are at which I arrived. As the Committee probably are aware, there are three classes of schools which charge fees. There are, first of all, the schools which refused the fee grant in 1891. They stood outside. They are a very small number of schools, I think there are not sixty at the present moment; it is a small number, and is very rapidly diminishing, and it seems to me quite certain, with respect to this particular class of schools, that the Bill is only anticipating by a few years their extinction. Then we have a much more numerous class of school. Those are the schools which charged fees in excess of 10s. in 1891, and they were empowered to retain those excess fees after the Act passed. The fees charged in those schools have no educational justification, and they are merely the result of historical accident. I may inform the Member for the City of Oxford that I have carefully gone into this question, and the Board have never thought it fair to urge upon the managers of those schools that they should undertake any special teaching in consequence of the excess fees charged in 1891. Therefore, in regard to the 1891 schools, if I may so call them, there is no distinct educational justification for the fees charged.
    We come to the third class of schools. Under Section 4 of the Elementary Education Act of 1891, it was provided under certain conditions relating to school accommodation, or educational benefit, that a fee might be charged in such schools provided that the ordinary fee did
    1596
    not exceed 6d. a week. Under this Section a considerable number of schools have in the past been allowed to charge fees, and in 1912 there were seventy such schools. When I began to consider this problem I felt that educational advantage should be the ground for such fees, and that if it could be proved clearly that educational advantage resulted from such fees, then there was a case for considering their retention. Fees are charged for two different reasons. In the first place, they are charged in certain schools that have a curriculum which is supposed to be superior to the curriculum provided in the ordinary elementary schools. I do not deny that in that class of schools there are several which have done excellent educational pioneer work in the higher grades. No one can deny that admirable service has been rendered by many schools in the district which the hon. Member for Birkenhead represents. In the second place, fees may be charged—I do not in any way deny their importance—in what are called the select schools. But when I began to balance the educational argument for the retention of fees, the case seemed to me to be thin—indeed, almost diaphanous.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Have the 1870 schools increased?
    Mr. FISHER: No, I do not think so.
    Mr. KING: I have myself called attention to several cases of an increase in these schools.
    Mr. FISHER: It may be that I am inaccurate; I am not quite certain.
    Mr. KING: The number is not very large; a few have been added.
    Mr. FISHER: I am dealing with what we may call the strictly educational argument for retaining fee-paying schools. The real educational difficulty lies in the fact that if you have fee-paying schools they are supposed to be, and ought to be, higher grade schools, and the higher grade schools are the schools which provide a more advanced type of education than the type of education provided generally in schools. I put it to the Committee, Is it desirable that the higher type of elementary education should be confined to the children of those parents who can afford to pay the fees?
    Sir H. CRAIK: Certainly not!
    Mr. FISHER: It is the opinion of the inspectors of the Board that the existence of fee-paying schools militates against the proper organisation of higher grade education in an area. In order to have higher grade education properly organised it is obvious that you want a system by which the cleverest children, irrespective of the means of their parents, may be given the advantage of that higher education. There is another difficulty. We find by experience that in these fee-paying schools education is very largely disorganised. The children attend the elementary schools until eleven or twelve years of age, and then the parents, in order to obtain some social advantage, pass the children on to the higher grade fee-paying school, with the result that we find it very difficult to organise. Further, the classification of children according to their abilities, which, after all, is a fundamental fact in school organsation, is made very much more difficult by the existence of fee-paying schools, for the reason that the children in those higher grade schools are there by virtue of the fact that their parents can afford to pay the fee, whereas in higher grade schools in a non-fee-paying area they are organised for children of a uniform level of ability, and consequently it is much more difficult to organise higher education.
    Then, again, I think it is very difficult for the Board to make a demand upon the local education authority to provide higher elementary education and to continue to sanction the existence of fee-paying schools. The case for the fee-paying school was that it provided exceptional opportunities for higher education, and if it is found that those opportunities are not exceptional, then surely the special case for fee-paying schools becomes very greatly weakened? It is said that the fee-paying school should be retained as a select school. There is a good deal of force in the argument of those who say, "Why should not parents be allowed to send their children to schools where they are certain of being immune from dirt or from bad language, and where they are likely to be with children from respectable homes?" In the first place, let me observe that ever since the establishment of the school medical service in 1907 there have been enormous improvements in the cleanliness of our schools, and, in the second place, you are giving security for the children being kept in more respectable homes. I am
    1598
    assuming—though it is not always true—that the children from the cleaner and more respectable homes are from the homes of the better-to-do parents; but, assuming it to be true, surely, then, you are losing one of the more important levers for social improvement if you take the children of respect able parents and prevent those parents from using their influence to improve the conditions in the ordinary schools? I do feel that there is a very great deal of force in that argument, but if we were to accept the Amendment we should be carried very much further than the hon. Member who moved the Amendment imagined. If we were to accept it we should be practically saying to the managers of these fee-paying schools, who at present have no vested rights in their fees and who might have their fees taken away at any moment by the local education authorities, "We are giving you a vested right, a statutory right." That is a great advance on the Act of 1902. The Mover of the Amendment accused me of having torn up the Act of 1902, but he surely is tearing it up on his side. The truth is that the abolition of the fee grant and the consolidation of our elementary finance does necessitate a review of this question, and I believe that any impartial mind, without a desire to advance either this interest or that interest, but solely actuated by a zeal for the progress of education, surveying the facts with the information which can be supplied by the officers of the Board of Education, would come to the conclusion to which I have come. As I have said to the Committee, I started without parti pris, but I have come to the conclusion which I have indicated as the right course to pursue, and I hope I shall carry the consent of the Committee.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I cordially accept what was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) in deprecating the introduction of the denominational religious element in the discussion of this matter at all. I regret it was brought in, and I think the matter should be settled without the intrusion of any such question. I may also say that I most fully agree that the case put forward by the managers of non-provided schools is neither a very forcible nor a very important one. The financial question is a very small question in dealing with this discussion, and I have no

    1599
    wish to appear as the champion of certain non-provided schools which by some circumstance in the past have retained fees or a portion of fees. I do desire to look at it solely from the point of view of education and of the advantage of the children attending the schools. I have followed the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education just now, adduced with his usual ability and forcefulness, but they have failed to persuade me, although my past experience enabled me to see how his mind was working in each step of his argument. He spoke of three classes of fee-paying schools—first, those who refused the fee grant in 1891; secondly, those who continued to charge an excess fee over the 10s. a year; and, thirdly, and they were the important class, the new fee-paying schools which were established because they were felt to be educationally useful. If they were not felt to be educationally useful, how could the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides permit them to be established? I think he will find if he looks into the matter that even since 1912 they have increased in number, and that does not look as if they were a useless or an unsuitable class of schools. It is these schools, and much more the social adaptation that they represent, to which I, from the educational point of view, attach importance. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the danger that these schools might represent in having educational advantage over schools in which no fees are charged. If the Board of Education has permitted or sanctioned fee-paying schools on the ground that they favour education of a higher type than that which was open to schools where no fees were charged, I say that they acted wrongly in condoning the action of the local education authority. There ought to be, and there is, in fact, in my own country, no educational advantage attached to the payment of fees. The fee-paying schools ought to be just as good as the others. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) was good enough to speak of my country and its reactionary tendencies as something which should be avoided as dangerous to England. I am not afraid of the reactionary tendencies of my country with regard to education, for more than once the Southern Saxon has taken some good examples from Scotland in the matter of education. We are
    1600
    not an anti-democratic country, and we are not likely to have to go to the hon. Member for Leicester to be taught the true doctrines of democracy. In the Scottish Education Bill, brought forward by the same Government—and surely the Government must be guided by certain broad general principles—these fee-paying schools are not only allowed but are expressly pointed out as one of the duties that may devolve upon the educational authority. They are to give maintenance and support "to a limited number of schools where fees are charged in some or all the classes."
    Mr. HARRIS: Would these schools also receive rate support?
    Sir H. CRAIK: Certainly. They are established by the local authorities themselves. I remember in 1889, when I had charge of the measure by which free education was set up in Scotland—it was one of those lessons which we have given to the South, and it anticipated the legislation in England—there was then a small band of people, extremely fond of abstract opinions and allowing no deviation from them, who insisted that when we established in 1889 the right of every child to free education we should at the same time abolish the right of paying fees where the parents chose to pay them. There was a considerable fight over it. My own opinion was perfectly clear, knowing Scotland as I did, that it met a need and a desire of the country. We held out against the disciples of an abstract opinion, and we permitted certain fee-paying schools. After two or three years the cry for the universal abolition of fees absolutely died out, and I am perfectly certain now that if you canvassed Scotland all over you would find no such desire as has been expressed by Members of the type of the hon. Member for Leicester. Democratic as Scotland is, she knows there are phases—I am not going to call them genteel or social or select, or anything of that sort—but there are phases and differences between the various grades in the same class of society, and if you wish your schools to correspond to these and to be really national, you must make your system agree with these phases and gradations.
    5.0 P.M.
    I remember in the year 1889 there was a very prominent leader of the Labour party in Glasgow who was a very remarkable man, and one of the pioneers of the

    1601
    Labour party. I remember him coming to me and saying, "You must keep up these fee-paying schools. Remember that we working men have just as clear divisions between the lower and the upper grades of our class as there is between the highest aristocracy and the lowest in the country. If you are going to make your schools suited to the population of Glasgow, you must have a few schools to which we parents who are ready to to make a small sacrifice in order to pay fees to keep our children amongst the class to which we belong can send them." This whole question of social education, of genteel education, and of selection, is really a desire to make your education suit the phases of the life of the country as it really is. What would be the result of abolishing fee-paying schools in extending your national system? Do you think you are going to force people at the point of the bayonet into these free schools whether they will or not? The hon. Member for Leicester spoke of the decision of the London County Council to abolish fees in all their schools, but what was the result? It was that an immense deal of the elementary education and of higher grade schools in London are outside the scope of the London County Council altogether, and are in the hands of endowed managers or other independent bodies which can charge fees. We have not got that in Scotland, and we do not want it. We wish to limit this independence of managers. We know quite well that if we drive out the type of schools presented by the fee-paying schools we shall only drive the children into other schools and segregate them much more from those who come under the general public system. It is far better to have a public system with two or three different grades of schools, all of which are wide and comprehensive in their scope, than to say, "We will have only in our public system one narrow, strict, absolutely defined type of school in which we absolutely prohibit the paying of fees, and if people cannot stand that they can go elsewhere." Is there not more danger of the segregation of classes by such a system than by allowing your national system to adapt itself to the various phases of society, and if there are a small number of people who are prepared to make a small sacrifice for what they, rightly or wrongly, at all events in the exercise of their parental discretion,
    1602
    consider to be an advantage, why do you prevent them from doing it? It is, therefore, not on denominational grounds, not on social grounds, not on financial grounds least of all—because I think the financial ground is a very small one—but it is on purely educational grounds that I am obliged to differ from the President of the Board of Education, and that, pursuing, as he does, a strictly educational argument, I am led to the opposite conclusion which he has expressed, and must vote accordingly.
    Mr. T. RICHARDSON: I am glad to learn that the President of the Board of Education is not prepared to accept the Amendment, and I venture to express the hope that the Committee will accept the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman to view and discuss this question purely and exclusively from the standpoint of education. I listened to the address of the Mover of the Amendment, and also to the speech that was delivered in support by the hon. Member for Oxford City, and I respectfully suggest that, in the course of those two speeches, not a single argument was submitted to the Committee on educational grounds. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik) did say in his closing words that he approached this question from the standpoint of education, but I think that the arguments he used in the course of his speech were not educational, but that he at considerable pains laboured the suggestion as to the social conditions of fee-paying schools. The hon. Member took us back to the year 1889, and he referred to some gentleman whom he claimed as the leader of the Labour party in Scotland.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Glasgow.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Or in Glasgow, and he told the Committee that his friend urged upon him the importance of keeping in mind that there were sections of the working classes who, because of social reasons, were anxious that their children should have the opportunity of attending a school that in the social sense would be just a little bit above the average of the rank and file of the children of the working classes. There are two comments I want to make upon that observation, and the first is to remind the right hon. Gentleman that, not only in Scotland, but in Britain as a whole, we have travelled quite a long way since the year 1889, and

    1603
    there are other Members in this House who will bear me out when I say that there does come a mandate from the organised workers in Scotland demanding from this House the right of a complete and an efficient system of free education. I venture to suggest to the right hon. Member—and I feel quite certain the President of the Board of Education has a knowledge of the fact—that, so far as Labour has expressed any opinion on this issue before the Committee this afternoon, it has spoken with absolute unanimity as to the desirability and the urgency of the abolition of that social dis-diction which, I think, has militated very much against education. If I may, I would just ask to be allowed to supplement one of the arguments of the President of the Board of Education, when he pointed out that, since the passing of the 1902 Education Act, by a natural process, the number of non-provided schools has diminished at, I think, a ratio of something like four-fifths or five-sixths, and that that process is still going on. I think I should be right in saying that but for this world War the number would be even much less than what they are to-day. Has that affected the standard of education in the districts or counties where that process of elimination of fee-paying schools has been going on? I think I am right in saying that in my native county of Durham that process has teen as pronounced as, or more pronounced than, in any county of England, and I would challenge the defenders of this fee-paying system, not only on social but on educational grounds, to question or dispute my statement when I say, speaking generally in Durham county, it is an admitted fact, even by those who are most jealous and sometimes hostile to the abolition of fee-paying schools, that the standard of education has been substantially raised as a result of that process of elimination that has gone on in Durham county, and did go on for seven, eight, or nine years after the passing of the 1902 Act.
    There is one other fact that I think the Committee would be well to keep in mind in this connection, and that is that the physical conditions, the structural arrangements, in the provided as against the non-provided schools—not only elementary but higher elementary—is very much higher. I want to resent the suggestion that there is any volume of opinion amongst the working classes of
    1604
    this country for the continuation of the system of fee-paying schools. I would refer to one other point made by the President of the Board of Education which is very relevant, when he pointed out that the fee-paying schools in certain restricted areas were a real hindrance. I speak with some knowledge of this question, as I had the honour to be a member of the Durham Education Committee for some years, and occupied the position of vice-chairman of that important education committee for three or four years, and we had repeated instances in certain specific districts where, because of the existence of a fee-paying school of the higher elementary or secondary type, our desire to institute a provided, publicly-owned and controlled system of free education was very substantially hindered, and I have no doubt in my own mind that the policy which is expressed in the Bill is the wise policy, is essential to an efficient national system of education, and I sincerely hope that the Committee will strongly resist the Amendment that is now being considered.
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: No one who has listened to the Debate this afternoon can help realising that the matter brought forward in this Amendment does give rise to very sharp differences of opinion, and no speech to which we have listened this afternoon has been more emphatic than that just delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. T. Richardson). But what occurred to me while listening to him was that if this strong feeling he began by asserting, on behalf of the working classes of Scotland, and subsequently for the wage earners of this country, does exist, and with the strength he asserts, then these schools, if they are allowed to continue, will die out of themselves, because if pupils do not go to them because parents are not willing to pay the fees, there will very shortly be none of these schools in existence.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: I was very careful to point out that in my own county I knew more particularly that process had been going on, but I would observe that this Bill wants to give statutory right and power to the principles of fee-paying schools.
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: As I understand—and it is the ground on which I support this Amendment—this Bill is trying to interfere with facilities which at present exist, and it seems to me the onus is upon

    1605
    those who ask that facilities which do exist, and are serving useful purposes, should be removed. It has to be shown that there is some reason why those facilities should be taken away. The general assertion of the desire that they should be taken away may be one reason, but, if that desire does exist, presumably they will be taken away automatically, and, therefore, there is no good purpose in debating the subject with a certain amount of heat in this House. But the real point is that unless something is done, these facilities will continue to exist, and people will take advantage of them, and it is there I join issue with some members of the Committee, because I feel—and it is the ground on which I have opposed other Clauses in the Bill—that this is an attempt—an unjustifiable attempt in my opinion—to interfere with the liberty of parents in deciding what advantages their children shall enjoy if they are prepared to make sacrifices to give them those advantages. That, to my mind, is the plain issue.
    I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities that the financial question is not an important one. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education tells us that when he considered this question, the first matter to which he paid attention was the financial question. He had a financial scheme, and because he could not fit, or found a difficulty in fitting, the continued existence of those schools into his financial scheme—well, it was not the financial scheme that had to be altered; it was the schools that had to go. I should have thought that if the choice had to be taken, the first thing was to see whether a financial scheme, which, after all, is only machinery, could not be modified to fit the circumstances. We could not take a financial scheme and build education upon it. It seems to me to be reversing the order. Therefore, I attach far less importance to that aspect of the speech of the President of the Board of Education than to those portions of it which related to education pure and simple, and I am glad to find that there has been, certainly this afternoon, and on other occasions, a consensus of desire on the part of this House to avoid all introduction of the religious question. With that I am entirely in agreement. I think that the arguments addressed to the House by the President of the Board were to some extent inconsistent. He
    1606
    admitted that at the present time the education given in these schools is, perhaps, of a somewhat superior type to the education which can be found in the ordinary non-fee-paying schools.
    Mr. FISHER: No; I did not admit that. The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I said that in a very limited number of schools, about seventy, it might be possible to say that the education was superior.
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: For the purposes of my argument it is sufficient that there is a substantial number. It is admitted that in a number of these schools the education is superior, and the right hon. Gentleman went on to express a very laudable desire to bring up the standard education in all these higher elementary schools to the standard of the best of these fee-paying schools. That is a very laudable desire, but I think it would be bound to have the effect that the standard of the fee-paying schools, if continued, would certainly be raised again. I do not know why anyone should object to the standard being continually raised, and if the standard of the less expensive school is to be spurred ahead by reason of the fact that a good standard exists for other schools so much the better. It is this constant desire to level everything, to go by rule of thumb, to cut to the same pattern, that I think is likely to exercise a most devastating influence on the future life of this country. We have attained such success as we enjoy by the development of initiative on a number of different lines, and the idea that everything is to be of the same character is not my idea of what it is we ought to try and establish in this country. I do not pay much attention to the social aspect of this question. I do not think we need inquire why parents wish their children to go to a particular school. If they do wish them to go to a particular school, and the educational standards of that school are sufficient to ensure that they will receive a proper education, I do not think we need inquire further in any class of the community. I hold that the parents should in these circumstances be entitled to give the advantages they desire to their children, and that if they are prepared to make the sacrifices which that course of conduct entails, it is a very praiseworthy attitude on their part, and one which, in the interests of the community, should be

    1607
    very much encouraged and certainly not discouraged. There was one argument of the President which I think was unworthy of him. He has told us already that the number of the fee-paying schools is, I think, 430, and that the number of the non-fee-paying schools is 10,000.
    Mr. FISHER: Twenty-one thousand.
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: Twenty-one thousand. These schools do certainly represent a very small proportion of the whole. Surely he need not attach so much importance to the ewe lambs that go to these schools that he must have them in his own flocks, that with the object of getting everybody into the same fold and on the same level as the 21,000 he must lay violent hands on the pupils of the 430 and bring them all in! If he cannot give education in manners, refinement, and so
    on in the schools in which he has a free hand to organise, he is not likely to get it by dragging into them, against the wishes of their parents, this comparatively small number of children who are scattered throughout the country. That is not an argument to which we should be asked to pay much attention, or to gain that problematical advantage by riding rough-shod over the liberties of these self-sacrificing parents. In these circumstances, if the Amendment is pressed, I shall feel bound to vote in favour of it. I shall do so as a protest against this continuous interference by the Board of Education with the legitimate rights of the parents of the children.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 157.

    Division No. 58.]

    AYES.

    [5.21 p.m.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

    Fletcher, John S.

    Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

    Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Ganzoni, Francis J. C.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

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

    Gardner, Ernest

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peal

    Beach, William F. H.

    Gretton, John

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervass

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence (Ashford)

    Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)

    Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

    Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

    Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.)

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

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

    Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

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

    Cator, John

    Hope, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Midlothian)

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col, Hon. Claud

    Cautley, Horary Strother

    Hunter, Maj. Sir Chas. Rodk.

    Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

    Cheyne, Sir William W.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

    Younger, Sir George

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Denniss, Edmund R. Bartley

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Du Pre, Maj. W. B.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Bigland and Mr. Marriott.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Mount, William Arthur

    NOES.

    Agnew, Sir George

    Davies, Timothy (Louth)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

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

    Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Hibbert, Sir Henry

    Baker, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Accrington)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Higham, John Sharp

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, B.)

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir James B.

    Hinds, John

    Barran, Sir Rowland H. (Leeds, N.)

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Otley)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Edge, Capt. William

    Holmes, D. T.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Bentinck, Lord Henry

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Bird, Alfred

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

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Black, Sir Arthur W.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Hudson, Walter

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Bryce, John Annan

    Glanville, Harold James

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

    John, Edward Thomas

    Chancellor. Henry George

    Goldstone, Frank

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Alfred

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

    Clough, William

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Rushcliffe)

    Collins, Sir Stephan (Lambeth)

    Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

    Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Collins, Sir William (Derby)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Cowan, Sir William Henry

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

    King, Joseph

    Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, E.)

    Hancock, John George

    Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Hanson, Charles Augustin

    Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)

    Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Davies, Ellis William (Elffon)

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, South)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    M'Kean, John

    Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Macleod, John M.

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth, S.)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

    Tootill, Robert

    Mason, Robert

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Morgan, George Hay

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince)

    Nicholson, Sir Chas. N. (Doncaster)

    Roch, Walter F.

    Wardle, George J.

    Norman, Rt. Hon. Major Sir H.

    Rowlands, James

    Watt, Henry A.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Ogden, Fred

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (D'sbury)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (N' wood)

    Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea)

    Outhwalte, R. L.

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

    Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Partington, Hon. Oswald

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Winfrey, Sir R.

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Leek)

    Smith, Albert (Clitheroe)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Pease, Rt. Hon. H. P. (Darlington)

    Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Liverpool)

    Worthington-Evans, Major Sir L.

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Pratt, John W.

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Lord

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Stoker, R. B.

    Edmund Talbot and Capt. Guest.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. KING: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
    We have had a very interesting discussion for just two hours now upon a reactionary proposal, which I am pleased to say was adequately defeated. I now ask the indulgence of the Committee for only two minutes while I put forward a progressive one, a practical, progressive, simple, and, I believe, thoroughly reasonable, proposal—namely, that we should strike out altogether Sub-section (2), which imposes a heavy charge upon the Exchequer, amounting to more than £300,000. The President of the Board of Education will save me the trouble of making a speech if he will intimate at once that he will accept my Amendment. He will not only save the time of the Committee, but he will save the taxpayers of this country more than £300,000. I know in these days, when we are spending with a light heart and a gay confidence £7,750,000 a day, an economy of £300,000 on education does not seem much to offer. But I think it is worth getting. Not only will he save this money if he adopts the course I suggest, but he will save an amount of administration, of statistics, and of calculations, because everybody who looks at this second Sub-section will see that after five years from the appointed day—it may be ten years or fewer, or even more years ahead—we have got to pay what is proposed. If you adopt my proposal, and leave out the whole of this Sub-section, you do away with the whole of these calculations, statistics, and all the administration connected therewith, and in addition to the saving of money I am sure it will be a saving to the offices concerned in paper and ink, and all the rest of it, of
    1610
    at least £20,000. That is, perhaps, a very little consideration in these days, but it is a consideration to me, and, I believe, to many others. My proposal is that these people who have been drawing large amounts of money from the school fees without any adequate educational return shall not be compensated.
    Mr. FISHER: I am unable to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon Gentleman the Member for North Somerset. Although it is perfectly true what he has said, yet it must not be forgotten that those concerned have been receiving a proportion of revenue with the consent of the local education authorities, and in accordance with the settlement reached in 1902. Therefore, it does not seem fair that the Board of Education should step in, and, while abolishing these schools, and depriving them of a source of income which they have enjoyed for a considerable number of years, should not offer some compensation. Time, too, should be allowed in order that they may adapt themselves to the altered conditions, and to make good their deficiency in revenue. For that reason I think it is only fair that some Clause providing for compensation should be retained.
    Mr. BIGLAND: The proposal of the hon. Member for North Somerset is one which, in my opinion, will be nothing short of robbery. I do not think the hon. Member realises that the public who subscribed money for this land and these buildings gave them to the nation on certain conditions, including the condition that they should have the use of the buildings during certain hours of the week, and that they were to be allowed to continue

    1611
    this right of charging fees. I say it would be national dishonesty if the Amendment were passed. I feel this matter very strongly. Men that I know personally have subscribed thousands and thousands of pounds, voluntarily to buy land on which to erect these buildings and to put up schools. There was a national settlement in 1902. I remember in that year the fierce controversy that arose as to whether these people would withdraw their buildings from public use altogether and devote them to other purposes. I can assure the hon. Member for North Somerset that in my town of Birkenhead we had then accommodation for 11,000 children in this kind of school. If these had been withdrawn it would have cost the Crown an enormous sum of money to buy other sites on which to erect other schools in place of these to which I refer. An enormous national asset came to the nation by agreement in 1902, and it would be nothing more than confiscation if this House now set it down that no compensation should be given and that this Clause should be wiped out of the Bill.
    Mr. BOOTH: I should not like the appeal of the hon. Member who has just spoken to pass unobserved through the House. We may support the Government in their wrong-doing, because, I gather, this is not one of the principal features of the Bill, but it is a very different thing to say that we are convinced by the arguments. The hon. Member who has just sat down has charged the hon. Member for North Somerset with robbery. That hon. Gentleman does not propose to rob the public till.
    Mr. KING: I want to prevent other people robbing the public till.
    Mr. BOOTH: Yes; robbery of the till from which the money is coming, which is the public purse. It is quite clear that this means grants of public money. The hon. Member for North Somerset does not propose that any friends of his should put their hands into the public purse. It is the hon. Member for Birkenhead that wants that. He wants money from the public Exchequer. Therefore, if there is any robbery in this, it is to devote public money to vested interests. If there were any Radical economy party left in this House, such as was here in our young days, this would have been fought to the death.
    1612
    There is no doubt about that! It is against all the principles that were adopted, not only by the Radical party, but even by some of the Conservatives a generation ago. You are actually going to take public money at a time like this when it is so badly needed for the War—and for afterwards, too! You are going in a time of scarcity to demand public funds to give to these people.
    Take the matter of confiscation—confiscation of what? You cannot confiscate unless you confiscate property. These people have certain buildings. Who is going to take them or to sell them? We all know how these properties came into existence. The argument used in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birkenhead, and in our constituencies, too, was: put up one of these schools and so save the school board rate. The thing was done as a matter of business. I could give instances of township after township where words of this nature were addressed to owners of property, who were induced to attend meetings, and the appeal to property owners was, if they came forward and subscribed voluntarily, and put up one of these schools, they would avoid the council school system of national education "prepared to be thrust," as it was said, "on an unwilling district." At these meetings calculations were put before those present as to what they would have to pay under a rate; and limited firms, who did not care anything about denominational education—who cared for nothing but dividends—had calculations made by their secretaries for their boards of directors as to the amount of money they would pay under a rate, and whether or not it would be better and a saving to give a subscription to the proposed schools. One, therefore, accepts arguments in this matter with a good deal of hesitation. I am not for the moment speaking on the main question, but on the extraordinary reasons given to the House by the Government for their action in this matter. I understand the Minister for Education has made what he considers a promise in order to get over the difficulty. I wish he had found some other way. I do not think he can justify compensation in this case out of public funds. I should have, thought it was a case for private subscription. A good many would be prepared to contribute. At any rate, if there are many people, as suggested in the speeches on the last proposed Amendment, or if there

    1613
    is anything in the case presented for it. There are not only rich people who have avoided the rates all these years by keeping education back, but there is the better class of poor people who are dying to pay so much per week school fees. If the Government think that the way they suggest is the best way out of the difficulty, I suppose we shall have to agree, but I could have wished some other means had been found, for this may easily lead to other and greater dangers.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not think the last speech should be allowed to pass unnoticed. The hon. Member for Pontefract has attacked my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Bigland). Does the hon. Member realise what he says? What are the facts? Take a school put up—rightly or wrongly—in 1902.
    Mr. KING: Take one put up before 1891.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Take any time or date you like. I will not press that point. A school is put up. I do not for the moment bother about the motives. The sanction of the Government is obtained under terms that if the school provides an education which satisfies the Government they will allow fees or pence to be taken from the children. That is a business transaction. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down would be one of the first to appreciate the importation of a business transaction. Now the suggestion is to break that agreement, and so injuriously affect the people who put up this school. What is the answer to that? It is suggested that there are those who will be eager to subscribe, working-class people as well as others. For what? The school will no longer be able to carry on on the basis of a fee-paying school. What is to become of the school? It has either to go on or to be taken entirely over by the local education authority, or else be shut up. In those circumstances some sort of compensation should be granted. The hon. Member opposite says there is nothing wrong in breaking a contract for compensation.
    Mr. BOOTH: I never suggested breaking a contract.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: It is perfectly obvious that the contract was made with the Government sanction, and it provided that if those concerned make provision for certain education they would be allowed to charge fees. That is in existence
    1614
    under Statute. Of course, it is open now to the Government under this Bill, if they like, to seize these schools on terms by an extraordinary compensation Clause to which we will come later. I do not think it will be adequate compensation to the owner of the bricks and the mortar. But the hon. Gentleman opposite, I think, should consider those who are anxious to support these schools, and so long as they give the kind of education which has been arranged that they should receive what they have been promised by the Government. Of course, I am not going to apply the term "robber" to the hon. Member for North Somerset, and I will not use any word of that kind.
    Mr. KING: I propose to say a few words to the Committee upon this Amendment. The last Amendment took two hours, and was of a most reactionary character, and this has only taken ten minutes, and it is of a most progressive character. The claim I put forward that my Amendment is going to save a great deal of public money has not been denied. The hon. Member for Birkenhead says that by this proposal I shall be robbing him and his friends. I think this is about the first time that private interests, including those of the hon. Member opposite, have been put forward in the form of a claim that they should receive such generous and free gifts from the public purse. I wish to call attention to the facts as they obtain in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Birkenhead. In Birkenhead you have the voluntary schools charging fees, and they are in such a condition of entrenched privilege as you do not find in any other constituency.
    Hon. Members will recollect a series of questions which I put shortly before we went to war, and they will remember that I very much upset the people of Birkenhead, because I drew from the Board of Education the fact that these schools, which were receiving large sums in fees from the children, had been condemned as insanitary and inefficient and without playgrounds for years past, although these voluntary school managers had been receiving £1,000 a year from the school pence out of £2,190, the other larger part going to the local education authority. These schools, although they were getting £1,000 a year and more for something like twenty years, were still condemned as insanitary. In the first days of the War these schools had to be

    1615
    commandeered in Birkenhead, and when the military authorities went into these fee-paying schools, which the hon. Member for Birkenhead stands up here and represents as wonderfully superior schools, they said we would sooner put our soldiers into a pigsty." When the hon. Member for Birkenhead gets up here and wastes the time of the Committee, pleading that he ought to be compensated and that his constituency and his friends should be compensated, and I stand up for the integrity of public life and protecting the public purse from such unjust rates, I leave the Committee to judge where the justice is. I am not sorry that I intervened, and although I stand alone, I shall stand for the purity of public life, and I protest against these constant raids on the public purse.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the word "five" ["During a period of five years from the appointed day"], and to insert instead thereof the word "three."
    I move this Amendment in order to get a pledge from the President of the Board of Education, and if the right hon. Gentleman would say that he is going to stand fast by the free education Clause, I will not move any more Amendments on this Clause. If he is not willing to give me that pledge, then we shall have to have some more discussion.
    Mr. FISHER: I cannot accept this Amendment, and I believe what we have done represents a very fair arrangement.
    Mr. KING: I only move my Amendment in order to get a pledge, but, that pledge has been refused.
    Mr. FISHER: I have refused nothing.
    Mr. KING: The attitude taken up by the President has given rise to a good deal of friction. He has allowed a reactionary Debate, and we want to know whether he is going to keep these things in the Bill as they are. I ask him if he is going to keep this Clause in at all costs. As a democrat I consider that this is one of the best Clauses in the Bill. I know there is going to be great force brought against it, and unless he is going to give us a pledge to keep this Clause in, I shall have to move my Amendments.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I wish to enter a protest against the form of Parliamentary threat adopted by the hon. Member for North Somerset. We can only decide a particular thing, and is it fair to ask the Government to pledge themselves that, whatever happens on the Report stage, they will not listen to the arguments? Further, if in another place an alteration is made, are we to expect the Government to pledge themselves not to entertain such alteration, and to keep in a particular Clause? The hon. Member for North Somerset says that he stands alone in speaking for the purity and integrity of the House of Commons. I am sure that he is as anxious as I am that the Debate here should be real and genuine, and, therefore, it is unfair to suggest that the Government should give a pledge of this kind, in spite of what may happen on the Report stage in another place.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I always thought that the supporters of democracy believed in the people having a full opportunity of discussing things. Now we have just had an object lesson in what the hon. Member for North Somerset desires. What ha wants is that this particular view should be taken, and unless his view is taken he threatens the Government with more discussion. That is not my definition of freedom or liberty of speech in this House.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I think a protest must be made against this proposal being added to the Bill. I listened to the Debate with great attention. At first I approached the question with an unprejudiced mind, but the more I have heard the more I am obliged to part company with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education. I have strong views that this is a retrograde step. The hon. Member for North Somerset seems to think that he alone represents the views of a large majority of the public. I do not view this as a matter raising largely he denominational question, and I do not speak from that point of view. I did not anticipate that that subject would be raised, but I have other objections which I should like to state to the House.
    In the first instance, I do feel strongly that where parents who have clean and tidy homes and respectable children find

    1617
    themselves forced to send those children among dirty children—and such cases have occurred and are likely to occur—I say that in such cases the parents ought to be allowed to remove their children and send them to a fee-paying school if they desire. That is not asking for very much. We all agitate for improvements in the conditions of public health, and some Members ask for a Ministry of Public Health. We desire to make the habits of the population more cleanly, and are we going to object to the parents who desire to remove their children from dirty to more healthy sorroundings? Although this Clause does not affect more than 437 schools, if the number is so small as that, why not leave those schools alone and allow the parents this privilege? There might be a school the children in which are notoriously addicted to bad language. I can fancy myself in the position of desiring to take away a child if I thought it was attending a school where the children were constantly using bad language. I do net see why I should not be allowed to remove my child to a fee-paying school, and, if there was such a school in the district, why should I not be allowed to make use of it? These are strong reasons for maintaining the opposite course to what my right hon. Friend has adopted.
    6.0 P.M.
    We hear a good deal about public economy. I have long taken an interest in national economy in this House, and I do think in small matters as in great we ought not to lose sight of that aspect of the question. In the educational world I was five years a member of the London School Board, and I know that some people are inclined to run away with the idea that other people are fanatics, and one has to be a little careful in one's keenness for education. In a matter of this kind, surely it is somewhat gratuitous to abolish all fees at the expense of the national taxpayer. Some parents not only can afford to pay the fees, but they are desirous of doing so. After all, local authorities can do as they like in the matter already. They are popularly elected bodies. Why should we contest their authority? Why should we contest their action in any particular district with which they are familiar? If they have found, or if they should find, it desirable to maintain certain fee-paying schools, the presumption is that there is a popular demand for those schools, and I
    1618
    do not see why they should not be granted. I am not condemning the whole system of free education. I want to make it perfectly plain that I am supporting this Bill as a whole keenly because I desire to improve education for all classes alike and not for one section only, but in every locality there are plenty of free schools, so that the continuance of a certain number of fee-paying schools is really a hardship upon no one, and the money paid by willing parents is some relief to the public purse. Why should not that be done? It is going to be done under the Scottish Education Bill, and, as has been so eloquently and forcibly pointed out, I do not see why the whole of Great Britain should not take the same line in this matter. I have always welcomed the elasticity in our educational system. I think that is one of the reasons why in so many admirable respects and in so many directions it has succeeded so well, and why you should abolish so many of the fee-paying schools and destroy that elasticity is to me a matter which I cannot altogether understand. I believe those fee-paying schools have set a high level for education. They have enabled children to go to cleanly and healthy surroundings to which, perhaps, otherwise it would not have been possible for their parents to send them. Parents have been able to withdraw their children from a school, perhaps in a certain very restricted locality, where bad language and bad habits go on, and to put them into a better school, and consequently give them a better education, to the benefit of the nation at large. I cannot refrain from making this protest at this stage against the passing of this Clause, and I feel that I have done my duty in putting it forward. After the recent Division I do not, propose again to divide the House.
    Mr. KING: I wish to make my position clear. It does not seem to me either unreasonable or difficult to understand it. I want to see free education carried through as it was really intended to be carried through when the Free Education Bill was brought in by Mr. Chamberlain and the Conservatives in 1891. The few exceptions which were then made were supposed to be temporary, and were only put into the Bill as an afterthought in response to strong denominational interests at the time. That is the pure fact of the matter. They have existed now for thirty years. In some cases those fee have been actually increased. We are

    1619
    now going to abolish them. If there were a Labour party in every local education area where they exist, they would be abolished without any compensation before this Bill came into operation. By the time that this, Bill comes into force there may have been new municipal elections throughout the country, and there may have been a wave of democratic and Liberal policy. We may find that in every area these schools have already been abolished by a single resolution of the local education authority. I should like to see that, and I think it may likely occur in a great many cases. Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, tell us that this is an essential part of the Bill? There are some essential parts of the Bill, and this is and ought to be considered one of them. If other parts have to be thrown overboard or have to be negotiated away, this Clause ought not to be. I would like to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that in 1916 we passed the Elementary Education (Fee Grant) Act. We have therefore interfered by legislation during the War with the basis on which these fees are granted, and we are not now dealing with an old settled matter which has never been touched for many years. We have altered the basis in one particular matter. I remember speaking at the time. I believe I was the only Member of the House outside the Treasury Bench who spoke on the Bill, and I pointed out in July, 1916, that this old settlement about fees in schools had broken down during the course of the War owing to the changed conditions. That being so, it is absurd to talk about unsettling an old policy. It was broken and unsettled two years ago without any protest from anyone. I therefore earnestly hope that the Committee will not only pass this Clause, but that on any future occasion when discussions come up they will regard it as an essential part of the Bill that is not to be weakened and that must stand.
    Colonel GREIG: A wrong impression has been given to the Committee about the Scottish Education Bill. I am not going to follow my hon. Friend in his arguments about the preservation of these schools, because I think they were wholly destroyed by the admirable argument of the President of the Board of Education that it is far better that there should be the pressure of the parents of children whose homes are clean and tidy to bring
    1620
    the whole of the schools up to the best standard. We have always had our separate conditions of education in Scotland, but in explaining how the schools in which fees are paid are dealt with under Clause 7 of the Scottish Bill the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik) was not quite fair. If the Committee will follow that Clause they will see what it does, and that it is quite different from the impression created by the hon. Member:
    "It shall be the duty of every local education authority within twelve months after the appointed day to prepare and submit for the approval of the Department—"
    That is, the Scottish Education Department. This, as far as I have read it, lays it down as a primary and overriding obligation upon the local authority to prepare and submit
    "a scheme for the adequate provision throughout the education area of the authority of all forms of primary, intermediate, and secondary education in day schools without the payment of fees—"
    Mr. CECIL: It has been already read.
    Colonel GREIG: Not in this form. I am going on to give the rest of the Clause, and I am going to be perfectly frank. It is made a primary, overriding, and statutory obligation upon every education authority in Scotland to provide an absolutely free system from top to bottom. That is supported by another Clause in the Bill which even gives the education authority power to pay for the maintenance and subsistence of pupils attending the secondary schools—
    "and if the authority—"
    this is the only point that can be made—
    "Think fit for the maintenance or support (in addition and without prejudice to such adequate provision as aforesaid) of a limited number of schools where fees are paid charged in some or all of the classes."
    If I may take the legal view of it, it is a primary obligation to provide a free system from top to bottom. There happen to be some schools in Scotland where fees are paid, and if the local education authority, after having fully discharged their statutory duty, think that it is advisable to maintain fees in certain schools, well and good they can do it. It is left entirely to the local authority, but if the local authority refuses or declines to fulfil their major obligation, not a penny can go to the fee schools at all. That is the position

    1621
    under the Bill. I am aware that the Bill has still to go through the Committee upstairs, but I do not suppose that anyone will attack it upon that point. We are not behind England in education ideas; as a matter of fact, we are giving England a lead, and it is not fair to us in Scotland to cite a Bill of this sort, which does impose this major and overriding obligation, as if it were a reactionary measure.
    Mr. CECIL: May I say, in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, that I have never heard any speech in more complete justification of the attitude taken up by myself and my Friends? We ask that there should be a complete and general system of free education, and that the local education authority, where it thinks proper, should have a limited number of schools where fees are paid in answer to the popular demand. That is exactly what is provided in the Scottish Bill, that is what the hon. Member has been defending, and that is what we ask.
    Mr. BOOTH: I thank the hon. and gallant Member for explaining that point with regard to the Scottish Bill. I was certainly under a total misapprehension, and he has shown that the Committee have a right to complain that the English and Scottish Bills are entirely different on this point. I am not prepared to say that this is an advance on the Scottish Bill, but the Government for their own convenience have brought the English Bill down here and have sent the Scottish Bill upstairs. We ought to have before us both these Bills, which on many of the main points are rather contradictory. They are contradictory on this particular Clause, but whether the Amendment which has just been disposed of brought this Bill nearer, or took it further away from the Scottish system, is a matter for argument. We have, however, a right to complain that the Government should bring in two Education Bills at the same time and should not have the courage to bring them both on the floor of the House. I warn the Government that if they have the courage to bring in two absolutely contradictory Bills on many vital points, they must be prepared to have discussions from time to time on the differences in those Bills.
    Clause 23 (Voluntary Inspection of Schools) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 24.—(Collection of Information Respecting Schools.)
    (1) In order that full information may be available as to the provision for education and the use made of such provision in England and Wales—

    (a) It shall be the duty of the responsible person as hereinafter defined in respect of every school or educational institution not in receipt of Grants from the Board of Education to furnish to the Board of Education in a form prescribed by the Board—

    (i) in the case of a school or educational institution existing at the appointed day, within three months of that day;

    (ii) in the case of a school or educational institution opened after the appointed day, within three months of the opening thereof;

    the name and address of the school or institution and a short description of the school or institution

    (b) It shall be the duty of every such responsible person when required by the Board of Education to furnish to the Board such further particulars with respect to the school or institution as may be prescribed by Regulations made by the Board:

    Provided that the Board may exempt from both or either of the above obligations any schools or educational institutions with respect to which the necessary information is already in the possession of the Board or is otherwise available.
    (2) If the responsible person fails to furnish any information required by this Section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds, and to a penalty not exceeding five pounds for every, day on which the failure continues after conviction therefor.
    (3) For the purpose of this Section "the responsible person" means the secretary or person performing the duty of secretary to the governing body of the school or institution, or if there is no governing body the headmaster or person responsible for the management of the school or institution.
    (4) Any Regulations made by the Board of Education under this Section with respect to the particulars to be furnished shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made.
    Sir S. COATS: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, b), after the word "particulars" ["furnish to the Board such further particulars"], to insert the words "relating to educational matters."
    The President will recognise that this is an Amendment of an entirely reasonable character. It restricts the right of the Board of Education, in interrogating the responsible heads of non-provided schools, to matters which have to do with education only. It is quite conceivable that these interrogations may be extended by one so minded to inquiries as to endowments,

    1623
    trustees, and so forth, and vexatious correspondence might ensue which would be of no advantage and would lead nowhere. This is only a reasonable protection to be extended in the circumstances. I should be very glad if the President will say whether he would be willing to publish a form of inquiry which could be laid before this House, which could be criticised and which would give sufficient protection to the managers and those responsible for non-provided schools.
    Mr. FISHER: I quite understand the anxiety of my hon. Friend that voluntary institutions should be protected from inquisitorial demands or unreasonable requests for information, but I think that this protection is provided in the Clause itself. If the hon. Member will look at Sub-section (4) he will see it states—
    "Any Regulations made by the Board of Education under this Section with respect to the particulars to be furnished shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made."
    The effect of these words is to incorporate the Rules Publication Act. I would observe that the Regulations must, in the first place, be published in draft, and an opportunity afforded to all persons interested to offer objections or representations. This will ensure full investigation of the question and, if the Board has made extravagant demands for information, means will be found for discussing the matter in Parliament. I hope that will satisfy my hon. Friend?
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir N. HELME: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words,
    "Provided also that in the case of institutions certified by the Board of Control under the Mental Deficiency Act such information and particulars shall be furnished by the Board of Control."
    We shall all be in thorough agreement with the object of this Clause. Certainly the Board of Education are entitled to ascertain what places there are in England and Wales which are carrying on the work of education, and what kind of education is therein given. The object of this Amendment is not to prevent that in any way, but, as the Government has introduced the following provision—
    "Provided that the Board may exempt from both or either of the above obligations any schools or educational institutions in respect to which the necessary information is already in the possession of the Board or is otherwise available"—
    1624
    I would ask that there should be a clear understanding with regard to those institutions which are under the Board of Control. There are such charitable institutions as, for instance, the Royal Albert Institution at Lancaster, which is doing great work on behalf of the six northern counties. While we in that institution are desirous of adapting its educational processes to the wishes of the Board of Education, an arrangement has already been come to with the Board of Control and the Board of Education that such work shall be done through the Board of Control. As that arrangement has already been completed, the Committee will agree that it is not an improper request to urge that the Board of Control should be the authority through which the inquiry is made. In asking for the insertion of these words I am not taking the risk of opening the question to wider issues. It might be suggested that other boards, such as the Board of Agriculture, might come in, but I would point out that where a Statute limits the object prescribed within its terms, there is no need whatever, when a Bill is passed, to fear that other institutions might be affected by it.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. H. Lewis): I would submit to my hon. Friend and the Committee that the Amendment is unnecessary. I do not take the same view of the agreement referred to by my hon. Friend in regard to this particular matter. The Board of Control themselves have not expressed any desire that this Amendment should be passed. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Board of Education will consult the Board of Control as to the method by which the information desired under this Clause with regard to educational matters shall be obtained.
    Sir N. HELME: The Amendment was not put down at the request of the Board of Control in any way. As the Government are unwilling to accept the suggestion I have offered, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 25.—(Provisions with Respect to Appointment of Certain Classes of Teachers.)
    (1) Notwithstanding anything in the Education Act, 1902, the appointment of all teachers of secular subjects not attached to the staff

    1625
    of any particular public elementary school, and teachers appointed for the purpose of giving practical instruction, pupil teachers and student teachers, shall be made by the local education authority, and it is hereby declared that the local education authority have power to direct the managers of any public elementary schools not provided by them to make arrangements for the admission of any such teachers to the schools.
    (2) The provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section seven of the Education Act, 1902, shall apply to any question which arises under this Section between the local education authority and the managers of a school.
    The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Jowett)—[in Subsection (1), after the word "all," to insert the words "caretakers and assistants and all"]—is not within the scope of this Clause. The second Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King)—to leave out the word "not" in Sub-section (1)—["not attached to the staff"]—would amount to a large Amendment of the Act of 1902 relating to the appointment of all teachers by the local education authority. I do not say that it is out of order in the Bill, but it should be brought up as a separate Clause.
    Sir S. COATS: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "pupil teachers and student teachers."
    This is a very serious matter. It involves the question whether the agreement of 1902 is being observed in this Bill. The question of pupil teachers and student teachers being exempted from the Clause is considered a very important matter indeed by those who have the responsibility for a large number of non-provided schools. I know that this matter has been laid before their experts, who have expressed themselves as very strongly of the opinion that unless the words "pupil teachers and student teachers" are cut out of the Clause it would be an infringement of the settlement of 1902. I know that the President of the Board of Education is most anxious to do all he can to meet any fair and reasonable representations from those responsible for the voluntary schools. I had a conversation with him on the whole subject some months ago, in which he gave me very satisfactory assurances. I trust he will consider that if I am not one of those who have approached him on this subject, yet I speak with full responsibility when I say that those in charge of voluntary schools in this country are very much exercised upon
    1626
    this point. They feel very strongly that it would be inimical to the interests of those schools if these words were retained in the Clause. I therefore trust that he will give this matter his careful consideration, and, if possible, meet those whom I represent in regard to it. I would not urge this point so strongly unless I felt that the results would be very serious. I hope that he will give me some encouragement, and that the representations I have made will not fail of their effect.
    Mr. FISHER: The reason why the Bill proposes that pupil teachers and student teachers should be appointed by local education authorities is not that the authorities are anxious to extend their control over voluntary schools or that the Bill desires to alter the denominational system. But, in view of the dearth of teachers, it is of the first importance that there should be no obstacle to the adequate training of those who intend to adopt the teaching profession. Pupil teachers and student teachers receive elementary school, and it is essential that elementary school, and it is essential that the local education authority should be able to put them into the school which is most fitted to receive them. The present law upon the subject is that, in cases where there are more candidates for the post of pupil teachers than there are places to be filled, the appointment is to be made by the local education authority. The Clause therefore introduces only a very slight change. As things are at present, local education authorities are constantly, in virtue of the provisions of the existing law, sending pupil teachers and student teachers into voluntary schools, and it is generally regarded as a great compliment by the school that the school should be selected as being a school in which student teachers and pupil teachers may receive an admirable training in the principles and methods of their art. I think I am right in saying that in no single case has a local education authority used its power to introduce a Protestant student teacher or pupil teacher into a Catholic school, or, vice versa, to introduce a Catholic pupil teacher or student teacher into a Protestant school. The discretion which the local education authorities have shown hitherto in that respect will, I believe, be extended in the future. My hon. Friend said that this Clause was

    1627
    giving considerable alarm to the supporters of voluntary schools. All that I can say is that I have received no representations upon the subject from the representatives of Church of England schools. It is generally felt that it is very desirable that good schools should be open to student teachers and pupil teachers, so that our intending teachers should receive the best possible opportunities for development in education which are open to them. I may add that it very seldom happens that the manager of a voluntary school is so unreasonable as to resist the local education authority which desires to send a pupil teacher or student teacher into the school. Such cases are rare, but when they do occur they are sometimes unreasonable and extremely unjust to the pupil teacher or student teacher, who is thereby deprived of his best chance of receiving instruction in the art of teaching. I therefore feel, although I am very anxious to preserve with every possible respect the existing settlement, that it is in the interests of education that these words should be retained in the Clause.
    Sir S. COATS: Would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to consider some words on the Report stage which would perhaps introduce the safeguards that we desire?
    Mr. FISHER: Before giving a pledge I should like to know what safeguards the hon. Member proposes.
    Amendment negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment—at the end, to add the words,
    "In making arrangements with respect to the appointment of teachers the local education authority shall not make or authorise any diffentiation as regards salary on the ground of sex"—
    is out of place on this Clause, which does not deal with salaries of teachers at all.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: As there is a very great deal of interest in the matter, may I ask you, Sir, whether it will be better to put it down as a new Clause?
    The CHAIRMAN: I take it the hon. Member's purpose is to try to make statutory a matter which can now be dealt with by Regulation. If that is so, it should be brought up in the form of a new Clause.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Can the right hon. Gentleman state in what respects this Clause alters the Education Act of 1902 other than with regard to pupil teachers and students entering into elementary schools? The Clause begins, "Notwithstanding anything in the Education Act," and then follow a number of things which may be done.
    Mr. FISHER: I think it is a little uncertain whether, in accordance with the terms of the Education Act of 1902, the managers of a voluntary school could be compelled—I do not think they could be compelled—to accept a teacher of cookery, let us say, or dairy work, or housecraft, or a peripatetic teacher of physical exercises not regularly attached to the staff. I think the Act of 1902, when it deals with teachers, contemplates permanent members of the staff. But the recent development in practical education has produced a body of teachers who are only part-time teachers, sometimes for only an hour a week, and it is very desirable that local education authorities should have power to compel school managers to receive such teachers.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me to ask how far he proposes to proceed this afternoon and whether he intends to take new Clauses—in fact, what he proposes to do?
    Mr. FISHER: I hope to get the Clauses of the Bill to-day.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: It is a very large power to put a particular teacher into a particular school even in its limited form. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider, between now and Report, some power of veto on the part of the managers, if that could be done without spoiling the scheme of the Bill? Friction has occurred before and may occur again, and this power might be used very harshly against particular school managers. If a person is known to hold views possibly obnoxious or objectionable to the manager of the school there should be some power of veto, possibly with a right of appeal, as a safeguard to the managers.
    Clause 26 (Provisions as to Closing of Schools) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 27.—(Grouping of Non-Provided Schools of the same Denominational Character.)
    Where there are two or more public elementary schools not provided by the local education

    1629
    authority of the same denominational character in the same locality, the local education authority, if they consider that it is expedient for the purpose of educational efficiency and economy, may, with the approval of the Board of Education, give directions for the distribution of the children in those schools according to age, sex, or attainments, and otherwise with respect to the organisation of the schools; and for the grouping of the schools under one body of managers constituted in the manner provided by Sub-section (2) of Section twelve of the Education Act, 1902:
    Provided that, if the constitution of the body of managers falls to be determined by the Board of Education under that Section, the Board shall observe the principles and proportions prescribed by Sections six and eleven of that Act; and that, if the managers of a school affected by any directions given under this Section request a public inquiry, the Board shall hold a public inquiry before approving those directions.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move to leave out the words
    "not provided by the local education authority of the same denominational character."
    If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the Amendment I will not press it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, after "1902," to insert the words
    "and for closing any one or more of the grouped schools and the transfer of the scholars therein to other schools."
    This Clause deals with the grouping of schools, and I believe it is a very valuable and a very necessary power. A great number of very small schools are being carried on at great expense, and there is a very unfortunate provision in the Act of 1902 which gives a sort of permanent right to live to schools with very small numbers. There are many schools where there are only about twenty or thirty children where, if you provide one good teacher, the cost is very high, but if you have, say, thirty children varying from three or four, certainly from five up to thirteen, it wants really two or three teachers to teach the children adequately. I look upon the grouping of schools as most essential if you are to carry on education in sparse country or in some of our smaller towns where a number of very small denominational schools have been established. In Torquay, for instance, you have a very large number of very small schools. They are very costly indeed. They are very poorly staffed and equipped, and if you were to combine them and group them together and close several of them you would have much better schools at much less expense and you would be able to treat the teachers much
    1630
    better and give the children a very much better opportunity. The whole of the future of our elementary schools in certain places depends upon the grouping of schools. Fortunately this is a matter where we need not talk about denominational or vested interests. All we can direct our attention to is the efficiency of education, and I believe by this Amendment we shall be strengthening the Clause, making it simpler and more cogent, and we shall be assisting the President of the Board of Education.
    Mr. FISHER: While I realise that there may quite possibly be educational advantages in certain cases in the Amendment, I feel that it raises very contentious issues and that it would be regarded, with some degree of justice, as a departure from the basis on which we are working in this Bill. The grouping of schools would very often mean the closing of small schools, and I feel that the champions of voluntaryism would look with very great suspicion on any use of Clause 27, which might lead to the extinction, as distinguished from the grouping, of any such small schools. The object of the Clause is to facilitate grouping, but not to permit the extinction of schools, and because the Amendment would, I think, lead to the extinction of schools I feel bound in the interests of the party truce to refuse it.
    Captain Sir C. BATHURST: Of course, if any contentious question arose I should be the last to press for the acceptance of the Amendment, but I fail to see, if the local education authorities do their duty in regard to the susceptibilities and the best educational interests of those under their administration, why any such difficulty should arise. When first reading the Clause I rather assumed that, without these words which the hon. Member seeks to introduce, it was intended to mean not merely that the grouping might take place under one body of managers, but, if thought desirable, in one building. No doubt in such a county as that which I represent in an educational sense we have very great difficulties as to the efficiency of education owing to the scattered nature of the schools in some of the rural districts, where, of course, a large number of standards are very often taken together under a single teacher, and there is no doubt that in those schools educational progress is comparatively slow. Moreover, the amount of money expended in

    1631
    their upkeep is unduly large. The present system in such areas does not conduce, I am sure, either to educational efficiency or to financial economy. I had hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to fell us that powers already exist, either in the local education authority, or, failing that, in the Board, to enable such grouping to take place so as to bring the children together from several schools into one school, as well as under one board of managers, in order to increase the efficiency of such schools. This is a direction in which the Gloucester Education Committee have been pressing for improvement for some time past, and, subject only to the difficulty which I think can be overcome of providing proper means of transportation for the children from their homes to the central school, it seems to be quite within the bounds of practicability, and will tend to increase educational efficiency. I am at issue with the right hon. Gentleman when he thinks there is likely to be any contoversy as to the grouping in any single building. There is likely to be as much controversy in grouping under one competent board of managers. I should not think that the element of controversy would enter more into one case than the other. Purely from the point of view of efficiency, the grouping advocated by the hon. Member for North Somerset is one which ought to receive the favourable consideration of the Board of Education.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I should have thought the night hon. Gentleman might have been willing to accept one part of the Amendment—namely, "and for closing any one or more of the grouped schools." If that were done with the consent of the managers I think it would be desirable, and it would tend to efficiency and economy. It-would seem feasible if there is a number of small schools not giving adequate or sufficient education not only to group these schools, but to close one or more of the schools if they are found to be unnecessary in a particular neighbourhood. But I should be very sorry to see that done, except with the consent of the managers. I should have thought that part of the Amendment might have been accepted.
    Mr. RENDALL: I very much hope that the President of the Board of Education will reconsider the attitude he has adopted. The hon. Member for North Somerset proposes many Amendments
    1632
    with which we cannot agree; but when he proposes one which meets with the acceptance of Members of all parties, as this Amendment does, I think he ought to be encouraged, and I hope the President of the Board of Education will encourage him. The hon. Member for Wiltshire (Sir C. Bathurst), who knows a great deal about the education system in Gloucestershire, has spoken of the need for something of this kind being done. All of us who live in the West of England and have to deal with large scattered areas feel the need of some power of this kind, and we think it might be given to the local education authority so long as the Board are able to make proper inquiries before any Order is made. I think the President of the Board of Education is unduly sensitive as to denominational feeling in this matter. I think it has been shown that there is a great desire for equity and fairness with regard to education among all parties, and I think we might safely give this power which the hon. Member for North Somerset asked for in his Amendment.
    Mr. KING: I have had at least two eminent educationists on my side, one of whom can speak for more than one county. I have not had a single Member opposing the Amendment. The only opposition comes from the President of the Board of Education, who really is with me at heart. His only objection is that he suspects someone will raise the denominational issue. We have heard from the hon. Member for Wilton that it is not likely to be raised in this connection, and I do think the right hon. Gentleman might accept the Amendment or give me an assurance that he will consider it very carefully and make inquiries about it before the Report stage. He ought to do one or the other. If not, I shall find it necessary to go to a Division.
    Mr. FISHER: I have considered this matter very carefully, and in view of all the interests involved. The object of this Clause is to provide for a better grouping in schools of the same denomination. We do not propose under the operations of this Clause to close schools against the wishes of the managers. Of course, if the managers of any one school affected by the grouping desire or consent to the closing of the school, then the school can be closed. The question which the Committee has to consider is whether we are prepared to say that we will, in pursuance of this policy of grouping, confer

    1633
    upon the local education authority the power of closing a voluntary school without the consent of the managers of that voluntary school. That is the issue, and I contend that that is an issue which raises the denominational question. Therefore, I hope the Committee will support me in opposing this Amendment.
    Sir W. ESSEX: Has the right hon. Gentleman power, or does he take power in this Bill, to effect the closure of these schools experimentally, or when it is once done do the managers know that it is done once and for all? You might induce a great many persons to permit such a closure if they felt that they could withdraw if on experience the closure proved to be undesirable. Is there that power?
    Mr. FISHER: No.
    Sir W. ESSEX: It must be once and for all?
    Mr. FISHER: Yes.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 28.—(Provisions Relating to Central Schools and Classes.)
    (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section six of the Education Act, 1902, or, in the case of London, Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Education (London) Act, 1903, as to the appointment of managers, any public elementary school which in the opinion of the Board is organised for the sole purpose of giving advanced instruction to older children may be managed in such manner as may be approved by the local education authority, and, in the case of a school not provided by that authority, also by the managers of the school.
    (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections six and eight of the Education Act, 1902, or in Section two of the Education (London) Act, 1903, the provision of premises for classes in practical or advanced instruction for children attending from more than one public elementary school shall not be deemed to be the provision of a new public elementary school, and any class conducted in such premises may be managed in such manner as may be approved by the local education authority.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1).
    This is a very important Clause. It deals with the provisions relating to central schools and classes. What I propose to do is to leave out the first Sub-section, which practically abolishes managers in certain cases. That will overthrow one of the principles of the settlement of 1902. The President of the Board of Education invokes that sacrosanct Act of Parliament when it is convenient to him, but he lays
    1634
    unholy hands upon it here. He is going in future, under the scheme which will have to be put forward, with the driving impetus of certain special grants and awards which he will be able to give, to single out certain schools which will be of a higher grade and organised for the purpose of giving advanced instruction. These schools will no longer be managed in the old way. If you have one elementary school which is teaching advanced subjects that is all to the good, but in a place where there are three or four schools it is most undesirable, as often happens in towns, that those schools should be going parallel and doing the same work exactly side by side. It would be a great advantage if you could get one school to go ahead and to have advanced education and higher classes, continuing education for children up to an age where they will not be attracted to the unsuitable instruction given in other schools in the same locality. That would be entirely to the good; but why should you take away the old managerial status and right? Supposing there is a Church school and a Roman Catholic school, and under the scheme the Church school is singled out to give higher instruction. Though I have no great faith or veneration for the so-called truce and compromise that has been arrived at, such as it is, for denominational schools, I do not want to take away the managerial status of that Church school and put it under the local authority; but that is what, under the circumstances I am describing, will be the effect of this Clause.
    It is a Clause which I do not believe will work well, and for the objects which the right hon. Gentleman has in view I believe it will be an obstacle rather than a help. He is doing away with the managerial status in the very schools where it is most desirable to be a manager. If I wanted to leave the activities of this House and to become a school manager, the school that I should choose would be one where they were doing advanced, higher, and better work. But that is the place where you are not going to allow anyone to become a manager except the managers who are appointed by the local authority. You will not allow a person to become a manager in the ordinary way, either through local interests or because he subscribes, or perhaps through the parish council when it is a provided school. You are taking away the management from the popular and democratic person and giving it to the superior person appointed

    1635
    by the local education authority. I entirely object to that policy. I believe it will not assist the good educational objects which the Clause has in view
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. FISHER: A central school is primarily a school giving advanced instruction which collects its pupils from a wider area than the ordinary public elementary school. We have had considerable difficulty in devising any formal machinery for the management of such a central school within the four corners of Section 6 of the Education Act of 1902. Under that Section a provided school in a county has a body of managers consisting of four persons appointed by the county council, together with two appointed by minor local authorities, who are generally the parish council or the parish meeting. Let us suppose that you have a central school serving a group of twelve country parishes. It is a matter of very great difficulty to devise any formal machinery whereby two managers can be appointed to represent the twelve parish councils. It seems to be a much simpler plan to give to the county council a free hand in providing for the management of such a school as it thinks fit. I submit to the Committee that that is a rational aim.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 29.—(Saving for Non-Provided Schools.)
    Except as expressly provided by this Act, nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of the Education Acts relating to public elementary schools not provided by the local education authority.
    Colonel Sir MARK SYKES: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words "or the provisions of Part II. of the Education Act, 1902."
    Mr. FISHER: I am very glad to accept that Amendment.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: But what is the effect of this alteration?
    Mr. LEWIS: This Clause deals with public elementary schools not provided by the local education authority, and the proposal is to extend to them the provisions of Part II. of the Education Act, 1902.
    Mr. BOOTH: I think the Committee is entitled to a more definite explanation than that. As I understand it the proposal
    1636
    brings in a totally different set of schools, and I am perfectly sure the Movers of this Amendment did not put it down with the idea that it was a purely technical point. Up to the present the Amendments they have put forward have been of great substance, and I assume that this is of a like character. I do suggest to the hon. Member who proposed it that it is not sufficient for him to satisfy the Government, he ought also to satisfy the members of the Committee generally.
    Mr. FISHER: Perhaps I may explain to the Committee the precise effect of the acceptance of the Amendment. It is nil. The Act of 1902 has not been repealed and consequently its provisions are still valid, except in so far as they have been modified in small details by the present Bill. Consequently, there is no need for Clause 29 at all. It simply reaffirms the fact that the Act of 1902 is unrepealed. But there were apprehensions expressed in various quarters that the Bill we are submitting to. Parliament would materially change the settlement of 1902, and it was in order to reaffirm the principle—a course which my legal advisers tell me is quite unnecessary—that Clause 29 was inserted in the Bill. I think the broad matter which interests my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment is probably to be found in Subsection (2) of Section 2 of the Act of 1902, which provides that the council, in exercising their powers in this part of the Act, shall have regard to the existing schools established under the Technical Instruction Act.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I have not the slightest objection to carrying that out, but the Amendment does not seem to do it. I am always rather jealous of Amendments that are put to the House in this way. The Clause reads that "except as expressly provided by this Act nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of the Education Act relating to public elementary schools not provided by the local education authority," and then it is proposed to add the words "or the provisions of Part II. of the Education Act of 1902." Why is it necessary to insert these words? Why not leave the Clause as it is? I am always suspicious of putting in words that mean nothing. The right hon. Gentleman says the Clause means nothing, and I therefore do not quite follow the object in putting it in.
    Mr. FISHER: I am sorry I have not made myself quite clear. If the lion, and learned Member will refer to Clause 29 he will see that it deals with public elementary schools—
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Yes; non-provided.
    Mr. FISHER: Yes; non-provided public elementary schools, and it was felt that if we had a Clause in the Bill stating that nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of the Education Act relating to public elementary schools not provided by the local education authority the inference might be drawn that higher education would not be similarly protected, and that the provisions in respect of the higher education in the Act of 1902 would no longer be valid. These words will emphasise the fact that these provisions will still apply.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I see; I have no objection.
    Mr. BOOTH: I understand that this is an unnecessary Amendment to a superfluous Clause, and the whole thing is based upon a misapprehension. Under the circumstances I think we may pass it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 30.—(Acquisition of Land by Local Education Authority.)
    (1) A local education authority may be authorised to purchase land compulsorily for the purpose of any of their powers or duties under the Education Acts, by means of an Order submitted to the Board of Education and confirmed by the Board in accordance with the provisions contained in paragraphs (1) to (13) of the First Schedule to the Housing, Town Planning, Etc., Act, 1909, and those provisions shall have effect for the purpose, with the substitution of the Board of Education for the Local Government Board, of the local education authority for the local authority, and of references to the Education Acts for references to "this Act":
    Provided that the Board of Education shall not confirm any such Order even when unopposed if they are of opinion that the land is unsuited for the purpose for which it is proposed to be acquired.
    (2) The powers given by this Section in relation to the compulsory purchase of land by the local education authority shall be in substitution for any other powers existing for that purpose.
    Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "authority" ["A local education authority"], to insert the words "subject to the provisions of the Housing, Town Planning, Etc., Act, 1900."
    1638
    This Clause proposes to give to the local education authority power to acquire land compulsorily for the building of schools, and it gives them the powers contained in paragraphs (1) to (13) of the First Schedule of the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909. That Schedule, as far as I can understand it, will give the Board of Education power to take land on its own authority in a rural district, but it requires that if the land is situated in London, or in an urban district, or borough, the Board shall appoint an impartial person to hold an inquiry, and if the result of the inquiry is adverse, then the Board can only proceed by means of a Provisional Order. These are the powers which the Board of Education propose to take, but in the Housing and Town Planning Act there is a very considerable saving power, not in the Schedule incorporated in the Act, but in the body of the Act. The words to which I refer are these:
    "Nothing in the Housing Acts shall authorise the acquisition for the purposes of those Acts of any land which is the site of an ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest, or the compulsory acquisition for the purposes of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, of any laud which is the property of any local authority or has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, or other public undertaking, or which at the date of the Order forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground, or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house."
    Many who are very much interested in these public authorities and public companies strongly object that land which has been acquired by them under the provisions of an Act of Parliament being taken from them by a mere Order of a Government Department. These corporations referred to in the Clause which I have read are corporations existing under statutory authority which have acquired land, frequently compulsorily, by means of a special Act of Parliament; and I submit that it is not right that land so acquired under the provisions of an Act of Parliament should be taken from the person who acquired it merely by the Order of a Government authority. The object of my Amendment is to preserve the proper possession of the property.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith): My hon. Friend, in a very moderate speech, has called attention to a point in the proposal of the Government as to which he and his Friends require some assurance, and it is not impossible we may be able to suggest

    1639
    a course which will allay the misapprehensions which they entertain. It may not be inconvenient for the Committee if, in dealing with the point made by my hon. Friend, I give some general explanation of the Clause so far as the Amendment is directed to it. This Clause 30 was not adopted without very careful consideration of the history of the matter, and I am sure my hon. Friend will do the Department the justice to believe that they examined very carefully into previous disputes and grounds of controversy in order to ascertain whether the proposal contained in this Clause was likely to lead either to disputes or to inconvenience. I may tell the Committee the object of the Clause, because it is very important, and I am hoping it will recommend itself to the Committee on that ground. The existing system of compulsory purchase, which everyone agrees it is necessary to improve if the new Education Act is to be carried out efficiently, is contained in Section 20 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870. That Section is very well known. It provides for compulsory purchase by Provisional Order under the procedure contempated by the Lands Clauses Acts. The objections to procedure in these and cognate matters under the Lands Clauses Acts are so numerous and so universally admitted that if I were to spend time in dwelling upon them I should rapidly exhaust the patience of the Committee. We are all familiar with the 10 per cent., with the tribunal, with the two arbitrators, which are apt to develop qualities which in other tribunals would be regarded with great suspicion. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that even before the War those who had had, as I have had, to deal with proceedings under the Lands Clauses Acts had come to the conclusion that a very drastic reform of those Acts was required if the acquisition of land is to be carried on smoothly and expeditiously in the future.
    For the purposes of this Act it was necessary at the middle of the War to acquire public property, and it was necessary not to introduce a new method, because that would have been to anticipate a very important act of reconstruction and one to which I am glad to say attention has already been given. It was necessary, therefore, to adopt for the purposes of this Act some other form of purchase. It was, therefore, decided to make the only
    1640
    choice we could among the existing systems by taking what was the most suitable, and we selected the procedure under the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909. Under that procedure should an authority require land for educational purposes it would be able to make an order for the compulsory acquisition of the land which requires confirmation by the Board of Education. Then as to the safeguards. In the first place, if the authority which requires land for educational purposes makes an order for the compulsory purchase, such order requires confirmation in every case by the Board of Education, and if such order is opposed the Board of Education must hold a public inquiry before confirmation, and many precautions are taken to see that the inquiry shall be an effective inquiry. If the site is in London or in or about an urban district a public inquiry must be held by an impartial person unconnected with any Government Department, and if the impartial person, when you discover him, reports unfavourably the order cannot be made except with the approval of Parliament under the ordinary Provisional Order system, and this procedure is adopted practically under the present Bill without any modification.
    My hon. Friend is apprehensive that in the case of dock companies—and another hon. Friend has the same apprehension with regard to railway companies—the compulsory purchases under this present proposal may apply to certain lands belonging to these undertakings which up to the present were not liable to be dealt with in this particular way. I may explain the real position. The Board of Education have power at present under Section 20 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870 to authorise the acquisition of any land of that description by compulsory purchase, but my hon. Friend is right in stating that while this is the case the application of compulsory powers to the kind of property which he has in mind does require confirmation by Parliament. But, subject to that, the power exists and extends to that property. I think that my hon. Friend is entitled to say when we are not dealing with the whole question of the acquisition of property in a complete manner we ought not to deprive these people of the protection which they have always enjoyed by the operation of Section 20 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870. It is conceded that we are not precluded

    1641
    from authorising the compulsory acquisition of land, and I do not gather that my hon. Friend denies to us the exercise of the powers which we have always enjoyed, but he says that we ought not to continue to exercise these powers unless these people enjoy the right of appeal which they have always enjoyed. If my hon. Friend accepts that view, I propose to move the following Amendment:
    "(c) An Order for the compulsory purchase of land of the nature which by Section 45 of the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909, is exempt from compulsory acquisition for the purposes of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, shall be provisional only and shall not have effect unless and until it is confirmed by Parliament."
    The effect of that is that all the protection which is enjoyed by dock boards and railway companies under the existing Clause will be secured by them when this Bill becomes law, and at the same time the education authority shall have preserved the rights which they have at present.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I had an Amendment down which I understood the President was going to accept, and I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend if he will allow me to move the Amendment which he foreshadows in a somewhat different form—
    "(b) An Order for the compulsory purchase of land in the administrative County of London shall be subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) Section 2 of the Education (London) Act, 1903,"
    and then come the words which my right hon. Friend has just read out.
    Sir F. SMITH: On the point of Order. If that is a possible course, I have no objection. I have very carefully considered the point put by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, and I am not adverse from the words in which he seeks to carry out his views—
    "(b) An Order for the compulsory purchase of land shall be subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Education (London) Act, 1903."
    If Mr. Whitley tells me that that is in order, I will move that Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: Two questions have been brought up together, the question of London, and the question of the docks and railway companies, and I think that the Committee may agree to deal with them together in the form suggested. Meantime it is best to see if the Committee is agreed on that point.
    Mr. E. CECIL: I have an Amendment at the end of the first paragraph of Subsection (1), to add the words,
    "Provided that nothing in this Act shall authorise the compulsory purchase of land exempt from compulsory purchase under the Housing Acts and—"
    It seems to me that my wording is free from a great deal of the technicality to which the Attorney-General has referred and in many respects might be the simpler wording to accept, but if the Board of Education adhere strictly to their privileges under Section 20 of the Education Act of 1870, of course I realise that my Amendment is somewhat circumscribing their previous power. On the other hand, if the Committee agree to the Amendment which the Government propose, I think that it would be reasonable to ask them to say that the Board of Education do not intend or contemplate the acquisition of any of the kinds of land defined in Section 45 of the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909—that is to say, the Board of Education do not contemplate the acquisition of any ancient monument of archaeological interest, or the property of any local authority or any railway, dock, or canal company, or land used by the public for the purpose of a park or garden or pleasure ground without its being approved of by Parliament. If that is the effect of the Attorney-General's proposal, I think we would all agree.
    Sir F. SMITH: That is certainly not only the intention of the Government, but that is the effect of the Amendment which I have suggested. I am sorry that it seems technical to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Evelyn Cecil), but it is not more technical than it has to be to carry out the exact object which is aimed at. If that is the view taken the Amendment proposed can be withdrawn by the leave.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Is there anything in the Bill which, on an application by the Board of Education for the compulsory acquisition of land, prevents counsel or solicitors being heard on the part of owners of land proposed to be taken? If there is nothing to prevent counsel or solicitors being heard on such application, I have nothing more to say, but if the effect of the Clause is to prevent professional advice being taken I would like to say a few words, because it is very much in the interest of the public and of the landowner that when the land is going to be taken compulsorily he should have the

    1643
    right of being represented professionally. Compulsion is quite right for public purposes, but when a man is not allowed to present his ease through proper legal authority, compulsion, I think, is tyranny.
    Sir F. SMITH: My hon. and learned Friend ought to know me far too well to imagine that I should have associated myself in any way with such a proposal as he has indicated.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Then there is no objection to the course suggested, and I must only apologise for having even thought my right hon. Friend capable of such an injustice.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I believe that my hon. Friend has been guilty unintentionally of that ghastly crime which he has just disclaimed, because the Clause provides that a local educational authority may, by means of an Order submitted to the Board of Education and confirmed by the Board in accordance with the provision contained in paragraphs (1) to (13) of the First Schedule to the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, and so on. Under Clause 8 of those rules it is provided that the arbitrator shall not, except in such cases as the Board otherwise direct, hear counsel or expert witnesses. This perpetrates the ghastly crime which my right hon. Friend declared was not committed. This Clause should be reconsidered by the Government from the landowners' point of view. Suppose that the local education authority desire to take a piece of land by compulsory purchase, subject to the approval of the Board of Education, and suppose that the landowner resists—and there have been unreasonable applications by local education authorities in respect of particular sites—he is entitled to a local inquiry, and in the country that need not be by an impartial man at all, but may be by a member of the Board sent down to hold the inquiry; and if the man sent down to hold the inquiry thinks the site all right he can order the unfortunate landowner to give security for costs, and after that he may order him to pay the costs of the inquiry.
    The next step is that after the Order goes through the land is taken compulsorily, and how is it to be paid for? Not under the Lands Clauses Act, but under a method by which the matter is laid before the arbitrator, who is not to
    1644
    give anything extra for compulsory removal, and who further shall not hear counsel or expert witnesses at the inquiry. If the local landowner goes in against the Government Department to get what compensation he can, he is not to have the advantage of expert witnesses; and if he bring other people who are not expert witnesses, the arbitrator is to decide what costs the landlord is to have, if any. That is the broad application of this Clause. I assure the Committee that I have often gone into these matters before, but I am not going to rake up bygone troubles. I have seen some very bitter fighting on this subject, and I hope the former condition of things will never come up again. Under this Clause, what is the position? Supposing there is a private enterprise school carried on with nothing sectarian about it at all, the local education authority can, for some reason of their own, effect the removal of that school, and all they have got to do is to schedule the land, and take the school away. I do not think that the present Board would act in that way, but they have the power to take over the land. I do not say for a moment that they would do it, but I do point out that the Board of Education, at any time, would have the power to step in, and by simply scheduling the land, and buying the school, take it away. It is only fair to say to the Committee that the Clause contains such a power, and I am afraid hon. Members have been led away rather by the form in which the Attorney-General has put the matter before them. I do not know what Amendment is now before the House, but I have an Amendment which I might move.
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot have the same speech over again.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I promise not to make my speech over again, but, as a matter of fact, I think the Amendment which the Attorney-General has put forward has not yet been formally moved. However, I urge the Government to read this Clause from beginning to end, because I can assure the Committee that it contains the vices I have indicated of legislation by reference, as does the Amendment of the Attorney-General.
    Mr. HOLT: After the speech of the Attorney-General, who has in a friendly way met my Amendment on the Paper, I ask the leave of the Committee to with

    1645
    draw it, without, however, expressing any opinion on that which has been moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir F. SMITH: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "acquired" ["proposed to be acquired"], to insert the words,
    (b) An Order for the compulsory purchase of land in the administrative county of London shall be subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), Section 2, of the Education (London) Act, 1903."
    "(c) An Order for the compulsory purchase of land of the nature which, by Section 45 of the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909, is exempt from compulsory acquisition for the purposes of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, shall be provisional only, and shall not have effect unless and until it is confirmed by Parliament."
    Mr. BOOTH: That the Amendment has not appeared on the Paper is perhaps due to the fact that the Attorney-General did not anticipate that this Clause would be reached so early, or it may be that he was under the pressure of other work. I am sure, however, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that, where possible, it is better to have Amendments of this description on the Paper.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I have explained the reasons why I object to this Clause. This Clause contains legislation by reference, and in its amended form it very largely contains legislation by reference. I oppose this Clause because I am convinced that it really requires further consideration from the House.
    Sir M. BARLOW: I have been endeavouring to understand what the Clause means in its original shape, and now that it has been reformed, and possesses added virtues or vices, it is really difficult to understand what it really means. I think that there is in this Clause a good deal of possible injustice that the Committee is not aware of, and I ask for some assurance from the Government that they will reconsider and redraft the provision before the Third Reading.
    Captain Sir C. BATHURST: I do not desire to enter into the merits of the case put forward so lucidly by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University,
    1646
    but I do venture to suggest that, before the Report stage, this Amendment moved by the Attorney-General should be drafted in a form so plain that it can be understood by the man in the street. I can assure the Committee that local education authorities have launched many maledictions against this House because of the mode in which it legislates by reference to Acts of Parliament. After all, hon. Members in this Committee are not all lawyers, and are very far from all having legal minds, and they want Acts of Parliament that can be easily interpreted. For that reason, and no other, I suggest that, before the Report stage, the Attorney-General should endeavour to see his way to couch his Amendment in somewhat clearer language.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I desire to associate myself entirely with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University on this question of legislating by reference. I do not think the Committee could have had a more forcible illustration, not only of the objections, but of the grave dangers of the system of legislation by reference. Here you have a Clause for the compulsory acquisition of land. That is not an unimportant matter either to landlords or the general public, and until the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University explained what is in the recesses of this Clause, perhaps not two men in the House, or even one, knew what we were doing. The Attorney-General himself repudiated with indignation the suggestion I put forward as to what is contained in this Clause, but I submit that this dangerous system of legislation ought not to be allowed, and the Committee ought not to be asked to pass legislation without knowing in the least what is contained in the mysterious recesses of this Clause. I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University has said enough to satisfy the Minister of Education and the Attorney-General that the Clause will require reconsideration. The method by which land is taken compulsorily by the local education authority is open to the severest objection. I will not go into the matter again, as it has been dealt with in detail; but I am convinced the Attorney-General will realise that this question ought not to be allowed to stand where it is. The local education authority ought not to be allowed to acquire land by the sort of method by which it can take

    1647
    it now. Further, the landowner ought certainly to be allowed, without requiring any legal permission which may or may not be granted, to contest the matter when it is sought to take his land.
    Sir W. BEALE: I have had considerably over twenty years' experience of the application of the Lands Clauses Act, and perhaps I may be allowed to say a word to clear up the position. I quite agree, and we all know, that great abuses have crept in under the unfortunate practice which has grown up in connection with the acquisition of land compulsorily. This practice has been built up upon the traditions of the surveyors and people who were appointed arbitrators. The idea that you must pay a certain sum where land is purchased compulsorily is not to be found in the Act, yet that seems to be the practice. The effect of this sort of modified legislation became such that new rules were adopted, and they went to the other extreme. Clause 8 of the Act is rather pernicious, for it prohibits the arbitrator from hearing what are called expert witnesses, which means that it is not to be informed by anybody who is in a position to form a better opinion and who knows the fact. I will not say anything with regard to the professional point of view, as to representation by counsel, because my day is rather over except for sympathy with the young men who are coming on, but I do not want any bad legislation or any unnecessary costs for acquiring land for the public. I agree that this way of legislating by reference and of trying to engraft on to a bad principle a number of new Clauses does lead to confusion. I suggest to the Attorney-General that he might on the Report stage suggest some short adaptation of what we now find in the Clause.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: Nothing as a rule appeals to the House of Commons more than a denunciation of legislation by reference, and it is not surprising that the observations made by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) should have found an echo in different quarters of the House, but so far as this Clause in its original form is concerned I do not think it is open to objection on that ground. What is the position? The Lands Clauses Acts used to be the only means of enabling public authorities to obtain land compulsorily. Those Acts have become a public scandal, and it was recognised on all hands that
    1648
    their procedure was most costly and cumbersome and that it involved local authorities in the expenditure of immense sums of money whenever they wished to purchase land compulsorily. As a consequence they had to submit to the purchase of land by agreement on practically whatever terms the owners chose to ask. Parliament took the matter into consideration, and when dealing comprehensively with the housing of the working classes in 1909 it devised a new system which was carefully considered and which passed both Houses. That is embodied in the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909. The matter having been carefully dealt with by Parliament in that year, the Government now say, "Let us apply to the purchase of land for schools the same provisions which Parliament has enacted for the purchase of land for the housing of the working classes." What could be more reasonable? The land is just as much needed for schools as for housing, and therefore the Government say in their Clause that in place of the old cumbersome procedure for the purchase of land for schools they will adopt the new procedure enacted by Parliament nine years ago, and it seems to me that the course they are taking is perfectly right. Certain Amendments have been made which are of a somewhat complicated character, and have in some degree impaired the pellucid clarity of the previous Clause, and perhaps it may be that when the matter comes again before the Attorney-General and the President of the Board of Education, between now and the Report stage they may be able in some degree to simplify their language. That is a matter which is perhaps worthy of their consideration, but I desire to dissociate myself from the attacks which have been made on the Clause itself.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: It is clear that the Government have not realised the full effect of their Clause, and I do not suppose anybody exactly agrees with the Clause as it is now drawn.
    Mr. BOOTH: We do not know what it is.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Would it not be fairer if the Government were to withdraw the Clause now, I giving an assurance for my part that I shall be exceedingly reasonable on the Report stage when the new Clause cornea up? The dangers which have been pointed out

    1649
    have not been answered by the Government at all; the danger, for instance, of buying an opposition school, or anything of that kind. I do not believe the Government mean that that power shall be given by this Act, but not a word has been said by the President upon this question. I shall certainly divide on the question of the Clause remaining in unless some sort of assurance is given by the Government. The Attorney-General, I am sure, will not think I am criticising him unduly, because when he inadvertently gave an answer to an hon. Member he showed that none of us realised the effect of the Clause in regard to the question of hearing counsel. The Clause is faulty in two respects—first, in the method of taking compulsorily; and, secondly, in regard to compensation. I do not think it is fair to the Committee that there should be all this criticism, and that the Government should in effect say, "You can do what you like on the Report stage."
    Sir F. SMITH: My hon. and learned Friend has indulged the Committee with two extremely long speeches, and if the subject is obscure, which I entirely deny, he has not illuminated it or contributed to its elucidation. He has been good enough to say once or twice that the Government do not understand their own Clause, to which I reply that we understand it very well, and that I am quite capable of explaining it very clearly.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Why then did you give the answer to which I have made reference?
    Sir F. SMITH: My hon. and learned Friend selected as an illustration that the Government does not understand the Clause the fact that I informed my hon. Friend that solicitors and counsel could be heard. I was speaking without the terms of the earlier Bill before me, but I remembered very clearly that there was a provision that they should be heard through their agents, and I should have risen if I had had an opportunity earlier to say that it is not our intention, if it is the desire of the Committee, that they should be prevented from having the use of counsel and of solicitors. That shall be very carefully considered, with the advantage to the Government of knowing what certain hon. Members have said, between now and the Report stage. The Schedule in question permits of the
    1650
    appearance of parties by their agents. On the other point there is no doubt some ground for difference of opinion. The proposals of the Government are extremely simple. When you come to these particular Amendments, they were not on the Paper, but that is not through the fault of the Government, because some discussion was necessary between the representatives of the Government and those who had grievances to complain of, and when those discussions had taken place it was necessary to draw up the Amendments. There is not any obscurity in them at all, and my hon. and learned Friend has not read aloud the Section, merely making the charge that the Government's drafting is obscure. This is the Section:
    "A local education authority may be authorised to purchase land compulsorily for the purpose of any of their powers or duties.…in accordance with the provisions contained in paragraphs (1) to (13) of the First Schedule to the Housing and Town Planning, etc, Act, 1909."
    As the late Home Secretary has pointed out, so recently as 1909 this House gave the greatest consideration to the question of what was the most convenient, economical, and efficient method of purchasing land for the purpose of the Town Planning Act, and it is certain that Parliament arrived at a clear conclusion after the fullest possible discussion, and there is no lack of lucidity in this Section as it stands until these Amendments are introduced, because all it says is that paragraphs (1) to (13) of the First Schedule of the Housing and Town Planning Act shall be the method by which the education authorities may acquire land. There may be other objections to it, but at any rate it is not obscure. Now it is said that these Amendments are obscure. I make the fullest possible allowance for any member of the Committee who has not had the opportunity of seeing the Amendments because they are not on the Paper, and I say at once that if any objection of form, or even of substance, emerges between now and Report, and if any of my hon. Friends can point out any respect in which they prove to be obscure, I shall be delighted to reconsider them, and to reconsider the form in which they are expressed; but when my hon. and learned Friend asks me to withdraw the Clause, the answer is that it is utterly impossible to do so, because it is the considered expression of the policy and object of the Government, and we have

    1651
    no intention whatever of withdrawing it. As to the form of the two Amendments, substantial considerations were put before us by highly representative and respected Members of this House. One of them has every claim to speak on behalf of the great dock boards, particularly that of Liverpool, and another of my hon. Friends was entitled to speak with authority in regard to the railway companies, and he pointed out that, although we had, under Section 20 of the old Education Act, the very power which we claim here in respect to the properties of the dock and railway companies, we could not, under Section 20, exercise those powers without coming to Parliament, and their case to us was that we ought not, by taking the powers of the Town Planning Act, to enfranchise ourselves from the obligation attached when we are dealing with their land. That seemed to be reasonable, and in these Amendments we have obliged the House of Commons, wherever we avail ourselves of the powers of the old Section 20, to be bound by the conditions of that Section. If any hon. Member will approach me privately between now and the Report stage they will find me not only willing but anxious to meet and consider any objections which they raise, but they must not expect us to abandon the Clause.
    Clause 31 (Power to Provide Elementary Schools Outside Area) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 32.—(Amendment with Respect to the Allocation of Expenses to Particular Areas.)
    It shall not be obligatory on a county council to charge on or raise within particular areas any portion of such expenses as are mentioned in paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section eighteen of the Education Act, 1902, and accordingly each of those paragraphs shall have effect as if for the word "shall" there was substituted the word "may" and as if the words "less than one-half or" were omitted therefrom; and, where before the passing of this Act any portion of such expenses has been charged on or allocated to any area, the county council may cancel or vary the charge or allocation.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move to leave out the words "obligatory on," and to insert instead thereof the words "lawful for."
    8.0 P.M.
    We now come to a very important matter. The problem of paying for new schools has always been a difficult one,
    1652
    and the way in which it was settled in the Act of 1902 is very unsatisfactory, because while it made the county in large county areas responsible for new schools, it really put the great burden of the expense upon the locality or parish, and it has been owing to the way in which the question was met in the Act of 1902 that there has not been a greater amount of building of proper schools as required in the local districts, especially in the counties. The Board of Education, of course, quite realises that this condition of things, which is unsatisfactory to county authorities generally, and to all educationists who desire to see progress, cannot be maintained, and the way that it meets it in this Clause is not at all courageous. It proposes that whereas at present when a new charge is made upon a locality the county council can charge such portion as they think fit on the parish or parishes which in the opinion of the council are served, they can charge anything not less than one-half or more than three-quarters. That is the present law. It is contained in Section 18 of the Act of 1902. What they now propose is that it shall not be obligatory on a council to charge less than one-half or more than three-quarters of the expenses, but they do not give a direct instruction that the cost of new schools in counties shall be taken over largely by the central authority. That is what I want them to do, and the Amendment I propose would have that effect. The effect of my Amendment is, in fact, as will be seen by a consequential Amendment, to repeal the old provisions in Section 18 of the Act of 1902, and to give liberty to the county council to erect schools without the great difficulty and burden of putting the larger part of the expenses on the locality.
    Mr. FISHER: There is a good deal to be said both for and against the principle of differential rating. The course which is pursued in this Clause is, however, I believe, the course which is most agreeable to the county councils. So far as the Board of Education have been able to ascertain, there is very great difference of opinion among county councils on this subject. Some county councils object to differential rating altogether, and will no doubt avail themselves of the opportunity to abolish it which is afforded by Clause 32. Other county councils wish differential rating to be maintained, and they can produce very strong arguments

    1653
    in favour of it. The Clause gives to the county councils an option, and I believe that that middle course which has been followed in this Clause is the course which will be most acceptable to them on the whole. But the argument, of course, for the abolition of differential rating is that it will facilitate the provision of new schools by the local education authority, and I think it is undoubtedly the case that the heavy burden which is put at present on parishes by differential rating has the effect of discouraging school provision, but in future this argument will not have so much force as in the past. The scheme of procedure established by the Bill will put the Board in a better position to insist on an adequate supply of public school accommodation throughout the whole country, and if a county council is backward in providing the accommodation required it will no longer be able to urge in its favour that the provision involves excessive strain on the local ratepayers, because it will rest with the county council to determine whether there shall be any strain upon the local ratepayers or not. For these reasons, I feel myself unable to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. KING: I will say in reply to that, that I have the same complaint here as before. The President of the Board of Education will not look at these things first from an educational point of view. He will take the line of least resistance, like a cowardly man does on every occasion. Do let him give us some educational ground for the position he takes up, and I shall respect him even more than I do at present. Under the circumstances, I must ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir C. BATHURST: I do feel it incumbent upon me to utter a protest against the verbiage of this particular Clause. We have talked about the inadvisability of legislation by reference, but here you have a masterpiece of verbose obscurity, and what you have to bear in mind is that the unfortunate people who have to administer this Act of Parliament are least able to understand what such a Clause means. They are absolutely in the hands of the clerk to the county
    1654
    council or the local education authority, and very often he is not a trained lawyer, and, as I have found on more than one occasion, he is wholly unable himself to explain at a moment's notice what a Section in an Act of Parliament such as this means. More and more, as time goes on, you are going to have working-class representatives upon your local education authorities, and other popularly elected bodies. Surely we ought to aim in this House, as far as we can, to express our Acts of Parliament in such a way that the workers of this country can clearly understand what it is intended they should do. I do not wish to press this unduly, but I suggest that the ordinary bucolic intellect is wholly unable to cope with the meaning of these Acts of Parliament. I should like to have seen this Act, while amending previous Education Acts, at the same time codifying the law, and so avoiding these absurd references to legislation. But I do ask the Committee to have some little pity upon those unfortunate people who have to administer the legislation they pass. Here is as good an instance as you will over find of this system carried to an extreme. I venture to say that the time is come when we might reasonably call a halt. Might I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether, before we reach the Report stage, this can be expressed in clearer form?
    Clause 33 (Provisions as to Expenses of Provisional Orders, etc.) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 34.—(Expenses of Education Meetings, Conferences, etc.)
    Any council having powers under the Education Acts may, subject to Regulations made by the Board of Education, defray as part of their expenses under those Acts any reasonable expenses incurred by them in paying subscriptions towards the cost of, or otherwise in connection with, meetings or conferences held for the purpose of discussing the promotion and organisation of education or educational administration, and attendance of persons nominated by the council at any such meeting or conference: Provided that—

    (a) the expenses of more than three persons in connection with any meeting or conference shall not be paid except with the previous sanction of the Board of Education;

    (b) payments for travelling expenses and subsistence shall be in accordance with the scale adopted by the council:

    (c) expenses shall not be paid in respect of any meeting or conference outside the United Kingdom unless the Board of

    1655
    Education have sanctioned the attendance of persons nominated by the council at the meeting or the conference; and

    (d) no expenses for any purpose shall be paid under this Section without the approval of the Board of Education, unless expenditure for the purpose has been specially authorised or ratified by resolution of the council, after special notice has been given to members of the council of the proposal to authorise or ratify the expenditure, or, where a council has delegated its powers under this Section to the education committee, by resolution of that committee after like notice has been given to the members thereof.

    Mr. ROWNTREE: I beg to move, after the word "with" ["in connexion with, meetings or conferences"], to insert the words,
    "joint committees and joint bodies of managers and federations established under Section six, and."
    I formally move this Amendment, but I hope it may not be necessary to press it. The object of this Clause is to allow the expenses to be paid for promoting meetings and conferences "held for the purpose of discussing the promotion and organisation of education or educational administration." In connection with that there is sure to be a considerable amount of committee work Probably some of the most valuable work will be done by committees, and the object of my Amendment is to make quite sure that expenses can be allowed for that purpose. If the President will give me an assurance on that point, I have no desire to take up time any further.
    Mr. FISHER: I am in a position to give my hon. Friend the assurance he desires to have. I have been in consultation with the Local Government Board on this matter, and they assure me that it has long been their view that any joint body might claim a reasonable amount of expenses incurred by any members attending such meetings.
    Mr. ROWNTREE: The right hon. Gentleman's statement is entirely satisfactory, and I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 35.—(Power to Pay Expenses of Prosecution for Cruelty, 8 Edw. 7, c. 76.)
    The powers of a local education authority for the purposes of Part III. of the Education Act, 1002, shall include a power to prosecute any person for an offence of cruelty to children
    1656
    under Section twelve of the Children Act, 1908, and to pay any expenses incidental to the prosecution.
    Amendments made: Leave out the words "for an offence of cruelty to children."
    After "1908," insert the words
    "where the person against whom the offence was committed was a child within the meaning of this Act."—[Mr. Fisher.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: May I ask what the effect of these Amendments is?
    Mr. FISHER: These Amendments are little more than drafting Amendments. As the Clause stands in the Bill it confers on the local education authority, for the purposes of Part III. of the Education Act, 1902, power to prosecute any person for an offence of cruelty to children, but it is not clear whether the word "child" as used in that Clause means a child as defined by the Education Act or a child as defined by the Children Act, and, in order to remove doubt, the present Amendments have been inserted.

    CLAUSE 36.—(Public Inquiries by Hoard of Education.)
    (1) The Board of Education may hold a public inquiry for the purpose of the exercise of any of their powers or the performance of any of their duties under the Education Acts.
    (2) The following provisions shall (except as otherwise provided by the Education Acts) apply to any public inquiry held by the Board of Education—

    (a) The Board shall appoint a person or persons to hold the inquiry;

    (b) The person or persons so appointed shall hold a sitting or sittings in some convenient place in the neighbourhood to which the subject of the inquiry relates and thereat shall hear, receive, and examine any evidence and information offered and hear and inquire into the objections or representations made respecting the subject-matter of the inquiry with power from time to time to adjourn any sitting;

    (c) Notice shall be published in such manner as the Board direct of every such sitting, except an adjourned sitting, seven days at least before the holding thereof;

    (d) The person or person so appointed shall make a report in writing to the Board setting forth the result of the inquiry and the objections and representations, if any, made thereat, and any opinion or recommendations submitted by him or them to the Board;

    (e) The Board shall furnish a copy or the report to any local education authority concerned with the subject-matter of the

    1657
    inquiry, and, on payment of such fee as may be fixed by the Board, to any person interested;

    (f) The Board may, where it appears to them reasonable that such an Order should be made, order the payment of the whole or any part of the costs of the inquiry either by the local education authority, if the inquiry appears to the Board to be incidental to the administration of that authority, or by the applicant for the inquiry, and may require the applicant for an inquiry to give security for the costs thereof;

    (g) Any Order so made shall certify the amount to be paid by the local education authority or the applicant, and any amount so certified shall, without prejudice to the recovery thereof as a debt due to the Crown, be recoverable by the Board summarily as a civil debt from the authority or the applicant as the case may be.

    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Subsection (2, e), to leave out the words "person interested," and to insert instead thereof the words "ratepayer requiring it."
    What I would ask is, whether "any person interested" is an intelligible expression? Does it mean anybody who has interest enough in the subject to go and apply for a copy of this Report, because, if so, I am satisfied. If, on the other hand, it means only some person who may be interested in some particular way as a prospective teacher, or prospective scholar, or prospective ratepayer, I think the old principle of the Education Act, 1870, was that the ratepayers were the people who had the right to inquire. I move my Amendment, not because I wish to press it particularly, but to elicit a clear understanding what is meant by the words "any person interested." Is it a wide expression or not?
    Mr. LEWIS: I am under the impression that the insertion of my hon. Friend's Amendment would merely limit the effect of the Clause. He asked whether a wide interpretation would be given to the words "any person interested." I think he may rest assured on that point. If anyone can show he has any kind of interest, he may obtain a report.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. DENNISS: I would like to make an appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to Sub-section (2, f). This is a provision which, I think, is most objectionable. If a public inquiry is necessary, people should not be deterred
    1658
    from either working for it or taking part in it by the fear of having to pay a large sum of money in the event of the Board of Education thinking they had put forward a case they were not able to sustain. In the course of my longish life I have attended an enormous number of public inquiries of this nature, but never in any of them have the costs been given one way or the other. The uniform practice in this country to my knowledge of the last forty years has been that in local inquiries each party bears their own costs. What is the result? Costs are insignificant. A man who, going to a public inquiry, has to pay the costs in any event, will incur only those costs which are necessary. It is just the same when you have an arbitration, when you say that the matter shall be referred to an arbitrator and whatever the event each party shall pay its own costs. The result is that each party is extremely careful not to spend more money than he can help. By this Clause there is a temptation, especially for the local education authority, to spend a large sum of money to engage counsel, expert witnesses to prepare all sorts of plans, to-have lengthy correspondence copied, in the hope, and probably the very confident hope, that the Board of Education will order the party who asked for the inquiry to pay the costs. I do not know whether my words have had any effect on the right hon. Gentleman who is now reading some notes (Mr. Lewis), but I do hope he will make some representations to the President of the Board of Education that this paragraph (f) is one that ought to be considered before the Report stage. It is such an objectionable thing that a man should be deterred from having a public inquiry where it is necessary in the public interest because he will be mulcted in costs which either he cannot pay or which would be a serious matter to him if the Board of Education came to the conclusion that he was wrong, that the local authority was right, and that simply for that reason—nobody can know until the inquiry is finished, and the evidence has been taken—he should have to bear the cost of that inquiry. This is a provision that makes the protection of a local inquiry almost nugatory, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would kindly bring the matter to the attention of the President and see whether that cannot be reconsidered before the Report stage.
    Mr. KING: I am very glad the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss) has raised this point. I had had my attention called to it, and I had Amendments on the Paper which I did not move because I did not know whether my opinion would be shared by others. I entirely agree with the tenor of his remarks, and I think it is most undesirable at this time when you are increasing the power of officialism in every way to put additional obstacles, fears, and difficulties in the way of holding public inquiries. I hope there will be no intention of pressing this power, which is a permissive power for the Board of Education, unduly. It was because I had had private assurances that such was the ease that I did not move my Amendment. I take this opportunity of endorsing what the hon. Gentleman said, and of expressing the hope that we shall have an assurance that this will not be made an objection or a difficulty.
    Mr. LEWIS: My hon. Friend (Mr. King) has rightly stated the intention of the Board of Education in this measure. They have no intention whatever of pressing this measure hardly or unreasonably against any individual who, having reasons, desires to have an inquiry. On the other hand, of course, there must be some power kept in reserve for the purpose of saddling the costs of the inquiry upon a person who on merely frivolous grounds seeks to have an inquiry. There are cases when it would be wholly unreasonable to bring forward matters of this sort, but as regards the general attitude of the Board of Education with regard to it I can assure my two hon. Friends that there is no intention on the part of the Board of Education of pressing unduly that power.
    Mr. DENNISS: The fact that this may happen will deter people. If you only need to enforce it in the case of frivolous applications, then it should be limited in the Bill, and persons could come forward with confidence in exercising a public right.
    Clause 37 (Evidence of Certificates, Etc., Issued by Local Education Authorities) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 38.—(Education Grants.)
    (1) The Board of Education shall subject to the provisions of this Act by regulations provide for the payment to local education authorities out of moneys provided by Parliament of annual substantive Grants in aid of education of such
    1660
    amount and subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed in the regulation, and nothing in any Act of Parliament shall prevent the Board of Education from paying Grants to an authority in respect of any expenditure which the authority may lawfully incur.
    (2) Subject to the regulations made under the next succeeding Sub-section, the total sums paid to a local education authority out of moneys provided by Parliament and the local taxation account in aid of elementary education or education other than elementary as the case may be shall not be less than one-half of the net expenditure of the authority recognised by the Board of Education as expenditure in aid of which Parliamentary Grants should be made to the authority, and if the total sums so paid to an authority in respect of any year fall short of one-half of that expenditure there shall be paid to that authority out of moneys provided by Parliament a deficiency Grant equal to the amount of the deficiency, provided that a deficiency Grant shall not be so paid as to make good to the authority any deductions made from substantive Grant.
    (3) The Board of Education may make regulations for the purpose of determining how the amount of any deficiency Grant payable under this Section shall be ascertained, and those regulations shall, if the Treasury so direct, provide for the exclusion in the ascertainment of that amount of all or any sums paid by any Government department other than the Board of Education and of all or any expenditure which in the opinion of the Board of Education is attributable to a service in respect of which payments are made by a Government department other than the Board of Education.
    (4) The fee Grant under the Elementary Education Act, 1891, as amended by the Elementary Education (Fee Grant) Act, 1916, the Aid Grant under Section ten of the Education Act, 1902, and the small population Grant under Section nineteen of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, as amended by the Education Code (1890) Act, 1890, and the Education (Small Population Grants) Act, 1915, shall cease on the appointed day.
    (5) If, by reason of the failure of an authority to perform its duties under the Education Acts or to comply with the conditions on which Grants are made, the deficiency Grant is reduced or a deduction is made from any substantive Grant exceeding five hundred pounds or the amount which would be produced by a rate of a halfpenny in the pound whichever is the less, the Board of Education shall cause to be laid before Parliament a report stating the amount of and the reasons for the reduction or deduction.
    (6) Any regulations made by the Board of Education for the payment of Grants shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "of" ["in aid of education"], to insert the words "the provision of school premises and in aid of the."
    This raises the question of a building grant, but I suppose on this Amendment, Mr. Whitley, you will allow a rather wide

    1661
    discussion, as usual, on the Clause. I shall endeavour not to recur again and again—
    The CHAIRMAN: No; the hon. Member must not say "as usual." It is rather usual for Members to attempt it, but, I hope, not for the Chairman to permit it. We will take the points one by one, discuss the particular point, and have no discussion on the Clause until we come to the end.
    Mr. KING: I only wish to conform to your wishes, Mr. Whitley. The first point of this very important Clause, which I greatly regret is reached just at dinnertime when the attendance will be inadequate, is this definite proposal that there should be a building grant. There ought, I think, to be a grant for building which would enable local authorities to undertake what is now, or is going to be at an early date, one of the most difficult and pressing points in the whole of our educational system. We have nothing like buildings enough. For the ten years after the Act of 1902 there were repeated attempts at settling on a new basis the education of the country, and especially with a view to the question of providing buildings and additional school places and on what basis that provision should be made. There was one Bill after another introduced. The result was that the local authorities were always complaining that they could not build now because there was legislation immediately ahead. So we went on for ten or twelve years until the War came, and now the War is going to last for another period of years—there will be the demobilisation and reconstruction period—and then the time it will take to put this Bill into force. The result is that when you come to put this Bill into force as a working proposition, with the continuation schools and the nursery schools at the other end of child life, when you come to work this Bill as an education system you will have a great deficiency of school places and school buildings. My proposal is to begin here with the new system of grants you are elaborating by this Clause, and to say that these local authorities who put up new buildings shall have a definite grant towards them. I know there are provisions for granting loans to local authorities, but I want a definite building grant. There is provision for various purposes—land, and equipment. I want a definite system of the encouragement of local authorities to have new buildings, or buildings which
    1662
    will be so transformed and brought up to date that they may be capable of receiving the building grant. The first six years after 1902, with the six complete years before, showed that there was an actual decrease of buildings throughout the country. That is very remarkable. On the other hand, at the same time building funds were granted for training colleges, and you had as the result training colleges put up by local authorities. The training college difficulty is one of the few difficulties that really were settled and brought into a distinctly better position in the years following 1902.
    Many questions of education were left unsolved by the Act of 1902. The training college question was practically solved by the training colleges of the local authorities. The latter were encouraged by the building grant to a policy which has been a great success. Here is a very good instance—in fact, I am sure no one on the Treasury Bench will deny that that policy of the building grant is one which has a good deal to recommend it. We may be told that there is a difficulty in the Act of 1870. Some people may say, "If you give a building grant to the local authorities you must give also to the voluntary schools." That might be said; but it could be seriously met, because building at the present time is not being done at all by those connected with the voluntary associations or schools. All that the voluntary schools ask, all that was intended by the Act of 1902, was that they should retain what they had got, and not add to it. The new buildings have always been considered to be the work of the local authority, and though it does not prevent the voluntary schools being met, yet it was definitely contemplated and understood—as the result actually proved to be case!—that the new building is the affair of the local authority. The new schools are provided schools. Not only so, but a large number of the non-provided schools are being handed over. I could give a good deal more of fact and suggestion in support of my contention, but I think I have said enough to make what I have said worthy of a serious reply from the Treasury Bench.
    Sir W. RUTHERFORD: I confess I look upon this proposition with some misgiving. The so-called compromise of 1902, to which my hon. Friend has referred, left all the denominational schools in this difficulty, that for the purpose

    1663
    of teaching any religious instruction whatever under denominational auspices the denominations themselves had to provide the building, whilst the people who had to do that were also payers of rates, which rates were used for the purpose of supporting council schools. They also, in addition to paying their rates like others, had to subscribe out of their own pockets for the land to build upon and subsequently to support the fabric of the different schools which were used for denominational purposes. I am one of those who have always believed in religious instruction for the young. No system of education is ever satisfactory, and certainly it is not complete, unless it includes some reasonable amount of religious instruction. I confess that I think the owners of denominational schools were rather unfairly treated in the compromise of 1902. Be that as it may, the position we now see to-day under this Bill is that there are certain special schools—which are indicated: there are continuation schools and there are central schools in addition to the ordinary primary schools. How is it going to be possible for a body like the Church of England, the Catholics, the Wesleyans, or any other denominational body, to have their schools in any towns, such, say, as Liverpool, in order to insist upon the carrying out of the continuity of their religious instruction; to acquire land and to bear the expenditure of large sums of money on the building of these special schools, in order that they may safeguard the continuance of religious instruction for the members of those bodies? I do not see how it is going to be done.
    I have been in communication with the President of the Board of Education. I have a letter on this subject from him to-night in reply to my communication. It is very difficult, in a few moments, to grasp the contents of a letter of three or four pages like this in my hand, because I understand that there was no intention in this Bill anywhere to interfere with the compromise of 1902. I certainly think that if these Grants, which are the subject of the present Amendment, are to be made, or authorised, from national or Imperial funds for the special purposes of building and repairing buildings which are to be used by one class of students, the thing ought certainly to be enlarged, so that they may include other classes, including those people who attach such importance to religious instruction. If
    1664
    in any reply to this Amendment we were given any assurance upon this point that perhaps we are looking at matters and are being suspicious of the intentions of the Bill, and that no such intentions exist, then, of course, I do not want to stand here and be a party to raising any unnecessary difficulty or wasting the time of the House. I confess that the subject does present to my mind some very considerable difficulties. The financial difficulty of denominations seems to be likely to be very much accentuated and increased in the whole scope of the Bill unless there is some power or authority under which the denominational people can participate in some reasonable manner in these special schools, such as continuation and central schools, which are now part of the system embodied in the Bill. I do not see anything in Clause 38 or in this Amendment now before the Committee which helps to solve this particular difficulty. It seems to me that the Amendment the hon. Member has proposed would make matters worse. He wants to secure by this Amendment the statutory-right to the central education authority of the Kingdom to give special Grants in favour of buildings that would be used for one class of school only. We have in Liverpool an important Jewish community. They have their own schools, and they attach great importance to their own views of religion in these matters. I do not see that they would have any protection in connection with any of the special schools indicated. It is suggested that there would be power anywhere to give them a Grant either towards their school buildings or towards erecting and maintaining either a department or a special school of the kind indicated. The same applies to Roman Catholics, the Church, and the Wesleyans.
    I hear rumours that certain Members of this House who are authorised far more than I am in any way to represent some particular religious denomination have had interviews with the Board of Education, and have received assurances which have satisfied them on this subject. I have had no satisfactory communications, although I have written to the Board of Education about it, and it seems to me to be just one of those points in reference to this financial difficulty which all denominations find themselves in to-day. It is one of the points, when we are discussing a Clause of this kind, which bears directly upon authorising Grants from the national

    1665
    funds, and it is a question which calls for an authoritative statement on the part of the Government as to what they really intend by the Clause, what the scope of it is, what the Regulations suggested are going to embody, and the general body of Members of Parliament should be able to get here and in public the assurances which certain other Members have received privately. So far as I can see the Amendment proposed would be a great mistake.
    Colonel W. THORNE: I hope that this Clause will give local authorities like the Borough of West Ham and other places of a similar character some real financial help. The education rate in West Ham is most intolerable. At present we have a rate of 3s. 6d.—3s. 1½d. for elementary and 5d. for higher education. The teachers are asking for an advance of salaries, and that will amount to anything between £70,000 or £80,000, which will mean an extra 1s. rate so far as the Borough of West Ham is concerned. If a broad interpretation is placed upon this Clause, I think many local education authorities will get substantial relief. The Clause says
    "and nothing in any Act of Parliament shall prevent the Board of Education from paying Grant to an authority in respect of any expenditure which the authority may lawfully incur."
    Surely if you advance the salaries of the teachers and the caretakers and incur other expenditure, I should say that that is lawful expenditure! If that is so, surely we should be entitled to appeal to the Board of Education to give some substantial Grants in connection with the expenditure that will be incurred.
    Mr. KING: Will the hon. and gallant Member say what he thinks of my Amendment which is in favour of building grants?
    Colonel THORNE: I am not concerned so much whether it is in favour of building grants or any other grants, so long as we can get the cash from the Government. As long as the President of the Board of Education will give a broad interpretation of this particular Clause, I am convinced that many local education authorities will get some substantial relief. We thank the Board of Education for giving the Borough of West Ham the grant of £35,000, which has helped us very considerably; but, in spite of that, we are labouring under great difficulties in consequence of the extraordinary rate that has to be levied. The result is that the grants which have been made to some of
    1666
    the local education authorities have been devoted absolutely to increasing the salaries of the teachers, and the effect of that has been in a number of cases the drawing away of teachers. I hope the Board of Education will place a broad interpretation upon this particular Clause.
    Mr. LEWIS: My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment has taken the keenest interest in the question of school buildings and their equipment ever since he entered Parliament, and I am not surprised that he should have hit upon Clause 38 to raise at the commencement a question in which he takes so deep an interest. I am doubtful, however, whether his Amendment, if inserted in the Bill, would have any effect whatever in the direction he desires. It would impose upon the Board of Education a duty by Regulations to provide for the payment to local education authorities of annual Grants in aid of the provision of school premises of such an amount as may have been prescribed. But really this cannot confer any security upon local authorities, because the amount might be so small as to be of no account whatever. May I say, also, that the words "school premises" referred to in the Amendment are of a rather vague character? My hon. Friend behind me has raised a general question upon which I think it would be more fitting that the President of the Board of Education should speak, and I hope there will be an opportunity later on for him to do so.
    He has raised the question of the building provision for continuation schools, and for the new buildings which will be generally required under the provisions of the present Bill. There can be no doubt that the bulk of the building provision to be made for continuation schools will fall upon the local education authorities. I imagine that almost the whole of it will fall upon the local education authorities, but the Clause provides, and it has always been understood from the outset, that is to be expenditure which can be recognised by the Board of Education as expenditure in aid of which Parliamentary Grants may be made to the authority. The amount of the Parliamentary Grant has not yet been settled, but my right hon. Friend has indicated in general terms what is the attitude of the Treasury towards it, and there can be no doubt that a provision of this kind will be expenditure in respect of which Parliamentary Grants

    1667
    may be made. With regard to the voluntary provision that may be made for continuation schools, that stands upon the same footing as the provision which is made at the present time for education higher than elementary by voluntary associations. They receive help towards the maintenance of that education. They do not receive building grants, but on the other hand they have the right of private control, and it has all along been understood that the right is balanced to some extent by the additional provision which private bodies have to make. I have pointed out to my hon. Friend that the effect of his Amendment might be so small as to be negligible, and I put it to him that under the circumstances it is one which ought not to be pressed further.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir D. Maclean): That covers the next Amendment.
    Mr. KING: No; it raises a different point. I am not quite sure that it reads correctly. There should be the word "the" inserted before the word "education" ["in aid of education"]. Then the words on the Paper—after the word "education" insert the words "of each scholar in average attendance or on the roll of the schools and"—would follow as a consequential Amendment, making the Clause read—
    "Annual substantive Grants in aid of the education of each scholar in average attendance or on the roll of the schools, etc."
    I beg to move, after the word "of" ["in aid of education"], to insert the word "the."
    It will be seen at once that this Amendment raises quite a, different principle. It raises the principle that the Grants which are to be given by the Board of Education should be on the basis of the number of children educated—per capita Grants. This is quite different from the question of Grants towards buildings which was raised by the last Amendment. I look upon this Amendment as one of the most important, certainly upon this Clause, and one of the most important that has been moved or that can be moved upon the Bill, because by this Amendment I want to restore a principle that has governed the Grants that have been given to local authorities ever since the Act of 1870. Those Grants have been given on the basis of the number of children in average
    1668
    attendance. The number of children on the roll has therefore always been a question of primary importance to the local authorities. The whole idea of our education has been based upon this broad principle that the Government gives to each child who ought to be in school a definite minimum sum which can be increased under certain circumstances. It is increased if there is efficiency and so on, but for each child there is a definite sum. That principle now is to be given away. There is to be what is called the Block Grant and that Block Grant will be determined without any reference to the number of children.
    Mr. FISHER: No.
    Mr. KING: I am wrong in saying without any consideration to the number of children, but, of course, it will be indirectly and not directly determined by the number of children. The Block Grant, in other words, will be given to the school. It is going to be to the advantage of the local authority, having got the school, to let the stupid, the dunce, and the troublesome child go and never bring it to school at all. It will be an actual incentive to teachers and authorities to let the unwelcome child alone. They are not going to derive any advantage from having an increased number in regular attendance. That principle, which has been one of the definite principles of our policy—there is a great deal to be said for it—is to go. The per capita Grant is going to be a thing of the past. It is the one Grant which has been definite and clear. It has been the regular basis of Grants for public elementary schools, and this is a point upon which the House of Commons ought to stand up. I shall be very glad to go to a Division if the President of the Board of Education cannot give way. He is breaking with a long tradition of Parliamentary Grants by doing away with the per capita Grant. He is also doing away with a great deal of the control both of Parliament and of the local authority. It has always been a good thing for the local authority to be able to say, "We have got so many children, and if we only have places for them we get definite support for having brought them in." That has had a double effect. It has increased their vigilance in regard to school attendance. The truant and the dunce who are liable to become criminal children have been brought into school and have been looked

    1669
    after, and, if necessary, they have been sent to industrial and reformatory schools. They have been looked after from the very first, because it has been to the financial interests of the local authorities. In future it is not going to be to the interests of the local authorities to look after them. That is a very serious question, though, of course, a great deal will be said and a great deal can be said in favour of Block Grants from the administrative point of view, and also certain educational points of view. I like the principle of the Block Grants, but, on the broad democratic view of attempting to get a good education for all, with every child in its place and a place for every child, you are striking a great blow at that principle by doing away with the per capita Grants. You are doing away with a great principle of Parliamentary control. There are other points I might bring out. For instance, I might take certain localities, and show how it would work there. I am quite sure this is a new departure, which must be justified if it is going to be adopted. Therefore I have no hesitation in moving this Amendment, and I hope that either this Amendment will be accepted or some concession will be made in the same direction.
    Sir H. HIBBERT: I hope the President of the Board of Education will not accept this Amendment. I have come to the conclusion, after hearing many speeches from the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, that he must have had a very unfortunate experience of education authorities. I have known a great many, but I have never known any who have systematically neglected the education of any child simply for the sake of earning money. I look upon it as a very great slur upon education authorities that any Member of this House should suggest such a thing. My personal view is that this Clause has been very wisely fashioned. It has been introduced to meet a very great financial difficulty, and I, for one, as the chairman of a large authority, very cordially welcome it.
    Colonel THORNE: I am very much surprised at the statements made by the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King), because, if the interpretation he has placed on this Clause is correct, I am amazed that none of the local education authorities are up in arms against it. So far as I know, not a single education authority has protested in the slightest
    1670
    degree against the Clause. I am convined that if such an interpretation could be placed on the Clause my own local authority would have protested against it. Therefore, I am not prepared to support the Amendment.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. LEWIS: My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment desires, it seems to me, to perpetuate and even to extend the system by which Grants in respect of elementary education are based on the number of scholars in average attendance The Amendment seems to extend the system, because the first Sub-section of Clause 38 relates to both elementary and higher education, and the effect of the Amendment seems to be to set up average attendance or numbers on the roll, not only as one basis of calculating Grants, but also as the only possible basis of calculating Grants. That is not the case now, even in the realm of elementary education For example, Grants in respect of medical treatment have no relation whatever to the number of scholars in average attendance. There are several forms of Grants at present, and it is possible that there may be even more in future, which cannot be based upon the numbers in attendance. For example, Grants might possibly be made in aid of scholarships and maintenance allowances. My hon. Friend said that there was a great deal to be said for this system and a good deal to be said against it. I cordially agree with him that there is a good deal to be said against it. The minds of educationists all over the country have been moving during the last few years in the direction which is indicated by this Clause. The system which we are altering is one which has been found undesirable both on educational and on administrative grounds. After all, educationally the question in connection with Grants is not only the number of children who attend, but the excellence and efficiency of the education that is given to the children who do attend. There should be a power to assess Grants not only with reference to what an authority does, but also with reference to what an authority has left undone and to the efficiency with which it has done what it has undertaken to do. I do not lay so much stress upon the administrative objections, although those are very serious, and, I need hardly say, particularly serious in time of war. The existing system involves both centrally and locally an enormous multiplication of

    1671
    clerical labour, because the authority has to make the most elaborate and exact calculations of average attendance on which to base its claim, and the central Department, in turn, has to take efficient measures for checking the correctness of the claims. I remember that on the first day I went to the Board of Education I was taken to see the various Departments, and among other interesting things which I saw were a number of calculating machines. Let me assure the Committee that there is every possible need for the lessening of labour so far as possible by means of calculating machines in the Board of Education owing to the existing system. If I remember rightly, my hon. Friend in the course of his speech expressed some apprehension that the law of school attendance would not be enforced in future so well as it has been in the past owing to this change. May I draw his attention to the Supplementary Grant Regulations, the principles of which are similar to those which are adopted in this particular Clause? In those Supplementary Grant Regulations the Board have expressly mentioned that the efficiency with which the law of school attendance is administered is one of the matters to which they will have regard in future in assessing Grants, so that my hon. Friend need not fear that the Board of Education in making the Supplementary Grant Regulations and in administering them and the law as it will be under this Clause are not taking due care to see that some of the salutary features of the law of school attendance at the present time are preserved. Average attendance, after all, is and must remain an essential factor in the calculation of Grants for elementary education. All the old inducements to maintain a high average are preserved, and, in addition, an encouragement is given, by the new system of Grants, to a liberal expenditure upon those children who do attend, and that is one of the most important features of this Clause.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: The Amendment may, perhaps, be carried a little further than my hon. Friend intended. I do not think he has in mind a system of Grants based upon average attendance alone, regardless of all the other factors, both of the character of the locality and of the efficiency of the education that is given. What he attaches importance to is that average attendance should be an element in whatever
    1672
    formula is adopted for calculating the Block Grant. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Lewis) tells us that will be the case, and average attendance will remain an element. That seems to contradict to some extent what he said previously as to the disadvantage of throwing upon local authorities the great burden of maintaining statistics of average attendance and so forth.
    Mr. LEWIS: These statistics will, of course, be enormously reduced under the new system. It will not be necessary in future to enter into the elaborate calculations which have been required.
    Mr. SAMUEL: All simplification is an advantage, of course, but the point of importance which my hon. Friend and some others have in mind is this: Hitherto it has been a statutory requirement, as I understand, that Grants shall be based upon average attendance. I think it appears in Statutes.
    Mr. FISHER: Only in respect of elementary education.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am speaking of elementary schools. Now for the first time that is being struck out, and the matter is being left to administrative regulation. There is a certain risk that some education authorities may become a little slack in the resolute enforcement of the attendance of the children, always a very unpopular and disagreeable thing, if they are entirely relieved from any financial consequences. I do not want to cast any reflection upon education authorities in general, and I do not suggest that this will be the rule, or that it will become widespread. But there are some education authorities here and there who do not have that zeal for education which the more progressive ones have. If they saw an opportunity of relaxing the rules of attendance or giving the children more excuses for staying at home, and not prosecuting where prosecutions were necessary, and if the effect of it would be in the first place that they would not have to provide quite so many buildings for their children, and, the average attendance being less, their capital charges might be less heavy, or might be postponed, and, at the same time, there was no alteration made in their annual Grant from the Board of Education, you might have a spirit creeping into the administration of some of these authorities which would be very deleterious to the

    1673
    education or the children. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Lewis) says "we shall keep a watch on this, and we shall not give Supplementary Grants if the local education authorities become slack in that way." It is very difficult to detect, unless you do it statistically, how far these excuses which are given to the children are really valid. So long as there is a very direct financial penalty falling upon the local education authorities, if their average attendance falls below a certain point, the thing regulates itself almost automatically, and you have not to depend on your system of inspection to try to detect tendencies of that kind. My right hon. Friend says, "in any case this is going to be done. We are going to keep average attendance as one element among others in the Block Grant." I do not think we wish for more than that. The only question is whether that ought not to be implied in the Statute itself. That is the whole question now at issue. I do not attach importance, neither does my hon. Friend (Mr. King), to the particular words that he has chosen. The question is whether it might not be desirable to insert in the Bill some words which would indicate that the House of Commons is seised of the importance of maintaining in perpetuity average attendance as one of the elements of the Grants which it pays.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I am in complete accord with the desire of the right hon. Gentleman, as I am sure the whole Committee will be. As I understand it, he is particularly keen that there shall be no slackening in the efforts of the local authorities to administer stringently their attendance by-laws. In my view the Clause which the Government now proposes will do more to achieve what the right hon. Gentleman desires than existing legislation can do. Under existing conditions it is possible for an authority to be slack in administering its attendance by-laws and suffer some diminution of the Grant, which does not, as it were, inflict that penalty upon them that it should. It is not a sufficient deterrent. But, under this new Clause, the local authorities, under the Regulations which the Board may make for supplementary Grants, may make such a reduction in excess of what the loss would be under existing enactments as will make it worth the while of the authority to keep up to the mark, and will punish
    1674
    it more than it is punished to-day if it falls below a proper standard in administering its attendance by-laws. What I hope the Board will do in administering the Clause is to keep a very strict eye indeed upon the way the local authorities administer their attendance by-laws. If I understand the attitude of the Board aright, that they will most certainly do, for that has been their disposition, so far as I have been able to observe, in recent years. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think statistics will not be available to the Board from which to draw the proper deductions as to whether a local authority is doing its duty adequately in the matter of attendance. He need have no fear of that, for there must be an annual return to the Board, which must include the amount of the average attendance for each local authority in respect, no doubt, of each one of its schools. What the Board of Education is going to save centrally is this compilation of enormous statistics and their examination, which, I believe, must absorb an enormous quantity of valuable and highly-paid labour, in addition to what the machines do for the Board.
    What will happen locally is this: It will save the teachers and the local authorities an enormous amount of labour in compiling these statistics as the result of the Chinese puzzle of the present Grants in aid of English elementary education. We all know what the right hon. Gentleman is able to do in departmental work, and if he devoted his attention to this question of the multiplicity of Grants to local authorities for elementary education he would be astounded. There are about eight separate Grants. The whole thing requires, and has required for a long time, proper consolidation. It gets it for the first time under this Bill. That is one of the enormous advantages of the Bill. Administratively Clause 38 is one of its best features. I hope proper regard will be had to this subject of attendance, which is vital, but after some experience of education and of compiling the enormous quantities of statistics which the Board requires, naturally, for the proper assessment of this multiplicity of Grants, I believe this Clause is going to operate advantageously, not only centrally for the Board but locally, in diminution of the enormous labour which is absorbed in compiling statistics in respect of the multiplicity of Grants. I think the fears which have been expressed

    1675
    by the hon. Member for North Somerset and the right hon. Member for Cleveland are ill-founded, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will carry on with this Clause and have it passed through with the remainder of the Bill.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I am quite convinced by what the hon. Member who has just spoken has said that this Clause means a simplification and an improvement. We are quite convinced on that point; but the point which the right hon. Member for Cleveland put is, I think, a real one. I think the hon. Member who has just spoken has explained that everything really will depend upon the administration of the Board of Education. If they choose to insist upon strict observance of attendance everything will go well, and so long as my right hon. Friend is at the Board of Education I have no fears; but we are substituting for automatic pressure in the direction of keeping up the attendance at school an arrangement which is flexible but not automatic, and depends upon the administration of the Board. When there is a different regime at the Board of Education and a desire to cut down things in view of what are sometimes called the swollen education estimates, it seems to me that a simple way to do it will be for the Board of Education to allow things to go lax, and thereby to reduce the expenditure, and in that way you might get a scaling down. I am not quite certain whether it is really safe to leave the matter to the administration of the day rather than to statutory Regulations, which have hitherto safeguarded attendance at school. I think that is the real point of what my right hon. Friend was saying.
    Mr. BOOTH: I should like to supplement what has been said from the Front Bench opposite. All those of us who have had experience in our own areas know that one thing that has led school attendance committees to be diligent was the feeling that it was not fair to neglect school attendance. As one who has had to map out committees, I know the difficulty of getting people to serve on school attendance committees, and those of us who have had experience on the Bench know the great disinclination of country magistrates to convict and fine. The one thing that has appealed to the school attendance committees has been the feeling that it was not fair that the Grant should be lost
    1676
    through any negligence on the part of the authority in the performance of a disagreeable task. I rather lean to the view of the right hon. Member for Cleveland in his suggestion that we should have some indication in the Statute if we can. That is a practical argument that always appeals to us, not so much from the pounds, shillings, and pence point of view, but from the feeling that it is not fair that the Grant should be lost through dilatoriness in regard to school attendance.
    Mr. FISHER: I am afraid I cannot accept the hon. Member's Amendment. We have to remember that this Section deals with education in general and not merely with elementary education. It deals with secondary education as well; so that if the point of the right hon. Member for Cleveland was accepted it would not really be met by the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Somerset. I think, perhaps, the right hon. Member for Cleveland did not sufficiently realise the extent to which, under the Regulations for Supplementary Grants, regard is had to the factor of school attendance. That is a factor which is as accurately and as carefully calculated in assessing the amount of Grant as I think any purist or enthusiast in school attendance could desire. It is the full intention of the Board that school attendance should be made a factor in the calculation of Grant. It is an error to suppose that there is a general statutory guarantee under the existing state of things for elementary Grants based upon school attendance. There is, it is perfectly true, in respect of two elementary school Grants, the Aid Grant and the Fee Grant, such a statutory provision, but only in respect of those two Grants. I think the right hon. Member for Cleveland may be confident that the Board of Education will have due regard to school attendance in its administration of Supplementary Grants.
    Amendment negatived.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Glasgow University (Sir H. Craik)—at the end of Subsection (1) insert the words
    "and the Board of Education may require that as a condition of receiving such Grants, the authority shall pay salaries to their teacher not less than those shown on a scale to be prescribed from time to time"—

    1677
    is not in order here. The succeeding Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for the North-West Division of Lanarkshire (Mr. Whitehouse), and other hon. Members—at the end of Sub-section (l) insert the words,
    "Provided always that the local education authority to whom such Grants are payable gives no privilege or differentiation of salary to any teacher on the grounds of sex"—
    cannot be dealt with here at all. If the point it raises were to be dealt with it is outside the scope of the Bill to deal with it here.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words,
    "Subject to the Regulations made under the next succeeding Sub-section."
    I do so not in any hostility to the Bill, as representing the municipalities of the Kingdom, all of whom are very warm supporters of the Bill and desire to make it as complete as possible. In their opinion, however, this Clause as it stands with the words which I propose to delete would allow the Board of Education to make Regulations which would override the provisions of the Clause. It is of great importance to the municipalities that the Clause should be quite clear as it provides for the minimum grant of one half the education committee's expenditure. I am sure the education authority do not wish to override the municipalities, but wish in every way to treat them fairly. There are certain Amendments which I propose subsequently to move, but even if the alterations were made the education authorities would have power to override the provisions of the Clause if the words which I am proposing to leave out were allowed to remain in the Clause. As the Clause at present stands the Grant by Parliament will be based on the expenditure of the two years previously. I venture to think that that is hardly a fair method of dealing with expenditure, and I propose to ask in subsequent Amendments that the Clause shall be altered by basing the Grant on the expenditure of the year, instead of the expenditure of the two years previously. We must all be of opinion that the two years previously would afford a false basis on which to found the Grants of this Education Bill. I will, therefore, move the first of my Amendments.
    Mr. FISHER: I do not know whether the hon. Member who moved this Amendment has had an opportunity to acquaint himself with the Amendments which stand in my name to a later part of the Clause, but I have drafted these Amendments with a view to meeting his point of view, and if it be in order I will now explain my Amendments, which I think cover the point he had in view, and which, as a matter of drafting, are more acceptable to the Government. I take it the hon. Member's principal anxiety is to revise the system of calculation so that the Grants shall be payable in respect of the expenditure in the year in question.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: Yes; that is my point.
    Mr. FISHER: And it is the point aimed at by my Amendment. The intention of the Board is that the Grants payable within each year should be such as comply with the provisions of the Sub-section as to their minimum amount. It has, however, been pointed out that the Clause as drafted gives only the assurance that the Grants should be paid in respect of the year, and that a considerable time may elapse before the total amount can be arrived at in respect of that year. It is proposed therefore to alter the words so as to make the condition applicable to the sums payable within the year. The Amendment has this further advantage, that the period for which the subsequent Grants are made are not uniform. Some Grants are in respect of the financial year, and others in respect of the academic year, and while this difference between the Grants continues it is impossible to arrive at any true total of the Grants payable in respect of the financial year. The amount payable in the financial year is easier ascertained, as my Amendment makes the minimum condition applicable to the sums payable in the year rather than to the sums paid in the year. Under the present system there is a slight overlapping from one financial year to another, and I think my Amendments will provide a more steady basis for reckoning the Grant which can be more easily forecast. I may say that the whole of the ordinary Grants for elementary education have already for many years past been reckoned on this basis, and it is done for the purpose of calculating the new Supplementary Grants. The basis is one which is very well understood by the local education authorities, and I

    1679
    therefore submit that my Amendments will really meet the point raised by the hon. Member.
    Mr. G. THORNE: I desire to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, but I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that he considers his own proposals meet the wishes of my hon. Friend in a form more satisfactory to himself, and if that be the case probably my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press his Amendment.
    Sir H. HIBBERT: I have some information which may help the Committee to understand the right hon. Gentleman's Amendments. In the case of my own authority in the financial year ending 31st March, 1917, Grants amounting to £11,712 were received in the year 1917–18, and for the financial year 1917–18 Grants amounting to £21,332 were received in the year 1918–19. If the figures were taken as applying to the expenditure of the year in which they were paid, it would affect the latter amount to the extent of some thousands of pounds. I think the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting an improved method of calculation.
    Sir W. MIDDLEBROOK: The suggested Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman deal quite satisfactorily with the question of period, but they do not touch the point raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Sir J. Harmood Banner) on the subject of the Regulations made in the Subsection, which lays it down that moneys provided by Parliament out of the local taxation account shall not be less than one-third of the net expenditure. The insertion of the first line of the Subsection leaves it an open question whether the Board of Education may not alter the whole effect of the Regulation and so deprive the local education authority of the money intended to be provided for it by Parliament.
    Mr. FISHER: I think it is quite clear that the efficiency Grant must be calculated in accordance with certain Regulations, and consequently in the Clause establishing the efficiency Grant there must be some reference to the Regulations in accordance with which the Grant is to be calculated. The general character of these Regulations is indicated in Sub-section (3),
    1680
    and I do not see how the local education authority can have a more complete form of guarantee than that provided by the Clause.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I am satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, and beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to move, to leave out the word "and" ["Parliament and"], and to insert instead thereof the words "exclusive of the sums paid out of."
    The object is to exclude in the calculation the amount paid out of the local taxation account, commonly known as the whisky money, which is the proceeds of certain additional Customs and Excise duties on spirits which were directed by the Act of 1890 to be carried to the local taxation account. The sum was originally used for technical education, and is now used for higher education, and if the right hon. Gentleman would meet us by letting us have this whisky money I shall be exceedingly obliged.
    Mr. FISHER: I am afraid that I am unable to accept this Amendment. The deficiency Grant is strictly related to the expenditure on education. The whisky money has nothing to do with expenditure on education. This amount is determined by quite different considerations, and the effect of this Amendment would be that while one authority would get 50 per cent. of its net expenditure another authority would get a far larger percentage.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made: Leave out the words "so paid," and insert instead thereof the words "payable out of those moneys."
    Leave out the words "respect of."
    After the word "paid" ["shall be paid"], insert the words "by the Board of Education."
    In Sub-section (3), after the word "ascertained," insert the words "and paid."—[Mr. Fisher.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 39 (Power to Constitute Official Trustees of Educational Trust Property), 40 (Exemption of Assurance of Property for Educational Purposes from Certain

    1681
    Restrictions under the Mortmain Acts), 41 (Appointment of New Trustees under Scheme), 42 (Definitions), 43 (Extension of Certain Provisions of the Education Acts), and 44 (Repeals) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 45.—(Short Title, Construction Extent, and Commencement.)
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Education Act, 1918, and shall be read as one with the Education Acts, 1870 to 1916, and those Acts and this Act, may be cited together as the Education Acts, 1870 to 1918, and are in this Act referred to as "the Education Acts."
    (2) This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland.
    (3) This Act shall come into operation on the appointed day, and the appointed day shall be such day as the Board of Education may appoint, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and for different provisions of this Act, for different areas or parts of areas, and for different persons or classes of persons.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: There is a great number of emendations to other Acts which have now to be cited in this Bill, which, when an Act, will have to be construed with other Education Acts. I have frequently asked Departments to be good enough to codify and consolidate their Acts, and the Education Acts are now getting into such a tangle that an ordinary person finds it extraordinarily difficult to put them together. We have had to deal with Clauses in this Bill, the meaning of which we could not tell until we looked up three or four Acts of Parliament. I am certain that my right hon. Friend would sympathise with my desire to get this law written down in a clear form. Possibly he might consider whether, without putting undue strain on an overworked Department, he could make some arrangement at a later date to consolidate and codify the law on the subject, so that it might really be clear.
    Sir R. NEWMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a married woman could be a "young person" within the meaning of this Bill?
    Sir M. BARLOW: On the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts), I may point out that codification is always a very long and very elaborate process, but we have found, in reference to other Acts of Parliament, that it was very convenient for the
    1682
    Government to issue a Command Paper, giving the portions of previous Acts that were still in force; and if that could be done with the Education Acts, it would be of very great assistance to us.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I regret that I was not here when the Clause was called. I had put down an Amendment which was the result of an agreement arrived at earlier in the Committee stage, and I understood that the right hon. Gentleman would accept it in a slightly altered form.
    Mr. FISHER: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I fully intended to move the Amendment, but we proceeded so rapidly that the Clause was through before I had time to rise. I will promise that it will be inserted on Report.
    Sir C. BATHURST: Sub-section (3) of this Clause provides that this Act shall come into operation on the appointed day, and the appointed day shall be such day as the Board of Education may appoint. Local education authorities are clamouring to know when this Act is likely to come into operation, because they have a great deal of administrative machinery to build up before they can administer this Act, and under this Clause it rests entirely within the discretion of the Board of Education to decide when the appointed day shall be. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should indicate the earliest possible moment what day he has in mind for bringing the Act into operation, in view of the fact that the Bill is, likely to become law at an early date—at any rate in the course of this Session. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give an indication to-night, he will do so at the earliest possible moment, in the best interests of those who have to administer the Act after it is passed.
    Mr. FISHER: I quite appreciate the anxiety expressed by the hon. and gallant Member that some indication should be given to the local education authorities at the earliest possible opportunity as to the date at which the Act, or portions of the Act, will come into operation. It is quite clear that it is very desirable that some portions of the Act should come into operation at once, notably the financial portions just passed. We know there is anxiety on the part of the educational authorities that the financial Clauses should come into operation at once. On the other hand, there are Clauses such,

    1683
    for instance, as the Clauses relating to school attendance, which may not come into operation until the end of the War, and the Clause as to continuation schools, which may not come into operation until the local education authorities have had sufficient time to prepare their schemes. Consequently I am not able to give a definite indication as to the date, because it is quite clear that different parts of the Act must come into operation on different dates.
    Sir C. BATHURST: Am I to understand the right hon. Gentleman that the only part he can say for certain will come into operation at once—and I presume he means by that after the Act has passed through both Houses and received the Royal Assent—will be that part which relates to finance?
    Mr. FISHER: Yes; and there are other parts as well.
    Mr. WING: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the various Amendments in connection with those exempted from the continuation school for a sea-faring life?
    Sir M. BARLOW: In the case of the Act of 1902 there was a date fixed, after eighteen months, for the Act to come into operation. It is quite clear that the Board must have greater freedom, owing to the War, than was given in connection with the Act of 1902, the circumstances now being abnormal. Still, I think it would be a great help to the authorities if some indication of a comprehensive character of what Clauses are to come into operation at once were given, and of what Clauses the operation is to be postponed. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to do that to-night, but perhaps he can give us some assurance that before the Bill leaves this House he will give a general indication of what Clauses are to come into operation at once, and what Clauses are likely to be postponed for a considerable period?
    Mr. FISHER: I shall have no difficulty in giving an indication of a general character.
    Mr. WING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the matter to which I have referred, and on which there was a very long discussion?
    Mr. FISHER: I am sorry I did not answer the hon. Member's question. He perhaps recollects that the Government did accept an Amendment dealing with the subject. It was an Amendment, if I remember aright, inserted in Clause 10 of the Bill, and we are in a fair way to arrive at a scheme which will carry out the provisions of that Amendment, if it becomes law.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Sir F. BANBURY: In view of the fact that we have reported Progress so early, in view, also, of the fact that the President of the Board of Education, only a few moments ago, said progress had been so rapid that he had forgotten an Amendment of mine, and in view of the further fact that there is no Member from Ireland present, I submit that really this Bill ought not to be taken now. I do not know what it is about, and I do not think anybody does.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Arthur Samuels): This is a quite unopposed Bill, and is merely to make a statutory Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain it?
  Mr. SAMUELS: The Bill is to give jurisdiction to try offences in a portion of the county of Dublin. It is at the request of the magistrates that this Bill has been introduced, and I do not think there can be any objection to it.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. J. Hope.]
  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."
  Mr. BOOTH: I have again searched in the Vote Office for the Report of Mr. Justice Atkin's Committee, but it has not yet arrived, and I take it that the Motion will, at least, not be taken before Thursday, and probably not before Monday. I wish also to ask whether the Eleven o'Clock Rule will be suspended to-morrow, whether it is the wish of the Government to dispose of the new Clauses and the
  1686
  Schedules of the Education Bill, and, if so, does that mean that we shall have a holiday on Friday?
  Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): If we finish the new Clauses and the Schedules to-morrow, there will be no Friday sitting. With regard to Mr. Justice Atkin's Report, I am afraid it is still wanting. I cannot find it.
  Adjourned accordingly at Four minutes before Ten o'clock.

WAR.
  INLAND REVENUE (VALUATION OFFICE).
  INLAND REVENUE (VALUATION OFFICE).
  INLAND REVENUE EMPLOYES (PAY).
  INLAND REVENUE EMPLOYES (PAY).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  CHEESE.
  CHEESE.
  NATIONAL KITCHENS.
  NATIONAL KITCHENS.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  Succession Duty (Assessment).
  Succession Duty (Assessment).
MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR.
The Right Hon. John Campbell, Earl of Aberdeen, K.T., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., having been created Earl of Haddo in the County of Aberdeen and Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair in the said County of Aberdeen and in the County of Meath and in the County of Argyll—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS.
The Right Hon. John Wynford, Baron St. Davids, having been created Viscount. St. Davids of Lydstep Haven in the County of Pembroke—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
HAMILTON ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CORN PRODUCTION (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend subsection (3) of Section 11 of the Corn Production Act, 1917.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Bill read 1a and to be printed.

IRELAND.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House a Question of which I have given him private notice. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that on Thursday last a debate took place on questions connected with Ireland, and that although the House sat at 3.30 p.m and the debate continued for several. hours, nine or ten Peers taking part, no reply was forthcoming on the part of the Government until my noble friend Lord Mayo intimated that it would be necessary to move the adjournment. Thereupon Lord Crawford intervened in a few sentences, but I think your Lordships who were present will realise that some very
496
important questions were left over on which no reply was made. Of course, I do not venture on a private notice question to argue any point, but I merely mention the subject of the supply of land for soldiers, on which the Government were pressed by many peers. No answer was given with regard to that, but there was a point which I understood the noble Earl to have reserved. On the first day of the discussion Lord Curzon said, with regard to whether the Government intended to proclaim the Sinn Fein Association—
"I should not like to answer that question without a further reference."
This led many of your Lordships to infer that we should have the advantage of hearing the decision of the Government on that question when the debate was resumed after a week's adjournment. I would only say that those who listened to the discussion must have felt what very grave importance attaches to this question, and I would invite the noble Earl, if he can, to supplement the information which we have received.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, when I used the language which the noble Viscount has quoted, I did not mean to reserve the point in the sense in which he has used the term. I meant that the question was of so much importance thatnaturally I could not answer it without reference to those responsible for the Irish Government. The noble Viscount has asked whether I have any statement to make or any further information to give upon the subject to-day. I am afraid I can say no more than this—that the matter, which of course is of the highest importance, is engaging the earnest attention of the Government, but that it would be contrary to the public interest to say anything more about it at this moment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl has replied to the Question of my noble friend, but I am not sure that we have got very much from the answer. It is a matter of a very urgent and important kind, and I am afraid your Lordships will feel that the Government have hardly shown a full sense of the great importance of the debate which took place on Thursday last. I know that my noble friend the noble Earl was absent from his place, for very good reasons, for which none

497
of us would complain, but it is a very striking circumstance that there was no Minister who was in a position to reply upon the debate on Thursday last. I am sure that if the noble Earl himself had been present he would have felt that your Lordships had some reason to complain of treatment of that kind. We heard at the end of the debate a few words from Lord Crawford, and I need not say that we all listened to hint with the greatest possible pleasure. There is no man better qualified than he is to make an admirable speech in your Lordships' House, but on that occasion it was evident that he was not prepared to speak. He had not the materials with which to reply, and although we are willing and anxious to show all the sympathy we can to the noble Earl (Lord Curzon) in the heavy work which falls upon him, we think that in a debate of that kind, if he cannot be here himself, some other Minister should be present to answer the points which fall from your Lordships. We hope that on another occasion things may be differently arranged.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: On the afternoon to which the noble Marquess refers there was a general feeling, I believe, that the discussion was likely to last throughout the evening. I was myself, as the noble Marquess has justly and generously remarked, engaged upon public business of importance which prevented me from being present in the earlier afternoon, and one of the chief losses which I thereby sustained was that I missed a speech made by my noble, friend Lord Salisbury. I did come to the House at seven o'clock with a view to answering any questions specially addressed to me, but as I entered the House I found Lord Crawford dealing with the case so much to the general acceptance of the House that I took refuge in silence. I hope, that upon another occasion I may be able to meet the requirements of the noble Marquess better than I did last week.

LAND DRAINAGE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (LORD CLINTON): My Lords, this is a measure to amend the Land Drainage Act, 1861, and to make further provision for the drainage of agri-
498
cultural land. The Act of 1861 was in itself an amending Act, and dealt with the laws which had been passed from long periods ago dealing with the same subject. We have a record from the date of Henry VIII, who made the first great advance in land drainage by appointing Commissioners of Sewers. The lineal successors of those Commissioners still act, but along with them, under the principal Act of 1861, have been appointed Drainage Boards with the same powers as the Commissioners of Sewers; and as they are elected bodies they are probably more in keeping with the spirit, of the age, and any new areas are put under their control.
The purpose of this drainage legislation has been to bring under cultivation and otherwise improve for agricultural purposes areas of low-lying wet land which, owing to their waterlogged condition, are incapable of producing to the fullest possible capacity. Great works have been carried out in the past under these different Acts, particularly during the middle part of the nineteenth century, which was a great time for agricultural improvement and also a great period of agricultural prosperity. It is, I think, worth noting that these agricultural improver rents have always gone hand in hand with the prosperity of the industry. But the circumstances which followed the middle part of the nineteenth century led to a want of energy in initiating new drainage schemes and a certain amount of carelessness, or possibly inability, in maintaining the schemes which were already in existence, with the result that large numbers of estates, particularly in the maritime districts of the country, bear marks of drainage schemes. Some of them still bear the burdens of the cost of those schemes, but in too many cases any beneficial results from these works are non-existent.
The causes for this are, I think, mainly two. There is an economic or agricultural cause and there is also a legislative cause. The great prosperity of agriculture led to a considerable activity in drainage improvement, but the following depression of the industry in the later third of the nineteenth century led to a discontinuance of all these schemes. No man had the heart, and, what was perhaps more important, very few people had the money, to carry on these improvements, and authorities found it impossible to levy a rate upon this much-harassed industry which had lost practically

499
its all in attempting to produce under almost impossible circumstances. Arising out of the same cause—this depression of agriculture—the need for drainage itself became less. Owing to force of circumstances— bad times, low prices, foreign competition, and the total neglect by the nation of the agricultural industry—we were compelled to abandon arable cultivation and start on grass farming, because the arable cultivation, owing to these circumstances, had become highly speculative and in most cases quite unprofitable. We embarked upon that grass farming, and as the result of getting into grass farming the need for drainage became less. I need not, of course, point out to your Lordships that you can carry on the farming of pasture land on land which is in a quite unsuitable condition, through wet, to be used for corn production.
Just as the problems which were existing at that particular time caused this alteration in our agricultural system, leading to less need of drainage, so the totally different set of problems at the present moment—which have no connection with the profit or loss of the agricultural industry itself, but are entirely connected with the present imperative needs of the nation—are sending us back to the former course of corn production, which necessitates a much larger attention being paid to the drainage of the country. That is, I think, the agricultural reason. But in addition to that there is a reason connected with legislation itself. The legislation of former days down to the Act of 1861, while no doubt suitable to the particular times in which it was passed, is too cumbersome, too inconvenient, and in many respects too expensive for the needs of the present day. In so far as the areas requiring drainage are not under the charge of the Commissioners of Sewers drainage districts have to be formed under the control of Drainage Boards, but there is no one person and no one authority charged with the duty of initiating the procedure for bringing these Boards into existence. It is left to a chance collection of a certain number of people, the proprietors of one-tenth of the area of the district to be drained, and unless it happens that among these proprietors there are sufficient men of energy, public spirit, foresight, and knowledge of agricultural requirements, it is quite likely that no drainage district will be initiated or constituted even in those places where it is most required.
500
I hope under this measure to alter that one of the main defects of older legislation, and also to introduce other amendments which will make drainage more possible and more satisfactory. Whatever the actual causes may have been which led to tire discontinuance of drainage schemes, there are certain facts quite clear. One is that there is a very large area of land capable of corn production which, owing to such causes as the blocking of the outfalls and the choking of the drains, has relapsed into an almost unimproved state, and consequently we have large areas which are withdrawn from that food production which is most urgently needed at the present time. Very careful inquiries have been made in different parts of the country as to the extent of this land, and the War Agricultural Committees have almost unanimously, I think, pointed out that defective drainage is at the present moment one of the greatest obstacles in the way of increased food production.
In the same Report the Committees give us the estimated area of land which can be reclaimed or improved, and it amounts to a very large figure. As one may expect, it is largely in the eastern parts of the kingdom. In Yorkshire and Lincolnshire alone there is an area of 500,000 acres which is capable of improvement by proper drainage. In Norfolk and Cambridgeshire there are 100,000 acres. There is a somewhat similar amount in three counties in Wales, and there are various other districts where larger or smaller amounts require to be brought under survey for the purpose of improvement by drainage. Altogether we estimate that the land to be dealt with amounts to close upon 1,000,000 acres. It is so large a figure that if it is correct—and there is no reason to doubt its substantial accuracy—I think it raises this measure at once to a position of very great importance among all those Acts and Regulations and Orders which, during the past four years, have been passed into law for the purpose of improving production from the land.
The Board of Agriculture have already taken some powers to deal with the matter. Under the Defence of the Realm Act they have obtained powers to enforce the cleaning of drains and of streams and repairing river banks, and also powers to put pressure upon drainage authorities to get the necessary work carried out. This has had such an effect that we can

501
show that 80,000 acres are at the present moment in process of improvement. To this extent it has been improved that already a very considerable number of aeres ate under crop of this year, and it is hoped for the year 1919 drat there will be a very largo amount, put under cultivation. I have endeavoured to show that there is in the country a very large area capable of being improved for corn cultivation. that drainage is essential for the purpose, but that the present law is not sufficient, and if your Lordships will allow me I will, by reference to the Bill itself, show the steps which are proposed.
The most important clauses of the Bill are Clauses 1 and 2. Under the old system, and also under the new, drainage districts require to be formed where any system is going to be put in operation under the Drainage Boards, but under the old Act as I have already told your Lordships, they can be initiated only by the proprietors of one-tenth of the area included in the scheme. No other body has power to bring them into operation, and, further, any scheme can be vetoed unless it has the consent of two-thirds of the proprietors within the area Where it is opposed, or unopposed, it has to proceed by the somewhat cumbersome process of Provisional Orders, to be confirmed by Parliament. Under Clause 1 and Clause 2 the necessary alterations are made. In the first clause power to make Orders constituting drainage districts is given to the Board of Agriculture. They may by their own Order constitute an area a separate drainage district, and it is only if it is opposed within thirty days that it requires any confirmation by Parliament. They can also make Orders for altering the boundaries of any drainage area. Under the older Acts no drainage area could be altered except by carrying through a Provisional Order, in exactly the same way as constituting a new district. The Board could make an Order defining the limits of the Commissioners of Sewers. The Commissioners of Sewers have charge of the maritime districts of the country—a phrase which I understand has no meaning either in law or practice, with the natural result that in most of these cases they are unaware, or ignorant, of the area which they control. There is no power at present for defining that limit. Under this measure the Board take power to make the necessary definition. They also have power to make an order for conferring upon the drainage
502
authority certain additional powers in respect of the provisions of any local Act muter which they are constituted. At present they would have to go to Parliament and pass through a new private Act to get an alteration of those powers.
As I have said, these drainage districts cannot he formed unless one-tenth of the proprietors petition for it. That is very largely altered in this measure. To constitute a drainage area, or to alter the boundaries of an existing area, the Board may proceed on their own initiation; and in addition to that county councils are authorised to petition the Board for the purpose, or, as by the original scheme, one-tenth of the proprietors can make the application. Therefore we have three bodies any one of whom can put this into operation. The same bodies can apply for the alteration of private Acts, and the Board can make the necessary Orders. The proposal for the definition of the limits of the Commissioners of Sewers must come from the Commissioners themselves. These are, I think, large alterations, and they should make the carrying out, of this Bill very much simpler, less costly, and much quicker than before.
The next clause to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is Clause 4, subsection (2). This provides for differential rating. It is quite obvious that in almost all of the schemes different portions of the land are affected to different degrees. Formerly there was a level rate upon all; now they can be rated in accordance with the benefits they receive. Clause 5 enables the local authorities, either the public health authorities or the highway authorities, to contribute towards drainage expenses. There are a considerable number of instances where drainage is of importance to the health of the locality, and also where it is of great advantage to highways. In such circumstances the local authorities can contribute to the expenses such an amount as the Local Government Board, having regard to the public benefit derived therefrom, may sanction. Clause 7 of the Bill enables a drainage authority and a navigation authority to enter into arrangements for carrying out the duties of the navigation authority. There are cases where the navigation authority, having charge of rivers, or waterways, find that they are under their Acts bound to keep up a certain head of water for navigation purposes, although those purposes are no

503
longer required. The result of keeping up that head of water means that the lands further back become flooded and spoilt for agricultural purposes. By arrangement with the district authority, subject to the approval of the Board of Trade, this drainage can he carried out. Clause 9 requires a report of the proceedings to be placed before the Board every year so that they may see that the drainage authorities are carrying our their duties. Clause 15, which is the first clause of Part II of the Bill, enables the Board to step in if the drainage authority is not fully exercising its powers.
Clause 16 is, I think, the only new feature in the Bill, and it is one to which I invite the attention of your Lordships. It brings in the power of compulsion—
"Where the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries are of the opinion that any agricultural land is capable of improvement by drainage works, but that the same cannot be conveniently dealt with by an order under Part I of this Act and that the expenses of executing and maintaining such works will not exceed the increase in the value of the laud arising therefrom, the Board may, in accordance with the provisions of a scheme made under this section, enter on the lands and execute such drainage works as appear to them desirable."
This provides for cases of small areas which are not properly looked after by the owners. Where improvements might result from drainage works, then the Board takes upon itself the power to enter in and carry out the works, and charge the cost of the same to the owner or owners. Section 17 allows a delegation of the powers of the Board to the Committees. Those, my Lords, are, I think, the important sections of this Bill. We believe that the Bill as a whole is of considerable importance, and that, if your Lordships are good enough to pass it, it will remedy some of the very considerable defects which now arise from the faulty drainage of agricultural land. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a—(Lord Clinton.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I was not able to be present in the House the other day when my noble friend Lord Clinton first spoke as representing the Board of Agriculture. Therefore I hope he will allow me to take this the first opportunity I have had of welcoming him to his new post. There is no member of your Lordships' House who is more qualified by his experience, and study, and complete
504
knowledge of all agricultural questions to represent the Board of Agriculture here, and I think that we are very fortunate to have bad him selected by His Majesty's Government to represent hen) for this purpose.
I doubt whether it will ever be my noble friend's luck to bring to the notice of your Lordships a modest Bill which is really more important than the one which he has asked you to read a second time to-day. This is a subject which has during the last two years come before me constantly in my capacity as Chairman of the Agricultural Policy Sub-Committee of the Reconstruction Committee, the Report of which was laid on the Table of your Lordships' House only a few days ago. We had many witnesses of great authority on all sorts of agricultural matters summoned before us, one to speak on one subject and another on another subject, but it rarely happened that a man finished his evidence without asking if he might say something more, and that something was always connected with drainage. I assure you that my noble friend has in no way exaggerated the urgency of this problem. It has never been dealt with in England or Scotland in anything except the most haphazard and piecemeal fashion. I believe that we are almost the only civilised country in which any attention has been given to agriculture where the question of drainage has not been dealt with in a thorough and systematic manner.
The only fault that I have to find with the Bill that my noble friend has just introduced is that it can only in my judgment be a stop-gap Bill. It may serve for the purpose of the war emergency, but it will not settle the question. I do not believe that the question can be settled by any less scheme than the establishment of drainage authorities for the whole country, so that the whole country may be dealt with. I will give your Lordships only two examples. There is no adequate power existing which would enable me, if my farm or my estate is water-logged by the indifference of a neighbour, to get him to remedy the grievance and allow me, by the expenditure of money and the execution of proper works, to free my land from that water-logging which is caused by outlets on my neighbour's land. I do not say that there is no provision for that purpose; there is a provision passed about the middle

505
Of the last century, but it is quite inadequate. Again, there has never been, except in the case of a river like the Thames, an attempt to deal with a whole watershed or with a whole riper as one thing. A case was brought to our notice of one small river of which there were no fewer than forty-one drainage authorities. I ask your Lordships to consoler what would be the natural result on the land drained by that river when there were forty-one different authorities to act in a circumscribed area wholly independent of each other and usually with entirely different ideas as to what ought to be done. The result, of course, was that the land was flooded. Therefore I welcome very heartily the introduction of this Bill. I have not had time yet to study the details, but I am quite sure that your Lordships will be well advised to give it a Second Reading.
TEE EARL OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, I should like to say a few words upon this Bill during the consideration of the Motion for its Second Reading. I will only attempt to deal with such parts of it as affect county councils. No doubt some of the more ardent members of those councils desire that county councils should be made the drainage authorities for their respective areas. This Bill does not go to that length, the drainage power being entirely retained by the Board of Agriculture, but when the Bill was introduced by the President of the Board of Agriculture in the House of Commons there were hardly any provisions in it —or none at all—which enabled county councils to take part in this work. During the passage of the Bill in the House of Commons, however, the President of the Board was most ready to meet the wishes of the County Councils Association in this respect, and as a result you will find in the Bill most valuable provisions under which county councils are given a status.
For instance, in the first clause, subsection (2), on petition from the county councils the Board, after consultation with the Local Government Board, may by Order make the county councils the drainage authority. Again, in Clause 2, subsection (1), the Board may by Order constitute a drainage district, or alter the area after consultation with the county councils. Further, subsection (2), paragraph 1, says that county councils may petition to alter or supplement a Drainage Act. In my
506
opinion Clause 9 is a very important one. It decrees that the drainage authorities shall in every case render to the Board of Agriculture once every year a report of their proceedings in such a manner and under such conditions as the Board may require. A copy of this report is to be sent to the county councils who, therefore, when they get the report of these Drainage Boards in their different areas, will be able to see and judge for themselves whether the work that they are carrying out is efficient, and, if not, they will be able to appeal to the Board of Agriculture to remedy the state of affairs existing.
We know now that it is most desirable in the interests of the country that all possible land should be drained, and should no longer be water-logged, so that the output of crops may be increased. In Part 11, Clause 17 of the Bill says that the Board may authorise and delegate their powers to drainage bodies, in which case at least a majority of members shall be members of the county council. That is a very important clause, because the county councils interested in the particular drainage area will thereby secure at least a majority of the members of that Board.
There is also the very important provision that county councils may combine for the purposes of the Act. There was no provision before in any Act by which they could combine for this particular purpose. Finally, in the First Schedule the Board before making an Order must cause notice to be sent to the county council. So that under these various clauses the county councils will be really brought in for active and useful work in helping the Board of Agriculture to see that the drainage within their respective areas is sufficiently and properly maintained or improved. In these circumstances I think that the measure is a very useful one, and I hope that your Lordships will pass it.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, though with other noble Lords I fully recognise that something will have to be done in the near future as regards the drainage of agricultural land, at the same time we should be very wrong to suppose that the matter is a simple one, or one that can be dealt with by an Act of Parliament passed rapidly through both Houses of Parliament in war time. At any other time this is certainly a road which would be a very difficult one to tread, because

507
there are a great many interests concerned and the matter requires the very greatest consideration.
I am fully aware that there has been a considerable demand in the country for greater powers to be given to some authority, whatever it may be, to enforce the better cleaning out of streams and the better drainage of land. All of us who are acquainted with lands which are likely to be submerged, and which very often are submerged, know that there are many authorities and private owners, who should clean out the streams and do the drainage, who do not do their duty. This Bill is a step in the right direction in compelling those authorities and private individuals to do their duty and to benefit the drainage of their neighbours' land.
There are, however, some provisions in the Bill on which I should like to make some remarks. For example, Clause 4, as I read it, will give the Courts of Sewers who have the power of dealing with coast defence the power of raising rates on land to stop erosion from the sea. In the parts of Lincolnshire with which I am acquainted I believe that in a very large number of cases where lands would suffer if the sea broke in and submerged the hinterland a great deal of that hinterland does not pay rates towards coast defence; whereas higher land does pay rates though the higher land very likely would not be submerged. As I read the provisions of the clause the Courts of Sewers would have power to raise a rate on all land likely to be submerged, whether that land was subject to be rated or not. This appears to be a fair and proper way of dealing with the matter, but we have to consider that within the last two or three years an enormous amount of that land has changed hands. I think there has been as much dealing in this marshy land as in any other land—it is very valuable land—and at the auction sales it is almost always stated what the drainage rate for the past year has been. Land which has been free from rates perhaps for centuries has been bought up at a very high price, whereas other land which has always been held to be liable for rates has fetched a much lower price. In that respect you may have a certain amount of difficulty. You will have to convince those people who have recently purchased land which has not been liable in the past that in future they will become liable and
508
will very likely have to pay a very heavy rate.
The noble Lord in introducing the Bill referred to Clause 15 dealing with the compulsory powers of the Board to enter and drain land, and enabling it, having taken steps to drain the land, to call upon the proprietors to pay a rate to cover the cost. That, again, sounds very well, but I am quite certain it is a clause that will want a considerable amount of watching. I profoundly mistrust any engineering or expert opinion in dealing with water. I have had the honour of sitting on several Private Bill Committees upstairs, and have heard a good deal of expert evidence from water engineers, and I think it would be the experience of most noble Lords who have had anything to do with drainage or water that in almost every case the engineers' and contractors estimates are doubled, and sometimes trebled. I think that before compulsory powers are given to make people drain waterlogged land you ought to make it very plain that there can be absolutely no doubt that the experiment will be a success. It will be very hard if some war agricultural committee or county council or other authority complain that a certain area of land is in a waterlogged state and ought to be drained, and an expert engineer makes an estimate of the cost, and then when the work has been carried out it is found that the value of the land will not pay the drainage rate.
I do not think this is an extravagant fear, because I have known a good deal of the land in the Fens of Lincolnshire which in days gone by scarcely paid the drainage rate. It was a very close thing whether the people who owned the land were not better without it altogether owing to the very heavy drainage rate upon them. At the same time I fully admit that it is most important at the present time that we should grow food, and corn is fetching a big price. The expense of carrying out these works will certainly be double what it was before the war, and after these expensive drainage works have been carried out, when the price of agricultural produce falls again to its normal level— which I expect will occur at no very distant time after the war is ended—we may find ourselves in the predicament of having very heavy drainage rates to pay while the produce of the land is not sufficient to pay them.

509
For these reasons I thought it desirable to utter a word of warning. At the same time I feel that it is most important, where it can be clearly proved that owing to the want of energy and public spirit either of public authorities or private individuals, water is being held up, that Parliament should compel those people to carry out their duty. I hope, however, that in the administration of the Act compulsion will not be employed with the idea that marshes can be turned into wonderful corn-growing land at very little expense and with the certain prospect of success. I have always heard the story—I do not know how true it is—that the draining of Whittlesey Mere ruined three lots of people. Three different lots of people tried it and all went bankrupt one after the other, and it was not until the fourth man stepped in and reaped the benefit of what had been done by his predecessors that this rich Fen country was successfully drained. I am a little afraid, therefore, that there may be an inclination with such wide powers as are given that authorities may think it is easy, if every marsh in this country is drained, to obtain corn-producing land which will pay for the previous expense.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether there are two proportions of landowners who have a right to be consulted, the one-tenth who initiate the scheme or the one-third who object to it? As far as I can understand the Bill it must mean one-third and one-tenth in area, and it seems to me that the fairer way would be to make it one-third and one-tenth in value. That is not clear as vet, but I hope it will be made so in Committee.
LORD CLINTON: The proposal in the Bill is that one-tenth in area can initiate the proceedings for the formation of a drainage district; then there is the power of veto conferred upon one-third in area.
LORD SHEFFIELD: Also in area?
LORD CLINTON: Yes.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I think it would be fairer if it were in value.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MIDWIVES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee —(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Amendment of section fire of the principal Act with respect to finance.
2. The approval by the Privy Council of any balance against the Central Midwives Board shown in any financial statement made under section five of the principal Act shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, binding and conclusive as to the amount of the balance to be apportioned under that section, and any apportionment of any such balance between the several counties and county boroughs under that section shall be in proportion to the population of those counties and county boroughs according to the returns of the last published census for the time being, instead of in the proportion mentioned in the said section.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, after "of" ["under section five of"], to insert "the Midwives Act, 1902, in this Art referred to as". The noble Viscount said: The amendment standing in my name is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, after ("of") insert ("the Midwives Act, 1902, in this Act referred to as").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Provisions as to suspension.
6.—(1) The power of the Central Midwives Board to frame rules deciding the conditions under which midwives may be suspended from practice shall include a power of framing rules—

(a) authorising the Board to suspend a midwife from practice for such period as the Board think fit, in lieu of striking her name off the roll, and to suspend from practice until the case has been decided, and (in the case of an appeal) until the appeal has been decided, any midwife accused before the Board of disobeying rules or regulations or of other misconduct;

511

(b) authorising the local supervising authority which takes proceedings against a midwife before a court of justice or reports a case for consideration by the Central Midwives Board to suspend her from practice until the case has been decided.

(2) Where in pursuance of any power conferred by any such rule a midwife has been suspended from practice pending the decision of her case by a court or the Board and the case is decided in her favour, or where in pursuance of the duty imposed by paragraph (3) of section eight of the principal Act a midwife has been suspended from practice in order to prevent the spread of infection, the Central Midwives Board or the local supervising authority by whom she was suspended, may, if they think fit, pay her such reasonable compensation for loss of practice as under the circumstances may seem just.
THE EARL OF MEATH THE EARL OF MEATH moved to delete the words "may, if they think fit, pay her such reasonable compensations for loss of practice as under the circumstance may seem just," and to insert "shall pay her reasonable compensation for loss of practice."
The noble Earl said: I desire to draw your Lordships' attention to this clause because it seems to me that there is a want of elementary justice in the second subsection. By Clause 6 your Lordships are giving power to the Central Midwives Board and to the local supervising authoritise to suspend midwives for certain offences. Now, I wish to break a lance for the midwife. It appears to me that she is hardly properly treated. You give power to the Central Midwives Board and to the local supervising authority to suspend her, but if it is proved that she is innocent it would be only justice that some reasonable compensation should be given to her for loss of practice. Under subsection (2) of this clause as it stands in the Bill the Central Midwives Board or the local supervising authority by whom the midwife is suspended may, if they think fit, pay her such reasonable compensation for the loss of practice as under the circumstances may seem just. My Amendment is that the subsection shall react "shall pay her reasonable compensation for loss of practice." Once upon a time Mr. Gladstone said that we in this House lived up in a balloon, but I think we know enough of affairs terrestrial to be aware of the fact that a prosecutor is not likely to do justice to a defendant if it is proved that the defendant is innocent, and that the prosecutor is the very last
512
person to give compensation and thus be likely to stultify himself.
I am not going to detain your Lordships because to my mind the thing is simple, and I feel certain that you will agree with me that these ladies are engaged in a work of the very first national importance, especially in these times when we shall want to build up a strong and healthy race to fill the gaps which, unfortunately, have been made not only in our own country but throughout the world. I leave it, therefore, to your Lordships to consider whether it would be possible, with the consent of the Government, to substitute the words appearing in my name on the Paper for those printed in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, leave out from ("suspended") to the end of the clause and insert ("shall pay her reasonable compensation for loss of practice").—(The Earl of Meath.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think the noble Earl need display any anxiety that there will not be plenty of noble Lords in this House who will break lances on behalf of midwives, because in my experience they have many strong friends not only here but in the other House.
As regards this particular proposal of the noble Earl, however, I am advised that, in the first place, it will make little, if any, difference in practice, because, whether the noble Earl's words are inserted in the clause or whether the words are left as they now appear in the Bill, the Central Midwives Board will in any case have to decide what is a reasonable amount of compensation; consequently they will be in effect masters of the situation. Further, I believe it would be far better to leave the whole matter to the fair discretion of the Board, considering of what. a body of experienced men and women that Board consists.
There is another consideration, moreover, which was not mentioned by the noble Earl, and which may possibly have escaped his notice—namely, that the proposal in the Bill is really the same as the provision already enacted in the Scottish and Irish Acts; therefore what the noble Earl is trying to do—or to suggest, because I do not think it will have that effect—is to put the midwives in England, in this particular respect, in an apparently stronger position than the midwives in Scotland and in Ireland. I hope that the noble Earl will not press his proposal to do any such thing,

513
because, knowing the subject as well as he does, he can imagine what an amount of difficulty will be created if the midwives in this country are placed in a better position than their sisters in Scotland and Ireland. Perhaps the noble Earl will see his way, therefore, to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF MEATH: The noble Viscount has alluded to the Central Midwives Board, but not to the local supervising authority, which is the body least likely to give the compensation needed.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Delegation of powers.
12.—(1) The power under section nine of the principal Act of county councils to delegate their powers and duties to district councils shall, after the commencement of this Act, be exercisable only with the consent of the Local Government Board, and where at the commencement of this Act any powers or duties have been delegated under that section the delegation shall, as from the commencement of this Act, be revoked unless the Local Government Board otherwise order.
(2) Where any powers or duties of a local super vising authority are delegated to any other body, references in the principal Act or this Act to the local supervising authority shall, as respects the powers or duties so delegated, be construed as references to that other body.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, after subsection (1), to insert a new subsection. The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment to Clause 12 which raises, I think, a point of some controversy. This Amendment deals with the question of delegation by a county council to a district council of its powers and duties as a local supervising authority under the Midwives Act in England and Wales. The supervising authorities under the Act of 1909 are the counties and county boroughs, but under Section 9 of the principal Act they have the power to delegate without restriction or condition any of their powers and duties to district councils, borough councils, or metropolitan borough councils in London. The Midwives Association are opposed to this power of delegation. Clause 12 proposes to limit this power, and the Amendment or fresh subsection which I am now proposing to introduce still further limits this power of delegation.
If your Lordships will look at the Amendment you will see that any future
514
delegation to rural district councils is entirely forbidden, and delegation to non-county boroughs and urban districts— and urban districts include, of course, boroughs—shall not take place, "except after consultation with the Central Midwives Board, and unless that council undertake to appoint as inspector of midwives a person who is a registered medical practitioner or a woman who holds the certificate by examination of the Central Midwives Board and has had not less than six months' experience as a practising midwife." This Amendment, therefore, is an alternative to the more extreme proposal, if I may say so, of the noble Marquess opposite and of the noble Lord behind me, who wished to do away with delegation altogether.
I should like to say one or two words on this point. It is true that delegation or much of it practised under the Act of 1902 was not of a very satisfactory kind, and it was condemned by the Departmental Committee which reported in 1909. At that time county councils had no medical officers of health at all, and were perhaps only too ready to delegate their duties to local sanitary authorities, and the smaller authorities did not always perform the duties very well. But that power is entirely taken away by the subsection which I suggest. The position of county councils with regard to delegation was a good deal altered by the Act of 1909. In that Act every county council was required to appoint a medical officer of health, and from that time the power of delegation by county councils to these local authorities —any kind of local authority, in fact—has gradually diminished, and so at the present time there is hardly any delegation at all. Delegation only remains, I understand, in the case of four local authorities. So much for the present situation.
The recent development of maternity and child welfare schemes has introduced a new element into the situation. Many schemes have been carried out by towns of 20,000 inhabitants and upwards, and in the remainder of the county by county councils; and, of course, there is a natural association between the administration of the Midwives Act and these schemes which are set on foot. In the circumstances it does appear to the Local Government Board that it might be better if some power of delegation should still be retained. There are, for instance, very large urban districts such as Willesden,

515
with its 150,000 inhabitants, or the Rhondda Valley, which probably would discharge these duties quite as well, with a great deal of local interest, and with as much efficiency as if they were confined only to the country councils.
It has often been said that the case of Scotland is analogous, and that in Scotland there is no delegation and therefore there ought to be none in this country either. In fact, that argument has been widely used. It rests entirely upon a misconception. It is not true to say that delegation is forbidden in the Scottish Act, for the very good reason that it would be entirely unnecessary so to say, for there are no authorities in Scotland to whom these powers could be delegated, because in Scotland all these local bodies are supervising authorities. I should like to give some figures to show to what extent delegation has gone in Scotland. Many of the sanitary authorities in Scotland are very small. Of the 203 burghs twenty-four only are over 20,000 inhabitants, nineteen are between 10,000 and 20,000 and 160 are under 10,000. Yet we are asked to assimilate the law in England to that in Scotland and to forbid delegation to places with 150,000 inhabitants, whereas in Scotland the duties are performed by small places with 10,000 or 20,000 inhabitants. Of course, there is no idea of delegation to such an extent in England, but I believe there is strong reason for allowing some sort of delegation in this country; and I think I have shown clearly by these figures that the cases are so different that no argument can be drawn from them in favour of trying to assimilate the law in England to that in Scotland.
I know that there has been some criticism even of this very limited amount of delegation, and I should like to say that, with one small change as regards the introduction of women, this proposal about delegation entirely meets the views of Sir F. Champneys, Chairman of the Central Midwives Board, and Sir Donald Mae-Alister, President of the General Medical Council, and I feel sure that the view of these distinguished medical men, so closely associated with the work of the Midwives Acts, will carry great weight with the House. After all, how can the power of delegation be exercised? First of all, movement must be by the county councils. If the county councils want to exercise the power themselves there is no question at all. If, however, in their opinion—
516
and they are very competent bodies—these smaller bodies in particular areas can exercise the powers more efficiently than themselves, then they tan move. Secondly, the Local Government Board has to approve. Thirdly, the Local Government Board will not approve until after full consultation with the Central Midwives Board indeed, I am authorised to go so far as to say, especially with regard to London, that if any strong expression of opinion is made by the Central Midwives Board that there should not be delegation the Local Government Board will follow the suggestion of the Central Midwives Board. In those circumstances I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment, which does give some elasticity to the law, allows some very limited power of delegation, and is so hedged about with powerful restrictions that I do not think there is any possibility that the power can he misused.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, after subsection (1) insert as a new subsection:
"(2) The Local Government Board shall not in any case consent to the delegation to a rural district council, and shall not consent to the delegation to a metropolitan borough council or to the council of a non-county borough or urban district, except after consultation with the Central Midwives Board, and unless that council undertake to appoint as inspector of midwives a person who is a registered medical practitioner or a woman who holds the certificate by examination of the Central Midwives Board and has had not less than six months' experience as a practising midwife."—(Viscount Peel.)
THE MAROUESS OF SALISBURY: I recognise that the noble Viscount is anxious to meet the views of those who are opposed to this clause, but I hope I shall be able to show him that, even as the Amendment now stands, it hardly goes far enough. From the point of view he has put forward, I am a little surprised that he cares so much about it —I mean those who instruct him—because, as he says, he has limited it in a considerable degree. I should like to place before your Lordships the case against delegation. In the first place there is the strength of authority against it. I do not dwell upon the question of similarity between the English and Scottish Acts, because I quite follow the argument that the noble Viscount has submitted. But the first strong argument from authority is a statement made in your Lordships' House a fortnight ago by the Lord Privy Seal in moving the Second Reading of the Bill,

517
when he said that delegation had been found to be, I do not think he said a complete failure, but altogether unsuccessful as a system.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I did not quite say that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not quite so strongly, perhaps.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No; not in those words.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl was in very good company, because he agreed with the Committee of 1909. That Committee found—and, so far as I know, there was no doubt in the mind of the Committee—that delegation was a great mistake. The then Secretary of the Central Midwives Board, who was a witness before that Committee, spoke of it as being an "unmitigated evil." That is very strong language, and from a very high authority. Therefore, we start with authority against the system of delegation.
What is the principal argument against it? The first argument is that if you delegate to a smaller authority you submit these midwives to inspectors who are of a lower status than the inspectors employed by the county authorities. That is bad in every way. It is bad because the inferior status of the inspectors deprives the public of the guarantee which proper inspection ought to give them, and it is bad also because this inferior status makes the profession of midwives unpopular. There are these two main arguments. Moreover, having this lower class of inspectors involves want of uniformity of practice in the areas, and this is a serious matter. Then, again, it involves confusion, because a great many of the smaller areas are not such as to occupy in every case the full time of the midwife. She has a clientele outside the boundaries of the particular local authority, and in that case she is subject to two different sets of inspectors—the inspectors of the local authority to which delegation has been granted, and the inspectors of the county at large when she passes the boundary.
This produces confusion, and the upshot is that the midwives themselves are very much opposed to the system, You may say that they are wrong, but the point is that the fact of their being opposed to it, as
518
I have already said, acts as a deterrent to women joining the profession. That appears to be established, and it also appears to be a pity, for the matter is of very great importance. The profession is Specially important at this moment, because of the great lack of medical men in all parts of the country (in consequence of the great demand now being made upon them) which makes the existence of midwives most essential, and nothing should be done, if I may say so, to deter suitable women from jointing the profession. These are some of the main arguments against delegation.
There is yet another argument. The noble Viscount said, "We have hedged this elastic provision which we propose with every kind of safeguard." Now what is the principal safeguard? The principal safeguard is the consent of the Local Government Board. I want to speak on this occasion with all respect due to the Local Government Board, but, for some reason or other, the Local Government Board is very much criticised in connection with work of this kind. It is not too much to say that the Local Government Board inspires no confidence whatever. I am not speaking generally. I have the greatest possible regard for it. I hope the noble Viscount does not mistake me. I was speaking with regard to this particular matter. I should be very sorry indeed to commit myself in a general way to such a blasphemy against one of the main Departments of State. The Local Government Board, for some reason, does not command confidence in this respect. The reason is that in past times the, Local Government Board has used its influence to produce delegation. This has caused a feeling of suspicion amongst all those who take an interest. in this subject, and they are very much afraid that the possibility of the Local Government Board giving or withholding consent will be used as a means of pressure on the county council to grant delegation where delegation ought not to be granted. Therefore this safeguard of which the noble Viscount speaks, so far from being regarded as a safeguard by those in whose name I am very imperfectly speaking at this moment, is regarded as precisely the contrary and as involving a risk.
It is for this reason that they do not accept this provision as a real safeguard. It is true, I think—speaking, as I say again,

519
with all respect for the Local Government Board—that there has been in many respects for some years a tendency in the Local Government Board to prefer operating through the minor local authority rather than the major local authority. One meets it very often in different relations. In the matter of housing, for example, you will find the Local Government Board has a policy of operating through the minor local authority, whereas many of us think that the history of the last twenty years has shown that the local authority which has been the most successful in English local life has been the county council. The suspicion with regard to the Local Government Board is, therefore, not altogether without foundation. For this reason it is thought that delegation ought to be entirely obliterated. By the confession of the Government it has been a failure. It was found by a Select Committee to be a mistake. It was characterised by a most important witness as an "unmitigated evil," and it is now viewed by all those interested in this question as a mistake. The noble Viscount at the end of his speech quoted two eminent legal authorities as being in favour of the Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Medical authorities.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Medical authorities. Let me read a list of the authorities against it altogether. I may speak of the Midwives Association in my own county, or I may speak of the chief of the Somerset County Nursing Association; but I will take the central ones. The Standing Committee of the County Nurses Association have passed a resolution in favour of the Amendment which I shall have the honour to submit to your Lordships when we reach it. The Council and Advisory Committee of the Midwives Institute, the Association of Inspectors of Midwives, and the Association for the Promotion of Training and Supply of Midwives, all these great, important and central bodies—I believe I speak in the name of the Central Midwives Board also —these great training authorities, agree in condemning delegation and urge the acceptance of the Amendment I have ventured to put on the Paper. They drafted it themselves, no doubt under proper advice, and have submitted it. In these circumstances I suggest to the Government that the best way is to accept it. They themselves say that the system
520
of delegation is not a success, and if it he true that this feeling continues to produce confusion and unpopularity, and that the Local Government Board's intervention so far from being a safeguard is considered to be rather the reverse, the simplest way is to strike the clause out of the principal Act, and abolish delegation altogether.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I think His Majesty's Government, and my noble friend opposite, must have felt somewhat surprised at the strength of the feeling which has been displayed in many quarters against any form of delegation. It is only fair to recognise, as the noble Marquess behind me did, that His Majesty's Government have done their best and gone a considerable way in order to satisfy that feeling by the Amendment which the noble Viscount has just moved. The noble Marquess stated the general case against delegation very fully and with great force. One argument which I think has been used against it and which is akin to one he used, although not identical, is to remind the public that even in the case of the larger minor authorities, up to populations of something like 100,000, the number of midwives who would be employed is, in fact, very small. It is quite easy to calculate the average number of births in a given population. Then it is to be remembered that the services of a midwife are by no means required for all those eases, and it is almost surprising to reflect that two or three midwives can serve a very large population indeed. It is argued that, this being so, if they are under a separate authority the inspector who, as the noble Marquess said, is specially appointed to inspect them is not likely to be of as high a calibre as if a larger number have to be dealt with. That is an argument of some considerable force.
What I take it is felt by those who object to delegation—if they cannot obtain what I have no doubt they would prefer, the proposition of the noble Marquess behind me that the power should be stopped altogether—is that the restriction placed on the system by the Amendment of the noble Viscount should be somewhat further stiffened. It is, I am well aware, never satisfactory to the palate of a Public Department to be subject to the absolute consent and agreement of those who are not themselves a Public Department. On the other hand, the Central Midwives

521
Board come very near to being a Public Department. I am not authorised to speak for anybody, but I cannot help thinking that, if the noble Viscount is altogether unprepared to accept the Amendment to be moved by the noble Marquess and other noble Lords, he would to some extent mitigate opposition if he were to agree to allow the delegation in any particular case to depend on the actual concurrence of the Midwives Board, instead of its merely taking place after consultation with them. I merely throw that out as a possible solution in the event of the noble Viscount not being willing to agree to the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
LORD ABERCONWAY: I hope the noble Marquess, who is to propose an Amendment to leave out Clause 12, will press his opposition even to a Division unless the Government see their way to accept it. The force of the arguments he has used has been such that I have never listened to a speech of a more destructive character. In fact, there is hardly a single authority in the country, except perhaps the Local Government Board, which is in favour of this power of delegation. Since the Act of 1902 there have only, I believe, been ten cases of delegation, and in every one of those the delegation has been revoked. It shows that the particular bodies which are entrusted with these powers, and they are the most successful administrative bodies in the country—the county councils —have felt that to give small authorities the powers of examining and awarding diplomas to these women would be a very disastrous mistake. Your Lordships will remember that these diplomas are of a very important character; and no one, in the case of an ordinary academic distinction, would allow Universities or colleges to delegate examining powers to more or less unofficial persons. The public has a right to demand that the very highest class of examiner should be employed, and that there should be no question of local favouritism, which comes in too often where you have the ordinary board of guardian person to deal with.
There is a very important recommendation made by the Midwives Committee of the London County Council. They submitted the following resolution—
"That the Council is of opinion that the delegation to Metropolitan Borough Councils of
522
the powers at present exercised by the Council under the Midwives Act of 1902 would be prejudicial to the public health of London, and that the Local Government Board be urged to endorse this view and explain the Board's attitude to the local sanitary authorities in London."
This recommendation was passed unanimously by the London County Council. If there was a case where you would think delegation would be a success it would be in the metropolitan area. Here you have in London the most eminent medical personages, large administrative areas, every advantage you would think for success; yet the London County Council, having tried it themselves, come to the conclusion that the thing is wrong. Why should the Local Government Board struggle to maintain its grasp over the administration of this Act. I look upon this simply as an attempt to wrap "red tape" again around the administration of local affairs in this country.
I think the Government ought to see that there is not a single authority in the country that has supported their view of this case. Every journal devoted to nursing or therapeutics is opposed to it. Although two eminent medical authorities have been quoted, I should very much prefer to be guided by the opinion of the county councils on a matter of this kind, and by those eminent women who have taken a great interest in this question who are not perhaps themselves medical women but who understand the needs of the country, than by the Local Government Board.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords. I must confess that the Amendment of the noble Viscount has improved the position to a great extent. But personally I hope that we will have delegation deleted altogether. I think that it is far better that it should go, because almost everybody outside, and I believe a good many in your Lordships' House, are persuaded that delegation is an absolute mistake. There are so many different dangers—dangers of jobbery and ignorance and politics. We wish to get that entirely out of the way. We do not want the possibility of having inspectors who do not know their business. In Ireland we have known inspectors—I am not talking now of midwives—who have not known anything at all about their business, and we want to place the power only in the hands of the largest corporations and bodies like county councils, who are

523
likely to be above all these petty intrigues. Another point which I do not think has been mentioned is that your Lordships' House passed in 1910 a Bill against delegation. It really is, I think, a matter which would be far better dealt with drastically by getting rid of delegation. Therefore I shall support the noble Marquess and Lord Aberconway if it goes to a Division.
LORD ASHTON OF HYDE: My Lords, I regret very much that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill does not accept the proposal of the noble Marquess opposite. The noble Viscount has gone a great deal further than the Bill in the concession that he has made, for he has almost given a Parliamentary undertaking that without the consent of the Midwives Board this shall not be put into operation in the form of delegation—at any rate, in the case of the metropolitan boroughs it certainly shall not be put so into force without the consent of the Midwives Board. Though it may be that the Midwives Board has not passed any resolution on the question, it is very well known that that Board is entirely opposed to delegation.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No; I must give that a denial.
LORD ASHTON OF HYDE: I spoke only from information given to me, and of course I accept the denial of the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I read out the statement of the chairman that he accepted this Amendment; therefore I do not think it is possible to say that the Midwives Board is against all delegation when I have the acceptance of this by the chairman.
LORD ASHTON OF HYDE: I spoke merely from information given to me, and of course I accept at once the statement made by the noble Viscount. There are, at any rate, a large number of members of the Midwives Board who accept the position I have stated. If the noble Viscount is prepared in this Bill to put matters in the hands of the Midwives Board, he might, I think, go a point further and do away altogether with delegation, which I believe the Midwives Hoard generally desire to see done. We have, moreover, the very powerful record of the Nursing Association. We have a record that the Standing Committee,
524
I think it is, of the Nursing Association has Massed a resolution condemning delegation and supporting the noble Marquess.
It seems to me that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill might have gone a little further than he has, and might have accepted the noble Marquess's suggestion. Why is it that the Local Government Board is not willing to accept this? It has been said that in 1909 the Committee that went into the matter refused delegation. It has been stated that a Bill passed this House—it did not pass the other House — in 1910 refusing delegation. Why is it that now the Local Government Board is not prepared to accept it? My impression is that there is one great county which perhaps has not quite done its duty in this matter, and I believe this has been used as an argument for delegation, but it is hardly fair, I think, to condemn on account of one big county. I am informed, moreover, that that great county is at present putting matters into order, and that, it is not likely that it will be an offender in the future as some people think it has been in the past.
I do not wish to go over all the arguments that have been brought forward, but there is to me one very strong reason against delegating these powers to a small local authority, and it is this. The inspector will, I presume, nearly always be a local medical man, and one knows the great influence that can be brought to bear upon such a man by the local people. There are always a large number of local people who are not desirous of having changes or improvements made, and these people can very often bring serious influence to bear upon the local medical man, and make his position an extremely difficult one. I know of one case myself where a medical man who was officer of health and was always trying to do his duty in improving housing, whose life was made such a burden to him that he lost his practice and was obliged to leave the place. Everybody who has had to do with local government knows that such cases are quite frequent, and we ought to guard against them. If you put the whole thing into the hands of the county councils you will, at any rate, succeed in giving an opportunity for the appointment of a man at a good salary who will be independent. I feel that this is such a very strong point that on this ground, apart from others, I shall certainly support the noble Marquess.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: May I say a Word before the reply is given on behalf of the Government? I hope that the Government will see their Way to accept the Amendment of the noble Marquess, and repeal Section 9 of the principal Act. Perhaps your Lordships will be interested to hear the view that the county councils take upon this question. This matter has been referred to a committee of the County Councils Association, and they have reported upon it. It is a strong committee, but unfortunately their report has not been submitted to a meeting of the executive council, because a meeting of that council has not yet been held. I know, however, that the committee are unanimously reporting in favour of the repeal of Section 9 of the principal Act. That is not the same thing as informing your Lordship that the executive committee have passed a resolution to that effect, Still it is as near as possible in that direction; and from all I have heard—and I have spoken to several of the members there is no difference of opinion that they most earnestly desire for the efficient working of the Act that this section should be repealed.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Have they considered my Amendment, which appeared on the Paper only on Thursday?
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: No; the wording of Lord Peel's Amendment was not before them, and they had no opportunity of seeing it. Of course, it is a great concession. But I appeal, like other speakers, to the Government to take the whole thing and sweep away all powers of delegation. There was an argument used by the noble Lord who spoke last about the efficiency of inspection, and I know in our own county we feel very strongly on this matter, and we are most anxious to have this section repealed. With smaller areas it is very difficult to get efficient inspection. If you want efficient inspection you must pay highly trained and highly salaried women to do the work and the smaller areas cannot afford to pay experienced women to the same extent that county councils can. The result is that the work of inspection is not so efficiently carried out, in the smaller areas as it is by the county councils in the larger areas. For all these reasons I hope that the Government may agree to the noble Marquess's Amendment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am sorry that my noble friend's (Lord Peer's) Amendment only appeared on the Paper, I think, on Friday last. I am convinced that had the very large concession now moved by Lord Peel been known to the authority in Hertfordshire, the authority in Somerset and others which have been mentioned, and also to the County Councils Association, their opposition to this clause would have been very largely modified. Does the County Councils Association realise that no delegation can take place except at their own instance? If they realised that, surely they need not take such exception to the clause. That seems to me to be a final answer, and had they known it I cannot help thinking that they would not have authorised my noble friend Lord Lichfield to oppose in so uncompromising a manner.
I cannot help thinking that the opposition is based on two principal grounds of suspicion and mistrust. Lord Aberconway was very emphatic about the Local Government Board, about its interference, its being much enamoured of red-tape. I do not think this is a just criticism; in fact, I think it is a very unjust criticism indeed. This power of delegation does not add to the red-tape of the Local Government Board; it does not help its power of interference. Rather the contrary; and, where delegation does exit, it is largely the fault of Parliament, which for years past has pressed delegation in many cases to a ridiculous degree, notably in certain aspects of education. I do not think that it is just to blame this Government Department for a fault which, in my opinion, is directly attributable to Parliament itself.
The other main ground of opposition is in a fear that delegation will place power in the hands of small local authorities which are not to be trusted. Four or five of your Lordships have opposed Lord Peel, but none of them has answered the concrete case which he put. Lord Aberconway said he was afraid of power falling into the hands of what he called "the sort of board of guardian people"—I do not know exactly what he means—which would lead, he said, to favouritism; and Lord Meath mentioned "jobbery, ignorance, and intrigue" which would result from this clause. May one just analyse how this-is going to arise? At the present moment there are scores of authorities in Scotland under 10,000 inhabitants who have full and complete rights under the existing Act. Nobody objects. Is it, then, in authoritie

527
of 6,000, 8,000 or 10,000 inhabitants that jobbery, favouritism, and intrigue are to be expected? It is placed on the question of population—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is based on our knowledge of the working of local government in England.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In England?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Is 25,000 what you call a "sort of board of guardian area" in England where jobbery is possible? Because there are areas in England of 25,000 inhabitants which have full and complete powers under the existing Act. Does the noble Marquess object to that? And yet, in the same breath, he objects to the Rhondda Valley with 150,000 inhabitants exercising these powers. That is really unreasonable; it cannot really be sustained. Willesden is a town of 120,000 inhabitants. You say that town shall be forbidden to exercise power under the Midwives Act. And yet there are fifty other towns in England smaller than Willesden which already do so. That is not reasonable; it is not just. And unless that case is answered I really think that the proposal of my noble friend Lord Peel holds the field.
The safeguards are not paper safeguards; they are very material. It is essential to get the assent of the county council; you have to get the assent of the Local Government Board, which, in spite of the attack upon it, is not going to delegate or assent to delegation merely for fun; you have to consult the Central Midwives Board, and, as my noble friend indicated, in certain instances you have to carry their assent with delegation. I cannot help thinking, therefore, that on grounds of propriety as well as logic it is difficult to refuse to the Rhondda Valley powers which are exercised by fifteen local authorities elsewhere in combination whose aggregate population is smaller than that of the Rhondda Valley. I should have thought myself that in view of the safeguards which are proposed, the knowledge which your Lordships have that delegation will not be allowed except where good cause is really shown, and that in any case delegation can only be offered to authorities far bigger than scores, even hundreds, of
528
local authorities which already exercise those powers, your Lordships would have done well to accept the Bill as amended by my noble friend Lord Peel.
EARL RUSSELL: I am quite ready to meet the Lord Privy Seal upon the ground which he has chosen. I have had personal experience of some of these smaller local authorities as well as the larger ones, and I am quite prepared to associate myself with what was said by Lord Meath. It does happen, unfortunately, that these smaller local authorities are very often to a large extent centres of intrigue, and that their affairs are run by a very small group. Indeed, I have a perfectly clear recollection of a period fifteen years ago when one of the metropolitan boroughs of London was in fact run by a close corporation which could easily meet round a table, and where the affairs of that borough were settled entirely by those people over the heads of the electors. So much for the integrity of administration which sometimes goes on in bodies of that sort, and of which, I think, you may have a reasonable fear in a case of this kind.
Then I was very much impressed by the argument of the noble Marquess below me as to the inadvisability of having a separate authority and a separate inspecting officer for a matter of from two to six midwives, instead of having an inspecting officer for the midwives of the whole county. I was also impressed, because it is a matter of practical importance, by his argument that it did not necesarily follow that the practice of a midwife was circumscribed by the demarcation of the area. I take now the point which the noble Earl has just made—namely, why should you not give a larger urban district area, like Willesden or the Rhondda Valley, these powers if you give them to smaller county boroughs? I think that is a rather false analogy unless he is prepared to carry it a little further; if that argument applies in this case why does it not apply to all the other matters of local government given them in that case, such as the powers of a borough in respect of centralisation. A borough has a certain corporate life and corporate existence which, I think, one would hardly say the Willesden urban district, for example, can claim; and if you give them all the powers which are incident to it there is no reason why they should not have this power as well. But why give them this particular power?

529
The noble Earl suggested that if the Amendment on the Paper had been known to those concerned their views would have been different. I speak without any communication with them and without any knowledge of their affairs, but from what we have heard this afternoon from those who are in touch With them it seems to me that this is hardly so, and I think that the Government will be well advised to how to what appears to be the general opinion in the House and to accept the Amendment to leave this clause out altogether. I should certainly vote with the noble Marquess below me if the matter is carried further.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I hope your Lordships will pardon me for saying two or three words on some of the points raised, although my noble friend behind me (Lord Crawford) has already dealt with most of them. First of all I must say a word in reply to the rather vehement attack which was made on the conduct of the Local Government Board by the noble Marquess. I think he will see, if I give one or two facts, how extremely unjust that attack was. I am not concerned to defend the Local Government Board in any sense than as regards this particular matter. The noble Marquess says the Local Government Board has used its influence to promote delegation. Now, what are the facts of the case? In the early stages there was no doubt a good deal of delegation by the county council represented by the noble Lord opposite, but it was at their own initiative, and it was done because in those cases they had not proper medical authorities who could do the work. But after the first two or three years of administration there has been a gradual movement towards reduction of delegation, and at the present time throughout the whole of the country there are only four cases of delegation. If the Local Government Board, as the noble Marquess suggests, has been using its influence in favour of delegation, all I can say is—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As the noble Viscount knows, I do not speak from any personal knowledge, and if I have been wrong I shall apologise and withdraw; but the information put into my hands was to the effect that the Local Government Board had, I will not say recently, but had been at one time the one to press for delegation and then asked the Central Midwives Board to approve of
530
delegation in cases where the population reached the very small figure of 20,000. If that is not true I will at once withdraw it, but if that has been part of the conduct of the Local Government Board it would be a reason, and a good reason, for being a little suspicious of their intervention in the present ease.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I can say positively that the Local Government Board has not only not encouraged but has discouraged delegation in the case of these smaller local authorities, especially in the rural district councils; and I wish to point out again, if I may, that not only is it discouraged in my Amendment but it is actually forbidden; that the county council is unable to delegate its powers to the rural district council; and that as regards what the noble Earl said with reference to county councils, as the initiative must come from them and as no delegation can take place unless they ask for it, I do not understand why they should distrust their own powers. With regard to the suggestion of red tape, and so on, on the part of the Local Government Board, the Local Government Board cannot act at all unless the movement takes, place from the county councils.
This is really a matter of convenience in the cases of these very large authorities where it is desirable for administrative purposes that this delegation should take place. Here again do the noble Marquess and the noble Lord suggest that all these matters about inspectors, about the class of woman, and so on, are unknown to the county councils? As a matter of fact they are fully seized of these matters. If theythink that the powerswill be improperly exercised in these particular areas, all the authorities have to do is not to delegate them; and it is precisely because experience shows that the powers are well exercised in these areas that I think it is better to make some loophole. It is not my business to criticise the county councils. I have said things in this House strongly in support of what they have done; but it is necessary to say that there are cases where they have not done the work very well, and that where they have in some cases delegated the work it has been far better done. I do not want to mention names, but in one or two cases if the work had been delegated it would probably have been better done. With regard to what the noble Marquess (Lord Crewe) said about the Central Midwives Board, when

531
he suggested that virtually the entire power of dealing with the matter should be invested in that body—
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It scarcely amounted to that—that they would have a practical veto.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes; I should say they probably have that under my Amendment. The noble Marquess knows, of course, that as this Central Board is not represented in Parliament it would be necessary for the final deciding authority to be with the Local Government Board. But I have already mentioned that, as regards the London boroughs, the Local Government Board has distinctly said that it would follow the advice of the Central Midwives Board; and in other cases it would, of course, be also very largely guided —I am authorised to say this—by the advice of the Central Midwives Board.
I do not know what will be the fate of this Amendment after the criticism it has
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to leave out Clause 12. The noble Marquess said: I need not repeat any of the arguments. I will content myself with moving that this clause be struck out of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 12.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
received in your Lordships' House, but after the words "unless that council undertake to appoint as inspector of midwives a person" I should like to insert "preferably a woman." That would, perhaps, strengthen my Amendment; but on the whole I strongly urge the House to allow this one point of elasticity to he left in the Bill, and not absolutely to cut off all delegation which would have the effect of destroying some useful work that is being done by large local authorities in this country.
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
Line 6, after the word ("person"), insert ("preferably a woman").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question whether the proposed new subsection, as amended, shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 23, Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Colebrooke, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Elphinstone, L.

Devonport, V.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Peel, V.

Lambourne, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Lytton, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Ranks borough, L.

Northbrook, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Stanhope, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Clinton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Yarborough, E.

Burnham, L.

Carnock, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Chaplin, V.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Salisbury, M. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Hutehinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Brassey, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Cottenham, E,

Knaresborough, L.

Grey, E.

Llandaff, L. Bp.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Harrowby, E.

Rotherham, L.

Lichfield, E.

Aberconway, L.

Saltoun, L.

Mayo, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Sanderson, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Balfour, L.

Sydenham, L.

Selborne, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Weardale, L.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I move to insert, after Clause 12, the new clause standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Insert as a new clause:
Repeal of section nine of the principal Act.
. Section nine of the principal Act (which enables county councils to delegate their powers and duties to district councils) shall be repealed.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Medical assistance in case of emergency.
14.—(1) In case of any emergency, as defined in the rules framed under section three I. (e) of tile principal Act, a midwife shall call in to her assistance a registered medical practitioner, and the local supervising authority shall pay to such medical practitioner a sufficient fee, with due allowance for mileage, according to a seale to be fixed by the Local Government Board, and such fee shall cover one subsequent visit.
(2) It shall be a condition of the payment of such fee that the medical practitioner so called in shall state in his claim to the local supervising authority the nature of the emergency.
(3) The midwife shall report forthwith to the local supervising authority each case of emergency in which she has called in a registered medical practitioner to her assistance, stating the nature of the emergency and the name of the medical practitioner.
(4) The local supervising authority shall have power to recover the fee from the patient or from the husband or other person liable to maintain the patient either summarily or otherwise as a civil debt, unless it be shown to their satisfaction that the patient or her husband or such other person is unable by reason of poverty to pay such fee.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to delete from subsection (1) the words "and such fee shall cover one subsequent visit." The noble Viscount said: These words are really unnecessary because the fees and number of visits will be defined by the rules, and they rather confuse than make clear the result.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, leave out "and such fee shall cover one subsequent visit."—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule:
Provisions of Principal Act Repealed.
In section 5 the words "in proportion to the "number of midwives who have given notice "during the year of their intention to practise "in those areas respectively. "
In section 10 the words "or to the body to "whom for the time being the powers and duties "of the local supervising authority shall have "been delegated under this Act, and the words "or delegated body."
Section 17 from "The General Medical Council" to the end of the section.
THE EARL OF MEATH THE EARL OF MEATH moved to insert as a new paragraph in the Schedule "Sec-
534
tion 9, the whole section." The noble Earl said: This is simply a question of drafting. I thought it better that it should be in the Schedule than in the body of the Bill.
Amendment moved —
Page 6, after line 12, insert as a new paragraph ("Section 9, the whole section ").—(The Earl of Meath.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will not oppose the Amendment, because I certainly think that if it is to be done this is the best way of doing it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

FINANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, for reasons familiar to your Lordships it is not usual to accompany the Motion for the Second Reading of the Finance Bill with a speech. I, therefore, merely beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not think me presumptuous if I make a few observations on the Second Reading of this Bill. It was my fate in another place to preside through the long Committee Stage of the Finance Bill in 1909, and I cannot help thinking of the difference in regard to this year's measure, where a Bill making a much heavier demand upon the pockets of the people has received far less discussion and hardly any opposition at all. This, of course, is due to the entirely different circumstances of the moment. There is another personal (observation which, perhaps, I may make. It is that it may surprise your Lordships, or those of your Lordships who were members of the other House in 1909, that I, who had to listen to so many weary hours of debate on finance, should ever care to speak myself on any Finance Bill or even to hear a speech from any one else. I think it would be a pity, however, if it became a habit in your Lordships' House for the Finance Bill to be passed entirely sub silentio. There have been in the past great financial authorities who were members of

535
your Lordships' House, and if at present there is no member of the great financial weight, say, of the late Lord St. Aldwyn or the late Lord Goschen, there may be such members of this House in future, and I am sure both the House and the country will desire to hear them from time to time on the Finance Bill of the year.
May I at this point explain that I do not speak as an authority on finance. I have no pretensions in that direction. I do not intend to offer any criticism upon the Bill, and I only want to make this one observation with regard to it—that, considering the enormous liability to which this country is committed, I do not think the demands made upon us as individuals are at all too large. That being the case I, of course, shall not discuss any matter of detail. The point to which I wish to ask your Lordships' attention for a few minutes is a comparison between the provision which is being made in this country and in Germany respectively for the finance of the war and for finance after the war. I choose the United Kingdom and Germany for the comparison because they are the two strongest members financially of the two groups of Powers that have been fighting since the beginning of the war, and I think the comparison is worth making because its results on the whole, at a time when the military position does give rise to a good deal of anxiety, are satisfactory to this country and unsatisfactory to Germany. I often wish that His Majesty's Government would keep us better informed about German finance. The people of Germany are infinitely better informed about our finances than we are about theirs. Quite recently I saw it stated that a White Paper had been issued in that country, written by an expert in our finance, and I think the comparative superiority of the provisions that we have made for this war has been the subject of praise even in pan-German newspapers in that country.
I know the objections that our Treasury officials would raise against giving any figures about German finance. Our finance is honest; theirs is dishonest in this sense—that the figures are unreliable. For instance, they still take credit for their pre-war revenue, about £150,000,000 sterling in all. In that pre-war revenue there is an item of about £36,000,000 from Customs, but, owing to the blockade, the commodities that are going into Germany at the present
536
time are so small that no large revenue such as that can possibly be raised from Customs at present. In regard to Excise, which produced £32,000,000,the chief items were brandy, malt, and sugar. Far less of all these commodities is being consumed in Germany at the present time than was the case before the war; yet they are taking credit for receiving the same sums which they received in peace time. Of the rest, about £50,000,000 came from non-tax revenue, chiefly from the Post Office and railways, and from extraordinary revenue, including loans; and the amounts which it was necessary to spend out of the non-tax revenue on the organisations which gave that revenue absorbed almost the whole of the sums that were received. In addition to Germany crediting herself with the old peace time revenue when she does not receive it, she does not on the other side debit herself with the £70,000,000 that used to he paid in peace time for the upkeep of the Army and Navy. That item is eliminated from the account, and the acknowledged deficit for this year of £144,000,00 sterling is arrived at, therefore, by over-estimating her receipts and underestimating her expenditure. It is a fictitious figure and it does not represent the facts, which, apparently, the German Government dare not disclose to the German people.
I quite understand the reluctance that might be expressed by our officials in such circumstances as these to give a definite account of German finance. None the less, I think an authoritative digest of the figures, as far as they are known, would be of great interest and use in this country, as only very few individuals here have even an elementary knowledge of German finance. Our papers give only scattered excerpts, disconnected one with the other, and even from Government publications—which I have a chance of seeing and which are not generally available to the public—I found it impossible to get any connected account of their finances. Fortunately, I found an expert who was able to explain matters to me, and the results seem to me so interesting that I am venturing to bring some of them to your Lordships' notice to-night.
It will be remembered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, in the very interesting and valuable reference which he made to German finance, stated that he estimated that the German

537
debt on March 31, 1919, would amount to £8,000,000,000 sterling. That is, of course, not only the funded debt but the unfunded debt, because there is always an unfunded debt in Germany of approximately £1,000,000,000 at any particular time unless it is immediately after a new loan. Interest at 5 per cent, and a sinking fund at one-half per cent. would amount to £440,000,000 per annum. He calculated that pensions after the war would cost Germany at least £150,000,000, and he thought a great deal more. He stated the normal pre-war expenditure at £130,000,000. In that, I think, he rather under-estimated than overestimated, but, if so, so much the better. These figures—£440,000,000, £150,000,000 and £130,000,000—add up to £720,000,000, which is the amount that Germany would have to meet if the war ended about March 31 next. The corresponding figure for this country, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, would be £650,000,000, made up of our pre-war expenditure of roughly £200,000,000, the extra amount to which we are committed for education and other items, the additional sum that will be required for pensions after the war and the interest and sinking fund on a net debt which he estimated would amount at the end of the current financial year to £6,856,000,000. These two figures, of £720,000,000 for Germany and £650,000,000 for this country, are fairly comparable. I think, on the whole, they are more in favour of Germany than of ourselves.
I am going to make three comparisons. The first comparison is the amount of permanent taxation that is being raised in Germany and in this country respectively to meet the sums which will have to be provided after this war is over. As regards this country, the whole of the £650,000,000 is provided in the Finance Bill of this year, with the taxes that have been levied before this year, and this is entirely independent of the sums raised from Excess Profits Tax and from the newly projected but not yet imposed Luxury Tax. The figure Germany has to provide is £720,000,000. Of that, so far as I can see, from permanent taxation she has only provided £342,000,000, made up of the £150,000,000 I have already referred to from pre-war revenue, a good deal of which is fictitious, £32,500,000 of new taxation imposed in 1916 (the first year in which she raised any war taxation), £40,000,000 of extra taxation raised in
538
1917, and £120,000,000 of new indirect taxation which she imposing this year. Therefore Germany has provided less than half of the amount from permanent taxation that will be required if the war came to a conclusion and she had to do no more borrowing, after March 31 next. We are providing the whole.
The second comparison I want to make is the provision for this year in Germany and in this country from taxation of all kinds, whether permanent or temporary. The acknowledged deficit in Germany, on the basis of the expenditure, is £144,000,000. That deficit is arrived at by over-estimating the receipts and under-estimating the expenditure, but I take it as stated for my purpose. To meet that deficit £120,000,000 of permanent taxation, new permanent taxation, is proposed in Germany for this year, but only half will accrue this year; and, in addition, certain war profit taxes. The net result is that Germany has budgeted for only £366,000,000, whilst we have budgeted for £842,000,000, and the taxes, which will produce £842,000,000 this year, will provide £888,000,000 in a full year. Again there emerges this difference, that Germany is not doing half what we are doing.
I come to the third test, and that is the total extra taxation raised from the beginning of the war to the present time in Germany and in this country. Count von Roedern stated in his Budget speech that Germany had proposed a burden of taxation, including this year, since the beginning of the war, of £200,000,000 from indirect taxation—I need not trouble your Lordships with the details—and £375,000,000 from direct taxation; and of this the details are a little interesting. He stated that £275,000,000 had been provided by a Capital Increment. Tax which was levied in Germany. The capital levy imposed in 1913, a storm signal of which comparatively little notice was taken in this country, provided £50,000,000, which he took credit for in the £375,000,000, because it had actually been paid since the war began. There was an additional Property Tax of £20,000,000, and a new War Profits Tax, proposed this year, of £30,000,000. That makes up the £375,000,000. In addition to the figure of £200,000,000 indirect taxation, and £375,000,000 direct taxation, there is a sum of £100,000,000 for which he claimed credit, raised by the Federal States and Communes. It is, of course, the fact that a good deal of the expenditure which is

539
borne by Imperial funds in this country is borne by the Federal States in Germany, and it is quite fair to add that sum of £100,000,000. These figures —£200,000,000, £375,000,000, and £100,000,000—bring Germany's contribution which will have been raised by March 31, 1919, towards the cost of the war and other purposes by extra taxation since the war began up to £675,000,000. The figure we have raised, or shall have raised by the same time, is £1,686,000,000. I take that figure from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech, and again I point out that Germany is doing less than half what we have done. In each year we have provided something towards the capital cost of the war, besides paying interest on our debts. Germany has paid interest to some extent out of loans, and has provided nothing towards the cost of the war. Thus by three different tests—the permanent taxation which will presumably last until after the war, the total taxation raised this year, and the total raised during the war—Germany has not made half the provision we have.
I should like to say one or two words about the proposals for new taxation this year. The taxes are not finally through the Reichstag, but they have been examined by Committees and have assumed probably very much their final shape. It is a curious fact that the Reichstag has immensely greater power over finance than the House of Commons in this country. It is impossible for any member of the House of Commons to propose any increase in taxation, but the Reichstag increases as well as decreases taxes proposed by the Government quite freely. So far as I can discover, the Reichstag parties will renounce the demand they were inclined to make for a regular Imperial Income Tax. They will renounce it at the persuasion of the Government, because such a claim would bring the Imperial authorities into direct conflict with the Federal States. Indirect taxes will be granted without diminution of revenue, but subject to increases and decreases in detail; and the Government have promised, in addition a War Profits Tax. A non-recurrent levy on property will also be imposed. Some of the new indirect taxes are interesting because they show the same fault of over-estimating what is likely to be produced by them. The Beer Duty, it is said, will produce an extra £17,000,000, but that figure is based on peace time consumption. I am credibly informed that the
540
amount of beer being consumed in Germany is something like one-tenth of the pre-war consumption, and therefore they cannot obtain during the war the £17,000,000 which they have budgeted for, or anything like it. In the same way the new spirit monopoly, it is stated, will produce £32,500,000, but as very little spirit is being used for drinking purposes, and nearly all of it is going for munition purposes, the spirit monopoly will not produce anything like £32,500,000.
A similar over-estimate is made in regard to the new duties on tea, coffee, cocoa, and chocolate, for hardly any of these commodities are going to Germany at the present time; yet they assume that these new taxes will produce £3,750,000, which is quite impossible. These proposals are all part of the dishonest make-believe finance which still takes credit for peace time receipts in regard to new and old taxes.
This question of German finance is not a matter which is merely intellectually interesting. The nations of the world, for the most part, are at present living on their capital. It is true that the capital is holding out much longer than might have been expected, but the day of reckoning must come, and I confess that for this country, if this war lasts much longer, I look forward to the day of reckoning with a good deal of apprehension. I do not want it to be supposed, from what I am saying, that I am satisfied as to what our position is going to be when the war is over as regards finance. I do not want to strike too optimistic a note. What I am dealing with is the relative position of Germany and ourselves, and whilst, if the war goes on much longer, I shall regard our financial position with a good deal of apprehension I should, if I were a German, regard the future of Germany with absolute terror.
This is a pan-German war. Welt Macht oder Niedergang is the phrase that made the war. That is the spirit of the war, and which keeps it going to-day, and one difficulty of ending this war is that the pan-German's day is over unless Germany obtains indemnities as well as territory. There were some people in Germany a year ago, and there were some people in this country, who said that Germany would win this war if she did not lose it, and they used the Seven Years War as an analogy. But there is one great difference between the Seven Years War and this. There was no debt, I believe, at

541
the end of the Seven Years War, and there will be an enormous debt at the end of this. But it is not the pan-Germans who made that remark in Germany. The pan-German is a simple minded mortal who presses his conviction with something of the crude dogmatism and absolute cocksureness which is assumed, if I may say so without offence, by the Morning Post in this country. But the Pan-German has been consistent. He has said all along that Germany will be ruined if she does not get indemnities, and I unity say incidentally that some well-informed neutrals who are friends of the Entente and not of Germany have expressed the same opinion to me. But the most extreme pacifist of whom I have ever heard in this country has never suggested that Germany should get indemnities at the end of this war, and I hope that we may take it as a certainty that she will get nothing of the kind. If she does not, then she must raise, in addition to what she is now raising, some £300,000,000 to £400,000,000 per annum of taxation, and to judge by our experience and by her recent efforts she must get the bulk of that £300,000,000 or £400,000,000 from direct taxation, and she will have to get it at a time when war profits will have ceased, and when the world is slowly recuperating after the most devastating and costly and wasteful] war that has ever been fought.
What are the inevitable results of that? The inevitable results are, I think, friction between the Federal States and the Imperial Government. The Federal States have always claimed the monopoly of the Income Tax in Germany, and the Income Tax in one form or another—you may put it under a different name if you like—is the chief and the best and most fruitful source of direct taxation. If there is serious trouble between the Imperial authorities and the Federal States in Germany, that must have a fissiparous tendency. There is a second result. If this large sum must be raised chiefly by direct taxation, the Junkers and the capitalists who are chiefly responsible for this war will have to pay for it. In so far as there is a difficulty in raising the necessary revenue to pay for this war, Germany is less likely to be able to prepare for the next. The cost of future wars must be enormous, and Germany, it seems to me, is marching into bankruptcy now. It will take an immense effort to set her on her legs financially after this war. In these circumstances she is less likely to desire to prepare for new wars, and less
542
likely to be able to prepare for a new war even if she does desire it. I trust that the "will to war" will be a wasting asset after this war is over.
There is one further corollary which it is not unfair to make. If Germany receives no indemnities, it is clear that the longer the war lasts the more her people will be called upon to pay. These huge extra sums will have to be paid, and when it becomes apparent to Germany that she will receive no indemnities, and that the people who made the war will have to pay for it., then we may see a change of spirit. That conviction would no doubt come most quickly from military factors, and at the present moment, of course, the military factors are not such as to discredit the extreme pan-German view. With that observation, my Lords. I leave the question with the expression of the hope that the military prospects will change for the better before long.
I have stated the case as it appears to me. I do not know how far my arguments will appeal to His Majesty's Government, who have much more complete information on these matters than I possess, but if they have appealed, I venture to suggest (not as a matter for immediate reply, for I have no desire to raise a debate to-night) that such arguments, stated as they would be far better than I have stated them by a statesman whose voice is powerful enough to reach Germany, would not be without use in that country if they came at the right moment. This may not be, probably is not, the psychological moment for anything of the kind. A year ago, I think, arguments on this line would have been given heed to in Germany if spoken by our most prominent men, and the time may come again when they will be useful once more. I trust, if that time does come, His Majesty's Government will not hesitate to use them.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, before the Question is put by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I think the House will wish that the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, should be thanked for the very interesting speech which he has just delivered. The information that he has imparted to the House is based upon statistics which are not very easy for the ordinary man in the street to obtain in this country, but I have checked all the figures

543
which the noble Lord has given with the information that has been provided for me by the Treasury for that purpose, and I believe that I am justified in saving, from the information in the possession of the Treasury, that the whole of the figures which Lord Emmott has given to your Lordships are absolutely accurate so far as it is possible to obtain accuracy in such matters. Your Lordships know that, unfortunately, our speeches in this House are very often passed over by the newspapers with very little regard indeed, but I most earnestly hope that the Press will take notice in a fuller way than they are often accustomed to do of the observations that have fallen from Lord Emmott this evening. I can assure noble Lords that it will be my first duty to put before the Treasury his suggestion that if possible some further use may be made of the speech which he has delivered this evening in order to spread abroad the very remarkable facts and figures which he has given to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a

DECIMAL COINAGE.
LORD SOUTHWARK LORD SOUTHWARK had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to carry out the understanding on which the debate was adjourned when the Motion was before the House for the Second Reading of the Coinage (Decimal System) Bill [H L.] and reference to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament; whether the Committee to be appointed, pursuant to that understanding, will consist mainly of members of the two Houses in equal numbers and, if necessary, also comprise some other members with special knowledge; whether the reference will invite consideration both of the scheme described in the Bill, and also of the other specific plans mentioned in the recent debate; and whether the Committee will be empowered to embody such recommendations as they may make in the form of a Bill so that Parliament may, if it thinks fit, consider the matter without delay.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, considering the length, and I hope the clearness, of the Question which I have put upon the Paper, I think that my best policy will be to
544
wait and hear what my noble friend who replies for the Government has to say in the hope that when he concludes I shall have nothing to do but to express thanks for the answer he has given.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, I have to inform him that the intentions of His Majesty's Government are generally as indicated in the Question which he has put upon the Paper. It is proposed to recommend to the King that a Royal Commission should be appointed at an early date, to consist of members of both Houses of Parliament and other persons with special qualifications, to consider the question of the desirability or otherwise of making any change in our coinage system. The Commission will, it is intended, be specifically invited by the terms of reference to consider the proposals embodied in the Bill which was recently introduced by my noble friend into this House; otherwise the reference will be of a general character, and it will be open to the Commission, if they decide in favour of recommending a change. either to adopt the proposal contained in my noble friend's Bill or to make any other proposals which may commend themselves to their judgment. The Commission will, of course, be able, if they think fit, to put forward their recommendations in the form of a draft Bill. I cannot give my noble friend the names of the gentlemen who will be recommended to His Majesty as members of the Commission, but I can assure him that the Government have not the smallest wish or intention that any unnecessary delay should occur in the matter.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, it only remains for me to say that on the whole I am very pleased with the reply that the noble Lord has been able to give to my Question. During my now rather long Parliamentary experience Royal Commissions have nearly always been regarded as suggesting postponement, but I am very glad to hear from my noble friend that neither he nor the Government have any desire for delay. On the occasion when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill the general desire was that there should be no delay, either in the forming of the Commission or in its proceeding with its work; therefore all I can ask the noble Lord to say is that the Commission will begin its proceedings at once. I can assure him and the Government that this question of

545
decimal coinage is considered by the business and commercial community of the country at large, by the bankers and Chambers of Commerce, and all those other great bodies, as a very urgent question. In the interests of our foreign trade and the business of the country generally it is one which ought to be considered and the Report produced at the earliest moment. I am not at all doubting the sincerity of the answer of my noble friend. I am very much obliged to him, and I only hope that the Commission will soon be formed and set to work.

THE SUPPLY OF COAL.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that the new conditions and Regulations regarding the supply of coal for the metropolis are to come into force early in July, and, if so, when we may expect to see the text of the Regulations.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1918, appears in to-day's Gazette. The Order will date from July 1, and will therefore come into force at once. The Order should have appeared last Friday, but owing to a serious difficulty in printing, caused by the influenza epidemic, it has been impossible to produce it before to-day.
EARL RUSSELL: If the Order dates from. July 1, I hope the offences are not
546
retrospective. We are used to a good many unusual things now, but we shall not, I hope, find when the Order appears that we have committed offences that we did not know of. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us that the Order will contain something intelligible. I have heard all sorts of statements about equivalent values of tons of coal and units of electric light, and what you may do in regard to one thing and what you may do in regard to another. It is frightfully complicated and difficult to understand, and I think the noble Lord will probably agree that, with the best will in the world to obey the law and not to commit criminal offences, it is very difficult, because the Orders are so hard to understand and to remember. I hope this Order is full and clear.
LORD STANMORE: I think the noble Earl will find that these equivalents are made very clear in the Order.

THEIR MAJESTIES SILVER WEDDING.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I should like to give notice that it is proposed that on Monday next a special meeting of your Lordships' House should be called, at the usual hour, to consider a Motion offering congratulations to the King and Queen on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of their Majesties' wedding.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.