Sitting of 3 July 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (IRELAND), 1877.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 28th June, 1918, giving effect to a Rule of Court [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 28th June, 1918, giving effect to a provisional Rule of Court [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (WALES) (REGULATIONS).
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 28th June, 1918, made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Appeal from Insurance Committee Audit) Regulations (Wales), 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JOINT COMMITTEE) (REGULATIONS).
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 28th June, 1918, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners, the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Deposit Contributors) Regulations, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    INDIA.

      CORRUPT PRACTICES (ELECTIONS).
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India when the Government of India propose to introduce a Bill providing penalties in the case of corrupt practices in elections for the Imperial and provincial legislative councils throughout India?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Government of India have asked local governments for their views on this subject.

      TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT (PENSIONS).
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India what steps it is proposed to take to provide a families pension fund for the Indo-European Telegraph Department in Persia?
      Mr. MONTAGU: As my hon. Friend was informed in reply to his question on the 14th March, 1917, the General Provident Fund is open to the staff of the Indo-European Telegraph Department, subscription being optional with those officers who were appointed before the 1st August, 1909 (the date on which the fund commenced), and compulsory on those appointed after that date. In paragraph 96 of their Report the Indian Public Services Commission made a recommendation in favour of the institution of a family pension fund for the Indian services generally, and this recommendation will receive careful consideration. In the meantime I am unable to consider the question of establishing such a fund for the Indo-European Telegraph Department independently of the other Indian services.

      ARMS ACT.
      Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the increasing external danger to India, he is yet prepared to consider the repeal of the Arms Act, so that Indians may no longer feel both degraded and helpless in the face of danger?
      Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India has in contemplation an Amendment

      1689
      to the Schedule of the Arms Act in order to remove racial discrimination. The Act itself does not seem to me to warrant my hon. and gallant Friend's language.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a country in which there are a considerable number of dangerous wild beasts it is most essential that people should have the right to carry arms?
      Mr. MONTAGU: I admit the force of my hon. and gallant Friend's argument, but a great deal of confusion exists between the Act and the Schedule to the Act. We are going to amend the Schedules to the Act, but I do not think the Act itself requires Amendment.
      Sir J. D. REES: Is it not the case that licences are given as a matter of course on application for the purpose of dealing with wild beasts?

    ENEMY SUBMARINES.
    Colonel YATEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the reports that two Arctic vessels were recently sunk by a German U-boat in Spitzbergen waters, and that about forty other vessels which were busy sealing and whaling there were in danger of being sunk if the German submarines were left undisturbed; and whether, considering that Spitzbergen belongs to Great Britain, having been proclaimed British territory under treaty with the Dutch in the seventeenth century, he will take steps to give the necessary protection to these vessels, as well as to the employés of the British companies engaged in working the mines there?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The Admiralty will take such steps as are practicable, in Arctic as in other waters, to meet the activities of enemy submarines.

    ROYAL MARINES (PENSIONS).
    Mr. HOHLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Marines serving and entitled to their pensions have not yet received them; and will he look into the matter with a view to their being paid at once?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I regret to say that issue of payment has not yet been made. I explained in an answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Reading, on 5th June, that there were a number of difficult questions which had to be decided between ourselves, the War Office, and the Treasury. We, however, cleared them all up, and invited applications for payment from the men a month ago. We have a number of applications before us at this moment, and shall deal with them forthwith. I ought to add, however, that the wide distribution of the men of this corps makes it inevitable that some time must elapse before all claims are satisfied. I need not add, of course, that no man's claim is in any way prejudiced by this unavoidable delay, which I regret.
    Mr. HOHLER: Will my right hon. Friend explain why it is necessary that the men should make application? He ought to know their names and pay them at once.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes; but some men have said they would rather go on getting pay to qualify for increased pension than have the pension paid to them at the present time. We must give them the option.
    Mr. HOHLER: Having given them the option, most of them have not exercised it, and why in those cases cannot the men's accounts be credited at once with the amount?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will consider that, but I have explained that we must give them the option.

    BERMUDA DOCKYARD (LEAVE).
    Mr. HOHLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received petitions from the men employed in the Bermuda Dockyard asking that, in view of the prolongation of the War, they may be relieved and sent home; and, if so, will he take steps to grant their request?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A petition of the nature referred to in my hon. and learned Friend's question was received some three months ago from a number of dockyard workmen who are serving at Bermuda under agreement from the home dockyards for the duration of the War. The petition was fully considered, and it was decided, having regard to all the circumstances, that there were not sufficient grounds for relieving the men concerned from their

    1691
    agreement. It was, however, arranged for consideration to be given in any cases in which the circumstances were such as to afford special grounds for the premature return of any of these men.
    I may add that the workmen in question have been in receipt of extra pay—7s. in the case of married men, and 3s. 6d. in the case of unmarried men—additional to the usual foreign service allowance, which was introduced in February, 1916, on the understanding that the recipients would be agreeable to serve at Bermuda for the duration of the War. They are also paid all home-yard war increases in addition to home-yard rates, foreign service allowance, and house allowance; also the 12 per cent.

    ROYAL NAVY (PROMOTION).
    Mr. HOHLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that there are twenty-three leading stokers serving on His Majesty's ship "Chatham" of whom at least twelve are qualified for the rank of stoker petty officer; will he state what is the average length of service of the men so qualified, and whether the prospect of promotion for these men to stoker petty officer is about four a year; if so, will he state whether this congestion is general in the Navy; and what steps he proposes to take to improve these conditions and realise the promises held out by recruiting posters?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am advised that there is no congestion in the advancements to stoker petty officers, and leading stokers are being advanced after about two years' service in that rating, provided they have passed and been recommended for the higher rating. Our information does not show that there are any leading stokers in His Majesty's ship "Chatham" who come within this category.
    Mr. HOHLER: Would my right hon. Friend make further inquiries, and ascertain whether it is a fact that it will take two or three years for a man who now stands ninth or tenth on the list to get promotion?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: On that point I have said our information does not show. My hon. Friend knows that in the matter of promotion and other matters it is the men's duty to put their case to their commanding officer.
    Mr. HOHLER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this has been brought before the commanding officer, and that no redress has been given?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, Sir.

    COAST WATCHERS (IRELAND).
    Major NEWMANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, since the outbreak of hostilities, a number of coast watchers for the Irish seaboard have been recruited; if so, will he say what pay these men earn; are they whole-time officials; what is their average age; do they have to make any affirmation of allegiance; and is the competent naval authority satisfied that these coast watchers are capable of carrying out the work which the present development of the War has imposed on them?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir; a number of civilian coast watchers have been recruited for the Irish seaboard since the outbreak of war. Their pay varies, according to locality, from 22s. to 25s. 6d. a week. They are whole-time employés, working in watches. Their average age is forty-five. They all, on first engagement, sign an agreement to obey orders given them by members of the Coastguard Force. As regards the last part of the question, I have not had time to make local detailed inquiry which would enable me fully to answer this question, but I propose to do so.
    Major NEWMAN: May I take it that these coast watchers do not, as a fact, take an oath of allegiance, but merely that they will do their duty to the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I presume they enter into the agreement which all coast watchers take, whether they are in Wales, Scotland, England, or Ireland, so far as I know.
    Colonel ASHLEY: What steps are taken to ascertain the character of these coast watchers? It is notorious that certain of them are very doubtful.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That would be a matter for the competent naval authority on the spot. I have said with regard to the last part of the question that I propose to make a more detailed inquiry.
    Mr. WING: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to doubt that these men do their duty?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Great reason!
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether the War Cabinet are satisfied with the joint responsibility for the watching of the Western seaboard of Ireland, which is exercised by the police, the naval Coastguards, and the Military Intelligence Department; what means have been taken to ensure co-ordination and co-operation of method between these three bodies; and is it proposed to proclaim the whole Western seaboard a military area under the Defence of the Realm Regulations?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It would not be in the public interest to answer the second part; and as regards the last part, the answer is in the negative.

    GERMAN DESTROYERS (DUTCH NEUTRALITY).
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the German destroyers, in escaping on the 27th June, since Ostend and Zeebrugge are closed, violated Dutch neutrality by entering the Scheldt?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Nothing is known of any such incident, nor is it believed that it occurred.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Zeebrugge and Ostend are closed to enemy destroyers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot add anything to what I said a week ago regarding the bottling up of destroyers, but if my right hon. Friend will see the Chief of the Naval Staff he will give him the reason for the view that nothing of this sort did occur.

    NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty who were the officials responsible for recommending to the War Cabinet the establishment of national shipyards?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The matter is generally dealt with in paragraph 2 of the Fourth Report from the Select Committee
    1694
    on National Expenditure. I may, however; add that the whole question of the shipbuilding resources of the country was placed before the War Cabinet in July, 1917, by the then First Lord, who put in the comprehensive survey referred to by the Select Committee, which had been prepared by the then Navy Controller, the present First Lord.
    That comprehensive survey led up to a number of proposals, and these were contingent upon a series of objectives to be aimed at as regards output of new merchant tonnage. The realisation of a figure suggested by the Controller of Shipping involved, according to the memorandum of the then Navy Controller, the present First Lord, the establishment of national yards. The War Cabinet approved the report in principle as a matter of extreme importance and urgency. It was, I understand, further discussed in detail by a Sub-committee on behalf of the War Cabinet.
    In view of the comments of the Select Committee, we think it desirable that Vote 8, Navy Estimates, should be put down for discussion at the earliest possible date, in order that an opportunity may be given to the House to discuss the Committee's Report, which, as Members know, raises the whole question of the establishment of the national shipyards.
    I ought to add that Vote 8, of course, covers Navy ship construction, but I am sure the House will agree that it is understood that it would not be in the public interest to go into that matter.

    RUSSIA.

      BRITISH COMMISSIONER.
      Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any intimation has been received from the de facto Russian Government that our acting Minister, Mr. Lockhart, is persona grata or ingrata to that Government; whether it was because of his sympathy with the Russian Government and people that a new Commissioner has been sent out over his head; and whether the de facto Russian Government was consulted as to this change?
      The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): The answer to all three parts of the question is in the negative.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Was the Russian Government consulted as to the advisability of this change?
      Lord R. CECIL: Certainly not!
      Mr. HOGGE: Is it not a fact that Mr. Lockhart was withdrawn because he changed his views after investigation?
      Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir; Mr. Lockhart has not been withdrawn.

    BISHOP OF OXFORD.
    Mr. KINGasked whether a permit has been granted or applied for to enable the Bishop of Oxford to visit America?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. KING: In view of this permit being granted, will instructions be given to the bishop as to the line he should take?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice. I should like to see his question on the Paper.

    ALIENS (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Richard Starcke, an unnaturalised German in Togoland, has been taken over by the British Government in the Public Works Department; and, if so, whether, in addition, he is permitted to undertake private work as a builder and contractor in any part of the British zone and has full permission to travel there as he may think fit?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): I have no recent information regarding this man, but I am asking the Governor for a report.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      LAND WORKERS.
      Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the number of men enlisted as soldiers now employed on the land away from their homes instead of being sent back to their homes, where they could be equally employed; whether all allowances to the
      1696
      wives of such men are upon the full scale; and whether he will consider the advisability of continuing family life combined with economy by the system of allocating to their own districts enlisted soldiers who are sent back to work on the land?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on the 16th April last to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor.
      Sir F. FLANNERY: Since that reply was given has the evil not greatly spread and accentuated, and will some better steps not be taken than those indicated in the reply?
      Mr. FORSTER: I indicated in that reply the actual allocation of the men in the districts dealing with food production. I understand that they are making every effort to get the men returned to their own distrcts, where they will be able to live at home.

      LABOUR GROUPS, FRANCE (LEAVE).
      Sir F. FLANNERYasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the arrears of leave of men in the labour groups in France; whether he is aware that it was understood that no man would be kept in France for more than twelve months without leave unless as the result of unsatisfactory conduct; and whether the War Office will call the attention of the commandants of the labour groups to this undertaking, with a view to leave being given in all suitable cases?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): The number of soldiers proceeding on leave depends on the military situation, and, as I explained yesterday, the exigencies of the moment only allow a limited number of troops being granted leave. I can assure my hon. Friend that every effort is made to give leave to all men who have served in France without leave for over twelve months.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the release from prison of Douglas J. J. Owen, now in hospital at Walton Prison, Liverpool, seeing that this man is a Quaker and a single-taxer and has been in prison for nineteen months and three times court-martialled and is now broken in health.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: If my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with particulars of Owen's unit and regimental number, I will have inquiry made.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Undersecretary if he will inquire into the case of Gordon Aston, S.S. 24498, now at the outer guardroom, Whittington Barracks, Lichfield, who has had five courts-martial and has had two years' hard labour as a conscientious objector; and, in view of the fact that the civil prison authorities have refused to accept him as being in a fit state of health for imprisonment, will he give instructions for this man to be discharged from the Army?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I will have inquiry made, and inform my hon. Friend of the result in due course.

      ZIONIST REGIMENTS.
      Colonel WEDGWOODasked whether Russian Jews in this country are permitted to join Zionist fighting regiments for Palestine instead of being drafted into Labour Battalions; and, if so, what is being done to encourage such enlistment?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Russian Jews called up for military service under the Anglo-Russian Convention are not eligible for posting to Zionist fighting regiments. They are posted to special units of the Labour Corps.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be possible to allow these Jews to join Zionist regiments instead of Labour Corps, seeing that they are willing to join Zionist regiments and they are not willing to join Labour Battalions?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand that the military authorities have gone carefully into this matter, and, after taking into account all the circumstances, they came to the conclusion that it would be inadvisable to adopt the course suggested.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is this not a repetition of the War Office treatment of Ireland at the beginning of the War, and could we not have a little more tact and common sense at the War Office?

      SALONIKA FIELD FORCE (LEAVE).
      Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked why Private J. Johnson No. 8282, Army Service Corps, attached to the Army Ordnance Department, Salonika
      1698
      Field Force, has not been allowed to proceed to this country, although he was granted permission by the General Officer Commanding the Salonika Field Force to return, owing to his age and invalidity, as long ago as last December?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend has been in communication with me about this case. As I informed him in a letter, dated the 29th June, the question of Private Johnson's return home in the circumstances stated depends on the opinion of the medical authorities at Salonika. If the General Officer Commanding has issued specific instructions that this man should be sent home, I have no reason to doubt that such orders would be carried out.

      CASES OF EXTREME HARDSHIP.
      Mr. JOWETTasked, concerning the case of a man who is permanently crippled as the result of paralysis, and whose fourth and last son, a boy of eighteen, on whom the maintenance of the father has latterly, to a considerable extent, depended, has been called up for military service, whether, having regard to the fact that the crippled man's other three sons are in the Army, one in hospital suffering from shell-shock, one in hospital wounded in both legs, and another in the trenches in France, and to the further fact that the crippled man is now left at home with a wife and dependent daughter to maintain on a total income of 30s. per week, out of which 7s. has to be paid weekly for rent and 4s. 6d. for insurance, he will make inquiries into the case with a view to discharging the boy of eighteen from the Army if the facts are as stated?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: If my hon. Friend will furnish me with full particulars of this case, including the name, regiment, and regimental number of the soldier, I will have inquiry made.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of National Service if he will give instructions that Walter Taylor, of 66, Mosley Street, Blackburn, must not be called up for military service as one of his brothers has died a prisoner of war, a second has been serving in the Army for over two years, and a third is a helpless cripple from birth, and the son in question is the last son at home; will he also take into consideration that this son is Grade 2 and is an overlooker in a weaving shed, which is a protected trade for certain ages; and,

      1699
      further, will he bear in mind, in considering the matter, that the Appeal Tribunal at Preston have just expressed their regret that, owing to the Proclamation cancelling exemptions between eighteen and twenty four years of age, they cannot deal with the case as one of domestic hardship?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): In view of cases of extreme hardship brought to his notice, my right hon. Friend decided to relax by administrative action the rules with regard to the recruiting of persons affected by the Proclamations of 20th April and 4th June. He accordingly gave discretion to Directors of National Service in the various regions indefinitely to postpone the call to join the Colours of men whose cases are clearly exceptional, even if outside the strict limits laid down by the Proclamations. I am having inquiries made into the case referred to by the hon. Member, and will inform him of the result.

      VACCINATION.
      Sir ALFRED YEOasked whether instructions have been issued by the Army Council that men refusing to be vaccinated or inoculated are not to have leave?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer is in the negative.

      MEDICAL GRADING.
      Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the Minister of National Service if he will state, of those medically examined who are within the new age limit as provided by the Military Service Act, 1918, the percentage that has been passed into Grades 1 and 2?
      Mr. BECK: The percentages of men placed by the medical boards in Grade 1 and in Grade 2 is different in each year of age. A comprehensive percentage covering the whole of the new age period would therefore tend to mislead those interested in the results of the medical examinations, and yet would give information which might be of great value to the enemy. In view of these circumstances, it seems undesirable to publish the information asked for.
      Sir C. HENRY: Can my hon. Friend state what objection there can be to stating the number of men available; how would it convey information to the enemy?
      Mr. BECK: There is a difference between the enemy forming their own conclusions rather on guess-work lines and having information which is officially supplied by my Department.
      Mr. PRINGLE: But if this information would be misleading, is there any objection to giving misleading information to the enemy?

      CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of National Service (1) if he will give immediate attention to the case of Norman Taylor, of 111, Bottomgate, Blackburn, aged eighteen on the 13th June, 1918, who was taken and passed Grade 2 on 20th June and was immediately sent to Kinmel Park and attached to the Manchesters; is he aware that this young man has only worked for six months in his life owing to ill-health, and for the last twelve months he has been continuously under the doctor and was under medical treatment at the time he was called up and passed into the Army; will he explain why this young man was sent into the Army immediately he had been graded and within a week of attaining the age of eighteen; will he see that he is at once returned to civil life and given an opportunity of appealing against his medical grading; (2) if representations have been made to him about the case of Mr. Williams, of 17, Orchard Street, Goldthorpe, near Rotherham, a check weigher in a local colliery; whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the agreement with the Miners' Federation, the colliery companies are allowed to appeal for the exemption of certain classes of workmen, whilst the workmen, who are the employers of the check weighers, are not allowed to appeal through the colliery recruiting Court; whether he is aware that the refusal to exempt Mr. Williams has caused indignation amongst the workmen; what action does he intend to take to continue the exemption of Mr. Williams, whose services as check weigher and men's representative are considered by the men to be essential and indispensable; (3) if he will demand the immediate release from the Army of William Ewart Thornhill, of 32. Montague Place, Shrewsbury, who, on the 14th June was examined by the medical board and passed Grade 3, and then immediately put into the Army and sent to the Royal Air Force, and within a week was sent to France; and, seeing that this man was given no opportunity of appealing

      1701
      against his medical grading and that the understanding that men would be given seven days to join the Colours, he will have a thorough inquiry made into the case and see that the proper action is taken against the persons responsible for this action?
      Mr. BECK: Inquiries are being made into these cases, and I will inform the hon. Member of the result.

      CALLING-UP NOTICES.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of National Service if he has received a letter, dated 25th June, from the solicitors of H. Fineberg, 64, Brownlow Hill, Liverpool, pointing out that this young man has been following the studies of an analytical chemist, and in July has to undergo an examination which will last several days, and that the local tribunal, in national interests, thought he ought to be allowed to sit for such an examination, and not to be disturbed in his studies by being taken into the Army until after the examination was over; is he aware that the local National Service representative insists that the young man should join the Army at once, and states that the tribunal had no authority to grant him exemption, and that he will be arrested as an absentee if he does not respond to the calling-up notice; and whether, in the circumstances, this young man's calling-up notice will be suspended until the 20th July, in order to permit him to complete his professional examination?
      Mr. BECK: The letter to which the hon. Member refers was sent to the Director of National Service of the North-Western Region, as such cases as that of Mr. Fineberg are dealt with in the regions where they arise, and in which the records of the individuals concerned are kept. I am inquiring as to the action which may have been taken by the Director of the North-Western Region, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.
      Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Minister of National Service if he is aware that notices are being sent to the late residences of men who have been dead for years, ordering them to present them-selves for medical examination; and whether, with the object of sparing the feelings of the relatives of these men, he will take steps to prevent the sending of such notices?
      Mr. BECK: The sending out of calling-up notices is necessarily based on the information collected under the National Registration Act, 1915, and, although every effort is made in co-operation with the local registration authorities to check this information and keep it up-to-date, occasional errors are difficult to avoid. I much regret such mistakes, and should be grateful to my hon. Friend if he can let me know of any specific cases which have come to his notice.
      Mr. WILSON: Is it not possible to arrange that the local registrar of deaths should supply the information, which would prevent these notices being issued all over the country?
      Mr. BECK: I hope the hon. Member is mistaken when he says all over the country. The machinery, of course, provides for this information being entered on the National Register, but I am afraid it is impossible to avoid occasional errors.

      INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT.
      Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his Department has recently released for military service all clerks in the Inland Revenue Department up to twenty-eight years of age, while retaining as indispensable all surveyors and assistant surveyors; whether the average service of the last-named body is about three years, and in some cases does not exceed twelve months, having previously been in other occupations; and whether the clerks released for military service are at present instructing those assistant surveyors recently appointed how to do the work of tax surveying efficiently?
      Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I may refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 6th ultimo to a question by the hon. Member for West Bradford on this subject. I am sending a copy of that reply to the hon. Member.

    IRISH FEIS (DISTURBANCE).
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on the occasion of a leis, or popular gathering for the enjoyment of music and other arts, held at Kilbiggan, King's County, on 23rd June, a number of soldiers, armed with rifles, and a big motor lorry came into the town from

    1703
    Tullamore; and that these soldiers broke up a procession, tore down decorations, entered the Hall Club, where pictures were smashed and a lot of refreshments meant for the artists were devoured, and did other damage, and finally fired many shots, apparently to terrify the inhabitants; whether this was done on military orders; and whether instructions will be given to commanding officers in Ireland to avoid any action calculated to cause suspicion and disaffection?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I find that the hall was searched on the occasion referred to, but that the meeting, which was held in an adjoining field, was not interfered with. Later a procession in military formation marched through the town, and this was stopped. There was no firing. One picture, which was lying on a bench, was accidentally knocked off and the glass broken, but the picture was undamaged.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that very circumstantial and repeated accounts of this affair have appeared in the Irish newspapers, causing a great deal of dismay and discontent, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman say something to relieve that anxiety?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The facts are as stated in my answer.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Undersecretary whether he is aware that Harry Ledsom, No. 22792, 4th Reserve Dragoons, of Heswall, Cheshire, aged between eighteen and nineteen years, was passed as fit by an Army medical board contrary to the certificate of his family doctor, which he produced to the board, and that he joined up on 6th March and was sent to Cambridge Hospital, Aldershot, on 2nd April, and was eventually sent home in charge of an escort on 3rd June, where he died on 24th June; whether the illness from which he suffered was in any way caused or aggravated by his military duties or was due to his original condition before joining the Army; whether he is aware that his mother now only receives 3s. 9d. per week as dependant's allowance for her other son, who is serving East of Suez; and will the War Office say what they are now prepared to do for the mother of these two boys?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am making inquiry and will write to my hon. Friend later.
    Mr. P. A. HARRISasked whether, in those cases where soldiers are working for farmers and living in their own homes, it is proposed to withdraw separation and family allowances as from the 5th July; what rate of wages will such men be paid; and if he will consider the desirability under such circumstances of discharging the men and employing them as civilians?
    Mr. FORSTER: The allowances in question cease as from the 5th, 7th, or 8th, of July, according to the nature of the allowances. The soldier living at home will in future receive from the farmer an allowance to cover his beard and lodging and the full civilian local rate of wage on a living-in basis; also, from Army funds, his Army pay for Sundays. If the living-in rate and the Army pay do not amount together to as much as his ordinary Army pay the difference will be made up from Army funds.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Local Government Board, respecting the case of a man, crippled by paralysis, whose four sons are in the Army, and who has a wife and daughter to maintain on a total income of 30s. a week, out of which 7s. has to be paid for rent and 4s. 6d. for insurance, whether the man has any claim under the Regulations governing payments of supplementary allowances by the local war pensions committee and the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Committee for assistance out of public funds through either or both of these committees; and if he will state shortly and in simple language what procedure the man should adopt in order to bring his case before each of these bodies and get an early decision on it?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen): It is not possible, on the information given by the hon. Member, to state whether the man to whom his question refers is entitled to any supplementary allowance. If he will place the full particulars of his case before the local war pensions committee, it will be inquired into at once.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is in a position to state the result of his inquiries into the adequacy of separation allowances paid to soldiers' families; and, if not now, when he proposes to make a statement on the subject?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I am not yet in a position to answer this question, but the War Cabinet Committee, to which this question has been referred, hopes to be able to render its Report within the next fortnight.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Pensions Minister whether he will give some information as to the composition of the Appeal Tribunal which deals with the cases of officers who claim that their disability is owing to or was aggravated by military service but who have been unsuccessful in obtaining pensions; whether it includes legal as well as medical members; when and where it sits; and whether he will state the steps necessary for an officer to take who desires to bring his case before such a tribunal?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The Appeals Board is constituted as follows: Chairman, Sir Ernest Pollock, K.C., M.P.; Sir Frederick Taylor, Bart., F.R.C.P.; Sir Alfred Pearce Gould, F.R.C.S.; Captain Albert Smith, M.P. The board meets at intervals, as the cases' to be dealt with require, at Bridgewater House, St. James's. An officer whose appeal to the Ministry of Pensions has been considered and rejected, may ask the Ministry for it to be referred to the Appeals Board. This is then arranged and the officer informed of the date and place.

    TIPTREE FIRE.
    Sir F. FLANNERYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the reason for the delay in reimbursing the Kelvedon Parish Council for the compulsory use, on the 29th March, 1917, of their fire engine; whether he is aware that orders were received from Lieutenant Glover, acting for the Commanding Officer of the 26th King's Liverpool Regiment, that the fire brigade should proceed to Tiptree, and that the expenditure, amounting to £4 17s., was consequently incurred by the parish council in making an unnecessary attendance in obedience to superior military orders; and whether the expenditure will now be refunded by the War Office?
    Mr. FORSTER: My inquiries into this case are not yet complete, but I hope to be able to write to my hon. Friend shortly.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      HORSE FOOD.
      Mr. HARRISasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that, on the 8th June, 10 tons of baled-out straw were brought all the way from Much Wenlock, in Shropshire, to Ashby-de-la-Zouche, in Leicestershire, to feed the horses belonging to the Food Production Department of the Government, although quantities were available locally, some of the ricks being in urgent need of removal; and whether he will take steps to prevent this waste of railway haulage at a time when the railways are short of wagons, and empower his officials to make use of the local supplies?
      Mr. FORSTER: Oat straw was demanded, and, according to the information of the district purchasing officer of supplies, there was none available locally at the time, though some has since been threshed and has been acquired by him. Every effort is made to avoid unnecessary railway traffic.
      Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local official asked leave to obtain a local supply from the ricks?
      Mr. FORSTER: My information is that the ricks had not been threshed. There was no oat straw available in the locality, and it had to be brought in from elsewhere.
      Mr. HARRIS: If I furnish him with further information, will he look into the matter?
      Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir.

      GRAIN MIXTURES.
      Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it is proposed to fix the price of grain mixtures for poultry feeding-stuffs; and whether he is aware that, under the present arrangement, farmers can get better prices for corn they have been fortunate enough to get damaged than that which is fit for human consumption?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I have been asked to reply. Prices of grain mixtures for poultry food have already been fixed. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. Maximum prices have been fixed for damaged grain, whether home-grown or

      1707
      imported, at a figure considerably lower than the maximum prices for sound grain.

      FROZEN MEAT.
      Sir F. FLANNERYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the delay and inconvenience to the public in the deliveries of frozen meat in the district of Halstead, Essex; whether he is aware that the frozen meat is not forwarded until Friday night in each week, so that it arrives so late on Saturday that it is impossible to be taken the necessary distances of several miles to village butchers; that the wives of agricultural labourers have to walk several miles for meat when better arrangements might enable it to be distributed locally; whether he is aware that queues are more in evidence round butchers' shops in Hal-stead in consequence than ever before; that the present procedure is for the local butcher to acquaint the local buyer, who in practice knows of his requirements, the buyer in turn to notify the local food control committee, who communicate with the deputy meat agent, who in turn passes the matter on to the meat agent, who, in his turn, sends on to the associated meat importers' committee, who in due course give the order to the appointed wholesaler; and whether he will state what action will be taken to improve the procedure?
      Mr. CLYNES: I am informed that requisitions for supplies of imported meat have been received on three occasions from the district referred to. No delay appears to have occurred in the dispatch of the meat, though there was a regrettable delay in transit. The procedure adopted in cases where it is necessary to requisition supplies of imported meat for any district is not altogether that described by the hon. Baronet, and it is found that in practice there is no unnecessary delay in dispatch, owing to the fact that the various officers concerned are in constant communication with one another. Every possible effort will be made to accelerate both dispatch and delivery.

      TEA.
      Sir A. YEOasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the stock of bonded tea in this country at the end of May last is the largest for that period on record; that
      1708
      at the same period for the year 1913 the total stock of tea in bond in this country was more than 15,000,000 lbs. less than at 31st May, 1918; whether it is the intention of the Ministry of Food to take steps to lower the price of tea to the consumer to a parity of pre-war times; and, if so, as to when the price is to be-reduced, and to what extent?
      Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. I may, however, point out that this stock includes tea under the control of the War Office for Naval and Military requirements, a considerable quantity already sold but, owing to transport difficulties, not delivered, and a considerable quantity entered at the Customs but only in process of delivery from the ships. The price of tea to the consumer is governed not by the volume of bonded stocks but by the cost of the tea to the Government.

      DAIRYMEN (INSPECTION OF PREMISES).
      Sir A. YEOasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether a visit of inspection has been made by an official from the Food Ministry to depots belonging to the United Dairies, Limited, in the company of the chairman of the combine; whether it is the intention of the Food Ministry to make similar inspections of premises owned by dairyman who are outside the milk trust; and, if not, will he say why this course is not to be adopted?
      Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The officials of the Ministry of Food are taking every opportunity to make themselves familiar with the conditions and organisation of wholesale milk depots throughout the country.

      FISHING INDUSTRY (TERRITORIAL WATERS).
      Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether, in order to increase the food supply of this country and at the same time give the greater safety to fishing vessels conferred by shallow waters, the Government will, for the period of the War, open the territorial waters of Great Britain and Ireland to all British fishing craft?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Subject to the requirements of naval strategy, the safety of the fishing vessels themselves, and certain local prohibitions against trawling, territorial waters are open to all British fishing craft.

      AYRSHIRE FARMS.
      Sir W. BEALEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Scottish Board of Agriculture were parties to, or had notice of, agreements or arrangements made with farmers in Ayrshire to the effect that, in consideration of the farmer ploughing additional lands this season, he would be allowed to retain the necessary farm labour to secure his crop, exempt from calling up for military or national service till after harvest time, or would at least be guaranteed equally efficient labour in case any hands wore necessarily called up; whether these agreements or arrangements were in fact or were supposed by the Board, as they were by the farmers, to be binding on the military and recruiting authorities; whether the Board have had notice that such agreements and arrangements are not being observed by the military and recruiting authorities, and that essential labour is being taken away by them without any provision or tender of substituted labour of any efficiency to prevent the serious loss of crops and farm produce; and whether the Board of Agriculture has taken, and will take, steps to bring home to the military and recruiting authorities the consequences to the national food supply of the disregard of such agreements and arrangements?
      The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am not aware of any agreements or arrangements special to Ayrshire, but I know what efforts have been made, and will, I am sure, continue to be made, in the interests of food production, by the Ayrshire farmers. The pressing requirements of the military situation must be the governing consideration at the present time. The Board is quite alive to the risk from the agricultural standpoint involved in the withdrawal of skilled men from agriculture, and all possible steps are being taken to bring home the necessity of substituted labour, as suggested in the last part of the question.

    SMALL-POX, SUFFOLK.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the President of the Local Government Board how many of the five small-pox deaths in the county of Suffolk reported in the quarterly Return of the Registrar-General for the first three months of 1918 were civil,
    1710
    military, and naval, respectively; and what was the vaccinal condition in each case?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I am informed by the Registrar-General that the cases referred to were wrongly entered as small-pox. They should have been entered as whooping cough.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (WOMAN CLERK).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the temporary woman clerk who has been nominated to a permanent post in his Department had declined to continue to carry out her duties in a temporary capacity; and, if not, will he say why, her services being already at the disposal of the Department, the appointment was made permanent?
    Mr. FISHER: The appointment was in the first instance made temporary with a view to the question of its permanency being considered at the end of twelve months' experience. As a result of that experience it was found desirable to make it permanent. The lady in question is engaged upon work with which women are specially concerned and her previous experience has peculiarly fitted her for the post.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is it intended to make any more permanent appointments of this kind of person outside the regular staff?
    Mr. FISHER: I cannot make any promise.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. CAREWasked the President of the Local Government Board whether a labourer, receiving 10s. a week dependant's allowance and over seventy years of age, is debarred from receiving the old age pension if he should earn a few shillings a week by working occasionally on the land and thus exceeding the income of £32 10s. per annum?
    Mr. BALDWIN: If the hon. Member refers to a claimant to an old age pension, a pension cannot be granted unless the claimant's means from all sources, including earnings, do not exceed the statutory

    1711
    limit of £31 10s. a year.. If the hon. Member refers to an existing old age pensioner, he will find particulars of the concession made to pensioners whose means are increased by temporary earnings during the War set out in the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for Woolwich on the 17th April last.
    Mr. CAREW: Would it not be advisable under these circumstances, during the War, to relax this Regulation and get all the available men possible for getting in the harvest?
    Mr. BALDWIN: It is not a question of the relaxation of Regulations, but a question of legislation.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my hon. Friend say why the Treasury refuse to people who become seventy years of age the same privileges as are granted to those who are seventy years of age and who are covered by the Treasury concessions?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I have already explained, in answer to previous questions, that the concessions that are made to existing pensioners are made by stretching the law. If we were to apply the same principle to applicants we should not be stretching the law but breaking it.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does my hon. Friend really wish the House to understand that the Treasury are unwilling to do for people who attain the age of seventy what they are doing for existing old age pensioners?
    Mr. BALDWIN: We are not prepared to introduce legislation to alter the basis of the old age pensions.

    VOTERS' LIST, MANCHESTER.
    Mr. STOKERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether under the scale recently framed by the Treasury the cost of the new lists of voters for the ten divisions of Manchester has been increased from 2s. 6d. to over £25: and whether he will take the necessary steps to have this charge reduced?
    Mr. FISHER: As I indicated in my reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries Burghs on the 20th ultimo, I am in communication with my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury on this subject.

    CHEADLE BOARD OF GUARDIANS (MEDICAL OFFICER).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether a further inquiry has been made into the matter of the recent appointment by the Cheadle Board of Guardians and District Council, of a whole-time medical officer as promised; and, if such further inquiry has not yet been made, whether it will be held at an early date and opportunity given for a representative of the local practitioners concerned to be heard?
    Mr. FISHER: I have had some inquiries made into the matter by one of my inspectors, the results of which I have communicated to the hon. and gallant Member. I am not contemplating any formal inquiry.

    HONOURS (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Prime Minister what is the total number of Members elected in the present Parliament who have received titles, orders, offices of profit under the Crown, or legal preferment since the present Parliament was elected?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The number in the period mentioned, which dates from December, 1910, is 288.

    ORDER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE.
    General CROFTasked the Prime Minister how many male recipients of the Order of the British Empire are under military age; and whether he will give an undertaking that in future this Order is not extended to those who are unwilling or unable to serve their country in the field?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. There is, I believe, no foundation for the suggestion that the honour has been conferred on any person unwilling to serve his country in the field. It has, of course, been conferred on many who by reason of age or sex are unable to do so.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFFS).
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUELasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statement that the number of persons now employed by the Government Departments cannot be considered excessive, which appears in the introductory note to the Return on Civil Staff employed by Government Departments presented by the Ministry of National Service on 19th June; whether this statement is based on any conclusions reached by the Treasury Committee on Staffs; if not, whether it is the result of any examination made by the Ministry of National Service or by any other authority; and whether it represents the considered opinion of the Government on the matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My attention has been called to the statement referred to by my right hon. Friend, which represents the opinion of the Ministry of National Service as the result of inquiries instituted by that Department independently of those which are being conducted by the Treasury Committee on Staffs.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Has there been any special inquiry by this Department, and, if so, is it not inconvenient that two Departments should inquire at the same time?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not looked closely into this matter, but I think this inquiry was from the point of view of the man-power of the country.

    CANONRY OF WORCESTER.
    Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Prime Minister when the appointments will be made to the canonry of Worcester and the living of St. Mary, Woolnoth?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that both these appointments are under offer, and that an announcement will be made in each case in due course.

    ALIEN ENEMIES.
    Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Prime Minister if all the recommendations of the Advisory Committee of the Home Office as to internment of alien
    1714
    enemies have been acted upon, and if among those interned any have been subsequently released without the recommendation of the Committee?
    Sir G. CAVE: The Committee referred to was appointed as an Advisory Committee, and the final responsibility for internment or exemption has always rested with the Secretary of State. I understand that in the years 1915 and 1916 a small number of persons recommended by the Committee for internment were on further inquiry exempted from internment, but a considerably larger number who were recommended for exemption were on full inquiry ordered to be interned. No such case has occurred since the year 1916, the Committee having in the course of that year concluded their inquiries into the applications for exemption. Since that date a few interned persons have been released for special reasons, but in these cases the Secretary of State has acted upon information furnished to him, and not on the advice of any Committee.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in the cases where the recommendations of the Advisory Committee were made, the official who failed to carry out their decisions had in his mind the fact that two judges of the High Court used to the weighing of evidence and throe or four influential Members of this House had unanimously recommended that these persons should be interned?
    Sir G. CAVE: All these things happened before my time, but I am quite sure that the Secretary of State took that fact into account.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Can you give us the number?
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain persons have been releasd from internment in view of the fact that they had sons who had died in the service of the country or who were soldiers in our Army?
    Sir G. CAVE: It may be so. I do not remember the facts of any special case, but I am quite sure that no release was sanctioned without inquiry.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend say who are the two who have been released?
    Sir G. CAVE: I cannot give any names. There are more than two.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Are there 200?
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received any applications from London boards of guardians for payment and allowances to their relieving officers for services rendered in making inquiries about and payments to the British wives and children of enemy aliens; whether he is aware that extra work has been done by these officers; and, as it is national work caused by the War, can he see his way to consider favourably such applications, so as to prevent any charge for such work being put upon the local rates of a district?
    Mr. BALDWIN: One such application has been received, but the Treasury were unable to entertain it, though they realise the value of the work performed by relieving officers. It must, however, be borne in mind that the cost of the relief to the wives and children is borne by the Exchequer, local authorities being thereby freed from substantial charges which might otherwise have fallen upon them in respect of the support of destitute persons resident within their areas. It does not therefore appear unreasonable that comparatively small administrative expenses in this connection should remain as a charge on the rates.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary whether Theodolinda Paster, who was denounced as a spy when returning to Greece on 26th June, 1915, and handed over to a British warship, is now interned in Holloway Gaol; whether any evidence of her being a spy was obtained; and whether, after three years' internment, she can now be brought to trial or deported?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. This woman, who is a German subject, and was in touch with German agents, was interned under No. 14B of the Defence of the Realm Regulations on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. I think internment was the proper course, and that this is not a case for prosecution or deportation.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not pretty safe to release her seeing that she has been in prison for the last three years?
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Rudolf Rocker, a journalist, who threw off his
    1716
    German citizenship seventeen years ago, was for many months interned in Alexandra Palace, was recently sent to Holland, where the authorities sought to drive him into Germany, and that the German authorities refused him admittance, as he was suspected of being an agent of Lord Northcliffe, Director of Propaganda In Enemy Countries; and whether, as R. Rocker is now residing in Holland, he will permit his wife and family to rejoin him there?
    Sir G. CAVE: Rocker, the man referred to in this question, has claimed to have lost his German nationality by absence from Germany; but by English law he is a German subject, and as such was first interned at the Alexandra Palace and afterwards, at his own request, repatriated through Holland to Germany. I understand that the German authorities sent him back to Holland, but I am unable to say on what ground they did so. He was certainly not an agent of the Director of Propaganda. I am not aware that he has a wife or family in this country.
    Mr. KING: If I can produce the wife and family, will the Home Secretary look into the matter?
    Sir G. CAVE: I will watch the efforts of the hon. Gentleman in that direction.

    CABLING FACILITIES.
    General CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether any private firms engaged on similar business to the firm of Messrs. Harris and Dixon applied for and were refused the preferential cabling facilities granted to Messrs. Harris and Dixon at the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No record has been kept of the names of firms who may have applied for, and been refused, special cable facilities, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will supply the name of any firm he may have in mind investigation will be made.
    General CROFT: Is it not a fact that any such application would be filed with the correspondence?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have given my hon. and gallant Friend all the information which has been given to me this morning.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that an official answer was given by the Government some little time ago that there was no preferential list at all in respect of these cabling facilities?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I believe that was so.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is that answer in accordance with the facts?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes; it is.
    Sir R. COOPER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how that answer could have been given in view of the fact that there are no records in the Department?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is trying to initiate a Debate.

    Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS.
    General CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether he has asked for or received the resignation of the Secretary to the Ministry of Blockade?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
    General CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the shares held by the right hon. Gentlemen were not sold until March of this year?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member had better give notice of that question.
    General CROFT: I beg to give notice that I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House on this urgent matter of public importance.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I can tell the hon. Member at once that he need not worry about it, because I could not treat it as an urgent matter.
    General CROFT: On a point of Order. Is it not a matter of urgent public importance that a Member of this House, who is now a Minister, has been proved to have secured for his private firm great trade advantages?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The matter was discussed the other day, and therefore it cannot be discussed again to-day as a matter of urgency.

    FIFTH ARMY (INQUIRY).
    General Sir IVOR PHILIPPSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the inquiry into the conduct and actions of the General Officer Commanding the Fifth Army in March last has yet taken place; and, if so, what was the result of such inquiry and by whom was it carried out?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: In present circumstances it is not possible to collect all the information bearing on this case so as to enable the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief to submit a definite opinion, but the Army Council are urging that efforts shall be made to complete the investigation.
    Sir E. CARSON: Has the Commander-in-Chief sent in any report on the conduct of this officer?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand not.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is this officer still in receipt of full pay?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: Is the House to understand that this General Officer was recalled without any report from the Commander-in-Chief, in order to forestall criticism, of the Government?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot add anything to the statement made by the Prime Minister on 9th April.

    EX-SERVICE MEN (BUSINESS LICENCES).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Minister of National Service (1) whether Sergeant R. A. Thurtell, late Royal Field Artillery, after serving three years in France, applied for a licence to open a hairdressing business at Ipswich; that this was refused on the ground that it would compete unfairly with other shops owned by men now serving; whether, in view of the fact that this man was fighting for his country during the years that other tradesmen now being called up were carrying on their business, and the fact that by the decision referred to this man is virtually debarred from earning his livelihood, he will reconsider the case;

    1719
    (2) if a preference is given to ex-Service men of good character when licences are applied for to start a business; and, if not, will a preference be given in future?
    Mr. BECK: The primary object of the Shops Licensing Order is to protect the businesses of serving soldiers. If an ex-Service man proposes to start a new business which would injure the existing business of another soldier serving with the Colours the object of the Order is being defeated just as much as if the applicant had never served in the Army. Apart from this general consideration, the Ministry is very desirous of assisting discharged soldiers, and any application made by Sergeant Thurtell to start a business which is not open to the objection referred to will be favourably considered.
    Colonel ASHLEY: If a man has served three years in France and comes home, if he applies for permission to open a hairdresser's shop, what possible objection can there be?
    Mr. BECK: The objection is that he is seriously damaging the business of another soldier who is a hairdresser in the near neighbourhood.
    Colonel ASHLEYrose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot argue this case. The hon. and gallant Member has had a very clear answer.

    VOLUNTEER FORCE (SPECIAL SERVICE).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Minister of National Service whether, in the event of failure to obtain a sufficient number of offers for two or three months' special service from the Volunteer Corps, it is his intention to proceed by Order in Council to call up Volunteers over thirty-five years of age who are in Grade 2; and, if so, whether he will accept Volunteers of this age and grade who hold scheduled occupation certificates with the red card M.M. 130 from the provisions of such Order in Council?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Special Service Volunteer
    1720
    Companies have been formed on a voluntary basis, and there is at present no intention of departing from this principle. Men in certain occupations have been excluded from the scheme, even though they might be willing to offer for special whole-time Volunteer service.

    NATIONAL PARTY OFFICES (RAID).
    General CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that, owing to inadvertence, the question of the raiding of the offices of the National Party could not be raised as a matter of privilege, he will give a day for the discussion of a Motion on the subject?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not prepared to give the facilities asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Sir R. COOPER: Does not this question affect the future of this House, and would it not be wise to have the matter positively settled at the present time?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it relates to the present quite as much as to the future. I imagine that the hon. Member can raise it in the ordinary way on the Motion for the Adjournment.

    "HEARTS OF THE WORLD" FILM.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Prime Minister whether it was with the consent of the Ministry of Information that a special film called "Hearts of the World" has been produced; what is the cost of the production and how many films have been produced; if these films are lent out free to the various picture theatres or, if not, what charge is made for the loan of them; and in what way the War is helped in this country by the exhibition of films of this description?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed the film entitled "Hearts of the World," which has been exhibited at the instance of the Ministry of Information, was not paid for out of public funds, but by the War Office Cinematograph Committee. It has been exhibited in accordance with arrangements made by that Committee, and has not been lent out free to picture theatres.

    PARLIAMENT (PROLONGATION).
    Mr. R. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it has been decided to introduce legislation for the further prolongation of the life of this Parliament?
    I notice that there is a Bill on the Notice Paper to-day, but I ask the question in case the right hon. Gentleman has anything to say upon it.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: A Bill with this object will be introduced to-day.

    MEN AND MATERIAL.
    Sir I. PHILIPPSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the desirability of appointing a Select Committee of this House to inquire into and check the expenditure of men and material in this country and abroad in connection with the War in the same manner as has been done in the case of the expenditure of pounds sterling?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not prepared to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member.
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in all successful business organisation it is as important to consider the economical use of manpower and the efficient supply of machinery, etc., as it is to have a sound financial scheme, and will he look into this matter and reconsider it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware of that, but I do not think the method suggested would be the best to secure it.

    SHIPS REQUISITIONED.
    Mr. KINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether the steamship "Mongolian" was requisitioned in Eastern waters under a Royal Proclamation authorising requisitions only of ships in home waters; and how many ships have been similarly requisitioned?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): The steamship "Mongolian" was requisitioned under the prerogative powers of the Crown, and though the formal letter of requisition referred
    1722
    to the Proclamation of the 3rd August, 1914, the requisition derived its validity from the Royal prerogative, and not from the Proclamation. Many vessels have been requisitioned in the same way.
    Mr. KINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether he is aware of the wasteful use of shipping in the case of vessels under requisition by the Indian Government; whether he controls the shipping activities of the Indian authorities; whether he will specially look into the case of the waste of money and carrying power in connection with the steamship "Abydos" by the Government of India; and, if he has not present powers to prevent waste and mismanagement, will he seek such extended powers as will give unity of command in this respect?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As a result of arrangements proposed by the Shipping Controller last year, his representative in India has been entrusted by the Indian Government with the duty of generally supervising the working of all vessels in Indian waters, including both vessels controlled by the Ministry of Shipping and by the Indian Government, with a view to using all available tonnage to the best advantage. With regard to the case of the "Abydos," I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by the Secretary of State for India on the 26th June, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. KING: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller why the owners of the steamship "Mongolian," a company in Calcutta of native Indians, are not allowed to manage the vessel; why the agents for it are now a competing European firm; whether the transfer of ships owned by native Indians to European agents is having a disquieting effect in India, where the idea is thus spread that trade is to be kept in European hands; and what action he proposes to take.
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: When this vessel was requisitioned, late in 1917, she was urgently required for transport service, and she was treated in exactly the same way as any other similar vessel requisitioned for the purpose. Subsequently, as the vessel was more suitable for general berth cargo than for ordinary bulk cargo employment, she was placed,

    1723
    in the interests of efficiency, in the hands of a liner company, to be run on Government account, a method which has been frequently adopted in similar cases. This policy in no way prejudices the position of the owners, who receive hire on Blue Book terms. I ask my hon. Friend particularly to note, in view of the suggestion in the third part of his question, that if this ship had belonged to an English owner she would have been dealt with in exactly the same way. There is no ground whatever for the suggestion that preferential treatment is given to European as compared with native Indian shipping firms.

    BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that returned prisoners of war are now forbidden to give interviews to the Press or to answer questions as to their treatment, any official interviews the returned prisoners and learns from him details of the treatment he received while in enemy hands; and can the. House expect in the near future a comprehensive statement from the Government as to the treatment which our sailors, soldiers, and civilians have met with during their period of captivity?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): A specially constituted body—the Government Committee, of which Sir Robert Younger is the chairman—has long existed for the precise purpose mentioned. This Committee examines prisoners on their arrival in England unless their depositions have already been taken in a neutral country. A number of Reports have been published, a number more are in course of preparation, and still more are contemplated, though an absolutely complete and final Report will be a work of great magnitude, and cannot, of course, be obtained until all our prisoners are eligible for examination. The Committee have been steadily preparing a mass of valuable evidence for this purpose.
    Major NEWMAN: Would it not be possible to present an interim Report on the treatment of prisoners, seeing that the War may continue for some time?
    Mr. HOPE: That is exactly what I have said. There have been interim Reports, and more are being prepared.

    NATIONAL SERVICE

      WAR-WORK VOLUNTEERS.
      Major NEWMANasked the Minister of National Service whether, in connection with his scheme for the enrolment of war-work volunteers, he will explain why a man who has been finally refused exemption by a tribunal is not eligible for protection either as a War-work Volunteer or as a War Agricultural Volunteer; and is he aware that the complexity of the instructions that are being issued by his Department, combined with their indeterminate phraseology, are causing difficulty to those to whom they are addressed.
      Mr. BECK: When a tribunal has fully investigated the facts of a case, and has finally refused an application for exemption, it is clearly impossible to reverse their decisions by giving the applicant protection from recruiting. I have no information which would lead me to think that the instructions are of so complex a character that their interpretation causes difficulty to those to whom they are addressed.
      Major NEWMAN: Does every man of forty-five know that if he appeals to a tribunal he cannot then become a War Volunteer or an Agricultural Volunteer?
      Mr. BECK: I think, quite naturally, the hon. and gallant Gentleman a little misapprehends the state of affairs. The general Regulation is that a man actually under call for military service cannot be enrolled for this civilian work, but in order to meet the difficulty caused by the fact that a certain number of men under call had no opportunity of enlisting, they are allowed to enrol as civilian volunteers up to 6th July. But as regards tribunal cases, it would obviously be absurd for a man to go to a tribunal and then to an Appeal Tribunal and be turned down in each case and ordered to serve in the armed forces, and then, through the action of a Government Department, enrol as a civilian volunteer.

      TRIBUNALS (NATIONAL SERVICE REPRESENTATIVES).
      Mr. WATTasked the Minister of National Service how many representatives at tribunals throughout the country has his Department; how many of these are unpaid voluntary workers; and has he statistics showing how many of them are practising solicitors?
      Mr. BECK: According to the latest Returns in my possession, the number of representatives of the Ministry of National Service at tribunals throughout the country is 1,772, of whom 1,566 are unpaid voluntary workers. I have no statistics which enable me to state how many of these are practising solicitors.

    PENSIONS MINISTRY (EX-SOLDIERS AND SAILORS).
    Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Pensions Minister whether he will consider the advisability of substituting discharged and disabled soldiers and sailors who have the necessary qualifications for the girls and young women at present employed as clerks, messengers, etc., in his office whenever vacancies occur?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: There is already a considerable number of discharged disabled men on the staff of the Ministry. My right hon. Friend is increasing this number gradually as opportunity arises and men with the necessary qualifications are available. We hope also to employ on our female staff a number of the dependants of officers and men who have fallen.

    GERMAN PATENTS.
    Sir EDWARD CARSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether patent agents are allowed to enter into communications with and receive communications from inventors in Germany who desire to protect their inventions in this country by filing specifications in the Patent Office; whether any special licences are granted for that purpose; if so, will he say through what channels such communications are conducted; and whether all such communications are submitted to any Department of the Government?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley): Patent agents are permitted to enter into and receive the communications referred to by general licence of the Board of Trade. Such communications are made through agents in neutral countries, and are subject to censorship in the ordinary way by the Postal Censor.
    Sir E. CARSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the time has come
    1726
    when we should stop all negotiations on this matter of inventions, having regard to the sinking of our hospital ships?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I said on Monday last that this matter was being very carefully considered, and I hope to be able to convey our decision to the House very shortly.

    PAPER CONTROL (RETURNS).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Board of Trade if permission has been given by the Paper Controller to the wholesale newsagents to send back returns during the next month; whether such permission has been given to the retail trade; if not, why the wholesalers, or in many cases the retailers also, have been given this special privilege; and will the privilege be extended to the retail trade?
    Sir A. STANLEY: Some latitude has been given to wholesale newsagents in the matter of returns for four weeks from 24th June owing to the difficulty of making up their orders (especially for magazines and periodicals) in advance, it being necessary for wholesalers to send orders to the publishers before they themselves receive orders from the retailers. No such permission has been given to the retail trade, but any specific cases of hardship brought to the notice of the Paper Controller will be sympathetically dealt with.

    AIRCRAFT INSURANCE (GOVERNMENT SCHEME).
    Mr. WATTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there is a surplus at the present moment of the Aircraft Insurance Fund; if so, how much it is; and why claims on the fund by insurers are so contested by his Department; and are the ex-gratia allowances up to £500, paid to persons who pay no premiums, kept in a separate account from the amounts paid to those who have duly paid their premiums?
    Sir A. STANLEY: It is not in the public interest at present to publish figures relating to the Government insurance scheme. The payments made under the air-raid compensation scheme are paid out of a separate account. If the hon. Member can furnish particulars of any

    1727
    cases in which he thinks claims under the insurance scheme have been unreasonably contested, I will have them investigated.

    RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the President of the Board of Trade whether bonâ fide residents in occupation of a house on a yearly tenancy, for which they pay rates, who have been using season tickets since January are entitled to a renewal of such tickets at the higher rate; whether, in case of a refusal, there is any appeal from the Board of Trade Committee; and, if so, what?
    Sir A. STANLEY: The conditions on which the issue or renewal of season tickets may be refused by a railway company are set out in the Railway Season Ticket Order, of which I am sending the hon. Gentleman a copy. In cases in which a railway company feel unable to issue or renew a season ticket the company's decision is open to review by Mr. Honoratus Lloyd, K.C. No appeal from Mr. Lloyd's decision is provided for.

    LETTER DELIVERY, DAWLISH.
    Mr. CAREWasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to the inhabitants of Dawlish owing to the late delivery of the morning letters, 10 a.m., whilst the last outward mail closes at 5 p.m.; and whether, as Dawlish is on the main Great Western Railway, he can afford any relief to this interference with the business of that locality?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): I am considering the possibility of providing an earlier morning delivery at Dawlish without increase of expense, and will write to the hon. Member on the completion of the inquiries which I am having made.
    Mr. CAREW: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it advisable that railway companies and the Post Office should act more in accord with the public interest, and was it necessary to remove the appliances for catching the mails from non-stopping trains?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question. It deals with details about which the Postmaster cannot possibly know.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS (VISCOUNT GREY'S PAMPHLET).
    Mr. G. PEELasked the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury what steps he is taking, in his capacity as chairman of the War Aims Committee, to circulate in the United Kingdom the pamphlet recently issued by Lord Grey on the subject of the League of Nations?
    Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): The circulation of Lord Grey's pamphlet by the War Aims Committee will be considered at the meeting to-day.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government declares that this pamphlet has nothing to do with the War or the terms of peace? Under these circumstances, what is the good of using it for propaganda?
    Captain GUEST: These considerations will come under review this afternoon.

    IRISH INTERNED PRISONERS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether interned Irish prisoners now in British gaols have been allowed to receive and read the Official Parliamentary Report of the House of Commons on 25th June; and, if so, whether any excisions or obliterations have been made to prevent them reading the whole of the Debate on Irish affairs?
    Sir G. CAVE: A copy of the Report was received at one prison for an interned Irish prisoner. This was handed to the addressee, nothing being cut out or obliterated.

    AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE DAY.
    Mr. ALDEN (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of moving a formal Resolution on Liberty Day, 4th July, expressing the sympathy and good will of the House of Commons with the Government and people of the United States of America; the terms of such a Resolution to be cabled to both Congress and the Senate?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government feel as strongly as my hon. Friend the importance of the object which he has in

    1729
    view. I do not, however, think that it is necessary to adopt the course suggested, as both the House of Commons and the Government have had many opportunities of expressing in the strongest way the feeling of sympathy and good will of the British people to the people of the United States.

    MUNITIONS.

      MIDLANDS FACTORY (EXPLOSION).
      Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if he can give the House any information referring to the sad accident which occurred at a munition factory in the Midlands?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I am sorry to have to say that, while the latest reports indicate that the interference with output will be less than at first anticipated, the loss of life and the number of injured is greater. It is feared that the number of killed will reach the total of 100, whilst the wounded will be a larger number than that. The House would wish me to say that the staff and employés, according to the reports we have received, behaved magnificently. They never lost their heads, and they were engaged in the work of recovering the killed and wounded even before the dust of the explosion had settled. Many of the workers who had scattered when the explosion took place returned almost immediately. There was no panic, and the work was carried on with such dispatch that the wounded were got away to the local hospital in an incredibly short time. The utmost assistance was given by the local authorities, and the spirit of the whole factory, from the manager to the humblest labourer, was admirable. Before our officer left last night arrangements had been made to resume work in a certain part of the factory on a three-shift basis, and these shifts are now at work. I am sure the House will recognise that these men and women, in the face of a sudden and appalling danger, have by their conduct added a precious jewel to the treasury of British valour.
      Sir J. D. REES: Is an inquiry being held?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: Yes.

      Unemployment Insurance (Boot and Shoe Trade).
      Mr. R. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Labour whether he has any intention of bringing the boot and shoe trade under a scheme of compulsory unemployment insurance; and, if he has, whether he proposes to consult the council of the boot and shoe operatives before committing himself to new legislation?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): There is no intention to deal specially with the boot and shoe trade with a view to bringing it under a compulsory scheme of unemployment insurance. The question of making further provision against unemployment generally, is, however, one of the matters under consideration by the Labour Resettlement Committee which, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, was recently constituted to advise the Minister of Labour in connection with the general problems of resettlement, and which includes representatives of employers and workpeople in the boot and shoe trade. My right hon. Friend has not yet received the recommendations of the Committee on this subject, but should it prove necessary to extend or modify the present scheme of compulsory unemployment insurance steps will be taken, as far as practicable, to ascertain the views of the associations of employers and workpeople concerned before definite proposals are brought forward.

      Joint Industrial Councils.
      Major ASTORasked the Minister of Labour whether persons engaged in industry desiring to set up joint industrial councils have to obtain the approval of his Department before establishing such councils; and, if so, whether one of the conditions of approval is that the proposals must have been prepared by representatives at organisations or associations of employers and employés, respectively, connected with the industry?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The setting up of joint standing industrial councils is primarily a matter for the industries concerned, and the functions of the Ministry of Labour in this connection are limited to affording such advice and assistance as the bodies promoting a council may desire. Before, however, a joint standing industrial council can be recognised as the official standing consultative committee

      1731
      to the Government on questions affecting the industry which it represents, the Minister requires to be satisfied that the council is thoroughly representative of the industry. He could not recognise any council which did not consist of representatives of the organisations of the employers and workpeople in the industry, in accordance with the recommendations of the Whitley Report.
      Major ASTOR: Is a Government Department which is also an industrial employer and wishes to set up a joint council obliged to prepare a scheme in consultation with trade unions?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like to have notice of that question.

DEATH OF VISCOUNT RHONDDA.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I greatly regret to have to announce that Lord Rhondda died this morning. Lord Rhondda was a very old Member of this House, which he entered some thirty years ago, and he was a person well known to an unusually large number of Members, by whom he was much respected. On the formation of the present Government he joined it as President of the Local Government Board. In that office he took, as the House knows, the keenest and most active interest in everything connected with the social welfare of the people. A little more than a year ago he became the Minister of Food. At that time that office was probably the most difficult in the Government. Lord Rhondda fully realised the difficulties. He was naturally reluctant to accept the post, but he did so, as I know, entirely from a Benee of duty. After assuming office the difficulties, owing to the submarine campaign, continued to increase, but he faced them with a quiet courage, with a tenacity of purpose and with a businesslike sagacity which in the end enabled him largely to overcome them, and he won for himself and for his Department the respect of Parliament and the country. The seeds of the illness from which he died were, there is reason to believe, laid in the exposure to which he was subjected when he and his daughter were among the victims of the "Lusitania"; but I cannot help thinking that his devotion to duty, the
1732
strain of his office, and the worries and anxieties inseparable from it, had weakened his constitution and rendered him less able to meet this attack. I am sure I am only echoing the feeling of every hon. Member of this House when I express our heartfelt sympathy with the widow and daughter who mourn his loss, and when I express our sense of the loss to the State which his death involves, and our gratitude for the great services which he was privileged to render.
Mr. ASQUITH: I would like to associate myself in the fullest manner with what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the grave loss that has been sustained by the state. Lord Rhondda, or, as we used to know him, Mr. Thomas, was a Member of this House almost the whole time that I have been here, and, while he was with us in the House of Commons, he was always a noteworthy personality for his singular financial and commercial acumen, and his versatile and widespread activities, and for his great independence of judgment. He filled during the last year of his life one of the most difficult and perhaps one of the most thankless offices of the State, and discharged the duties of that office, it can be said without exaggeration, not only with devotion and assiduity, but with great foresight and with tact, and, as I believe, with beneficent results to this country and to the cause of the Allies. The House will join my right hon. Friend in paying the most sincere tribute of respect to his memory and of sympathy for those whom he has left behind.

DIVORCE BILLS.
The LORD ADVOCATE reported from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, That the parties promoting the Miles' Divorce Bill had stated that the evidence of Mrs. Mary O'Mahoney was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that her attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Mrs. Mary O'Mahoney do attend the said Committee on Wednesday next, at Four of the clock.
Ordered, That Mrs. Mary O'Mahoney do attend the Select Committee on Divorce Bills on Wednesday next, at Four of the clock.—[The Lord Advocate.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,
That they have agreed to,—
Amendments to—
Aldershot Gas, Water, and District Lighting Bill [Lords],
Railway Passengers Assurance Bill [Lords],
Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the division of the testamentary trusts of the late William Alexander Louis Stephen, Duke of Hamilton, Brandon, and Chatelherault, into two separate trusts; and for other purposes." [Hamilton Estates Bill [Lords.]

HAMILTON ESTATES BILL [Lords].
Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BILLS PRESENTED.
PARLIAMENT AND LOCAL ELECTIONS BILL,—"to make further provision for the prolongation of the present Parliament and the postponement of Local Elections," presented by the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER; supported by Sir George Cave, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Hayes Fisher; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]
STATUTORY UNDERTAKINGS (TEMPORARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL,—"to enable the statutory provisions affecting the charges which may be made in respect of certain undertakings to be temporarily modified," presented by Sir ALBERT STANLEY; supported by Mr. Hayes Fisher and Mr. Wardle; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

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

  EDUCATION BILL
  Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 2nd July.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  EDUCATION BILL

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Inspection of Minutes.)
    The minutes of the proceedings of a local education authority, and, where a local education authority delegate to their education committee any powers and the acts and proceedings of the education committee as respects the exercise of those powers are not required to be submitted to the council for their approval, the minutes of the proceedings of the education committee, relating to the exercise of those powers, shall be open to the inspection of any ratepayer at any reasonable time during the ordinary hours of business on payment of a fee of one shilling and any ratepayer may make a copy thereof or take an extract therefrom.—[Mr. Herbert Fisher.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."—[Mr. Herbert Fisher.]
    Mr. KING: This is a Clause which I welcome. I think that it arises out of the suggestions which I made in an earlier stage of the Committee, but there is one small point in the drafting which requires consideration. This Clause says that the minutes are to be open to the inspection of any ratepayer. In answer to a question yesterday on another Clause, as to whether we ought not to recognise the rights of a ratepayer or a person interested, the President of the Board of Education will remember that in the Clause that we then had under discussion the expression used is "a person interested." Why should you give the person interested the right in one case and the ratepayer in another? This seems to point to some laxity in the drafting, and I shall reserve
    1746
    my right to move an Amendment on the Report stage to put the two Clauses on the same level.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Education (Choice of Employment) Act, 1910.)
    Section one of the Education (Choice of Employment) Act, 1910, which confers on certain local education authorities the power of assisting boys and girls with respect to the choice of employment, shall have effect as if "eighteen years of age" were therein substituted for "seventeen years of age."—[Mr. Fisher.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The Education (Choice of Employment) Act, 1910, enables local education authorities to give boys and girls under seventeen years of age information, advice, and assistance with respect to the child's employment. In view of the fact that the Education Bill introduces compulsory attendance at continuation schools up to eighteen, we think that education authorities should be afforded the opportunity of giving boys and girls assistance with respect to the child's employment up to the age when the obligation to attend the continuation school ceases. This will be a considerable convenience.
    Sir F. BANBURY: What is meant by the word "assistance"! Does it mean that the local education authority should be able to give pecuniary assistance?
    Mr. FISHER: No.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Transfer of Powers in Certain Cases to Non-County Boroughs or Urban District.)
    (1) The Board of Education may, after such inquiry as they think fit, make an Order providing that all or any of the powers and duties of a county council under Part III. of the Education Act, 1902, exercised by such county council in relation to any non-county borough or urban district, the population of which is shown by the last preceding Census to have attained the number of twenty thousand, shall be transferred to the council of the said non-county borough or urban district, and as and from the date specified in the said Order the powers and duties to which the Order relates shall be transferred to the council of the said non-county borough or urban district accordingly.
    (2) An Order made under this Section by the Board of Education shall, unless the council of the county and the council of the borough or urban district concerned consent, be provisional only, and shall require confirmation by Parliament.
    (3) An Order made under this Section shall contain the necessary provisions for the adjustment of property, rights, and liabilities as between the borough or district and the county in which the borough or district is situated, and such incidental and consequential provisions as may appear necessary or expedient (including the modification of any scheme with reference to the system of education in force under the Act.
    (4) The Board of Education may submit to Parliament for confirmation any Order which requires confirmation by Parliament under this Section.
    (5) If when a Bill confirming an Order under this Section is pending in either House of Parliament, a petition is presented against any Order comprised therein, the Bill, so far as it relates to that Order, may be referred to a Select Committee, or, if the two Houses of Parliament think fit so to order, to a Joint Committee of both Houses, and the petitioner shall be allowed to appear and oppose as in the case of Private Bills.—[Major Newman.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Major NEWMAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    4.0 P.M.
    This Clause is inverted, so to speak, from one of the stillborn Education Bills which preceded the present Bill. I do not myself claim to be an educationist. I have not yet spoken on this Bill and I have not drafted this, but I suggested in what part of the Bill it might be inserted, supposing that it should be adopted by the Government, and I suggest that it should be inserted after Clause 6 of the Bill. That Clause enables certain education areas to federate. My Clause suggests that certain powers of devolution from the county council to certain urban districts and other councils who have attained a certain limit of population should be given. In this Bill there is a somewhat remarkable first Clause—a progressive, comprehensive organisation of education. When I read the Bill I was struck by that Clause, which was very unusual, and I was inclined to put down an Amendment to it, when I saw that the hon. Member for North Somerset had done so. It is intended that this Bill is to be progressive. We want it to be a Bill for people who will work education in a progressive manner. Surely what is wanted in each area is a small band of men who are educational enthusiasts, who will get together and work in a special area, and will, in fact, get something done. I am not for a
    1748
    moment intending to say a word against county councils. I am, indeed, a council man; but I stand for small councils, small areas, and small bodies as against big councils, big areas, and big bodies. Take the case of the county council which looks after the great county one of the divisions of which I have the honour to represent. Surely the Middlesex County Council has almost more than it can do? It has to look after the affairs of a population more than twice the size of that of New Zealand and about half the size of that of Australia. And, apart from that, it is a population which is growing year by year, and which, fifteen years hence, will make Middlesex an area of garden cities, the county being practically all built over. It is obvious that in process of time a county council dealing with a population of something like 3,500,000 will find itself tied by red-tape and will become bureaucratic. Already something of that nature has happened, and perhaps I may be allowed to read an extract from a letter written by the clerk of one of the urban district councils in the Division of Enfield, which I represent, an extract which shows how urgent it is that this new Clause should be introduced into the Bill. The writer of the letter says:
    "One instance of the disadvantage of education in this district being in the hands of the county council is as follows: Under the Elementary Education (Administrative Provisions) Act. 1907, the education authorities have power to provide medical treatment for the children attending the elementary schools. The Middlesex County Council have not done so, so far as this district is concerned. On either side of us, at Wood Green and Enfield, where the administration of education is in the hands of the local council, there are medical clinics for the school children. Here we have none. A recent answer by Mr. Fisher in the House stated that during 1916, 276 authorities provided treatment and forty-three have no facilities for treatment. We are amongst the latter and have the privilege of assisting through the taxes in paying for the medical treatment in the former. The council are not anxious to set up the suggestion that the Middlesex County Council are negligent in their duties, but in this instance medical treatment would undoubtedly have been provided for the children if the matter had been in the hands of the district council instead of the county council."
    That is a concrete example of what may happen in the future. That sort of treatment damps down enthusiasm. It means that if a man enthusiastic in education wants something done and finds himself handicapped by the superior authority of the county council, with the result that he cannot get what he wants

    1749
    and what his council wants, he becomes tired, and retires. That is the sort of thing my Clause is intended to prevent. Take Clause 17 of this Bill. It deals with holidays, school camps, and so on. What a comparatively well-to-do go-ahead urban district council, with a valuable rateable area might want to do in these matters might not prove acceptable to the county council of a great county. The county council would turn down the progressive go-ahead scheme for this particular district on the ground that it was not suitable to the whole county. We want to avoid that sort of thing. Then, again, there is the question of the hardships suffered by urban district councils which, in 1902, just failed to reach the population limit, and have now gone far beyond that limit, and yet have to remain under the control of the county council. Take, again, the case of the urban district council which I have in my mind. It failed in 1902 to reach the population limit. It has now a population of 40,000, and it is certain that in fifteen years' time its population will be over 60,000. Is it not very hard that such a population should in educational matters remain under the control of the county council? There are counties in England with a population of barely 70,000 at the present time which have county councils with full powers in these matters. In the case I am referring to we have a progressive, up-to-date council, with a big and valuable rateable area, which wants to go ahead, and yet because in 1902 it was in the unfortunate position of not quite reaching the population limit it is unable to control educational matters for itself.
    There are, I think, fifteen urban district councils which come within the limit now who ought to have these powers, and therefore I do suggest to the President of the Board of Education the desirability of making this small concession. If the right hon. Gentleman will read the new Clause he will find that it is purely permissive. It is hedged round with restrictions of all sorts. If I had had the drafting of it, it would not have contained those restrictions. But they are there, and as they have been approved by these urban district councils, I hope the Government will accept the Clause. I can imagine the right hon. Gentleman will say that he does not want to upset the bargain of 1902. I really do not know what that bargain was. I am aware that that Act lost me my election in 1906. It
    1750
    was forced through the House of Commons against the will of one of the parties of the State. Sow we are carrying this Bill through by agreement. But I do suggest that there will be nothing contrary to the bargain in meeting the reasonable wishes of those who support this new Clause.
    Mr. FISHER: If this were indeed a Clause which could be accepted by general agreement the Government would have no difficulty in adopting it, but, so far from it being that, it is of a highly controversial character. It seeks to multiply the number of authorities and to curtail the rating powers of county councils, and it would meet with strong opposition from county councils all over the country. In view of the fact that it is the settled principle of this Bill not to disturb existing educational areas, and not to revolutionise the general administrative system of the country, the Government feels that it is unable to accept this new Clause. It will be perhaps in the recollection of the Committee that the Education Bill introduced in 1917 contained provisions under which, in certain circumstances, and by the machinery of a Provisional Order, the areas of existing Part III. authorities could be merged in the area of the county council, and the Part III. authorities would consequently cease to exist. But that proposal was omitted from the present, Bill for the reason which I stated in the House of Commons, that the Bill did not propose to interfere with the educational machinery set up by the Act of 1902, and that Clause was regarded as involving a breach of the pledge in that respect. In view of these circumstances, I am unable to accept the new Clause, which seeks to carry out an object which, to my mind, is involved in more doubt and difficulty than the course which was contemplated in the Bill of 1917. Under the machinery of the Clause which I have alluded to in the Bill of 1917, it was proposed to make it possible to diminish the number of local educational authorities in the county. The proposal of the hon. Member, however, would have a contrary effect, and for these reasons the Government feel that they cannot accept this Clause.
    Mr. BOOTH: As a representative of a non-county borough and as one who has been connected with urban district councils since they were formed, I want to support this Clause. There is no doubt

    1751
    there is a great deal of feeling in the country among some of our best local government administrators that a step of devolution of this kind should be taken. I am afraid there is no answer at present to the statement of the Minister that this proposal would raise opposition from the county councils. But we are always prepared for that; indeed, it is impossible to champion district councils and the smaller boroughs in this House without the big authorities coming down and pouncing upon us. Our experience in such matters as gas and water is that we get far better treatment from a, commercial company than from these big authorities. I am certain that in these matters they pursue a mistaken policy. But I am inclined to think that the county councils are rather overburdened, and therefore on such questions as education they should welcome the assistance and help which these smaller bodies might well give. If they would permit these smaller bodies in some way to co-operate, without doing harm to or undermining their own powers, I am sure the smaller bodies would fall in with the suggestion. But the tendency is for the bigger authorities to say, "We do not want your help; we do not want you to interfere."
    I was thankful to notice in the speech of the Minister an indication that the Government, at any rate, are not so un-reasonable as that, and that they would be willing, if some plan could be put forward which would not arouse controversy, to see a step taken in this direction. Surely, we have got centralisation enough in this Bill? It would have been very much appreciated if somewhere in the four corners of this measure there had been a real power of devolution which would have afforded an opportunity to some of these hard-working authorities to take their place in the ranks of the workers on educational matters. Many persons in these urban centres have given a good deal of attention to educational subjects. They know the conditions, and they are anxious to render service. The county council will allow these persons to attend to drains, sanitary conditions and things of that kind, but, when it comes to important matters such as education, they are not permitted to interfere. Among the members of these local authorities are a large number of school managers and some who have been teachers, and they would like to take part
    1752
    in the work of education, but the county council is not prepared to give them an opportunity. In the West Riding there are a great many urban districts where those interested in education reside, and they cannot spare the time to travel to the headquarters of the county council in order to attend to educational matters, and, though their interest in educational work is intense, and they are anxious to do something useful, yet they are prevented from doing so. I would point out, further, that the county council cannot enforce attendance in various towns in the efficient manner of those who dwell in the different districts. You must have local people to do that work, and to take their share in the constructive part of education. I very much regret the answer given by the President of the Board of Education, but I hope that before very long he will see whether he cannot devise some way in which these various county boroughs and urban district councils may have their claim met to take part in the educational work of the country.
    Mr. KING: The position we find ourselves in is this: When this Education Bill was introduced first, it had certain provisions in it, and when they were criticised we were told that they were very good, that they had received a very great deal of consideration, that they were most valuable, and that we must stand by them. After a little time there was a second edition of the Bill, in which it was found that certain powers and objects that were contained in the first Bill had disappeared. Later on, there was the third Education Bill, in which various other objects and powers, were thrown overboard. We who are educationists are trying to put back in the third Bill what we considered was excellent in the first edition, and then the President of the Board of Education makes a facing-both-ways speech. When one gets up to criticise him, he talks to his companions on the Treasury Bench, and apparently it is very convenient for him not to listen to what is said. All I can say is that these matters are taken note of, and we hope that, on a future day, first impressions and first resolutions will be reverted to, and that the educational objects and machinery which ought to be in this Bill will have some chance of consideration.
    Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Dismissal of Teachers in Non-Provided Schools.)
    Notwithstanding anything contained in the contract between the managers of a non-provided school and a teacher, a teacher in a non-provided school shall not be dismissed by the managers without the previous consent of the local education authority, unless the dismissal be on grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction in the school, and before any such consent is given the local education authority shall hear and consider any representation that may be made to them on the subject by the teacher.
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir JOHN BUTCHER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This Clause, which stands in my name, is to safeguard the position of teachers in non-provided schools, and to ensure that no teacher will be dismissed by the managers of the non-provided school without the consent of the local education authority. This matter is not a new one. It was debated at very considerable length in the House of Commons, when the Act of 1902 was passed, and I think I shall command the universal agreement of the House when I say that it was absolutely intended by the House of Commons, in 1902, that the teachers should have this protection; in other words, that they should not be dismissed by the managers without the consent of the local education authority. I know that my right hon. Friend will agree with me in that. In fact it is not arguable to the contrary. Therefore, I think I may refrain from arguing the question whether the principle of my Clause is right or not, for any man of ordinary fairness would desire to safeguard the position of the teachers, and would say that the teacher should not be left to be dismissed arbitrarily by a body of managers for some reason which was apparently good, though was probably bad, but that the teacher should be safeguarded by making it necessary that the consent of the local education authority must be given before the dismissal could take effect. Of course, the Clause does not deal with dismissals connected with the giving of religious instruction in the schools.
    Why has this Clause become necessary? It has become necessary for this reason: The question has come before the Courts of law on more than one occasion. Everyone is familiar with what happened in Parliament in regard to this question, but the Courts of law decided that, according to the wording of the Act of
    1754
    1902, that a teacher was dismissable by the managers without the consent of the local education authority. I think this was a great surprise to anyone who had followed the controversy at all. Then came another decision of the Courts of law, which said that the previous decision was wrong, and that the teachers could not be dismissed by the managers without the consent of the local education authorities. Then came a third case. Perhaps this is not very creditable to the Law Courts, but these accidents happen, sometimes partly owing to the bad drafting of the House of Commons. In the third case, it was decided that the teacher could be dismissed by the managers without the consent of the local education authorities.
    The case was carried to the Court of Appeal, many people thinking that they would get the matter redressed once for all. But the Court of Appeal did not decide the case on the main point at issue between the previous decisions of the Courts below, and so the matter stands. Two of the Law Courts deciding one way, and the third the other way, while the Court of Appeal did not deal with the main issue at all. I do not at all doubt that my right hon. Friend would accept the Clause without demur but for one fact. There is, I understand, an appeal to the House of Lords on this question from the Court of Appeal. Various things may occur in regard to that appeal to the House of Lords. It may be dropped, or the decision of the House of Lords may be in the same sense as the decision of the Court of Appeal; or it may be evaded, and then we will be left in the present state of muddle; or, again, the Lords might decide in a sense adverse, in which case legislation would obviously be necessary to set the matter right. I submit to my hon. Friends two alternatives. Let him accept this Clause as it stands, so as to give effect to the undoubted intention of the House of Commons. It would not be retrospective, and it would not affect the decision of the House of Lords, the case having come before the Courts of law before the Clause was passed. Nor would it interfere with anyone's rights; it would affect no one adversely, and it would establish now the principle which the House of Commons really intended to establish in 1902. If my right hon. Friend sees any difficulty in accepting the Clause, pending the decision of the House of Lords, then I

    1755
    would ask, in case the decision of the House of Lords was not favourable to the teacher, that he should immediately introduce legislation to give effect to the Clause that I propose. If he will give that assurance, then, for my own part, I think that might be sufficient. But if the right hon. Gentleman cannot give that assurance, I should feel myself bound, in the interests of the teacher, and in order to carry out what was unquestionably the desire of the House of Commons in 1902, to go to a Division. I trust, however, my right hon. Friend will give a satisfactory assurance, and will see that the rights of the teachers, as expressly intended by the House of Commons, are maintained.
    Mr. KING: I wish only very briefly to say that I think that the proposal of the Mover of this new Clause is entirely right, and it affords me great pleasure, although I am very often opposed to him strongly in matters of this kind, and on many points connected with education, to give him my whole-hearted support. May I suggest only one thing—perhaps the Attorney-General will listen to the suggestion—that possibly this Clause could be accepted as safeguarding the interests of the teachers pending litigation, so as not to override any decisions which are now pending in the Law Courts. There have been cases, of course, where legislation has been passed in this House pending decisions in the Law Courts, and I think we have had recent examples of that kind in the House. Possibly, while safeguarding litigation already begun, the Clause might be accepted. Of course, it is quite obvious that sooner or later, if litigation takes away the rights of teachers, legislation will be required in some form or other.
    Sir HENRY HIBBERT: I am not surprised that this Amendment has been moved. I think it is very necessary that it should be made sure that a teacher cannot be dismissed without the consent of the local education authority. I may state that in Lancashire, long ago, a small committee was established to deal with these matters. We found it was absolutely necessary to appoint such a body to deal as arbitrators between the managers of the schools and the teachers. I have only one other word to say, that in Lancashire there is great cordiality
    1756
    between the teachers and the local education authorities, as the result of the tribunal which has been set up.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I am not convinced by the arguments of the hon. Member for North Somerset. I am not at all certain that the House of Commons in 1902 intended that the Clause of my hon. and learned Friend should be carried into effect. It is quite easy to get up now and say that the House of Commons intended certain things in 1902, but it is very difficult at this date to prove that was the case. Both my hon. and learned Friend and myself were in the House in 1902. I took considerable interest in the Education Bill of that year, and I think that if any such intention had been shown at that time, it would have been put into the Bill. It must be remembered that in 1902 there was considerable difference of opinion among various sections in the House as to the non-provided schools, and there was a very large body of opinion, of which, I think, my hon. and learned Friend (Sir J. Butcher) was one, who desired that all the rights of the non-provided schools should be maintained. I listened to what the hon. Member (Sir H. Hibbert) said about Lancashire, but it does seem to me that if you say that the managers of a non-provided school are not to have the power to dismiss a teacher, except on religious questions, without the consent of the local education authority, you may be making the relations between the teachers and the managers in the non-provided schools very unpleasant, and you are taking away altogether the power of the managers and saying, to all intents and purposes, that they are not to be the managers, but the local education authority are, because if the managers cannot dismiss their teachers, they will practically have no authority in their schools. I venture to hope, especially in view of the fact that litigation is proceeding at the present time, and that it was understood that this Bill should do nothing to injure the non-provided schools, that the Government will not accept the Clause.
    Sir J. YOXALL: The safeguard given in the Bill of 1902 to teachers in the non-provided schools was very clear. Prior to that date they had in many cases been dismissed for non-educational reasons by managers, and the scandal had become so great that Sir John Gorst, when he represented

    1757
    the Board of Education in this House, brought in a Bill to give them a right of appeal against such dismissal, but when the Bill of 1902 set up the local education authorities the right of appeal was then given to those authorities. The managers were to appoint the head teacher of the denominational school, and were to see that he belonged to that particular denomination; and they were to see also that he carried out his work of religious instruction in the school in a way satisfactory to themselves, and if he failed, or in any way came short in connection with the religious instruction, they retained the right to dismiss him for that reason. But, for all other reasons than that, their right to dismiss him was subject to the assent of the local education authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley has said, in Lancashire, and in nearly all the counties in this country, and in most of the county boroughs, there has been set up a committee to investigate the charges between teachers and managers of schools, and these committees sit and hear what is to be said by both sides, or by friends of both sides, and they decide the questions, and they work smoothly. If a teacher deserves to be dismissed, he is dismissed; or if he deserves not to be dismissed, he is retained in his post. But by some unfortunate accident of judge-made law that happy state of things has been interfered with, and the situation before the Committee is this, that, if possible, we should like very much that the President of the Board of Education should accept the new Clause which has been proposed. But if he says, as he may possibly say, that the question is pending in the House of Lords, and that he cannot undertake now to legislate for a situation which may not eventually arise at all, I can understand him. I think, however, he ought to give us some understanding that provided that the decision of the House of Lords upholds the decision of the Court of Appeal, he will then introduce the necessary Amendment to put this matter right.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I hope my right hon. Friend will accept this new Clause. It is a matter which ought not to be decided merely on technicalities of the law, because it has a great effect on the whole structure of education. I believe that this Bill will not succeed unless you get
    1758
    some improvement in the position of the teachers. That would be a fundamental and necessary condition of any success in the working of the measure. We have tried to bring about an improvement in regard to payment, but the status and fixity of tenure of teachers has long been a question of the most difficult kind. The position of the teacher has been so precarious, so uncertain, so liable to the whim and caprice of a small body of managers, that the teacher, apart altogether from his pay, has been greatly injured owing to that fact. The principle upon which those of us who have been making every effort to establish and consolidate the position of the teachers have gone is to give an appeal from a small body of managers to some larger body. Such an appeal in the case of non-provided schools is given if there is an appeal to the local authority. That gives some sound fixity of position to the teacher. Of course, in the case of non-provided schools, you must reserve the right to dismiss on grounds connected with the religious teaching, and that we do not wish to change, but on other grounds it is a matter not merely of detail, but of fundamental and vital principle, that the appeal of the teacher to the local authority should be preserved. And if it has been taken away by varied legal decisions I think it is of the greatest importance, when the matter is now again before Parliament, that the principle should be reaffirmed, as my right hon. Friend will reaffirm it by accepting the Clause.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir F. Smith): As the matter raised by my hon. and learned Friend (Sir J. Butcher) is, at least in some of its aspects, a little technical, my right hon. Friend has asked me to reply on behalf of the Department. I hope that no one will think that anybody on this bench—certainly no one who has given attention to the education question as, in one capacity or another, I have done for many years in this House, taking part in education Debates for, I suppose, twelve years—is indifferent to the considerations insisted upon by my right hon. Friend who has just addressed the Committee. Everybody must agree that anything that can reasonably and properly be done to increase the prestige, the freedom, and the independence of the teacher ought to be done. But that conclusion by no means involves the

    1759
    further conclusion that the new Clause that has been moved is one that the Government ought to adopt, and I say quite plainly, at the outset, for reasons which I hope I shall be able to recommend to the Committee, that we are not able to adopt the Clause. The Amendment proposes to alter the existing law in three different respects, which is an ambitious performance for a new Clause at the end of a complicated Bill brought forward in war-time. In the first place, as the law stands at present, it has been decided that Section 7 of the Education Act, 1902, which regulates the relations between local education authorities and the managers, does not confer any special privilege upon the teacher or prevent the managers from dismissing a teacher in their employment just as they could dismiss any other person in their employment. Undoubtedly one result does follow from the dismissal of a teacher by the managers on grounds other than grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction, and that result is that the local education authority ceases to maintain the school, and the school consequently is no longer rate-aided.
    The Amendment proposes that the dismissal of a teacher by the managers on grounds unconnected with the giving of religious instruction and without the consent of the local education authority shall be absolutely invalid. What follows from that? If a teacher is so dismissed he will apply to the Courts for a mandamus to restrain the managers from dismissal. That is the first respect in which my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment alters the law. In the second place, the Amendment requires that the dismissal shall be with the previous consent of the local education authority, which is not, of course, required by the law at the present time; and, in the third place, the Amendment requires that before the consent is given the local education authority shall hear and consider any representations which may be made to them on the subject by the teacher. One must go back in this connection to Section 7 of the Act of 1902, which says that the local education authority shall maintain public elementary schools not provided by them, so long as certain conditions and provisions are complied with. In the first place, the managers are required to carry out the
    1760
    directions of the local education authority in the dismissal of any teacher on educational grounds, and if the managers fail to carry out any such directions the local authority shall, in addition to their other powers, have power to carry out the directions themselves. It is necessary to refer to this Section, because the proposed new Clause requires the local education authority to hear and consider the representations of the teacher before they consent to his dismissal. What follows from that? The new Clause does not require them to hear and consider the representations before they themselves direct dismissal, and still less does it require them to hear and consider the representations before they dismiss a teacher in the council schools. It will, therefore, be seen that the effect of the Clause is almost incredibly anomalous. It puts a teacher in a non-provided school in a position of privilege as compared with the teacher in a provided school, and the question whether a teacher was entitled to be heard in a non-provided school would depend upon what really is only an accident, and his right to be heard would be less in those very cases in which there would be most ground for hearing him. That is to say, if the managers and the local education authorities were both agreed that he should be dismissed, he would be entitled to be heard; but if the managers were strongly of opinion that he ought not to be dismissed and the local authority dismissed him over the heads of the managers, he would not be entitled to be heard. Whatever is to be said in favour of the Amendment it cannot, I think, he said that it has attempted any very clear-sighted or fair consideration of the claims of teachers in these two different class of schools.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I am quite prepared to drop the last two lines of my new Clause.
    Sir F. SMITH: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for recognising the force of the observations I have made by offering to cut out a part of his Clause, but I think that what I am about to say may show him that his object, with which the Government is not in the very least out of sympathy, is one which really cannot conveniently or even fairly be met in the particular manner proposed by the hon. and learned Member. The consent of the local education authority is required to the dismissal of a teacher, unless the

    1761
    dismissal be on grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction. The result of the Amendment under this head also is very arbitrary. If a teacher is dismissed with the consent of the body responsible to the ratepayers, and with a full sense of responsibility, he is entitled to be heard; but if he is dismissed by a body which is not responsible to the ratepayers and on grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction, he is not entitled to be heard. Experience has shown that cases of alleged hardship connected with dismissal arise quite as frequently out of dismissal on grounds of religious instruction as out of dismissal on grounds relating to secular instruction. That is the answer which I venture to make to the general point made by my right hon. Friend; but with respect to the litigation upon which my hon. and learned Friend dwelt, and upon which he is naturally qualified to express an opinion, I suspect the case which really suggested itself to him in putting this new Clause down is that of Harries and Crawford.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: There are two other cases.
    Sir F. SMITH: Yes, but they are in a different position. Inasmuch as the case of Harries and Crawford has suggested this Clause, if I am to deal with the case at all, I must ask the Committee to be patient while I tell them very shortly bow that case arose and what is the present stage of the case. It is on the present position of that case that I base an appeal to the Committee not to support this Clause at this stage. In the case of Harries and Crawford the diocesan inspector came to an elementary school and put to the pupils certain questions on religious knowledge which, at the trial of the ease, it was admitted the children were unable to answer. The headmaster wrote a letter complaining of the character of the inspection, and it was regarded by the managers as an impertinent letter, and so characterised by them. The managers of a public elementary school are entitled to have that school maintained, under Section 7 of the Act of 1902, so long as they comply with certain conditions, and one of the conditions is that the teacher shall not be dismissed without the consent of the local education authority, except on grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction in the school. In this case the managers
    1762
    dismissed the teacher in consequence of the letter, and then a question arose, capable of infinitely long disputation, as to whether he was dismissed for impertinence or whether he was dismissed on grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction. Mr. Justice Peterson, who had the case before him in the Court of First Instance, said the master had no right to ask for an injunction against the managers to restrain them from dismissing him. My hon. and learned Friend seeks to correct that decision. The case came to the Court of Appeal, which decided that the master was dismissed on grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction, and consequently it was unnecessary to decide the further question whether, if the dismissal had been through impertinence, the consent of the education authority was necessary. This case has now been taken to the House of Lords. It is quite true that, as my hon. and learned Friend says, theoretically the appeal to the House of Lords may be abandoned. On the other hand, there is no reason whatever to assume that it will be abandoned. In fact, such information as I possess is strongly in the contrary sense. The matter is being carried to the House of Lords, and will be tried there. My hon. and learned Friend, who is himself a very distinguished member of the Bar, and understands these things very clearly, is really asking the Committee to do a thing which, within my knowledge, the House of Commons has not been asked to do. He is asking us, when a matter is actually on its way to the House of Lords, and upon which the House of Lords will in due course give a decision, with all the authority of the highest appellant tribunal in the land, to anticipate their decision, and in Parliament to decide the very point which is now on the way to the Lords, and which the House of Lords may decide in the very sense my hon. and learned Friend's Clause requires.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Or may not.
    Sir F. SMITH: I am surprised to hear my hon. Friend say that. If he means that it is not proper for the House of Commons to wait and see whether the House of Lords does not decide in that sense, I am rather surprised. I advance a counter proposition. What has been said in this Debate to-day will certainly not be forgotten. Arguments have been addressed to the Government, including

    1763
    those of my hon. and learned Friend, whose views are entitled to very great respect. They have been given that respect, and we concede that there is much substance behind what has been said. But when we are asked to anticipate what the House of Lords may do, and not wait to see what they will do, I think such a proposal is extremely un-reasonable. It is not really respectful to the highest appellant tribunal, and it might not be necessary. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will allow it to remain in this way: So far as the Government are concerned, we share his desire that the security of tenure and independence and prestige of teachers in these schools, as in all schools, should be protected by the Government by every reasonable means in their power, and if my hon. and learned Friend asks me to be more precise, in case the decision of the House of Lords should be against him, I am prepared, with the authority of my right hon. Friend, to go this length, but no further, and to say that if the decision in the House of Lords should be adverse to the contentions which are put forward by my hon. and learned Friend, we should be prepared to recommend proposals, the result of which would be to limit the right of the managers to the suspension of the teacher until an opportunity had been afforded to the local education authority to examine the facts and pronounce upon the facts after such examination. I do not think my hon. and learned Friend, on consideration, would be prepared to deny to the managers, who know the facts, the power of suspension until such time as the local education authority was afforded an opportunity of examining the facts. This assurance will, I hope, be treated as evidence of the real desire of the Government to concede every point of substance which has been raised in this new Clause, and as what I have said will naturally be recorded, should my hon. and learned Friend's apprehensions as to the decision of the House of Lords be well founded, he will be in a position to ask that the assurance I have given shall be made good. It will be made good. While meeting every point of substance brought forward, the Government is not prepared to deny to the managers, who know all the facts, and are in immediate contact with the circumstances, the power of suspension
    1764
    pending the examination of the facts by the local education authority and their pronouncement upon them.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: As I understand my right hon. and learned Friend, the assurance he gives the Committee is totally inadequate. The point which was raised, and was supported by every speaker except, I believe, the junior Member for the City of London, was this: Aye or no, should the teacher in the non-provided school be dismissed by the managers without the consent of the local education authority? Anything more simple I cannot imagine. Now my right hon. Friend, when asked if he would give an assurance that, if the House of Lords decision was adverse to the teacher, he would introduce a Bill to give effect to that simple proposition, declined, but he would give an assurance that the teacher should not be finally dismissed until the local education authority had time to examine the matter. Does that mean or does it not mean that the consent of the local education authority is required to the dismissal?
    Sir F. SMITH: I am astonished at my hon. Friend's question. I said in the plainest possible manner that the managers should have the right of suspending the teacher until the local education authority examined the facts, and pronounced upon the facts after such examination.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I know my right hon. and learned Friend is astonished at my stupidity. I am astonished at his obscurity. Let us discuss this with calmness. What I want to know is, supposing the local education authority, after examining the facts, come to the conclusion that they will not give their consent to the dismissal of the teacher, then does the teacher remain?
    Sir F. SMITH: Certainly. I said so twice.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: If that is so, that gives effect to the simple proposition I put forward, namely, that the managers should not have the power of dismissal without the consent of the local education authority. If that is clear, that is quite sufficient for my purpose, and on that assurance I am quite prepared to withdraw my Clause.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: Next upon the Paper are two Clauses, standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset—
    Mr. KING: I do not propose to move the first—(Employment Conditions)—in any case.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is out of order. With regard to the second—(Size of Classes)—the hon. Member proposes to introduce in the form of a new Clause a matter which is usually a matter for a code of regulations. I cannot quite say that is out of order, but it would be possible to go through the whole Code, from one end to the other, and have a multitude of new Clauses, if the practice were followed. I think the hon. Member will bear that in mind.
    Mr. KING: I will.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Size, of Classes.)
    The staffing of an elementary school shall provide for not more than forty scholars being taught by any teacher, and the staffing of a secondary school shall provide for not more than twenty-five scholars being so taught.—[Mr. King.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I move it on these grounds: I want to assert the right of this Committee to deal with these questions.
    The CHAIRMAN: That might form a precedent, and I have to assert the right of the Chair. It is a very doubtful question, introducing administrative matters into a Bill, and, therefore, I reserve the full right of the Chair to decide on those matters.
    Mr. KING: Entirely, Sir. I hope you quite understand that in claiming the right of Parliament I do not in any way wish to traverse the right of the Chair?
    5.0 P.M.
    I beg to move this Clause in the hope that we may have from the President of the Board of Education some indication that he intends, with the immense amount of new Grants he is giving to the schools, to reduce the size of the classes, especially during this war-time. Has he been into some of the London schools, where there is terrible overcrowding, and where classes of fifty or sixty are being taught? This, of course, is incidental to
    1766
    the times and conditions under which we are living. I want him to say that something like the standard I have here should be adopted—that in elementary schools forty scholars and no more shall be taught by any one teacher, and that in secondary schools twenty-five scholars are enough for one teacher. Will he, at all events, state that this is the ideal to which he is going to work? We are giving him an immense increase of funds. Do not let us take it out of the teachers and out of the children by overcrowding the classes, by putting a great number of scholars under the care of one teacher. I wish to add only one other remark I was brought up in a public school under one of the greatest educationists that this country has produced in the way of headmasters. One of the principles with which his teaching was always associated was that "every child has as much right here as any other child to individual attention from the teacher and a fair chance to make something out of the teaching that he is receiving." He deduced from that that you must have a limited number for each teacher, or else those who were inclined to lag behind, or who wanted a little more personal attention to be brought up to the standard of the class, would not be looked after. I believe that to be a sound educational principle. If you are going to do justice to the child and justice to the classes, you must have a practical limit placed upon the size of the classes. With that object I beg to move my Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think I may refer to what I said before the hon. Member for North Somerset made his speech on his Amendment. His speech has convinced me that I was right in my caution. This is really an administrative matter and hardly conies within our present purview.
    Mr. FISHER: The Committee realises, and I believe the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment realises, that this is a class of Amendment which cannot be accepted by the Government. I gather that he wishes me, if I can do nothing else, to make some declaration of policy in relation to the size of glasses. It is obvious that I cannot commit myself to any precise figure. At the same time I can assure the hon. Member that the Board of Education is fully alive to the point. The influence of the Board will be consistently

    1767
    and continuously exercised in the direction in which the hon. Member desires that it should be exercised.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Compensation to Existing Officers.)
    Section one hundred and twenty of the Local Government Act, 1888, which relates to coin pensation to existing officers, shall apply to officers serving under local education authorities at the passing of this Act who, by virtue of this Act or anything done in pursuance or in consequence of this Act suffer direct pecuniary loss by abolition of office or by diminution or loss of fees or salary, subject as follows:—

    (a) Teachers in public elmentary school maintained by a local education authority shall be deemed to be officers serving under that authority;

    (b) References to a county council shall include references to a borough or urban district council;

    (c) The reference to "the passing of this Act" shall be construed as a reference to the date when the loss arose;

    (d) The reference to the Acts and rules relating to His Majesty's Civil Service shall be construed as a reference to the Acts and rules which were in operation at the date of the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888; and

    (e) Any expenses shall be paid by the council under whom the officer was serving at the date when the loss arose out of the fund or rate out of which the expenses of the council under the Education Acts are paid, and, if any compensation is payable otherwise than by way of an annual sum, the payment of that compensation shall be a purpose for which a council may borrow for the purposes of those Acts.—[Sir J. Yoxall.]

    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir J. YOXALL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    In moving to insert in the Bill the new Clause I have put on the Paper, may I say that there are Clauses in this Bill which may bring about alterations in the areas of the local education authorities and the closing of schools. There may be in other portions of the Bill Clauses which will produce effects which may, and almost certainly will, be injurious to the teachers and other persons who may rank as officers under the local education authorities, which effects should be guarded against, if possible, or at any rate for which compensation should be provided in the ordinary way. Those teachers who are employed in council schools—that is in provided schools—are by the law of the land officers of the local education authority. They have a statutory right to compensation according to the method
    1768
    prescribed in such cases. It has not yet been laid down that teachers in non-provided schools are equally officers and have equal rights in regard to compensation. The principle has been laid down in a good many private Bills. The local legislation committee, again and again in dozens, if not scores, of cases, have approved the principle, and this House upon Second Reading subsequently has adopted the principle in the local Bills whereby alteration in the area of a local authority, or where in other ways a, teacher in a non-provided school became endangered or suffered from anything which arose out of the operation of that particular Bill, carried with it compensation. All I am asking the Committee to do now, and I very much hope they will agree to it—I trust the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education will feel it is the right thing to do!—is to provide that teachers, whether they be council or non-council teachers, or are in provided or non-provided schools, who suffer, or who are ejected through no fault of their own from some post or office attendant upon a change of area or by a particular Clause of this Bill when it begins to operate; that such teachers or officers, blameless in the matter, shall have the proper amount of compensation paid in the proper way, just as compensation is provided similarly for other servants and other persons in the public employ who are ejected through no fault of their own from an office. That is the main purpose of the new Clause. The remainder deals with technical results and methods, and so forth, whereby this compensation is provided. I am not asking the Committee to adopt anything unusual and outside the ordinary practice of local government. We are looking forward to the decision of the case in the House of Lords. However that may be decided, I desire that in this Act we should show no animosity towards one form of school or another—that the same protection and compensation should be extended and given as to teachers in the council schools.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lewis): I am glad to be able to accept this Amendment. I believe that the oases my hon. Friend has in view in his Amendment will be few and far between. Whether few or many, it is only just that the teachers, in the words of the Amendment, who "in consequence of this Act suffer direct pecuniary loss" should be

    1769
    compensated. The principle involved is an active one. It was put into the Act of 1902, and it seems to me that there can be no objection to its insertion in this Bill.
    Mr. BOOTH: I want to be clear upon one point. Those of us who have had experience of the compensation of dispossessed officers know that claims sometimes come by surprise. If the effect of the Clause is, as explained by the right hon. Gentleman who moved it, then I am in entire sympathy with it, but I want to put this point: Supposing a teacher has the offer of another post commensurate with the one he holds, has he or has he not the choice of declining that post and of taking compensation?
    Sir J. YOXALL: No!
    Mr. BOOTH: I take that to be so, but I want an explicit statement from the Minister. It cannot be the same as abolition of office if he is offered a school in the neighbourhood or within a reasonable distance and he keeps in his own occupation. It is not, I say, the same as if he were dispossessed of his post and had to go into a different occupation. I should like it to be clear that, supposing a teacher declined a post in the same neighbourhood or even a little distance away, that then he would not have any claim to compensation.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the acceptance of this Clause, which I understand he proposes to accept, will largely add to the contemplated cost of the Bill? Will there be a very large increase of the estimate which the President made in introducing the Bill; if so, would he say a word or two upon that all-important but rarely noticed aspect of the question?
    Mr. LEWIS: I believe I can allay the alarm of the hon. Gentleman who last spoke. A similar provision to this was introduced into the Act of 1902. I believe no single claim for compensation has arisen. I doubt whether, as a matter of fact, any claim will arise here in consequence of this Amendment. This Amendment has been moved, and it has been accepted by me, as the lawyers say, ex abundanti cautela. As to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract, he will observe what the first paragraph of this new Clause says:
    "Section one hundred and twenty of the Local Government Act, 1888, which relates to
    1770
    compensation to existing officers, shall apply to officers serving under local education authorities at the passing of this Act who, by virtue of this Act or anything done in pursuance or in consequence of this Act, suffer direct pecuniary loss by abolition of office or by diminution or loss of fees or salary."
    Reference to Section 120 of the Local Government Act of 1888, which is a governing Act in this matter, shows that there are certain considerations that have to be taken into account. Regard has to be had to the conditions on which the payment was made, and so on—to all the emoluments which he might have acquired if he had not refused to accept the office offered by any body acting under this Act. Therefore, there seems to me to be no occasion for my hon. Friend's alarm.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment (Publicity), standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King), is covered by what has already been done.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I rise on behalf of my hon. Friend (Mr. King) to move the new Clause (Tests for Teachers) standing in his name.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must wait a bit. He is not entitled to move for another hon. Member now. He must wait until we have dealt with all the new Clauses.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 7 Edw. 7, c. 43.)
    Paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section thirteen of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, shall be amended so as to read "The duty to provide for the medical inspection of children immediately before or at the time of or as soon as possible after their admission to a public elementary school and on such other occasions as the Board of Education direct, and to make such arrangements as the Board of Education may direct and approve for attending to the health and physical condition of the children educated in public elementary schools."—[Mr. Bowntree.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. ROWNTREE: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The effect of the Clause will be clear. It wants taking in conjunction with Clause 18 of the Bill wherein it is enacted that the local education authority for the purposes of Part II. of the Education Act of 1902 shall have the same powers and duties with reference to making provision for the medical inspection and treatment

    1771
    of children and young persons as a local education authority for the purposes of Part III. of the Education Act, 1902, have under paragraph (b), Sub-section (1), of Section 13 of the Education (Administrative Pensions) Act, 1907. In that Subsection it is laid down that it is the duty of the authority to inspect the children and that they have power to provide treatment. The object of my Clause is to alter that Sub-section and to make it a duty not only to inspect children, but also to treat children. I feel that this is a Clause of very great importance, and I should like to say at once, that, though I think it is probably brought forward in the best way, I am not at all wedded to the actual words, and, if I get the substance, I shall be satisfied with any words that the right hon. Gentleman may think best. Any one who has read the masterly Reports that have been issued from the Board of Education under the signature of the Chief Medical Officer of Health for the past ten years must have been impressed with the extraordinary value of the work that has been done by that department of the Board. We feel that the facts that have come to light with regard to the condition of the children attending school have been of very great and vital importance to the country. It is immensely important at a time when we are passing a Bill of this magnitude through the House to consider what are the facts that have been revealed, with regard to the physical condition of the children. Let me take an extract from the Report of the Chief Medical Officer of Health for 1916. He says:
    "Of the children in attendance at school. 6,000,000, we know by medical inspection that many, though not specifically feeble-minded, are so dull and backward mentally as to be unable to derive full benefit from, their schooling. Upwards of 10 per cent. suffer from a like disability on account of uncleanliness, and 10 per cent. also are badly nourished."
    He then goes on to point out how not less than one half of the children suffer from dental troubles, how 500,000 have been found to suffer from defective sight, and how 250,000 suffer from complaints of the ear and throat. He then goes on to say:
    "And in addition there are numbers with skin diseases, weak hearts, and tuberculosis."
    He gives utterance to a very remarkable statement which I hope the Committee will consider very carefully. He says that 1,000,000 children are so physically or
    1772
    mentally defective or so diseased as to be unable to derive reasonable benefit from the education which the State provides. It really is an appalling statement that one-sixth of the children in these days are in such a state physically and mentally that they are unable to derive reasonable benefit from the education which the State provides. I have been surprised that that sentence has not been quoted against the right hon. Gentleman by some of those who are rather seeptical of his measure, because if it is impossible for 1,000,000 children to enjoy the full benefits of the education that is provided in the elementary schools, it goes without saying that it is impossible for them to get the full benefit of the continued education which the right hon. Gentleman is hoping to provide in the new schools which he is setting up. Figures like these have made a very deep impression upon all social students in the country, and they feel that to-day, when we are mourning the loss of so many lives, it is enormously important for us to do all that we can to make the best use of the young who are coming forward, not only for their own sakes and for the sake of the development of their personalities, but also for the sake of the general welfare of the country.
    If hon. Members have read the Chief Medical Officer's Report, they know perfectly well that a large amount of treatment has been undertaken by a number of progressive authorities, and that diseases and physical defects have in many cases been removed by the work-of the education authorities, who have treated the children in the schools or in some other way. The evidence of what has been done in a large number of districts, both rural and urban, in removing these defects by wise treatment, has naturally created a demand in the country that this treatment should be universal, and that it should be the duty of the education authority to treat these diseases in the same way that it is the duty of the authority to inspect the children. The Chief Medical Officer in his Report for 1916 says that not more than half of the children suffering from serious but remediable defects are cured of those defects during their school life. Not half at the present time are being treated. Yet these are defects that can be overcome by wise treatment, and the time has come for this House to take the opportunity of the passage of this Bill to ask the President of the Board of Education

    1773
    whether it is not possible to make treatment compulsory, at any rate in the elementary schools; and when I say "treament," of course I mean treatment in the broad and generous sense as defined in the Chief Medical Officer's Report. If hon. Members will look into this question, they will find that some of the results of the treatment are very remarkable indeed. I suppose, as far as clinics are concerned, the city of Bradford, perhaps, is the best example of an up-to-date service, and if hon. Members would get the last report of the medical officer of health for Bradford, they would find that the number of cases treated has advanced from 841 in 1908 to 14,559 in 1916. If you take two very serious defects, defective vision and defective throat, you will find that about 90 per cent. of the cases are dismissed as cured and the others are simply carried forward, the treatment not being finished.
    Take the case of 500,000 children in areas where there is no treatment at all, and you will find that in those areas, according to a reply given by my right hon. Friend a few days ago, it is estimated that 17 per cent. of those children are suffering from defective vision and 11 per cent. from defective hearing. There are 85,000 children suffering from defects of vision and 55,000 suffering from defects of hearing, and nothing is being done to remove those defects in those areas. The experience of Bradford and other places show that, at any rate, 90 per cent. of those cases would yield to treatment, and that those children, after treatment, might be considered cured of those defects.
    Mr. BOOTH: Are those figures cumulative? Are there not cases of blindness and deafness in the same children?
    Mr. ROWNTREE: Possibly some of the children are deaf as well as blind, but the figures do not show how many are blind and how many are deaf.
    Mr. BOOTH: But there will be a certain number?
    Mr. ROWNTREE: Yes. It seems to me that there are four points upon which there will be fairly general agreement, or at least I hope so. I submit, in the first place, that the imposition of the duty of inspection by the State carries with it as a natural corollary the duty of treatment, and that the one without the other is a barren remedy and really somewhat of a mockery. Secondly, I believe that there
    1774
    is general agreement that compulsory secondary education can never secure results in cases where the physical basis is poor. The extension of the aid demands a simultaneous treatment of the physical needs of the young, who are supposed to benefit by it. Thirdly, a healthy childhood is the foundation of education. Fourthly, that whilst we ask for this extended treatment because we want a full personality of the children developed, yet it is wise for us at this time to look at the question from the economic standpoint as well.
    There is a phrase, which my right hon. Friend uses in one of the Clauses setting up extended continuation classes, in which he speaks of helping the children to prepare for the freedom and responsibilities of adult life. I want to suggest that the first help we can give the children in order to prepare them for the freedom and responsibilities of adult life is to make them physically strong and fit. I am perfectly certain that my right hon. Friend will agree that this has a very important bearing on the industrial position as we find it to-day. In all up-to-date factories now it is the custom, and probably the right custom, to medically inspect applicants before they are placed on the list of employed. If some hon. Members have seen that inspection going on, they must again and again have felt how cruel it seems for a boy or a girl to be told, "You are not strong; you have got a physical defect, and you cannot be admitted to the factory." This is all the more cruel when you know that by wise treatment those physical defects could have been removed. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know that?"] I have tried to show that the facts, as revealed by the Chief Medical Officer of Health, prove that these defects can be remedied; that officer, in his Report, definitely said that there are 500,000 children who are not being medically treated, but who, if they were so treated, their defects could be remedied.
    This really has a very important bearing on the industrial position to-day. I am sure every hon. Member of this Committee is anxious to see a new level of wages in the country, and those who know something about industry are hopeful that a higher standard of wages may be attained; but if this is to be attained, it can only be done by having the men and women physically fit and in possession of all their powers and capacities. At the present

    1775
    time we know that in a number of districts in England year by year children are passing through these schools with these defects, and nothing is being done to remedy them and give those children the inestimable advantage of a healthy and vigorous physique. In support of what I say I ask hon. Members to look at some of the Reports that have recently been issued with regard to the health of munition workers, and if they will read those Reports they will see again and again references to the enormous importance of dealing with the health of the people when they are young. Here is a short extract:
    "There we are reminded that if a man is to live a life at the top of his capacity in body and mind and able to work with the highest powers and to grow in strength and the joy of life, the seeds of disease must be uprooted at their earliest beginning.
    The subject of industrial efficiency is in a larger degree one of preventive medicine."
    So, from all these standpoints, I hope my right hon. Friend will be able in this measure to go further than he has in the direction of securing further treatment for those in elementary schools. The Report for 1916 says:
    "It cannot be too clearly understood that every step in the direction of making and keeping school children healthy is a step towards diminishing the prevalence and lightening the burden of disease for the adults. A relatively small rise in the standard of child health may represent a disproportionately large gain in physical health capacity and energy of the people as a whole."
    I think my right hon. Friend will agree that this is a question which should have the most careful consideration by the Committee before the Bill leaves this House. Talking this question over with some of those who are doubtful about the wisdom of this Clause, two or three objections have been raised. I am told that there is a shortage of doctors, and that it will be very difficult to carry this Clause out. I admit there is a shortage of doctors, but there is a shortage of teachers as well, and I would remind those who think that that is a difficulty that the measure is very gradual in the way it comes into operation. I have also been told by some of my hon. Friends that it is unwise to do this pending the establishment of a Ministry of Health. No doubt there is something in that point, but I think it is important for us to bear in mind that a Ministry of Health has not been set up yet. We know the enormous
    1776
    difficulties between Department and Department which are preventing that Bill from being brought forward in this House. I would also remind those who use that argument of the fact that my right hon. Friend when he was dealing with this question of treatment upon an Amendment before the Committee the other day, said definitely that, as far as the Board of Education were concerned, they looked upon the arrangement as an interim arrangement, recognising that there might be certain changes made if the Bill for a Ministry of Health became an Act.
    I believe that those are the main objections to my proposal, and I hope the President and the Committee will feel that they are not adequate arguments to prevent the adoption of a Clause like this, which, I believe, would have the effect of doing so much to develop the health and the physique of the children. I apologise to the Committee for having spoken at some length on this matter, but I do hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to respond to a very wide sentiment outside, and I believe inside, this House in favour of some action being taken in this direction, and in that way he will do something to repair effectively the awful ravages that are being made by this War.
    Mr. FISHER: It was quite unnecessary for my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Rowntree) to offer an apology for the length of his speech. He has spoken out of the fulness of his heart with great eloquence and sincerity upon one of the fundamental topics which meets every social reformer and everybody concerned with the progress of public education in this country. Although I cannot follow him in his precise proposal it is not from any lack of sympathy with the object he so eloquentlycommended to the Committee. Nobody who has studied the Reports of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education can fail to be impressed with the gravity of the evil to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention or with the necessity for providing a remedy, but when we are asking in this Bill to impose upon local education authorities the duty of providing medical treatment we have to bear in mind two considerations. In the first place, that the school medical service is a plant of recent growth, and that although it was only established in 1907 its progress has been one of the most remarkable facts in our social life. The hon. Member drew attention to the

    1777
    number of authorities which do not at the present time provide treatment. Let me draw the attention of the Committee to the great growth and expansion of treatment provided by the local education authorities since the establishment of the school medical service in 1907. In 1908 there were fifty-five local education authorities who made arrangements for medical treatment. In 1916 that number had grown from fifty-five to 276. In 1908 there were seven local education authorities which provided school clinics. In 1916 there were 219. In 1908, eight local education authorities made contributions to hospitals, and in 1916 the contributions to hospitals were made by eighty-seven local education authorities. In 1908 twenty-one local education authorities made provision for the supply of spectacles to school children. In 1916, 216 local education authorities made such provision. I think, therefore, that although we have not achieved everything, the Committee may be satisfied that the progress under our present system has been very rapid and very encouraging, and it is the view of the Board that we may leave the progress and development of medical treatment to the voluntary action of local education authorities, stimulated and encouraged, as it will always be, by the constant pressure of the Board of Education. After all, the Committee must remember that the task of remedying the ailments of childhood is a great task, and in the words of the Greek philosopher,
    "Nothing great can be done without time."
    I submit it would be the wisest course, at any rate, to continue to allow treatment to be provided by the voluntary action of local education authorities, so long as the Board is satisfied that there it a constantly expanding and developing area in which the treatment is taking place. Then I think there is a second consideration which ought to be borne in mind by the Committee. If you are going to make it mandatory on the local education authority to provide medical treatment, I think it will be necessary to define more closely than the hon. Member has attempted to do in this Amendment the amount of treatment, and the character of the treatment, which the local education authority ought to be required to provide. Also I think it will be necessary to circumscribe and define the number of ailments to be treated, and I submit to the Committee that that may be a matter of some difficulty. It is tolerably easy to make
    1778
    inspection mandatory on the local education authorities, but inspection is a very definite and circumscribed tiling, and the local education authorities when they are instructed to provide inspection should know exactly what they are required to do. If they are compelled and required to provide treatment, then I think they would need more information. For these two reasons, and not from any lack of sympathy with the general object the hon. Gentleman has in view, I feel it is impossible to accept his Amendment.
    Mr. SHERWELL: The Committee will appreciate the force of the considerations which the President has just addressed to it, but he will forgive me if I say that we feel that his arguments do not dispose of the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Rowntree). After all, this Bill is imposing very much higher standards of education and making very much greater demands, not merely upon the intellectual, but upon the physical powers of the children in our schools. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, that to provide for the compulsory medical inspection of children is a comparatively simple thing. It was because of its supreme simplicity that this House originally contented itself with making that provision in its Statutes, but the comparative worthlessness of that simple provision, which was commended to the House by its simplicity, speedily became apparent in practice. You discovered, in the process of your inspection, the existence of serious physical ailments, for the remedying of which you had made absolutely no provision. When the Insurance Act of 1911 was before the House some of us urged upon the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Prime Minister, the futility of setting up a national scheme of health insurance when you were doing nothing to stop the sources from which the physical ailments of the adult population proceeded. It was in consideration of that that I urged upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer then the necessity of making provision, by State Grant, for the medical treatment of school children. He was good enough to accept the proposition, and since then a certain State assistance has been given for that purpose. The question is really of very much larger dimensions than the President has suggested to the Committee.
    Take the present position of things. You have provision made in your Statutes

    1779
    for the medical inspection of school children, but the machinery by which that inspection is effected is so inadequate that you have to spread your inspection over a series of years and take only certain elements of your school population in a given year. At the present time you are never able to get, within an easy period of time, a complete inspection of the whole of the children in a particular school, so that your inspection to-day, even though it has been in force for so many years—I gratefully acknowledge it has extended itself in the course of its history—is not adequate to-day even as inspection. You are not securing an efficient inspection or a discovery of the physical condition of your school children. In a certain measure of time, by the limitation of the machinery for inspection, you have a large proportion of physical ailments, very materially affecting the educational attainments of your school population, undiscovered for a period of time, which is extremely unfortunate in its ultimate effects. This question of physical treatment lies at the very foundation of any educational arrangements. I believe it is really an extremely shortsighted policy to make demands of a higher kind upon the minds of your children, and, very properly, to raise the standard of your educational qualifications, unless you secure at the very beginning that the children are physically fit to profit by the educational opportunities you offer them. Very much more might be done than the President has suggested, and I would urge him to give further consideration to this point between now and the Report stage. I am quite satisfied that our experience so far has pointed conclusively to the fact that there is a physical condition among the school population of the country which intakes them unable to secure the benefits of the whole of the newer provisions you are providing in this admirable Bill. That being so, it is surely an unwise economy, both of finance and machinery, at the present time to set out with a new, greatly improved, and ex-tended educational system, when you know from the beginning that that new and extended system will be handicapped because of the physical deficiencies of the children which are known to exist. I earnestly entreat the President to give further consideration to this matter between now and Report, and to give his own most admirable scheme, as embodied
    1780
    in this Bill, a much better chance by looking to the foundations upon which that system must rest.
    Mr. ALDEN: I trust that the President has not given us an absolute non possumus this afternoon. I know that his sympathies are with this new Clause. I am convinced that in his own mind he wishes it, but he does not see his way at the moment to put it into operation for various reasons. I should like to re-enforce what the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) has said. I do not see how the children of this generation are going to benefit by the education which the President is so anxious to give them unless they are adequately equipped from a physical point of view. You cannot expect that they will benefit by the education which we so lavishly bestow upon them at such great pains and such great cost to the nation, unless, in the first place, they are fit and well, or are made fit and well by proper medical attention. I do not sec how anyone can meet that point. Is it economical to spend such vast sums of money on education if, by the admission of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education, the children are not capable of receiving it? I have never heard anybody who was really able to cope with that contention. The only answer I have received is, "It is the best we can do in those circumstances." I would point out to the Committee that if this were a question which concerned the War at the moment, if you could imagine that these boys and girls were potential fighters and that in six months time they would be in the trenches or in France, is there anybody who would hesitate for a single second about medical treatment? There is not a single person in this Committee who would not say immediately, "Let them be inspected and medically treated at any cost in order to make them fit." I admit that the War, in a certain sense, predominates all other considerations at the moment. But we have to think of the future. If I were speaking as a soldier in the House, I should certainly say, "Think of the future, and see to it that the boys and girls who are in our schools to-day grow up to be strong and healthy and capable of having strong and healthy children." We know exactly what will happen. We know perfectly well that a very large proportion of them are not strong and healthy and will not be strong and healthy citizens. From the industrial

    1781
    and the economic standpoint, it is equally true that if you want to succeed in the future you ought to see to the medical treatment as well as to the medical inspection. The hon. Member for Huddersfield pointed out, what the President knows perfectly well, that even medical inspection is not adequate at present, and only touches a certain proportion—I admit that it is now a large proportion—of the children in our schools.
    6.0 P.M.
    One other point, which I am perfectly certain the President will admit to be true. Wherever a local education authority has taken up this question seriously, and has instituted medical treatment as well as medical inspection, has done it scientifically and thoroughly, and been willing to spend a little money on it—by the way, of course, they get their Grants from the Board of Education—that education authority saves its money over and over again in the attendance of children at the schools. I am sure the President is as anxious as anybody could be for the further extension of this medical treatment. May I make a suggestion? I should very much like the new Clause moved by the hon. Member for York to be adopted, but the speech of the President did not seem to be very hopeful on that point, though it was so conciliatory and so sympathetic. Would it not be possible for him to define just how far the local education authority can go in this matter if he thinks it cannot go the whole way? Would it not be possible to say of these diseases of the head, the eye, the ear, and the throat that they should be treated? Because is there anybody who doubts that a child who comes to school with a defective condition of the eyes or nose or ears cannot benefit by the education?
    We all admit that, and I do honestly think that the Committee would be consulting the best interests of the nation in making it compulsory on every local educational authority to see to it that the child, as far as these special ailments are concerned, is medically treated. You get your money back again if you look at it from that point of view. It is really a sound investment, and I cannot believe that, if all the Members of the House of Commons were present and could hear the President of the Board of Education make his own statement, apart altogether from the Front Bench, as an educationist
    1782
    putting forward the facts he knows to be true, and for the moment dissociating himself from his office and speaking as one who cares for these children as he does, he would have any difficulty in converting the whole House in a moment, if the House wanted to be converted. I do not believe there is very much opposition to this in the House. I believe it is really a question of whether the local education authorities are willing to stand this little bit of extra pressure being put on them. Will it not be possible to make, if necessary, extra Grants-in-Aid for this special purpose? I do not say the treatment of all diseases, but of those special ailments which make it impossible for the child to benefit by the education we are trying to give it. I put that point before the President. I hope very much his speech does not mean an absolute non possumus, but that he will try to meet us, if not the whole way, half-way, and try to make it a little more possible for some of these boys and girls to live a decent life in the future. In my experience in East London I have seen so many lives crippled and maimed and so many boys and girls going through life utterly unable to compete with their neighbours because they never had a fair chance. They were never medically inspected or treated in those days. The State ought to be in these cases in loco parentis, and if the parents do not care enough to get the children attended to—although it is generally ignorance in these cases and not carelessness—the State should see that it is done, not merely for the sake of the child, if you like, though I am thinking of the child too, but for the sake of the nation. If you do not do it, this nation is going to the wall. If you do not make the nation strong and healthy, you cannot compete with the times that are coming. I hope the President will meet us a little way and enable us to let this Bill go out with a clear conscience.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I would like in one word to express my deep disappointment that my right hon. Friend has not accepted the new Clause moved by the hon. Member for York. Nobody is more grateful than I am to the right hon. Gentleman for the introduction of this Bill, and I can quite understand his anxiety to follow the line of least resistance to get the Bill through the House as quickly as possible, but I must say I am astonished he does not give a more friendly acceptance to a thing which I

    1783
    think is obviously necessary in the best interests of the country. There is, as hon. Members know, an immense amount of talk going on now about reconstruction. Surely this is obviously one of the most necessary bits of reconstruction the House of Commons could put in hand. There is an enormous amount of inefficiency, unemployables, and physically defective people in this country. They are unemployable, they are physically defective, because their fathers have been physically defective before them, and their sons will probably be physically defective after them. The only way to break down this vicious circle is to provide a good educational system, and our educational system must also provide means of effecting a physical improvement in their condition. Therefore, I am personally deeply disappointed, as I think the whole House will be, that the right hon. Gentleman has not consented to do a thing which I am sure the whole country would have regarded as one of the most necessary things to be done at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman gave an encouraging account of the progress that has been made. He also quoted the number of pairs of spectacles given out.
    Mr. FISHER: No; I quoted the number of authorities providing them.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: That does not alter my point. I would like to point out that the Chief Medical Officer finds great fault with the authorities for merely doling out spectacles and thinking they have solved the question of defective vision. It is, as he points out, very largely a physical question, and requires good air, good treatment, and good food. As to the progress that has been made, I would like to remind him of what Sir George Newman does say. He says that less than half of the authorities have made any attempt whatever to provide dental treatment, and, with one or two exceptions, the provision made by the 146 authorities is at present wholly inadequate. There are still approximately 100 authorities which have done nothing for minor ailments or defective vision, and 200 have done nothing for diseases of the ear and throat. What is the consequence? Of the children in attendance at school 6,000,000, we know by medical inspection that many, though not specifically "feeble-minded," are so dull and backward mentally as to be unable to derive
    1784
    full benefit from schooling, that upwards of 10 per cent. of the whole are at a like disability on account of uncleanliness, and that 10 per cent. are malnourished. Perhaps the largest contributor is dental disease, which handicaps the children almost as seriously as it does adolescents and adults. Probably not less than half the children are in need of dental treatment, and a substantial number—not less than 500,000—are urgently so. Again, upwards of 500,000 children are so defective in eyesight as to be unable to take reasonable advantage of their lessons. I think when we read this Report of the Chief Medical Officer we are impressed by the enormous amount of work to be done here, and I hope my right hon. Friend, particularly if he gets pressure from Parliament, as I hope he will before the. Report stage, will reconsider his attitude.
    Sir J. D. REES: I hope it is not out of order, Sir Frederick Banbury, to express a belief that had you not been in the Chair you would have called attention to an aspect of the discussion to which no one has referred, but which at least will be allowed to be relevant. It is with much diffidence that I venture to intervene among the educational experts and enter the sacred congregation of the social reformers. The real fact is, I submit, with profound respect to the Committee, that a debate has been taking place on social reform, and not on education. The President of the Board of Education most properly expressed his sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for York. I suppose there is not one Member of this House who does not wish that there should be no diseases of children, that they should all be healthy and strong. One hon. Member addressing the House said every child should have good air, good food, and medical treatment. I heartily wish it might be so; but at whose expense? It is not possible. It is dealing with an ideal and not an actual state. There is a feeling in the country also which I venture to express, because if it be unpopular it is none the less one's duty to express it, that it is rather an odd thing at this moment, when the country is engaged in the War and is incurring unparalleled burdens, which it will meet, if at all, with the greatest difficulty, that the House of Commons should be engaged in busily adding to its commitments. Every day an hon. Member comes forward, in connection with this

    1785
    Bill conspicuously, with some fresh measure of expenditure. As to this Amendment, the hon. Member who introduced it made no effort to deal with the cost. The President of the Board of Education, very properly, said he sympathised with this. Of course, everybody sympathises with sickness and disease and wishes everybody should be healthy. But he said he could not introduce medical treatment into this Bill. I submit it is perfectly clear he could not. He made a rough estimate once that the cost of this Bill would: be £10,000,000. This would be at least another £10,000,000, and what would be the limit? Most children are imperfect in health. Take the greatest schools in the country, where there is no want of money in the parents. They can lavish money in support of the education of their children, and you find these congenital defects remain. The hon. Member (Mr. Alden) said this was a good investment. One hears that over and over again, but surely in investing public money you must look for some immediate return.
    Mr. ALDEN: A doctor once said to me, "If you spend a shilling on a child before it reaches the age of ten you will save £10 when it is twenty."
    Sir J. D. REES: As an arithmetical proposition, that is one of the most absolutely foolish I ever heard. In the first place, it is absolutely incapable of proof, and, in the second, it is improbable to an extent that makes it almost ridiculous. No hon. Member of this House can for a moment deny that this admirable proposal, which I long to see carried out, is absolutely impossible on financial grounds, probably at any time, but certainly at present. Why, then, jeopardise the Bill by piling Pelion upon Ossa, and adding one expense to another, and trying to fit in, by an additional new Clause, no small part of the whole programme of social reform?
    Mr. BOOTH: As one whose voice is usually heard on the side of retrenchment, and also of voluntaryism, I am glad to see that support of this proposal is general, with very few exceptions. I really cannot understand the attitude of the Government with regard to this question of voluntaryism. The President of the Board of Education suggested that the voluntary methods now being taken should be encouraged. I was one of the four Members who suggested that the great Insurance
    1786
    Act should be voluntary, and I have repeatedly intervened in the Debates on this Bill with regard to certain provisions for continuation education that they should start by being voluntary. But if you have compulsory elementary education at all, and particularly if you have compulsory secondary education as this Bill provides, and on the top of that you have compulsory inspection, there is no case whatever in answer to this proposed Clause. Really, to have compulsory attendance at school up to eighteen, and to compel the whole population to come under the Insurance Act at sixteen, if they commence to earn money then, and to take no steps whatever to see that the young people, when they go to the secondary schools, or when they go to work and come under the Insurance Act, receive adequate medical attention is utter folly on the part of the State. I do not think the expenditure will be anything like £10,000,000. While there are some parts of the Bill where I think compulsion by the State is unnecessarily introduced, yet surely at this point, when it is concerned with the health of the boys and girls, it is utter folly for the State to stop there. Whether the inspection is spasmodic or regular, it means that you lay the position bare, you discourage the teacher, you label the scholar, and there you leave him. Anything more preposterous I cannot understand.
    It is not only the physical effect upon the child. What is the effect upon a child to be told that it is suffering from a physical ailment? It affects the child's mental condition. It gets disheartened. It thinks it is in an inferior position when it sees healthy boys in the playground, or girls with skipping ropes, and the child begins to think he has not a very good outlook in life, and the tendency is to become mentally deficient. It is repeatedly the case. When boys and girls of these tender ages are told they are suffering from marked defects which make them inferior to the rest of their companions, you are inviting them to despair, and as they grow up they keep cherishing this grievance and it hinders them from attaining their maximum capacity. They find when commencing work that they would have been saved from a life of agony and trouble if only the State, which had forced them into the school, had also taken care by some provision of a medical character to save them from disease. How do you expect them, after you have educated them and

    1787
    taught them to know the seriousness of their position, to be contented in after life? With regard to the expense, it seems to me it does not matter what it would cost. It does not need any argument to show that it will pay the community. Surely we have long got past the point that any money spent on seeing that they are healthy and strong needs to be recouped in some indirect or roundabout manner. It is recouped a thousandfold every year they live. My hon. Friend (Mr. Rowntree) made a contention which I am sure no business man would answer. How can you say it is all satisfactory to tell young boys and girls that they have a physical defect? How do you expect the increased wages to be paid after the War and during the period of reconstruction unless they are paid to healthy people? I quite agree they will not all be healthy, no matter what we do; but, at any rate, we can do our best. Is the hon. Gentleman (Sir J. D. Rees) in favour of doing nothing? He not merely said it would cost a little money, but he does not say he is prepared to spend a penny. What is his figure? If an hon. Member says it will cost £10,000,000 and that is too much, he ought to say that whatever can be done for £1,000,000 or £500,000 he will contribute. The hon. Member does not really carry us very far.
    Sir J. D. REES: I said this was not educational business, and that no estimate had been made of the cost.
    Mr. BOOTH: I do not agree with that at all. If there is one Clause which has been put down which is distinctly and strictly educational, this is the Clause. You are now asking boys and girls to attend school even up to eighteen years of age, you are asking them to labour jointly in education and industry for several years of their life and yet, when they come into school at an early age, you satisfy yourself whether they are healthy or not and then do nothing for them. I cannot understand how we can be content simply to lay these diseases bare, to schedule them in Blue Books, convert them into statistics, frighten social reformers, and dishearten teachers and the general public, and leave it there. Surely that cannot be the answer at all! It cannot be the last word of an enlightened President of the Board of Education. If so, it throws us into despair.
    Major WOOD: I have listened to all this Debate, and as it has proceeded I have rather modified my views. I began to listen to it with considerable sympathy for the views advanced by the hon. Member (Mr. Rowntree), but I shall not be prepared to support him if he goes to a Division. No one expression which has been let fall during the Debate has made a greater impression on my mind than that which fell from the hon. Member (Mr. Alden) in which he said the ill results and the failure of the parents to attend to diseases in the early ages of their children were due not to poverty, but to ignorance. That exactly coincided with what I have always believed to be the truth, and I was pleased to be confirmed in my view by the hon. Member, who has had more experience than most of us. I regard the principle of the State paying for medical treatment for children as a bad one. It is the work of the parents to see their children fed and looked after in all ways. You cannot and never have been able to apply that principle without modification. Therefore, if the parents are unable, through poverty or other cause, to provide the medical treatment that the children want, the State was morally bound, and in 1902 it recognised its obligation, to make it possible for local authorities to do what the parents could not do for themselves. That brings you to the point, Is the State to make it compulsory upon local authorities to do these things or are we to be content to leave it merely permissive? I arrive at my conclusion for two reasons. In the first place, the local authorities know, and will always know, much better than the State what the conditions of the locality and of the parents concerned are. In the next place to lay down the principle of medical treatment as it is sought to lay it down in this Clause is really dealing with the question piecemeal. I suspect the hon. Member (Mr. Alden) is right when he says it is ignorance and not poverty. The remedy for that is to train and educate your parents. Have your medical inspection, let it be real, and bring the information home to the parent and see what effect that has. But further than that it is the duty of the State, and it will be the duty of all of us after the War, to take such steps as we can to secure that the parents themselves receive adequate wages to do these things for themselves. But I would only support the principle, or would have supported it in 1902, if I felt that I could not get it in

    1789
    any other way. If I am told the reason I am not getting it to-day is due rather to ignorance than to poverty, I say remove your ignorance and do not embark upon the slope, which I certainly would not wish to do, unless you are absolutely convinced that it is essential for what you wish to achieve.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I should have thought that so far as argument went there was really no great difficulty in accepting this Clause. I should have thought you might very safely have extended the powers of the State to the medical inspection and treatment of children without it having any demoralising effect or any loss of parental responsibility. I cannot imagine a more innocent or less harmful extension of the State's power. I have been careful in the discussions on this Bill not to press the President of the Board of Education further than he was willing to go. One realises his difficulties, and the difficulties of a Minister in charge of a Bill are best judged by the Minister himself, and though it is always an attractive role to press him to go further than he is willing to go, that course is sometimes attended by ill results on the fortunes and fate of a particular Bill. Therefore, if on full consideration he thinks that he cannot go any further on this particular matter, I should not be in favour of pressing him beyond the point that he thinks it is wise to proceed. The whole Committee has such complete respect for his educational zeal and his educational judgment that I am quite sure we are prepared to give him very largely a blank cheque in what he thinks it wise to propose. At the same time, I cannot help thinking that on this particular occasion this is not quite his last word. I do not think it would be wise to press this Clause to a Division at the present moment. I think it would be a Division which would mean absolutely nothing, and it would not in the least show the strong feeling in the Committee, because for various reasons a great number of hon. Members who are in favour of it and who would wish to vote for it would either abstain or find reasons for voting against it. However, if the right hon. Gentleman can, give us some hope that before the Report stage he will consider the matter, with a view of making his own proposals, it would be very wise to wait until the Report stage. I quite realise, and I think the whole Committee must realise, that this is
    1790
    largely a question of time. It is obvious you cannot do the thing at the present moment. You have not got the doctors. You cannot establish the service, because they are not there. Therefore, there must be some time before it comes into force. There may be other questions of arrangement which the right hon. Gentleman's advisers might suggest. There might be counsels of prudence and limitations on points of detail. No doubt the matter does require further consideration, and I think if the President, in deference to the strong feeling there is in the Committee, could hold out some hope of a more specific and more definite proposal on the Report stage it would give a great deal of satisfaction to a large body of feeling.
    Mr. FISHER: As there seems to be a very large body of opinion in the Committee in favour of further consideration of this question, I should be very glad to do what I can to review it and see whether I can bring forward any proposals which are watertight and administratively possible on the Report stage, If my hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment on that understanding, I will undertake to consider the mater.
    Mr. ROWNTREE: Having regard to what the President has said, I gladly ask leave to withdraw the Amendment and to express the hope that when the Report stage comes we shall find that the President is able very largely to meet the wishes of the Committee.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Clause, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Montgomery (Major Davies)—(Advisory Committee to the National Commissioners in Wales)—is out of place.
    Sir J. D. REES: I have the same Clause on the Paper, and confess I followed my hon. and gallant Friend who has rendered such great service to education in Wales. It was he who put the cart before the horse, or, if that expression be unworthy of the dignity of Parliament, committed a . At any rate, in his absence, I shall not move it.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Rights of Co-opted Members of Education Committees.)
    In cases where town councils have not delegated any of their powers to education committees under the Education Act, 1902, the co-

    1791
    opted members of such committees shall have the right to attend the meetings of the local education authority and to take part in any discussions which may arise in connection with the minutes of the education committee in all respects as if they were members of the local education authority.—[Captain J. Watson.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Captain J. WATSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I think the object of this Clause will be clear when it is read. As members of the Committee know, at the present time co-opted members of education committees have not the power to attend the meetings of the ultimate education authority. As a rule, in urban districts the ultimate authority is the council, and what often happens under the present regime is that while co-opted members, who, according to the words of the Education Act of 1902, are appointed as "persons of experience in education and acquainted with the needs of the various kinds of schools in the area for which the council act," have no opportunity and no right either of attending the meetings of the education authority, such, for instance, as the town council, or of taking any part in the discussion. I have purposely limited the powers of the Clause. When I first discussed this matter with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Fisher), the suggestion put before me was that not only should co-opted members have the power to attend the discussions and take part in them, but also to vote. I saw at once, and my right hon. Friend quite agreed, that if that were insisted upon it would be likely to cause acute controversy and contention, and, in a Bill of this sort, we are all anxious to avoid that as far as possible. The reason why I have introduced this Clause is that at the present time co-opted members are appointed because of their special knowledge and ability to deal with matters of education; but very often when a matter comes before the education authority, such as the town council, the co-opted members are not present, and because of the lack of the knowledge which they might throw upon the subject and of the information that they might give, very often quite unwittingly, a wrong decision is come to.
    My proposal is that co-opted members should be at liberty to attend the meetings of the council and to take part in the discussion, but not to vote. I am perfectly willing, if the Clause does not
    1792
    make this perfectly clear, to add the words, "this shall not include the power to vote." At present it is very difficult to get suitable men to take an adequate interest in local affairs, and I think it is a difficulty which is increasing. Many co-opted members of education committees have resigned their positions because their powers are so limited. I do think that if we agree to this Clause it would be an incentive to gentlemen having an interest in education to take a practical interest. It might be said, and perhaps will be said by my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill, that at this moment the council may invite co-opted members of the education committee to attend meetings of the council, and to take part in the discussion. But I suggest that that is putting co-opted members in a very invidious position. If it is desired that they should attend the meetings of the council and take part in the discussions, why should not the power be given to them by this Bill? I addressed a question on this subject to my right hon. Friend in January, and he replied that the subject raised a general question of great importance, and he was not prepared to express an opinion upon it. He added that, legislation would be required to give effect to the proposal. I suggest that this is a proper opportunity of giving legislative effect to the proposal. I have had an opportunity of discussing the suggestion with many members of the Committee, and I have not found one who has discouraged me or sought in the slightest to discourage me in moving this Clause. Therefore, I trust it will be accepted by the Committee with something approaching general consent.
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. and gallant Member has stated very clearly and very ably the case for the Amendment. I think there can be no doubt that in many cases it would be very desirable that the town council should have an opportunity of hearing the observations of experienced co-opted members of the local education committee when educational points are being discussed, but, as he has pointed out, it is within the power of the town council at the present time to invite the presence of co-opted members for the purpose of enlightening their educational debate. The hon. and gallant Member, however, wishes to give co-opted members the right to be present when these matters are being discussed. This

    1793
    Amendment is very similar to a Resolution which was passed by the Stockton-on-Tees Education Committee on the 8th January, 1918, the provisions of which have been very widely circulated. It was the subject of a question which the hon. and gallant Member addressed to me on the 16th of January. The Board of Education have not received any indication that the change proposed by the hon. and gallant Member would be agreeable to the persons whose duty it is to conduct educational business, and in the absence of any evidence of any general desire for the introduction of such a Clause, it would, I think, be difficult for the Government to accept the Amendment, in view of the general principle which it has adopted in the conduct of this Bill of not altering the administrative machinery of education in this country.
    Captain WATSON: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but the great distinction between the Resolution which has been circulated and the proposed Clause is this, that the Resolution included voting. I have purposely omitted that from the Clause.
    Mr. FISHER: I am aware of that, but I think, in view of the principle which has been adopted all through these discussions, it would be wise not to disturb even in so small a matter the educational machinery of the country. The Amendment does introduce a practice which is foreign to our system of local government, and it is important that our education systems should obtain as fully as possible the confidence of the councils which are ultimately responsible for the conduct of educational affairs and the financing of educational affairs. I think, therefore, that there would be some inconvenience in accepting this Amendment. It might give rise to a great deal of friction, and might expose the Government to the charge of having departed from the principle upon which it has proceeded in the conduct of this Bill.
    Colonel THORNE: Organised labour has always been opposed to co-option of any kind. That has been decided at various trade union conferences times without number. When the present Education Act was passed that was one of our troubles. Therefore, even if this was accepted by the Committee, I believe it would meet with very serious objection throughout the country.
    Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.— [Power of Local Education Authority to Grant Exemptions in Certain Cases.)
    Notwithstanding anything provided in this or in the Education Acts, it shall be lawful for a local education authority to grant exemption from the obligation to attend school to individual children for such time, and upon such. Conditions, as the authority think fit in any case where after due inquiry the circumstances seem to justify such an exemption.—[Sir J. D. Rees.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir J. D. REES: I beg to move "That this Clause be read a second time."
    As I understand the Bill, children under the age of fourteen cannot be employed at all. The exemption provided by Clause 8 does not meet the case with which I wish to deal. There are many cases in which children might be quite properly employed to a small extent. One case is that of posing for films. Take, for instance, a production in which angels are required. In such a case you must have small children, who will be fitted with wings, to appear in the film. That is a very harmless process—making children even more angelic than they naturally are—to which nobody could take serious objection. It may be argued that this is not an exceedingly important matter. I think that it is. Now that American films cannot be introduced an opportunity offers for increasing and developing here an industry which has a valuable educational quality, and has also been used, as members of the Committee know, for propagandist purposes during the War both in France and here. It is admitted by everybody that it is in the propagandist feature of our war aims that we have most conspicuously failed, and the value of films for propagandist purposes has been most handsomely admitted. Unless this Clause is accepted there will be no possibility of employing such children, and the power of the educational authority to grant exemption will be limited to children between the ages of fourteen and fifteen. At the age of fourteen children are too old for this purpose. Little girls of that age may be very angelic, but my information is that they would be too old, and unless this Clause is accepted the local education authority desiring to release children for this purpose would be unable to do so. Both in regard to children younger than fourteen, and children above the age of fifteen, it is exceedingly desirable that the local education authority should have power to grant exemption from the obligation of individual children to attend

    1795
    schools. This power is not likely to be abused. It is not a class of children but individual children who may be exempted, and such a power does not lend itself to abuse. If my hon. Friend (Mr. Lewis) cannot accept this Clause, could not this power be given for the next seven years, and the precedent established in another part of the Act availed of to meet the washes of those who desire to have this new Clause? In the case which I have mentioned the children, I submit, would be used for an educational purpose. They would appear in the picture which would be used for the purpose of educating their fellow children as well as adults all over the country. The number of our fellow countrymen who attend these exhibitions is vast, and it would be very unfortunate if power was taken away from the local education authorities to exempt these children for this purpose and other purposes, and also to prevent the establishment in this country of so useful an industry as that of film production.
    Mr. LEWIS: With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that this particular Amendment is open to considerable objection. The illustration which he gave was that of a child who is not allowed to convert himself into an angel. But I am advised that children might be used not only as angels but for a vast number of other characters as well, and I am afraid it would be very embarrassing to the local education authorities. If my hon. Friend's new Clause were carried we might have a very large number of applications, and, in the case of some local authorities, this might lead to so considerable an amount of exemption as to amount to that extent, at any rate, to a modification of the law as to school attendance.
    Sir J. D. REES: I retain the word "individual."
    Mr. LEWIS: Yes; but at the same time these cases could be taken in vast numbers. I would remind my hon. Friend that the exemption Section of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, has not yet been repealed, and that under the existing law an authority can take into account the circumstances of the case on the question of exemption from attending at school, and if it were to go beyond that it might lead to results which should be deprecated.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does not Sub-clause (2) of Clause 8 necessarily operate to take away the power to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred?
    Mr. LEWIS: No; it does not.
    Sir J. D. REES: It says that "it shall be lawful," and so on, "between the ages of fourteen and fifteen." There is no power of exemption except between those ages, as I understand.
    Mr. LEWIS: My hon. Friend, in that respect, is in error. There is the special exemption Clause of the Act of 1870.
    Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Non Attendance of Children.)
    In the event of any parent or guardian of any child of school-going age failing to send such child to school, and in the event of any local education authority taking proceedings against such parent or guardian, such parent or guardian shall be entitled to plead any special circumstances, and if the Court is satisfied that such parent or guardian's defence to such proceedings is reasonable, it shall be competent to such Court to excuse the attendance of such child.—[Sir J. D. Rees.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir J. D. REES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    A parent or guardian might have an extremely good case for not sending a child to school. Suppose the child were the child of Catholic parents. There might be some religious occasion which, in the eyes of the parents, required absence from school, but of which the local education authority would take little or no account. In such cases the parent or guardian should be entitled to plead special circumstances. It might appear at first sight that this Clause might have been lumped with the last one, but I think that it should not, because this Clause deals solely with cases before a Court. As I understand, if this Clause is not passed, it will not be competent to a parent when any proceedings are taken to plead special circumstances, whereas there may be innumerable circumstances in which the action of the child is perfectly justifiable.
    Mr. FISHER: I am advised that the hon. Member's Amendment is quite unnecessary, because in the existing state of the law the object which he desires to attain is already attained.
    Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Special Schools for Physically Defective Children.)
    The provisions of the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1914, relating to mentally defective children, shall be extended so as to apply to physically defective and epileptic children, and accordingly that Act shall have effect as if references therein to Mentally defective children included references to physically defective and epileptic children.—[Major Hills.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Major HILLS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    7.0 P.M.
    There have been two Acts passed making provision for schools for mental defectives, and in the nineteen years which have elapsed since they first came into operation, sixty-seven schools have been started in the country by fifteen education authorities. Forty-one of these schools are in London. Judging from the case of London, there are somewhere about 40,000 mentally defective and epileptic children who are fit subjects for a special school. The definition in the Act of 1899 describes these children as those who "by reason of mental or physical defect are incapable of receiving proper benefit from instruction in ordinary public elementary schools, but are not incapable of receiving benefit from instruction in special schools or classes." Coming under that definition there are to be found throughout the Kingdom about 40,000 or 50,000 of these children, and that it is these to whom my new Clause would apply. The kind of physical defect most common is apparent in the cases of crippled children, children with tuberculosis joints, paralysed children, and epileptics. Inquiry has been made from about ninety-five local education authorities, and the result is that it is found there is a general demand for the passing of this Clause. Mentally deficient children already have special schools which are doing extremely good work, and if it is worth the while of the community to educate mentally deficient children surely it is far more worth its while to educate those who are physically defective! The child itself can benefit far more by the education, and the State benefits because a much larger number of physically defective children are returned to the normal population.
    The schools which have been started under the voluntary Act are extremely good schools; they work on the lines of
    1798
    returning the child to the normal population, and the results are quite extraordinary. The Committee will be surprised to learn that in some cases as many as 90 per cent. of the children are turned into normal, self-supporting citizens, and even in those cases where the percentage is not so high the number saved represents from 70 to 80 per cent. I base my Clause on two grounds. First of all, the duty of the State to give these children an education which they cannot get now, because either the school is too rough for the child or it is not possessed of the special appliances required for the child. In many cases the children have to be fetched by ambulances, and in all cases they require the services of a nurse. It is the duty of the State, I submit, to give these children a form of education by which they can benefit, and in addition to it being the duty of the State it is to its profit, because unless the children are thus treated they are bound to be a burden on the community. Somebody has to support them, and they either become a charge on the rates or are supported by charity; therefore, it is a good bargain for the State to make these children self-supporting. May I say one word about the cost? The cost of those schools is not small. I do not disguise that it is high. There is the expenditure in providing the school; then there are the special appliances which are wanted; the special attendants for the children, and the cost of getting them to and from the school. I have figures here from different localities; they show that the cost ranges from £8 per head in Bristol to £25 per head in London, and I must add that in the Metropolis it is estimated that on account of the increased cost of all articles the charge will rise to £36 per head next year. The number of children is not large—40,000 or 50,000 out of a school population of 7,000,000 or 8,000,000. It should not be a question of cost. It is a question of giving these children the only sort of education by which they can benefit, and at the same time doing something to make them self-supporting, and, prevent their being a charge either on the rate or on their relations. I submit this Clause with every confidence that my right hon. Friend will accept it.
    Mr. LEWIS: I gather from the general tone of approbation which came from every quarter of the Committee that hon.

    1799
    Members approve of the proposal of this Clause—indeed, it is one that commends itself to the sympathy of every humane man. The hon. and gallant Member has told us that 90 per cent. of these unfortunates are saved for the community, and their lives made worth living; they become useful citizens, and the community therefore receives ample repayment for the expenditure upon them. I, therefore, have much pleasure in accepting the Clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Payments to the Central Welsh Board.)
    (1) For the yearly sum payable to the Central Welsh Board under the scheme regulating the intermediate and technical education fund of any county, as defined by the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889, there shall be substituted—

    (a) a yearly sum equal to a percentage not exceeding twenty-two and a half per cent. fixed from time to time at a uniform rats for every county by the Central Welsh Board of the sum produced by a rate of one halfpenny in the pound for the preceding year, calculated in the manner provided by Sub-section (3) of Section eight of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889; and

    (b) a yearly sum equal to five per cent. of the net income for the preceding year of any endowment comprised in the intermediate and technical education fund of the county, or, in the alternative, for each year during such period as may be agreed with the Central Welsh Board, such yearly sum as that Board may agree to accept in lieu thereof.

    (2) For the purpose of ascertaining the said net income there shall be deducted from the gross income all proper expenses and outgoings in respect of administration and management of the endowment (including charges for interest on and repayment of loans and replacement of capital), and any sums required by the scheme to be treated as capital, and the term "endowment" shall include augmentations acquired by the investment of surplus income whether derived from endowment, or county rate, or from any other source, but not property occupied for the purposes of the scheme.
    (3) The power of charging capitation fees for scholars offered for examination conferred on the Central Welsh Board by the scheme of thirteenth day of May, eighteen hundred and ninety-six, regulating the Central Welsh Intermediate Education Fund shall cease.
    (4) The provisions of this Section shall have effect and be construed as part of the schemes regulating the Central Welsh Intermediate Education Fund and the intermediate and technical education funds of counties in Wales and Monmouthshire, and may be repealed or altered by future schemes accordingly.—[Sir H. Roberts.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir H. ROBERTS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The object of the Clause is to secure a uniform rate of contribution from the county governing bodies of Wales towards the expenses of the Central Welsh Board. When the Central Board was set up in the year 1895 certain contributions were fixed which undoubtedly served the purpose so long as the Intermediate Extension Fund continued to pay them. Ample justice was done to all intents and purposes, the levy being uniform. Since that time, however, a change has taken place, particularly in regard to new grants now made payable to secondary schools which are held to lie outside this levy, and as a result of these changes there is undoubtedly an inequality in the incidence of this contribution on the counties and county boroughs of Wales. In one or two cases Amendments have been made, but, generally speaking, the inequality remains and has caused a considerable amount of dissatisfaction and friction in Wales. There is no doubt it is desirable to make an amendment in the basis on which this contribution is to be made in the future. I am glad to be able to inform the Committee that the Central Welsh Board has very carefully considered the terms of the Amendment, and so, too, have all the county and borough governing bodies in Wales, and the great majority of these governing bodies are agreed not only as to the necessity of the change being brought about, but also as to the terms set forth in this Clause. In proposing this alternative basis of contribution, the object is not in any way to increase the amount which is payable for the purposes of a Central Welsh Board, but it is to secure a just and uniform rate of contribution from the various local authorities interested; and, inasmuch as this Clause has behind it so much support, I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to accept it.
    Mr. LEWIS: My hon. Friend has stated fully and fairly the case for the Clause, which we are prepared to accept.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision of Maintenance Allowances.)
    It is hereby declared that the powers as to the provision of scholarships conferred by Subsection (2) of Section twenty-three of the Education Act, 1902, and by Section eleven of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, include a power to provide allowances for maintenance.—[Mr. Haydn Jones.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. HAYDN JONES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This Clause is to provide for the maintenance of poor children who receive scholarships. It is simply a declaratory Clause, and nothing else.
    Sir M. BARLOW: I have had the privilege of raising this point a good many times already, and I understand that, as a result of arguments that have been put before the Board, they are prepared to accept the Amendment which also stands in my name, in the same terms, a little lower down on the Paper. I would affirm the necessity of something of this kind being done by referring to a meeting of the Workers' Educational Association, held on Saturday. It is very significant that practically the whole of their discussion proceeded on these lines. Energetic members of the association up and down the country explained that many of the parents in the industrial districts show greater keenness than ever existed before in regard to education It was found that the parents are very anxious about the question of maintenance in the case of children who receive scholarships. In the old days scholarships could only be given on the basis of education, but now we want to extend the basis, though this Clause will not carry us very far even if accepted, and I would venture to warn the President of the Board of Education that he will have to consider the making of further provision, if it is really wished to get effective work, by extending the aid afforded in poorer industrial areas.
    Mr. LEWIS: This new Clause is declaratory, and makes it clear that the provision made for those who receive scholarships includes maintenance.
    Sir C. BATHURST: I should like to understand how far this declaratory Clause carries us. Am I to understand that the scholarships are in the elementary schools, or are they scholarships in secondary schools, and, in any case, will the Clause apply not only to scholarships provided by the local education authority but to scholarships which are given from private sources? Supposing a private individual provides a scholarship, is it open, under this provision, to ask the local education authority to provide the necessary maintenance to enable the child to enjoy a scholarship of that character?
    Mr. LEWIS: I take it that would be a matter within the discretion of the local education authority itself. As a matter of fact, this declaratory Clause relates to both elementary and secondary schools.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.— [Teachers' Salaries.)
    In making arrangements with respect to the appointment of teachers a local education authority shall not make or authorise any differentiation as regards salary on the ground of sex.—[Mr. Whitehouse.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time." The object of this Clause which I move is to provide that women teachers shall receive equal pay for equal work. The first thing I wish to suggest to the Committee is that the proposal to give equal pay for equal work is a just proposal. It is on the ground of its justice that I bring it forward, and I do not think any other justification is required. I doubt whether any hon. Member of the Committee will rise in the course of the discussion of this proposal to suggest that it is unjust in itself to get rid of sex discrimination—that I think probably the objections to the proposal may take a more practical form than that. In saying that this proposal is just in itself, it is right to add that the State should set a good example to industries all over the country. That is why I venture to suggest that it is so important that the Government should adopt this Clause, in order to give a general lead in the reorganisation of our national life, a reorganisation which is already in process, and which must follow in the years of peace. May I remind the Committee that there has been, more especially of late years, a tendency towards the ideal which is aimed at in this Amendment. Throughout the whole world of industry there has been a gradual, in some cases a very gradual, but generally speaking a well-defined tendency, towards the ideal which I here set forth. What does it mean? It is not proposed that the woman who is doing a man's work is to receive the same amount as a man would receive if the amount of work she is able to do is less. The Amendment simply asks that where there is equal work done by a woman, she is to have equal pay given to her.
    Sir H. HIBBERT: They want more than that.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman says they want more than that. I am not concerned in any such request, nor have I ever heard of it. All I can say in reply to the interruption, is that this Amendment does not ask for more than that. The Amendment simply asks that where a woman performs equal work with a man, she should not receive less payment because of her sex. That is the proposal, and that is the only proposal which is made in this Amendment. I would also like to remind the Committee that there is not only this general tendency throughout the world of industry towards this ideal, but that to-day we are having much more united attempts for it in the name of women generally than we have ever had before, and I think I will carry the majority of the Committee with me in this, that, now we have enfranchised the great body of women in the country, I very much doubt whether we shall be able to continue this unjust sex discrimination.
    Mr. BOOTH: It does not exist.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: If my hon. Friend is right, and there is no difference existing at the present time, and that the object of the Amendment has already been achieved, then there can be no objection whatever to inserting this Amendment in the Bill, and I expect to receive the support of my hon. Friend who interrupted me in the Division Lobby. But I want to refer to the serious and united evidence which has come from the organised representatives of women's labour.
    Mr. BOOTH: They are not united.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity of speaking presently. If I wanted any evidence in support of the statement I have just made, I would venture to call the President of the Board of Education himself as a witness, because I am quite sure that his post bag, during the last month, must have been filled with letters from the organised representatives of women's labour, making the demand which is contained in the Amendment I am now moving. The only economic argument which I have ever heard against the proposal I now make is that women should be paid less because they have fewer responsibilities than men. I do not think that is a sound argument. If we are to act upon that argument we ought to pay less to unmarried men and more to
    1804
    married men. To consider the individual responsibilities of every person is obviously impossible. Therefore, on the ground of this demand, the general tendency of the industrial world, and the need for the Government to set a good example to the rest of the country, I submit this Clause.
    Sir R. NEWMAN: I support the Clause of my hon. Friend, which affirms the principle that women should receive equal pay for equal work. This Clause is not revolutionary at all. It simply lays down the principle that I have stated—equal pay for equal work, whether it applies to a man or to a woman. If the employer is ready to claim a fair day's work, then I think the employed has the right to be paid a fair day's wage, whether man or woman. And surely there can be no exception so far as women teachers are concerned, and no exception so far as the State is concerned. I have heard it stated that women are paid now just at the same rate as men. If that be so, there can be no objection, I take it, to adding the Clause to the Bill. If, on the other hand, it is not so, then I think the time has arrived when the Clause should be added, and the position made perfectly clear. I have heard it said by some people that women cannot do the same amount of good educational work as men in our schools, and that, therefore, men should receive higher salaries than the women. That seems to me to be a poor argument. One can admit that the headmaster of a school should, perhaps, be in a better position than the headmistress. Still, there are cases in which probably women would better discharge educational work than men. The fact that some women teachers are in charge of high schools shows distinctly that women are quite capable of carrying out the most difficult class of work done by school teachers. I will not delay the Committee by going over the whole ground so well covered by the hon. Gentleman who has moved this Clause, but will simply say that, as the President of the Board of Education has been so obliging this afternoon in accepting so many Clauses, perhaps he will also add this one to the Bill. He has accepted proposals safeguarding the interests of children, and I would now ask him to accept this proposal to safeguard the interests of women.
    Mr. FISHER: I am afraid that I cannot see my way to accept this Amendment, and for a reason which I am sure will be appreciated by the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire, who, in spite of the fact that he represents a Scottish constituency, has taken a substantial part in this Debate and shown a very extensive knowledge of our system of educational administration in this country. Whatever may be said for or against the principle for which he contends, and upon that I say nothing, the broad fact remains that the teachers in this country are not the employés of the Government, but of the local education authorities, and for that reason, if for no other, it would be improper for the Government to adopt any such plan as the hon. Member suggests. I think that in reality the object of the hon. Member was to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that a great number of women teachers are inadequately paid, to the fact that it is desirable that their remuneration should be increased, and to the fact that the women teachers in this country are a very devoted body of public servants, whose work ought to be adequately remunerated, but although I agree with all these propositions, I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I am sure the reply of the right hon. Gentleman will be received throughout the country with very great dissatisfaction on the part of the women. I suppose there is no organised body of women in the country which will not be dissatisfied.
    Mr. BOOTH: No, no!
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: That is my opinion, at any rate. The right hon. Gentleman has given one or two reasons which I do not quite appreciate. I presume his point is that the central authority ought not to fix the salaries of the employés of the local authorities, but in this case the local authorities derive a very large proportion of their total income from the central authority, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to have a say both in the conditions under which the employés are employed and the remuneration which they receive. Many women teachers are badly underpaid by many local authorities, and some power ought to be taken by the central authority to squeeze up the backward authorities and compel them to pay a living wage. But that is not the grievance
    1806
    of the women. Their grievance is that they, doing identical work, are paid less money for the same work than men. It is the differentiation against them on the ground of their sex which rouses their anger. It is not their underpayment so much as their unequal payment which they resent, and at a time like this, when equality is entering more and more into the relations between the sexes, I had hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have accepted this Clause and removed a real grievance, which has not only been felt for years past but is felt now, and is likely to be felt a great deal more in the near future. The refusal of this Amendment is almost sure to lead to considerable agitation as well as dissatisfaction, and as my name was attached to the Amendment I felt obliged to make this protest.
    Captain Sir C. BATHURST: I rather wondered as I listened to the eloquence of the three hon. Gentleman who have addressed the House in favour of this Clause whether they have accurately gauged or anticipated the real desires of the organised women workers in the teaching profession. I have very grave doubts on this point, and I venture to suggest that this is not in any case an opportune moment to decide on behalf of the other sex what their wishes are. We are going to have a very large opportunity in the early future of discovering what the opinion of women in general and of various aggregations of women is upon matters of public importance such as this, and I have reason to think that the hon. Gentleman who just sat down is entirely wrong in supposing that the women teachers generally throughout the country desire this so-called reform. Some of us have had some experience quite recently in settling, or attempting to settle, an entirely new scale of salaries for male and for women teachers respectively in our respective counties, and I say at once that I view with regret that in these revised scales the salaries suggested for women are not higher in many cases, at any rate in the South and West of England, than they are. They are going to be squeezed up far more as the result of the organised opinion of the profession itself, brought to bear upon the local education authorities, than they are likely to be, at any rate with any measure of assent on the part of the teaching profession, by any action which we may take in this House. I have reason to think that if we pass this Clause

    1807
    many perfectly admirable women teachers would begin to fear that the profession was no longer a place for them. At any rate, when all is said and done, what the hon. Gentleman is asking us to do is to stereotype the price of two different commodities. Labour is a commodity, and has its price like any other commodity, and nothing can be more dangerous than to attempt in an Act of Parliament to force a Government Department to say that two commodities are of equal value whether in fact they are so or not.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is teaching by women a different commodity to teaching by men?
    Sir C. BATHURST: Quite conceivably it may be, and in some cases undoubtedly it is. If the hon. Gentleman is not careful he will find that women of exceptional capacity will under this Clause be paid less than in fact they are entitled to receive as the result of the qualifications which they possess, and I think it would be trenching on very dangerous ground indeed if we in these days, under pressure of Government control in every direction and the fixation by the Government of wages in various departments of industry, were to stereotype in an Act of Parliament the equalisation of price of what is, after all, an economic commodity.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I remind the hon. Member of the legislation connected with agriculture within the past few months, when there was no sex discrimination in fixing the minimum rate of payment for agricultural work?
    Sir C. BATHURST: Nothing surprises me more than the interruption of the hon. Member. I happen to know something about agricultural wages as fixed under the Corn Production Act, and I am quite sure of this, that whatever may be the minima that are suggested in various counties, the agricultural wages as paid to women will not be, at any rate for many years to come, the same wages as are paid to men. What I really want to impress upon the Committee is that, in attempting to fix the same value for women's and for men's labour in the teaching profession, you are in fact making the competition in the case of women much more severe than it is to-day, and for a class of women whose intellectual attainments may not be very high but who are particularly
    1808
    valuable in looking after the younger children in our schools. That is a class which will be seriously prejudiced if this Clause is passed. I should like to know, before I assent to any such suggestion as this, what are the views of the National Union of Teachers. I see in this House at least two present or past representatives of the National Union of Teachers, and if they sit still and do not lend their support to this proposal I do not feel justified in asking the Committee to accept what the organisation of teachers themselves, through their accredited representatives, are not prepared to ask the House to adopt.
    Mr. BOOTH: I ventured to challenge the hon. Gentleman who moved the Clause when he was speaking as to the facts. He had no right to say that he represented the united voice of anybody on this question.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I did not say anything of the kind.
    Mr. BOOTH: The hon. Member used the term "united voice," and it was at that point that I intervened. I venture to say that women's organisations, taken either collectively or individually, are not united on this question, and I oppose the Amendment, because I am certain it would not carry out the objects of any of us who want fair treatment for women. I am willing that women should be paid higher wages than men even, but this Resolution will not provide for that. Take the ordinary school, where there may be twelve teachers, of whom six are well paid and six poorly paid. Under this Clause six women could get the poorly-paid jobs and six men the other jobs. The Clause refers to differentiation as regards salary, but the hon. Member is quite agreeable that there should be differentiation as regards employment or posts. Are the Movers of this Clause prepared that differentiation shall be made on other grounds than the selection of posts? The controversy is most acute with regard to head teachers, and part of the women's case is that if they demand always the same salary as the men they would not get any of the head posts. That is the view of a great many women, and when the appeal is made that this is part of some general movement throughout the country I think it is most absurd. The other day, when the Juries Bill was before the House and I suggested that women should sit on juries

    1809
    as well as men, where were the hon. Members? I want to ask, if there is this zeal that on every occasion women ought to be treated exactly the same as men, why it was not shown on that occasion?
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: The hon. Member seems to forget that sometimes other duties call hon. Members away to other work.
    Mr. BOOTH: I quite agree, but none of those hon. Gentlemen who have moved this Clause were here. The hon. Member who introduced this argument said he wanted the general trend of public opinion to be brought into this Bill, but I venture to say he ought not to bring it before the Committee with misleading statements. I am more moved to say that because there was a Committee which dealt with this very thing, and which had four women upon it, and was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik). They presented a unanimous Report exactly opposite to this Clause. So far as I understand, there was no Minority Report.
    Sir H. CRAIK: No.
    Mr. BOOTH: Whenever I have read the discussions of teachers I have always been puzzled to know what views they would take, and when I have come to examine them, what I have been informed is this, that the men teachers as a rule vote in favour of equality of salary, but the women are against it. I do not know whether that is so, but that is what I am told by women themselves. That is a very curious thing. I should have thought it was far better to have an enlightened policy on the part of the local authorities. If women are fit for higher posts, they should have them; but when you come to make hard and fast rules and make no provision for the—
    Sir R. NEWMAN: The hon. Gentleman has rather misinterpreted our position. This Clause is not to make any hard and fast rule. It is only against the education authority having one scale for men and another scale for women for the same work.
    Mr. BOOTH: It only deals with differentiation as to salary?
    Sir R. NEWMAN: Yes; on the ground of sex.
    Mr. BOOTH: I have pointed out that there is no protection whatever. You do not insist that the same wages should be paid to every teacher. You cannot. You do not pay the same for teaching Latin as for teaching the alphabet, and therefore you must have different scales. No one would say the distinction was as to sex, but certain education authorities do now give all the higher paid posts to the men and the lower paid posts to the women, and we can get out of that, I suppose, by education, and by demanding that there shall be fairer treatment. But this Clause does not put it right, and it is a false idea to imagine that by passing a few words of this description we shall put the position right.
    Sir H. CRAIK: With regard to the Committee over which I had the honour to preside, there were on that Committee three ladies very eminently qualified to sit on it. We took the question most carefully into consideration, with the single desire on the part, I am certain, of every member of that Committee, to come to a fair and reasonable settlement. Our view was that if we laid down a rule of this sort it would lead to minimum salaries, and that the result, in a very large number of cases, would be to drive women out of the positions they at present held. That view may have been right or wrong, but I can only say that all those women joined in the unanimous Report of that Committee, which recommended a different scale of salaries generally. We made one exception, and it is a very important one. We laid down no rule, but merely made a recommendation that in the higher posts of the profession, for which, by special qualifications they had shown they were fitted, then those higher posts should be paid at a certain fixed scale of salaries, and that those salaries should be assigned whether they were men or women. We thought that it was a fair and equitable adjustment of the case. But to have laid down a general rule of this sort applicable to every post running through the whole profession, we felt—and our lady colleagues joined in that feeling—that the result of such action would be fatal to the strong position which women at present occupied in the profession.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 20; Noes, 90.

    Division No. 59.]

    AYES.

    [7.55 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Durham)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Arnold, Sydney

    Hudson, Walter

    Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

    Jacobson, Thomas Owen

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Buxton, Noel

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Rushcliffe)

    Sutton, John E.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eltion)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Finney, Samuel

    Martin, Joseph

    Mr. Whitehouse and Mr. Chancellor.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescus

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Agnew, Sir George

    Fletcher, John S.

    Parkes, Sir Edward

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Forster, Rt. Hon. Henry William

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

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

    Foster Philip Staveley

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Bathurst, Capt. Sir C. (Wilts)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

    Pratt, John W.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis Jones

    Randles, Sir John

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

    Hanson, Charles Augustin

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arton)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Richardson, A. (Gravesend)

    Brookes, Warwick

    Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

    Roberts, Sir Herbert (Denbighs.)

    Bryce, John Annan

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Robinson, Sidney

    Carew. Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Hibbert, Sir Henry

    Rutherford, Sir W. Watson (W. Derby)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Higham, John Sharp

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Chcyne, Sir William W.

    Hills, John Waller (Durham)

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Clough, William

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Collins, Sir William (Derby)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cowan, Sir William Henry

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Craig, Ernest (Crewe)

    Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Stoker, R. B.

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

    Jones, Wm. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

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

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

    Swift, Rigby

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

    Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

    Tickler, Thomas George

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

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Walker, Col. W. H.

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Wardle, George J.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Watt, Henry A.

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Otley)

    M'Kean, John

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham)

    Du Pre, Maj. W. B.

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

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

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. William H. (Fulham)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. A. Ward.

    The CHAIRMAN: The next two Clauses on the Paper (Amendment of Education (Choice of Employment) Act, 1910) and (Provision of Maintenance Allowances)—have already been dealt with. The last Clause on the Paper—

    SECOND SCHEDULE.—ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

    Session and Chapter.

    Short Title.

    Extent of Repeal.

    3 Edw. 7, c. 24

    …

    The Education (London) Act, 1903

    …

    In the First Schedule, paragraph (2).

    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, in the third column, to leave out the words "paragraph (2)," and to insert instead thereof the words "paragraphs (2) and (7)."
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Is this a drafting Amendment?
    Mr. FISHER: Merely drafting.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That I report the Bill, with Amendments, to the House."
    (Choice of Continuation Schools in Certain Cases)—should have come on on Clause 10.
    First Schedule [Extension of Enactments] agreed to.
    Sir M. BARLOW: On a point of Order, Mr. Whitley. I should like to ask one question of the President.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member's opportunity for asking questions has passed.
    Sir M. BARLOW: I refer to the last Amendment but one, standing in the names of four Members. I understand the President gave some sort of assurance in regard to this matter.
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address me?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I want to put the point to you, Sir, whether that Amendment has gone absolutely, and as to what is the position? I understand there was some agreement arrived at in regard to it.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman refers to his own Amendment which he was not going to move?
    Sir M. BARLOW: No; to that standing in the names of Mr. Boland, Sir Mark Sykes, Mr. Scanlan, and Mr. O'Grady, entitled Choice of Continuation School in Certain Cases.
    The CHAIRMAN: The one of which I have just spoken?
    Sir M. BARLOW: Yes.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have said that it should have been an Amendment on Clause 10. It can come up on the Report stage.
    Sir M. BARLOW: I beg your pardon.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

  FLAX COMPANIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill now be read a second time."
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Owing to the enormous demand for flax for the War Office, Admiralty, and aeroplane requirements, and the loss of the Russian and Belgian crops, which, of course, are no longer available as the area from which we have obtained our supplies, it has become essential to make a very large development of flax production within the Empire. Part of the effort we are making for earlier production is in Ireland. Arrangements have been made for a very considerable extension of flax-growing there. The banks are willing to advance the necessary money under guarantee in part by the linen industry and in part by the War Office with the consent of the Treasury. Some difficulty has arisen owing to the fact that the companies who are willing to undertake the liability strictly have no power to do so under the terms of their articles of association or instruments of incorporation. The object of this Bill
  1814
  is to give them the power which they do not at present possess. They could, of course, go to the Courts in the ordinary way and get an amendment of their articles of association, but it was thought fair that as we have done in the case of the munition companies so we should do in the case of these companies—that is to say, give them power by Statute without imposing upon them the obligation to go to the Courts. This Bill imposes no obligation upon anybody, but enables those willing to do so to come to the assistance of the country in the provision of a very vital commodity. That is the object of the Bill, and I hope the House will give it a Second Reading.
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: Naturally we understand there are very important objects of national importance which this Bill seeks to carry out, but I should rather like to hear what guarantee the War Office is to give. I refer to the estimated amount. If it cannot be given now, perhaps it can at a later time. I am dependent upon the explanation which has been given by the hon. Gentleman of the Bill, as I have studied it but briefly; but it does seem to me that the Bill is drafted in singularly wide terms. It suggests that practically any company, whatever its shareholders may say, may depart from its articles of association and do a number of things which the shareholders have not sanctioned. That may be all right in the case of the individual companies to which reference has been made, but, as I say, the Bill is drafted in very wide terms, and it seems to me that it may require some little study and some closer drafting with a view to preventing difficulties which conceivably may arise.
  Mr. BOOTH: I have studied the Bill somewhat, and I certainly think there should be a safeguard in it. It not only enables a company to go behind its prospectus, but also outside its memorandum. There are many people who have invested in a company and who rely upon its memorandum to limit it, say, to banking, or insurance, or cotton, or coal, as the case may be, and they would not have the least idea that the directors by a resolution at a meeting could embark to any extent they like upon an enterprise of the sort referred to. I should like to make the suggestion, which I hope the Government will not consider unreasonable, that those concerned should have to apply to some Government Department

  1815
  before they can act—say, to the Board of Trade. As a matter of fact, most companies can, by means of their board, exercise all the powers of the company, but here you are going to give them some reason to break all their conditions and all their bonds in order to invest in flax. There should he some form or some check; they should have the consent of the Board of Trade or the Home Office; they should have to take some definite act, however moderate, whereby some independent person casts his eye over the proposed transaction, and such, I think, would avoid any possible trouble, in view of this unlimited power.
  Sir C. BATHURST: I also would like to press the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to give us some idea as to the extent of the guarantee for which, of course, this House is primarily responsible. I should also like to ask him whether this scheme contemplates growing flax alone in Ireland, which, of course, possesses a climate and certain facilities in the way of waterways which are peculiarly suitable both for the growing and milling of flax, or whether it is proposed to have considerable areas of flax growing in England and Wales? In connection with this question I should also like to ask whether it is proposed that a portion, at any rate, of this flax is to be grown with a view to the provision of linseed, which is one of the scarcest commodities in this country? We require a very large area for carrying our stocks through the winter months. I venture to hope that the right hon. Gentleman has that in mind, because no doubt he is aware there is no matter upon which the farming community is to-day more anxious than as to whether concentrated foods will be available for carrying the cattle and the sheep through the winter months, and in the succeeding years. If agriculturists have the assurance that there will be a considerable increase of home-grown linseed, and therefore of home manufacture of linseed cake, it will make the Bill popular amongst the agricultural community.
  Mr. FORSTER: The guarantee for the scheme which is in contemplation is £600,000 guaranteed by the War Office, and £200,000 guaranteed by the linen industry. I think we may hope that no portion of the guarantee will be called up, but it is contingent upon the success
  1816
  or the failure of the crop. It is essential that every effort should be made to promote this system of flax-growing. In regard to the observations made by the hon. Member for Pontefract and the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. C. Roberts), there is perhaps some desirability that the Bill should not be too widely drawn. I shall certainly consider that point between now and the Committee stage, and, if I can meet them, I shall be very glad to do so.
  Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us in what way that guarantee will be called upon? Will it take the form of taking shares in the undertaking, or in certain contingencies, if loss arises, will the country be called upon to meet that loss?
  Mr. FORSTER: The actual money will be advanced by the banks under guarantee, as to part of it, on the liability of the War Office, and as to the other part on the liability of the linen industry. In regard to the point made by my hon. Friend behind me (Sir C. Bathurst), certainly I hope that the supply of linseed will be enlarged. All of us personally are concerned, and, as an agriculturist, I am just as much concerned as my hon. and gallant Friend in regard to this matter. The object we have in view is the production of flax, largely for the purpose of aeroplane manufacture, and largely for those canvas requirements of the War Office.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Parker.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. BOOTH: I suppose we may now take it definitely from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury that the House will not sit on Friday?
  Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): Yes.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes after Eight o'clock.

WAR.
  PERSONS OF ENEMY ORIGIN.
  PERSONS OF ENEMY ORIGIN.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  AGRICULTURE (LABOUR SHORTAGE).
  AGRICULTURE (LABOUR SHORTAGE).
  MUSKETRY INSTRUCTOR (SHOOTING ACCIDENT).
  MUSKETRY INSTRUCTOR (SHOOTING ACCIDENT).
  WAR SERVICES (RECOGNITION).
  WAR SERVICES (RECOGNITION).
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  CROWBOROUGH CAMPS (WATER SUPPLY).
  CROWBOROUGH CAMPS (WATER SUPPLY).
  ARMY BEEF (INSPECTION).
  ARMY BEEF (INSPECTION).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  WAKEFIELD INTERNMENT CAMP.
  WAKEFIELD INTERNMENT CAMP.
  WIRE RODS.
  WIRE RODS.
  BEER AND MALT (EXPORTS).
  BEER AND MALT (EXPORTS).
  WOOD PULP AND PAPER (IMPORTS).
  WOOD PULP AND PAPER (IMPORTS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (TEMPORARY WOMEN CLERKS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (TEMPORARY WOMEN CLERKS).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  AGRICULTURISTS.
  AGRICULTURISTS.
  School Children (Medical Treatment).
  School Children (Medical Treatment).
  Telephonists (Sunday Duties).
  Telephonists (Sunday Duties).
  Forestry, Scotland (Advisory Committee).
  Forestry, Scotland (Advisory Committee).

LOANS (INCUMBENTS OF BENEFICES) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Acts relating to loans to incumbents of benefices by Queen Anne's Bounty.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a,— (Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

CORN PRODUCTION (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I wish to ask my noble friend the representative of the Board of Agriculture in this House about the business for to-morrow. A Bill to amend subsection (3) of Section 11 of the Corn Production Act, 1917, which was read a first time yesterday, has been put down for Second Reading to-morrow. Without saying anything about the merits or otherwise of that Bill, I would call attention to the fact that it has not yet been circulated. In my judgment it is a measure of considerable importance, though consisting of only a few lines, and I am sure that your Lordships ought to have an opportunity of considering it. In these circumstances I would ask that the Bill be postponed, and that the Second Reading be not taken to-morrow.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD or AGRICULTURE (LORD CLINTON): My Lords, I recognise the reasonable nature of the request of my noble friend. The notice is undoubtedly very short, but there is need for some haste in the matter, because the power which the Act provides will expire next month. But if I can get some assurance, or, at all events, some understanding, that no objection will be taken to proceeding with the Committee stage very shortly after the Second Reading, I shall be willing, with the leave of the House, to take the Motion for the Second Reading of the Paper for to-morrow and to put it down for next Tuesday. But I hope the noble Viscount will raise no objection to the Committee stage being taken the same week.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am not in a position to give an undertaking for any one except myself, but as far as I am personally concerned I think it would be desirable that the Bill should be postponed rather longer than that. Communication is not very easy in these days, and when your Lordships' House separates at the end of the week I do not think that noble Lords always get the information with regard to business very rapidly. Would the noble Lord object to making it next Thursday, instead of next Tuesday? There would still be ample time, and as far as I am concerned I would offer no objection to the Bill going into Committee after being read a second time in the ordinary way.
LORD CLINTON: I am afraid I must ask the noble Viscount to be satisfied with a postponement until Tuesday, because this is the commencement of the Bill; it has to go through both Houses, and, as I have stated, there is need for haste in the matter. Therefore I do not think the Second Reading ought to be put off beyond Tuesday, and I shall put it down for that day.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I did not realise that the Bill had not been through the other House; and I agree.

THE LATE VISCOUNT RHONDDA.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, your Lordships will have noticed with deep regret the intimation in the newspapers that Lord Rhondda has passed away. There is something pathetic, something almost tragic, in the circumstances of his death, for truly it may be said that Lord Rhondda died in harness and that he undoubtedly shortened his life by the severity of his exertions in the interests of the State. Many of us had known Lord Rhondda in a public and Parliamentary capacity long before he entered this House. He was for nearly twenty-five years a Welsh Member in another place, distinguished for his faithful service there, and also for a reputation for business capacity of quite an unusual character; but with the present war it may be said that his real opportunity came. In 1915 he was sent out on a special Mission to the United States and Canada in connection with the supply of munitions,

549
and those who were behind the scenes know well how successfully he discharged that duty. With the formation of the present Government at the end of 1916 he became President of the Local Government Board, and took a seat in your Lordships' House. It was in June, 1917, just a year ago from now, that he assumed the difficult and thankless post of Food Controller. I might mention that it was on his return journey from the successful Mission in the United States to which I have referred that Lord Rhondda was one of the victims of the shameful attack upon the "Lusitania," and I believe there can be no doubt that his experiences on that occasion very materially weakened his health; so much so, that when the post of Food Controller was offered to him his doctors showed the utmost reluctance in allowing him to undertake so arduous a task. His sense of public duty prevailed, and he assumed the burden. How difficult and how delicate it was, nobody knows better than your Lordships. He had to accustom the people of this country to restrictions upon their everyday method of life which were unpalatable, irksome, and novel. How well he did it is now a matter of common knowledge. I suppose it would be true to say that Lord Rhondda was the only popular Food Controller in Europe, and so well did he and those who act with him carry out their task that the people of this country almost contentedly hugged the chains which it was the duty of Lord Rhondda to place upon them. I think, my Lords, that his success was due to three things. Firstly, to the business experience and faculty of organisation to which I have referred; secondly, to the possession of an unruffled temper—your Lordships had experience of his imperturbability on different occasions in debate in this House; thirdly, to the great trust which he always reposed in his subordinates, from whom he obtained the most loyal and devoted service. In these ways Lord Rhondda was able to achieve a success which is often denied to men who fill a more dramatic part on the stage of public life, and the vacancy caused by his death is one which the Government and the country will find it difficult to fill.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Crewe, I wish to say how sincerely on this side of the House we find ourselves in sympathy with everything that has fallen from the noble Earl. Lord Rhondda was a superb man of business, and by his
550
management of a very difficult question he gained the confidence of the people of this country in a remarkable degree. As the noble Earl has pointed out, one of his great gifts was his power of appreciating the help that the best experts could be to him, and his willingness to make use of the best talent wherever that talent offered itself. The result of this great gift in administration was that, directed by his business mind, the management of affairs under him was a great success. The country recognised this, and the nation is poorer for his loss, for it will be very difficult to fill his place. On behalf of my noble friends and those associated with us, I wish again to express our deep sense of the loss which this House as well as the country has suffered, and our complete concurrence in all that has fallen from the noble Earl.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, as I have unfortunately felt it my duty sometimes to oppose the policy of Lord Rhondda, I wish, if I may be permitted to do so, to say in a very few words how entirely I sympathise with what has fallen from the Leader of the House and from my noble friend sitting on this Bench. Indeed, although it is true that I have sometimes felt myself compelled to differ, and differ acutely, from Lord Rhondda in some portions of the policy which he has pursued, yet I do most profoundly regret the premature decease, as I regard it, of a political opponent. Whenever we differed, I am quite certain of one thing—namely, that we differed solely because he did what he felt to be his duty, and it is on those grounds that I desire to express the deep sympathy which I am sure is shared by all your Lordships at the premature decease of the noble Viscount in the cause of what he felt to be his duty.

THE WAR OFFICE AND HAY.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the procedure of the War Office in regard to hay, and to ask—

Does the War Office intend to take away after September 30 next all hay of the crop of 1917 which may then be unconsumed on any farm.

551

Will the War Office postpone any decision as to taking what remains of the 1917 crop till it can be ascertained for certain that the hay crop of 1918 will be quite sufficient for the requirements of occupiers of land till September 30, 1919.

What is the amount of hay which the War Office estimates will be required for the year ending September 30, 1919, for the farmer, the Army, and the civilian.

How do the War Office ascertain the requirements of these three classes.

How and by whom are the Committees constituted who give licences for the sale of hay.

Whether, when hay belonging to a farmer has been released by the military authorities, it can be sold to a consumer at the price which the consumer would have had to pay if he had bought from a dealer; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I desire to ask the noble Earl the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office a series of Questions which I have put on the Paper fully, so that I should not take him unawares as regards any of them. In putting them I may say that, while I recognise the courtesy and consideration of the higher officials of the War Office and the Board of Agriculture in dealing with the question of hay, undoubtedly a good deal of friction has arisen from the fact that gentlemen, clothed in khaki as a rule and with a little brief authority, come down upon the farms and treat the farmers in a way in which they ought not to be treated—in a very rough and ready way. Such an official says, "I am going to take the whole of your hay. You cannot have any objection. I am going to commandeer it."
I have a letter here from a member of your Lordships' House, in which a noble Duke says he is very glad that I am raising this question. Only the other day a military officer appeared upon the farm of one of his tenants—it is a farm of 200 acres—and said that he had come to seize all the hay except ten tons, in spite of the fact that it was explained to him that, owing to the drought, it was unlikely that the farmer would have at all a large crop of hay this year. It is a heavy clay farm where often they do not hoe till August. The probability is that this officer was only
552
authorised to say, "We shall only leave you ten tons, and you will have an appeal afterwards as regards the quantity you may want." But the impression left on the minds of the farmers of this country by the officials—the minor people—who go to them like this, is that the Government are going to seize everything and that the farmers will be left without any hay at all.
As the noble Earl knows, it looks as if we are going to have a very small hay crop indeed, and, should the drought continue, it will be a very serious matter for the farmers if the hay crop is taken. Under present conditions I think it would be unwise for the Government to take any hay at all, or to hamper the farmers in the matter until the hay crop is assured and they know the amount that will be available for the coming twelve months Otherwise, what inevitably will happen will be that farmers, like the tenant of the noble Duke, will say "If they are going to treat us in this way we shall kill off our stock and turn our cattle into the hay field at once. What is the use of saving hay for the Government to take it away from us?"
I should like to ask the noble Earl my first Question as to the hay crop of 1917—whether they intend to take the whole of that? According to the letter that I have quoted, it would appear that they are going about telling farmers that they are going to take the whole of the hay crop, except a small quantity which in their judgment—not the judgment of the farmers—is deemed to be sufficient for the farmers until September 30 next. I do not see how it is possible, even for experts, to estimate requirements in this matter, and it would be a great thing if the noble Earl could give some assurance that there is not going to be any commandeering wholesale in the matter, but that the Government are going to wait and see how it is going on.
In my second Question I ask as regards the requirements of this year, and how they are going to ascertain what the hay crop is going to be for next year. How is the noble Earl going to estimate the amount of hay which he thinks is required? I have been told—I do not know whether the noble Earl will agree—that the War Office or the Board of Agriculture estimate it at about 11,000,000 tons as an average crop. If the average crop is 11,000,000

553
tons it is very unlikely that there will be anything like that amount this year. No doubt the noble Earl will tell us. If the demand for the War Office is, say, 1,000,000 tons, and for the civilian population another 1,000,000 tons, that leaves 9,000,000 tons for the farmers; but, on the other hand, supposing there are only, 9,000,000 tons coming in, what are they going to do? Are they going to reduce the farmers to 7,000,000 tons? Then I should like the noble Earl to consider another point. Owing to the likelihood of there being a great shortage of roots and straw (because they will be affected in the same way), this fact will make it more necessary to use a larger amount of day than if we had a good crop of roots and straw. Further, as the noble Earl knows very well, there must be a great reduction anyhow in the hay crop this year from the fact that a great deal of grass land has been ploughed up—improperly ploughed up, in my judgment—when it was too late to crop it. That is land which ought to be simply bare arable fields covered with grass at the present moment, and which might have produced a good hay crop. I do not think I need go further into details because my Questions sufficiently explain themselves. I hope the noble Earl, on behalf of the War Office, will give an assurance to agriculturists and farmers that they are going to be treated fairly, if not leniently.
I am glad to think that one advantage has accrued from having put the Question on the Paper of how and by whom the Committees are constituted. It has had a good effect, because instead of the preposterous method that has existed until lately, whereby the people who made the allotments were the hay dealers themselves, I understand that since the Question appeared on the Paper there has been an announcement that the Committees now will be constituted on another and a fairer principle, and that the farmers will have one-third, the consumer one-third, and the hay dealers one-third of the representation. I think this will remove a good deal of the grievance in the matter, but I hope the noble Earl will give a sympathetic reply and some assurance on behalf of the War Office that farmers will be treated well and that great care will be taken that they shall have a full supply of hay in the coming winter—a supply that will be enough for them for all contingencies. I hope also that the noble Earl will say that there is no idea of rationing farmers as regard
554
hay, because it is perfectly impossible for the farmer to say the amount of hay he will want for his stock. I beg to move.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE WAR OFFICE (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord who has put these Questions on the Paper that the War Office has every intention of dealing fairly and justly by the farmer. Perhaps before proceeding to reply to the Questions which he actually puts, it would be advisable if I gave the House a very short précis of the arrangements which have come into force as the result of the award made by Sir Arthur Lee on April 29. I feel sure that your Lordships would wish to congratulate the right hon. gentleman on the honour conferred upon him in his having been elevated to your Lordships' House, and I can only regret that he has not already taken his seat in order that he might explain the very able award that he made.
In each county there is to be set up an Allotment Committee, to which the noble Lord has referred. This Committee will consist of three members, representing the producer, the dealer, and the horse owner. These County Committees nominate representatives on a Central Council. The Central Council will consist of sixteen members, one being the representative of the War Office, and the remaining fifteen will be nominated from the five Departments into which Great Britain is divided. The duty of the Central Council will be to recommend any modifications of the existing scheme for the 1917 crop and to survey the whole problem for 1918. The Forage Committee has been reconstituted. It sits under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Trustram Eve, and consists of eighteen members. In addition to the chairman, there is an ex officio member—the Chairman of the Central Council to which I have just referred—and sixteen representative members, seven representing the various Government Departments concerned, and nine representing the hay producers, dealers, and consumers. The duties of the Forage Committee are to keep in touch with the County Farm Produce Committees and to deal with, and advise on, all matters relating to the acquisition of farm produce for His Majesty's Forces, and the purchase and distribution of the civil supplies of forage.
In regard to the Question of the noble Lord on the Paper, the War Office will only

555
take from the holder so much hay as is considered a surplus to his reasonable requirements. Occupiers of land have used a good deal more hay than had been anticipated, and I am afraid the situation in regard to hay is not a very good one. It is not possible, therefore, to postpone the taking of this decision until after September 30, and this not in the interests of the Army but in the interests of the civil population. I think the noble Lord will agree that the occupiers' interests will be safeguarded because they have the right of appeal to the County Farm Produce Committees, which are composed entirely of tenant farmers.
In reply to the next Question on the Paper, I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord any exact estimate of the amount of hay required for the year ending September, 1919. We hope to get a more exact figure, but, as the noble Lord knows, it has to be worked out on the number of animals that will require feeding. For the farmer the amount will be what he actually requires for the stock in his possession or control. The actual quantity will be decided by mutual agreement between the farmer and the Army purchasing officer, and failing agreement it will be referred to the County Farm Produce Committee. The requirements for the Army are about 1,000,000 tons. That amount is based on the established strength of animals in the Forces. The amount required for civilians is believed, by the War Office, to be approximately the same amount—1,000,000 tons—and is based on the amount that was released to civilians in the year ended July 31, 1917.
As your Lordships are aware, a Rationing Order came into force on July 11, and all owners of animals are being asked to register them with the dealer with whom they used to do business in previous years. We therefore hope very soon to know the exact number of animals which it will be necessary to feed, and by the Rationing Order the amount of hay that will be required. I understand that in Beloochistan horses are given no hay at all, but do extremely well on chopped straw and dried alfalfa, and it is hoped that horse-owners in this country may be prepared to follow, to some extent, some similar plan.
Licences for the sale of hay are given by the Army purchasing officers. When the register of animals has been completed the County Allotment Committees will
556
authorise the dealer, or producer, to supply forage in accordance with the number of animals registered upon his list. I think we shall therefore meet the point to which the noble Lord referred—namely, that the Allotment Committees are a preferable arrangement to its being entirely in the hands of the hay trade.
In regard to the last Question on the Paper, the producers can sell direct to horse-owners, and are then treated as dealers and can charge the same price. There has been, I think, a certain amount of annoyance caused because in some cases farmers have been charged for the cost of administering the scheme. What has happened is this, that any one who has the advantage of the £2 difference in price between Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 can be charged for the cost of administering the scheme up to a maximum of 5s. per ton. Actually the price has been somewhat between 2s. and 3s.
We hope that hay will be dealt with more carefully in the future. As your Lordships know, there is an Order in regard to the wastage of fodder, and in view of the almost certain increase in the price of hay we think farmers and others will be more careful not to waste what they have got. I do not think the War Office takes quite so gloomy a view of the hay crop as the noble Lord opposite. I do not know what the Board of Agriculture say about it, but I understand we hope to have somewhat of an average crop. It will not be, perhaps, quite so large as last year's because the acreage under grass, as the noble Lord knows, has probably been reduced by about 10 per cent. We cannot certainly hope to have anything like the very big crop we had in the year 1916, but we hope it will at any rate be not a short crop in most parts of the country.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I hope I may take the noble Earl's reply as an assurance on the part of the Government that farmers may rely on being permitted to retain an adequate allowance of hay for the maintenance of their flocks and herds during the winter and early spring months. I am sure the noble Earl, and the Department he represents in this House, will agree with me that one of the most serious questions is the depletion of the number of breeding ewes in this country. The maintenance of our flocks is one of the most important

557
questions of the present day, and every encouragement should be given to owners to increase the number of breeding ewes. Therefore, I attach great importance to a sufficiency of hay being provided.
I notice that the noble Earl did not give a specific answer to the first Question of the noble Lord—as to whether the War Office intends to take away, after September 30 next, all the hay crop of 1917 which may then be unconsumed on any farm. I sincerely hope there is not going to be a hard-and-fast rule that all the hay that may be in the farmers' possession on that date is going to be taken out of his hands. I know you may say that this is not a very important point, because, as a matter of fact, in many counties at that date there will be very little old hay at all left. Most persons in my part of the country have an exceedingly small quantity of the 1917 hay crop in their possession at the present moment, but in individual cases it may be a very great hardship if you take away all that remains of that crop in the farmers' possession on September 30.
I know of a concrete case, in which a farmer, who is also an occupier of land and a large fattener of cattle, is fortunate in having a very considerable amount of the 1917 hay crop in his possession, but on the other hand is unfortunate because his grass land has been ploughed up, with the probability of his having a very short supply of hay for this year. With the number of stock he keeps he will be placed in an extremely serious position if it is proposed to compulsorily take away his whole hay crop. I sincerely hope there is no intention on the part of the War Office, or the Board of Agriculture, to forfeit all the old hay which farmers may have in their possession on September 30. I trust that a reasonable view will be taken, and that in asking a farmer to compute what his requirements will be during the winter and summer months due allowance will be given for the old hay that is in hand, as well as the crop from the hay harvest this year. I shall be glad if the Government will give some assurance on this point.
LORD STRACHIE: Before the noble Earl replies, perhaps he will allow me to ask him whether he can give an assurance that the War Office will issue a circular to their purchasing officers telling them that in all cases they may inform the farmer that if he is not satisfied with their
558
action he has a right of appeal to the County Produce Committee. It is quite satisfactory that the farmers have this appeal, but at the present moment the majority of them do not know of this right. The ordinary farmer, and especially the small farmer, thinks that if a man comes in khaki and gives an order he simply has to obey it, and that if he does not he will probably be taken away and put in prison. If all farmers were made acquainted with the fact that they have a right of appeal it would be more satisfactory, and I hope the noble Earl will undertake to do that.
EARL STANHOPE: I think that certainly the War Office will be able to inform farmers that they have a right of appeal. I am sorry that I did not make it clear to my noble friend that the War Office had no intention of taking away all hay in any case, but only where it was found to be surplus to the ordinary requirements.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Surplus to the requirements? In a part of Sussex in which I have a small interest the officer states that he has been ordered now to take away from farmers all hay that they are likely to have after September 1, and he has taken my hay away. I have a copy of the letter, and will send it to the noble Earl if he wishes. My noble friend's speech this afternoon has certainly given us the impression that these orders have not been issued from the War Office, and I hope that at any rate he will inquire into the matter, for it is very serious in the part of Sussex with which I am connected. The surplus of September 30 is being taken away now.
EARL STANHOPE: I did not mean to imply that the hay surplus on September 30 was only to be taken then; it is the hay which it is estimated will be surplus at that date.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: One is only allowed to keep sufficient now to last till September 30.
EARL STANHOPE: No.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I have that in writing, and I will send a copy of the letter to the noble Earl. If my reading of it is correct, I hope that he will stop the officer from doing what he is doing.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, before this matter is disposed of, I would beg the noble Earl to take into consideration the singularly unfortunate position in which farmers have repeatedly been placed by the different Departments of the Government, owing to all of them issuing Orders, and to some of those Orders being entirely contradictory, creating the greatest confusion and disgust among hundreds of farmers throughout the country, who never know from day to day what their position is going to be. One of the first essentials to successful farming is that the farmer should know exactly the position in which he is placed, and upon what he may count for certain that he will be called upon to do. He must know in ample time what it is that he is going to be called upon to do. That has not been the case hitherto. The complaints of farmers are numerous from all parts of the country, and many of those complaints that I myself know are thoroughly well founded. I have had endless cases sent to me to which no reply has ever been made that I am aware of. Sometimes when farmers have gone themselves to the War Agricultural Committees the responses there have not in all cases shown that due regard to the farmers' interests which they ought to have shown. I hope that the noble Earl will place this as definitely and as strongly as he can before the authorities who are responsible, and endeavour to do something to remove the complaints which I am quite certain hundreds of farmers in all parts of the country are justified in making at the present time.

SMALL HOLDING COLONIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Clinton.)
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, before the House resolves itself into Committee, I should like to call attention to the extraordinary way in which the officials of the Board of Agriculture have behaved in regard to the Return that was promised relating to the Patrington colony. On June 12 last I called attention to the Report on the Crown colonies, and to the very unsatisfactory accounts given for nine months, and I then had on the Paper a Resolution that a detailed balance sheet
560
for the Patrington small holding colony for 1917–18 should be presented to both Houses of Parliament forthwith. During the debate Lord Goschen, who then represented the Government, admitted at once the very unsatisfactory state of the accounts, and promised that a detailed account should be submitted as soon as possible. On that I withdrew the Motion that stood in my name.
Later, when the Motion was down for the Second Reading of the Bill, and, owing to the illness of Lord Goschen, was postponed, I asked my noble friend Lord Crawford if he would hasten the matter. He kindly said that he would. Nothing has come of that. In the debate it was again alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, who I do not wish to blame for the matter, as he has only just undertaken the duty of representing the Board of Agriculture. He made the following statement—
"The cash account is, I believe, very nearly ready and it should be in a position to be placed before your Lordships in a very short time. The profit and loss account, I am informed, is likely now to be made up to Michaelmas next, and will not be ready for your Lordships, of course, until after that time."
There must be an inability on the part of the Board of Agriculture to understand the difference between a Lady Day tenancy and a Michaelmas tenancy. A farm is taken over in Lady Day (April). A man I goes out in April, and naturally he has all his accounts ready. But the Board of Agriculture after nine months have not been able to produce these accounts, and they are now trying to postpone them till Michaelmas. This makes one suspicious of the reasons given for all this delay.
I think that the House has a perfect right to have full information on the management of the colony before it goes further into the matter. Therefore I sincerely hope that the House will support me if I give notice to-morrow that I will move that a detailed balance sheet differentiating between capital and annual farming expenditure for the Patrington Small Holdings Colony for the farming year April, 1917, to April, 1918, be presented to both Houses of Parliament forthwith. I think, when the Board of Agriculture seem unable now in July, to make out the accounts of the colony for April, 1917, to April, 1918, it is an extraordinary thing, and the sooner this is put right the better.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, the noble Viscount is very suspicious of the accounts of the Patrington estate. There have been, know, considerable delays in preparing these statements, but the noble Viscount should remember that this is the beginning of the management of this large farm of Patrington, and it is difficult, at first, particularly when no model farm accounts have yet been brought out, to put before your Lordships an intelligible statement at the expiry of the first year. At the request which was put forward during the Second Reading of the Bill a week or ten days ago, I had prepared an account which I hope the noble Viscount will consider is at all events an effort to put before your Lordships the information in our possession. The noble Viscount asked particularly about the failure of the Board to understand the difference between a Lady Day and a Michaelmas entry. The Board have decided to make up their accounts to the term of Michaelmas, and in my opinion, although I understand it is not the custom in the East Riding of Yorkshire—
VISCOUNT GALWAY: Nor in Nottingham.
LORD CLINTON: It is a very considerable advantage in a purely grain growing farm like Patrington to make up your accounts to Michaelmas, because that is the end of your farming year. The crops are off the ground, you are starting your ploughing for the new crops, and I am perfectly confident—it is a practice I follow myself—that on such farms the accounts are more conveniently made up to that date. I do not think, however, that the date is of very great importance as long as every year the full financial position of the farm is put before Parliament.
If the noble Viscount desires it, I can give him the figures which have been prepared for this purpose. I give them in round numbers. Live stock have been purchased to the amount of £15,000. The accounts that I am dealing with, I may say, are from April, 1917, and I am carrying them on, with valuations, up to the time when we intend to close the accounts at Michaelmas. The other items are:—Feeding stuffs and seedmen's charges, £8,000; implements, etc., £6,000 (that is for the Period of a year and a half); rent for the same period, £4,900; wages and national insurance, £10,000; interest on capital expenditure (that is, the interest upon the
562
new buildings which have been put up), £1,400; and various items, bringing the total expenditure up to £50,000.
On the credit side the actual receipt for live-stock, wool, corn, seeds, etc., amount to £11,600. The estimated value of stock, crops, implements, and grain crop are £46,000. The grain crop has been taken as the average yield during the last ten years in the East Riding of Yorkshire, and the price given is the maximum price of the day. I may say that I think that this value will come out probably more favourably to the estate because the crop is decidedly a good one. This shows an estimated balance for the one and a half years of a little over £8,000. It will show a profit after paying rent and all outgoings, including interest on capital expenditure for the one year of £5,200 or £5,300, which represents very closely the double rental upon which you will have to pay Income Tax.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for giving me these particulars; still they are very difficult to make out in a speech. I urge that they should be printed as a proper Return instead of being merely stated in a speech; it would he very much more satisfactory to the House and to the country at large.
On Question, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. Motion agreed to.
House in Committee, accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Increase in area of land which may be acquired for purposes of s. 1 of 6 & 7 Geo. 5, c. 38.
1. Subject to the provisions of this section, subsection (3) of section one of the Small Holding Colonies Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act"), which limits the area of the land which may be acquired by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for the purposes of that section, shall have effect as if forty-five thousand acres were therein substituted for four thousand five hundred acres, twenty thousand acres for two thousand acres, and sixty thousand acres for six thousand acres, and paragraph (c) of section eleven of the principal Act, which limits the area of the land which may be acquired by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for the purposes of the said section one, shall have effect as if twenty thousand acres were therein substituted for two thousand acres:
Provided that where land which is to be acquired for the purposes of the said section one could not, if this Act had not been passed, have been acquired for that purpose without making the total area of the land for the time being so acquired exceed the amount authorised to be so acquired, the land shall not be acquired otherwise than by taking the same on lease or by purchasing it on the terms that payment shall be made therefor by way of a rentcharge or other annual payment.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, after the words "sixty thousand acres for six thousand acres," to insert "Provided that for the purposes of the acquisition, equipment, and settlement of the area hereby authorised to be acquired by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Board may, with the consent of the county councils, employ the county councils as their agents and vest in them all the powers hereby or by the principal Act conferred upon them in addition to those vested in such councils by virtue of the Small Holdings Act, 1908."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment, as I indicated on the Second Reading, is to empower the Board of Agriculture, if they so wish, to delegate their powers to county councils for creating these small colonies in different parts of the country. The noble Lord will see that the county council may, under the Amendment, if they so wish, say they do not desire to undertake this duty but, if they are ready to undertake it, I think there is no better body, and they are much more likely to make a success of such management than it has been up to the present moment.
I notice that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill said the scheme was an experiment in a system of small holding colonies. I am rather surprised at that, because, if it was only an experiment, surely what has been done already with the 8,000 acres is sufficient, and you do not need to increase the experiment by another 60,000 acres. Curiously enough, when the former Bill was going through another place in 1916, Sir Richard Winfrey, now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, was apparently strongly opposed to its being called an experiment, and I very much sympathise with him, because, as he very truly remarked, we do not want any experiment in small holdings. He said—
"I should have thought that the Board of Agriculture must have known by this time that we have got much beyond the experimental stage
564
as far as small holdings are concerned. We want a colony like this in every county constituency in England, and not three miserable colonies. Here are some figures given me by one of the Small Holdings Commissioners the other day. We have now been working this Act for six years; this is our seventh year. In Norfolk we obtained over 15,850 acres."
Then he goes on to say that in East Anglia altogether they have from 30,000 to 40,000 acres of land. If the county councils have been so successful in this way, and Sir Richard Winfrey had such confidence in the county councils at that time, why is it that the noble Lord is, as I understand, going to oppose this Amendment giving powers to the county councils, if the Board of Agriculture so desire, to carry out the Small Holdings Act?
It is quite true, an Amendment has appeared on the Paper this morning in the name of the noble Lord, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Agriculture, as a sort of compromise between my Amendment and that of the noble Earl, Lord Lichfield, but the noble Lord's Amendment has the same fault which I complained of on the Second Reading—that it is setting up another body. What does the noble Lord propose to do by his Amendment? He proposes that the Board of Agriculture may set up a body in manner prescribed by the regulations of the Board itself. It is true that in the particular area, or the county, in which it is set up the majority are to be members of the county council, but other people are to be put upon the bodies by the Board of Agriculture. My experience as a county councillor is that when you have these bodies, partly of county counçillors and partly of people co-opted by the county councils—in this case they will be co-opted, I understand, by the Board of Agriculture—you generally find that the majority attending those committees are not elected members. It is certain that if you want to give satisfaction to the people in the district who want small holdings and who are accustomed to dealing with the county councils through their small holdings committees, you will do it much better by having elected representatives to whom they can go. If you merely have co-opted people they are not in touch with the men requiring holdings, and anyhow the electors have no control over them, and it is entirely against a democratic system to constitute these bodies. It is true they may be a majority,

565
but in practice it is generally found they are a minority when the body sits, the county councillors having a good deal else to do. I shall be rather surprised if the noble Lord is able to convince the House that the county councils are not the right bodies to put up. I shall be further surprised if he does not accept my Amendment, because, speaking on this question on the Second Reading, he said—
"I agree most thoroughly that the work in the past has been managed exceedingly well by the county councils and the small holdings committees They have given a great deal of time to the purpose, and have been able to employ local men with practical knowledge of all local customs—an asset of enormous value in dealing with land in this way. They have been very successful, I think, in getting a good typo of tenant, and, on the whole, they have been able to carry out the Act of 1908 with far less friction than any of us at one time thought possible."
What could be a stronger recommendation for my Amendment than what the noble Lord said in that speech?
If you have such an admirable body which has worked so well in the past, why should the Board of Agriculture object to allowing that body to carry out, as far as they wish and as far as the county councils themselves wish, the duties under this Amending Bill? The only reason why I think the noble Lord is opposed to it, or at any rate the Board of Agriculture, is that they wish to set up a new body of officials who have to be paid, and thereby increase the expenses, instead of using a body which would work economically and which has its officials ready to carry out the work. At the present time, owing to the action of the Treasury, those officials have nothing to do because they are unable to buy land for small holdings; therefore this seems to be the right opportunity for making use of the county council officials. As I said before, it seems that the view of Sir Richard Winfrey, who was responsible for this Bill in the House of Commons, is that there should be a new departure entirely and a new Government Department set up. The noble Lord (Lord Clinton) did not contradict me on the occason of the Second Reading when I stated that Sir Richard Winfrey had said in the Observer—
" We shall develop these pioneer colonies, and we hope eventually to acquire 1,000,000 acres."
If you want to acquire 1,000,000 acres I shall be very glad. But why set up a new Government Department for the purpose; why not let the county councils do it? I
566
beg to move the Amendment standing m my name on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, after the third ("acres") insert ("provided that for the purposes of the acquisition, equipment, and settlement of the area hereby authorised to be acquired by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Board may, with the consent of the county councils, employ the county councils as their agents and vest in them all the powers hereby or by the principal Act conferred upon them in addition to those vested in such councils by virtue; of the Small Holdings Act, 1908 ").—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD CLINTON: Before I reply I would remind your Lordships that there are on the Paper two other Amendments dealing with the same question. The next Amendment is in the name of my noble friend Lord Lichfield, and it might be a convenience to the House if he moved it now.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I have an Amendment to move which is not on the Paper.
LORD CLINTON: Cannot the noble Earl (Lord Lichfield) discuss his Amendment now?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The position is this: there are three Amendments dealing with the same point. If it is the wish of the House, and it is agreed on all hands, it would not be unusual to discuss the three Amendments as rival schemes.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: And state what they are first?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Yes.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: The Amendment which I desire to move comes before that of the noble Earl, Lord Lichfield. Therefore I will state at once why I desire to move it.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Is your Amendment on the same point?
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: No.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Then you cannot discuss it now, but you will not have lost your right.
LORD CLINTON: Does the noble Earl (Lord Lichfield) wish to move his Amendment now?
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: I do not propose to move my Amendment at the

567
moment, as I think it will be out of order; but after the noble Lord has spoken I shall speak both on my Amendment and on his proposal, if the House allows me.
LORD CLINTON: Very well. The Amendment moved by Lord Strachie, so far as it is to the purpose of bringing county councils into the management of small holding colonies, is one to which I am not at all unfavourable. But the noble Lord, in recommending it to your Lordships, has expressly refused, I think, to look upon this measure as anything but a small holdings scheme. It is true that it is very closely allied to small holding schemes, and to the Act of 1908 which the county councils administer; but there are, of course, differences in so far as these are experimental small holding colonies. Whether the experiment has gone far enough for us to have decided that colonies are either successful or are failures is open to doubt. The noble Lord thinks that they have gone far enough. I do not know whether he is satisfied that they have succeeded or failed; at all events the object of the measure is to deal with these small holdings which, so far as they are experimental, are different from the ordinary work of the county councils on their small holding schemes.
I am anxious to meet the Amendment of the noble Lord as far as it seems possible to do so, and I have put down a clause—which will come in, I think, as the second clause of the Bill—which represents the view of the Board upon the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Strachie, in remarking upon that clause, correctly stated that it is put down in answer to criticisms which were made upon the Bill during the Second Reading and also in fulfilment of the promise—or something approaching a promise—which I made on behalf of the Board that the assistance of the councils would be invited. But the noble Lord took that promise in a larger sense, I think, than was intended—namely, as being favourable to the entire management of these schemes being put into the hands of the councils. Now I cannot admit that, for reasons which I propose to give to your Lordships. In the first place, apart from the fact that these are experimental, it might reasonably be said that, as long as they remain experimental, they ought to be in the hands of one body which will carry out their experiments on the same lines rather than that they should be put into the hands of a large number of
568
different bodies who may have different ideas of how the experiment should be conducted, and whose conclusions, or results, might consequently be confusing. We want to see the experiment tried out on certain lines so that the country may be satisfied of the actual success or failure of the scheme.
But apart from this somewhat minor objection to the proposals, there are two objections which I think are very strong. The first is with regard to finance. This is money from national funds given for a particular purpose. The responsibility for the administration of these funds rests with the Board of Agriculture. I do not think that we can be rightly expected to hand over little portions of that money to different county councils under this measure; and also I doubt—in fact, I am certain—it is not a good principle that any body should be set up to administer a scheme involving considerable expenditure when that body has no responsibility for that expenditure. I think that the financial argument is probably a sound one, and that is my first reason against going to the full length which the noble Lord desires.
Then I think there is another reason. We are authorised to acquire a certain acreage in the country for the purpose of small holding colonies. There is no certainty that a portion of that will be acquired in each separate county. The probability is that it will not be so acquired. It is our duty to find where we can the most suitable places for the experiment, and it would be just a chance if we were able to find an ideally suitable place in each county in England, Scotland, and Wales; and if under those circumstances, land being found only in a few counties, the whole administration was placed in the hands of the county councils, is it not a certainty that those councils would give preference in their selection to the applications of men of their own county? It is so certain that this would be done that I do not think one need trouble to argue further in the matter.
What then would happen to applicants, presumably well-deserving, from counties which have not got that area within the boundaries of their own councils. I think they would probably fare very badly under the scheme, and as the scheme is for this national purpose it seems essential, that every one should have an equal chance to share in it. And what applies to the

569
counties which have not got a colony within their own boundaries applies, I think, with greater force to some of our great cities. In accepting applicants for land under this scheme preference is always to be given—it is one of the main purposes of the Bill—to those who have served in His Majesty's Forces during the present war. One may easily imagine, indeed I think it has been definitely stated, that there will be in our great cities a considerable number of soldiers or sailors who perhaps have been bred in the country and had some agricultural experience, but who for their own reasons have left the country and gone into the towns. After their strenuous experience of outdoor life in this war it is suggested that those are men who would very likely prefer to go back to their old pursuits in the country and get a piece of land. How would they be provided for if the whole of the land was put in the hands of the county councils? It seems to me that this is another objection to doing what the noble Lord asks.
What the Board propose is a clause which is taken from the Land Drainage Bill, to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading yesterday. It is not really the same clause, but it is adapted from it. It is a permissive clause. They may authorise any body constituted as the Board may prescribe to exercise on behalf of the Board any matter in relation to the purposes of this particular Bill, and that body shall consist as to a majority of county councillors. You there bring in the local elements which we all favour, which we are all anxious to get, and which we are all quite certain will help in the administration of the Bill. We thus get a majority of county councillors to assist in the work, and we have something less than a majority who will be sufficient, or I hope will be sufficient to represent the Board in their financial responsibility and also in seeing that a fair opportunity is given to applicants from other counties or from the cities to get some land under the scheme. I think this is as far as we ought to go in the matter, considering the two main points which I have raised—namely, finance, and the possibility of applicants for land coming from other counties.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: As your Lordships know, and as has already been stated, I have an Amendment coming later on which, although differently worded, is meant to bring about the same object as
570
the Amendment of Lord Strachie; and I may say at once that I do not care in the least which of those Amendments your Lordships accept, so long as you select the one which you consider the best worded and the most likely to meet the situation. The intention of both is the same—namely, to enable the Board of Agriculture to delegate these powers to the county councils.
When this Bill was before your Lordships for Second Reading if mentioned that the county councils were most anxious to do all they could to co-operate and help to make the Bill the greatest success possible for our ex-soldiers and sailors. I also stated that although the county councils had in no way given up their serious objection to the embargo that is now placed on loans for small holdings, and would do all they possibly could to press that upon the Treasury, yet in a small way they would be most anxious to help under the provisions of this Bill, and that with that object in view I was going to put down certain moderate Amendments to carry out those views of the county councils. I think your Lordship will agree that the Amendments are of a very moderate character, and that so far from being antagonistic to the objects of the Bill they are, on the contrary, likely to increase its efficiency.
I will deal now with the first Amendment that I have put down. It is in the same terms as that of Lord Strachie, and I would venture to point out that while my noble friend in charge of the Bill complains of my Amendment and that of Lord Strachie, because the Board of Agriculture cannot see their way to give up the entire management of these colonies to the county councils, there is no reason under my Amendment why they should do so. My Amendment says, to begin with, "The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may." That is entirely permissive; and it goes on to say that they may delegate "all or any of the power conferred upon the Board." Well, you have the option. For instance, my noble friend alluded to finance, and said that the Board being responsible for the finance could not see its way to hand it over to the county councils. My Amendment as it stands would, I think, provide for that difficulty. The Board would make certain arrangements with the county councils to protect themselves.

571
Again my noble friend alluded to the difficulty there might be as to the selection of candidates. That is to say, he suggested that the preference would undoubtedly be given to those ex-soldiers who happened to come from the particular county where the land was situate. There again, it seems to me perfectly competent, under the proposed words of the Amendment, for the Board to make arrangements with the county council on that point. The Board of Agriculture could take part in the nomination of these ex-soldiers and sailors and could make such arrangements as they thought fit with the county council on this subject. Therefore I do not think that these points, which the noble Lord urged against these Amendments, should really hold good. When you come to the counter proposals of the Board of Agriculture on this question I entirely agree with what has fallen from Lord Strachie, that the proposal contained in the Amendment is not at all a desirable one. Speaking from the county council point of view, I think there would be great objection to constituting a body in the county to deal with the small holdings when there is in existence in that county a special body of the county council conversant with the management of small holdings, and where the county councils and the officials are all equally familiar with such management. It would be, I think, quite impossible under the Amendment of my noble friend for the officials of the county council to be directly used by these Boards so appointed.
May I also say that I do not think the analogy with regard to the Drainage Bill is a very good one? It is perfectly true that the clause which was inserted in the Drainage Bill is a very satisfactory one to the county councils, but it must be remembered that the county councils are not the drainage authorities for their counties. They have no drainage staffs; they have no engineers, and so on. Therefore, in that case they were quite pleased that they were so far recognised that where the Board of Agriculture created these bodies for drainage boards there should be at least a majority of county councillors. In this particular case the county councils are the small holding authorities, and I venture to think it would not be a desirable thing to constitute boards such as are proposed under Lord Clinton's Amendment. On the contrary, I ask your Lordships, in consideration of these Amendments being of such a moderate character—I do not
572
care whether it is Lord Strachie's or my own—that you should rather adopt one or other of these two. By doing so you will give the county councils what they ask for. You will give them a position under this Bill.
I should like to call attention to this fact, that when the Bill was in the House of Commons no alterations were made in Committee, for some reason or another of which I am not aware; but on the Third Reading nearly every Member who spoke expressed the hope or the desire that county councils should be brought into the Bill. That was the whole trend of the discussion in the House of Commons. Therefore I am quite sure that any Amendments which your Lordships put into the Bill in the direction of giving the county councils a locus will be received by agreement and welcomed in the House of Commons. We must also remember that, as the Bill has passed the House of Commons, we must be very careful that we get our Amendments in now or it will be too late, and the omission cannot be remedied in the other House. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will agree to one or other of the two Amendments.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: As we seem to be discussing these various Amendments I should like to say that I prefer the Amendment of Lord. Lichfield to that of Lord Strachie. I do not like the idea mentioned in Lord Strachie's Amendment about the county councils being the agents of the Board of Agriculture. I prefer very much the words of Lord Lichfield's Amendment, that we should hand the work over to the county councils. As it is going to be, and is admitted to be, an experiment by the Board of Agriculture and the Government to carry out a scheme of colonies, I agree that the management ought to rest with them. What I feel very strongly is—and I quite agree with Lord Lichfield—that if they are going to take an estate in a county they ought not to do it without consultation first with the county council both as regards its advantages for small holdings or the absolute necessities of the case. I also hold strongly that the Amendment which I have down later on, but about which I will not speak now, should be adopted. I do not wish the county councils to be forced by the Board of Agriculture or the Government to take over a scheme which looks probably or possibly likely to turn out a failure, and that an odium which

573
they do not for a moment deserve should fall on them in consequence. On those grounds I support the Amendment of Lord Lichfield.
LORD BURNHAM: May I be allowed to point out to the House with great respect that the noble Lord who represents the Board of Agriculture has used arguments which I venture to think are entirely destructive to the proposals that he puts forward. He distrusts, and the Board which he represents also distrusts, the county councils unless reinforced by official nominees who may be appointed for reasons quite other than their knowledge of agriculture. The county councils are the greatest and the most dignified of our local authorities, but they are also the most democratic, are elected on the widest suffrage, and composed of those who have special knowledge as well as local responsibility which would enable them to deal most effectively with the purposes of this Bill.
I know it was alleged formerly that the county councils have shown themselves hostile in practice to the exercise of the powers for the acquisition of small holdings, but you cannot have a more powerful testimony in their favour than the figures and arguments used by Sir Richard Winfrey in 1916 in another place, because he was formerly a very severe critic of the county councils of the agricultural counties. He said—
"Here are some figures given me by one of the Small Holding Commissioners the other day. We have now been working this Act for six years—"
that is the Act which this Bill will amend—
"this is our seventh year. In Norfolk we obtained 15,850 acres under the Act, and we have put 1,382 tenants upon the land. In Cambridge-shire we have 10,000 acres and have put 1,438 tenants upon the land, and in Lincolnshire we have done about the same as in Norfolk. In the three Eastern counties of which I have some knowledge we have secured between 30,000 and 40,000 acres of land."
And then he ridiculed the Bill, as it was then before the House. I venture to say that the county councils would be far better off left to themselves than if they have political nominations made to them by the Board of Agriculture which will certainly not strengthen them from the expert point of view, but which may lead to friction in the working of the Act, as it will then be, which certainly none of your Lordships would wish to see introduced.
574
I do not believe a new body of this sort is necessary. Probably you have as many as you want in agricultural counties, looking at the time at the disposal of those to whom you wish to entrust the execution of these powers. It is a dangerous thing for the Board itself to have this responsibility thrown upon it. They will be besieged by applications to members of the other House for nomination to these bodies, and those who are exercising the powers will not be responsible to the people, as is the case with county councils. The noble Lord said they wanted to get this Bill executed everywhere in the same way. I venture to suggest that this is exactly what you do not want. You want to have the circumstances and conditions of every county dealt with according to the nature of the case, and I do not see why there should be this distrust of county councils acting not only fairly to the soldiers and sailors—a charge which could hardly be supported—but also in full sympathy with the purpose of the Bill.
My noble friend who has just sat down said that if this Bill failed it might bring unpopularity to the county councils. That is a rather unworthy argument to use. County councils would be the last to shirk responsibility in the matter, and besides they will have the odium just the same if they only have to direct the elective element of the new authority which the Government propose to set up. Those who are nominated are very possibly nominated for party and political considerations. These have to be taken into account; in practice it often works like that, as it does in the composition of a bench of magistrates. But it is not on these nominees that any unpopularity would fall but on the county councils, who are responsible to their constituents in the county areas. I do not believe that in the history of county councils there is any reason for questioning their zeal, and I am certain there is no reason for questioning their competence. If this Bill is to have a fair chance of success you cannot do better than entrust it to the greatest local authorities we have, which are always becoming more democratic because they are opening their doors wider to the labouring man. I hope that all those who are connected with county councils will take the course of supporting the Amendment, because I am quite certain the House of Commons will be unable to resist such an expression of opinion here.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I hope that the different speeches which have been made will tend to induce the noble Lord opposite somewhat to relax the extreme rigidity of attitude which he felt compelled to take up when he replied to the Amendment of my noble friend behind me. I was not unfortunately able to get here in time to hear the terms in which Lord Strachie moved his Amendment, and therefore I am unwilling to express any preference as between that Amendment and the kindred Amendment, very much in the same sense, which is on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Lichfield. But I think both noble Lords are justified in stating that the Amendment of each is couched in very moderate terms. They do not place compulsion on the Board of Agriculture, and they do not effect what is the purpose of my noble friend Lord Burnham—that is, to hand over the whole business to the county councils as they are. That, of course, is an arguable proposition. The county councils, certainly in a great many cases, have performed their duties under the Small Holdings Act with good sense and in many cases with enthusiasm. In the past, as we know, there were complaints that some councils were not showing all the activity which might be wished, but it is not proposed in either of these Amendments forcibly to hand over the entire management to them. A large discretion in the matter is left to the Board, no doubt on the ground which the noble Lord stated—namely, that the provision of money is central, and therefore it may be said to be reasonable that the central authority should have a large voice in its distribution. There is also the further point which the noble Lord made, that there may be a certain number of applicants for whom no county council would, on its own initiative, provide; although he somewhat himself minimised the force of that argument by stating that many of these men, townsmen, had at an earlier date come from some county or another. Those men would, I take it, have quite as good a chance of being now provided for in the county of their origin as if they had stayed there all the time.
LORD CLINTON: If their county had a area in which to put them.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I quite agree that there may be some cases—the County of London is one—in which the
576
possibility of provision is not large, and there may be other counties in which the quota of land might not be easy to find. But, on the main point of the Amendment, I would ask the noble Lord to consider seriously whether he cannot meet my noble friends in the very moderate form of Amendment they have put forward.
LORD CLINTON: I should like to say just one word on this matter. The noble Earl, Lord Lichfield, in supporting Lord Strachie's Amendments, rather suggested that they might be accepted because they were only permissive. It is quite true they are permissive, but it does not seem to me that I should be dealing quite fairly with the House if I accepted them as permissive knowing they were framed in such a way that the Board could not take advantage of that permission. That is to say, the power of control which they give to the county councils is, for reasons I have stated, larger than the Board think right; consequently you can scarcely imagine that the Board will in any case take advantage of the permission which is given. If they are drawn as I have suggested, then it is quite obvious, probably in every case, that the county council of the county will get an opportunity, which I think they desire, of being associated with the Board in carrying out these schemes. There is no distrust of the county councils, as Lord Burnham suggested. I hope I have said enough to-night, and on former occasions, to assure your Lordships that the Board are anxious for the assistance of county councils, and acknowledge the great importance of the work they have done. In regard to what the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, said with reference to the extreme rigidity of my attitude, may I suggest that after all my Amendment goes a very long way to meet the idea that county councils should be associated in the management; and for reasons in connection with finance (which I consider to be of great importance) and in connection with the full opportunity for every one to get a chance of this land, I think that is as far as the Board ought to go.
LORD STRACHIE: I quite understand that the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Agriculture does not wish it to be thought that if he accepted this Amendment then the Board are obliged to give the county councils this power. I am sure that the House will quite understand, if he accepted it, that he did so

577
only with a perfectly free hand for himself, or rather for Sir Richard Winfrey, who is in charge of the Bill in another place, to make use of the county councils. For myself, and I think the noble Earl (Lord Lichfield) would say the same, we would he perfectly satisfied if we had it in the Bill, because we know well that the constitution of the Board may change. All we want is that, when the constitution of the Board changes at some future date, and when there may be a new President and a new Parliamentary representative here who will have sympathy with county councils and think they are the proper people to carry this out, there may be an opportunity for them to give the county councils that power. Once you have parted with this Bill no alteration can be made. Therefore I must persist in my Amendment. I personally think that my Amendment and that of Lord Lichfield are the same, and if the noble Earl will say that he will accept Lord Lichfield's Amendment I shall be satisfied, but apparently he is or opinion that neither is acceptable and therefore I must press my Amendment.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to add at the end of the first paragraph of the clause "Provided that in selecting the said additional area preference shall be given to land requiring reclamation, and which it would be commercially advantageous to reclaim."
The noble Lord said: Perhaps the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary may be inclined to accept this Amendment. Its
LORD CHARNWOOD: May I suggest that in the sixth line of the Amendment it might be well to add after the word "all," the words "or any of," so that the Board of Agriculture might delegate any of the powers to county councils. I do not know whether that is possible. Might it not also be improved if, after the words "acquisition, equipment, and settlement" the words "and management" were also added? It seems to me that, the intention is quite the same as that of Lord Lichfield's Amendment, but the wording is not quite the same.
LORD STRACHIE: I suggest that the noble Lord's words should be moved on Report. I would rather see the words printed.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be inserted shall stand part of the clause—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 28; Not-Contents 14.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Aberdare, L.

Lamington, L.

Marlborough, D.

Anslow, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Parmoor, L.

Crewe, M.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Roundway, L.

Cawley, L.

Saltoun, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Charnwood, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Northbrook, E.

Desborough, L.

Southwark, L.

Northbrook, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Forester, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Chaplin, V.

Hindlip, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Harcourt, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Stanhope, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.)

Clinton, L.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Colebrooke, L.

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

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Elphinstone, L.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Llandaff, L. Bp.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Chesterfield, E.

object is to provide that preference should be given in this additional area to land which would be required and which it would be commercially advantageous to reclaim. I am strengthened in my hopes that your Lordships and the Government may be willing to accept this Amendment when I quote an authority on this question. Mr. Jesse Collings said in another place in 1916—
"We have immense areas of alluvial land on the banks of our rivers and estuaries which, by draining and embankment, could be brought into cultivation, and could produce enormous

579
crops. I have a typical instance in my mind which I know well. I have visited it on several occasions. It is outside Devonport Dockyard. There are about a thousand acres of such land, and with no heavy expenditure this could be made to produce good crops. If that were done, no less than 5,000 quarters of wheat could be produced on that area."
He further went on to say—and this is important, because I think that Sir A. Daniell Hall is at present Permanent Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture—that Sir A. D. Hall, who is the highest authority on land reclamation, in his presidential address before the British Association gave estimates to show that from £20 to £25 profit could be made on every acre of land. He concluded his suggestions by saving that such reclamation is a long-sighted policy and a sound commercial venture.
As Sir A. D. Hall is Permanent Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, I think I need not say much to recommend this to the noble Lord. Certainly I think he will agree that there could be no harm in putting this provision into the Bill. It is not obligatory upon the Board and if he thinks my words are too mandatory I shall be perfectly ready to amend them so that this Amendment, like my previous Amendment, may leave it to the discretion of the Board of Agriculture. Hardly anyone will dispute that it is a very desirable policy to do all we can to reclaim land, making it produce more food for the people of the country, especially corn, because at present we are always being urged that we ought to have more arable land, and not be dependent on supplies from abroad. If we can do anything under this Bill there seems to be no good reason why we should shut out any possible means of getting that greater produce. I hope that if the noble Lord cannot accept this Amendment at once, he will take it into consideration.
Amendment moved,
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("Provided that in selecting the said additional area preference shall be given to land requiring reclamation, and which it would be commercially advantageous to reclaim ").—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD CLINTON: The noble Lord, in pressing his Amendment, has said a good deal about the advantage of reclaiming land. I quite agree that in certain circumstances there are great advantages in reclamation, but I must remind the noble Lord that this is not a Bill for the purpose
580
of reclaiming land, but for creating small holding colonies. What is the position of a man who is accepted as a small holder in a colony, who is put down upon fifty or 100 acres on a bare hill side? Will he be able to live upon it while he is reclaiming it? Reclaiming wild land, as the noble Lord knows quite well, is a lengthy and expensive process, and it presupposes that the man who undertakes to do it is a man of some capital, upon which he can live until the labour which he has put into this reclamation bears fruit. Under the Bill the Board can, if they think fit, add some portion of unreclaimed land, in any proportion they choose, to a small holding, but I do not think it is right in a Bill for the purpose of a small holding colony experiment to put men down upon entirely unreclaimed land. The whole question of land reclamation is now under consideration by the Board, and I have no doubt that some proposals will be made for the purpose. But I suggest to the noble Lord that this Bill is not the right place in which to make them.
LORD STRACHIE: As the noble Lord opposes the Amendment, I ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN moved to omit the following proviso from Clause 1, "Provided that where land which is to be acquired for the purposes of the said section one could not, if this Act had not been passed, have been acquired for that purpose without making the total area of the land for the time being so acquired exceed the amount authorised to be so acquired, the land shall not be acquired otherwise than by taking the same on lease or by purchasing it on the terms that payment shall be made therefor by way of a rentcharge or other annual payment."
The noble Viscount said: This is a Bill in which I am greatly interested, and as a matter of fact I believe I was the first person to introduce a Small Holdings Bill into Parliament. That was, I am sorry to say, a good many years ago, but the object of that Bill was to endeavour to re-create what may be called the old peasantry which formerly existed in great numbers in this country. They not only

581
existed but flourished, and they carried on their calling with the greatest possible success until they gradually died out with the advent of free trade and the terrible period of depression which followed upon that after a certain number of years, and which everybody still remembers. But the principle of that Bill was to establish, if possible, the ownership of land, and, so far as I am able to follow the present Bill, if this clause remains, with the proviso which I want to exclude, it will not only militate against the acquisition of land but it will place people with mortgaged estates in a difficult position. Vast numbers of the estates in this country are mortgaged more or less, and everybody knows that mortgages are being constantly called in in order that the morgagees may get 6 per cent. for their money. I understand that there is no compulsion in this Bill.
LORD CLINTON: No.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I think it must be obvious, however, that, in the case of a mortgage which is called in, the owner of the estate in all probability, though he might be very willing to sell, and though he might wish to encourage the object of this Bill, may not be in a position to pay off the mortgage—that depends, of course, on the price which you give him—and he may hesitate for a long time perhaps before he tries to meet the wishes of the Government and the object of this Bill.
I may be told that the Bill which I refer to failed entirely in its object. That was not the case. What happened was this. The Government which introduced that measure and carried it very shortly afterwards went out of office. It was immediately followed by another Bill, introduced by a Liberal Government, who substituted tenancies under local bodies for the principle of ownership which we desired to see established. But before that was done, although there were very few months in which to do it, a certain number of colonies were established, and there they are, and on the authority of Mr. Jesse Collings, who will be taken by this House, I am certain, as a reliable authority—you will find it stated in the book which he wrote on this question—those colonies have flourished from the day when they were created under that Bill up to the present time. I admit that they are few in number; there was no time for the creation of more in the short period that
582
the Government remained in office after the passing of that, Bill into law. But judging from what occurred in another case it is absolutely impossible to say that the principle failed; on the contrary, wherever it had an opportunity of being tried it has been a thorough and a complete success.
This Bill is introduced very largely in the interests, when they come home, of the soldiers and sailors who are now fighting our battles abroad. But which do you think they would prefer to be—the owners of their land once and for all time, or the tenants of certain local bodies? I am certain that there will be no question upon their part of which they would rather be; and I think that is the view which must commend itself to everybody. Then, again, supposing that the proposals in this Bill are carried out as they now stand. After all, this is a Bill which must be very largely in the hands of the Board of Agriculture, and, although I infinitely prefer ownership to any tenancy under any kind of body whatever, if I were in the position of wanting a small holding I should certainly choose to serve under a county council rather than under the present Board of Agriculture, or any other Board of Agriculture which is likely to be constituted in the future. I have now advanced arguments which, I think, strongly support the proposal I have made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Omit the proviso in Clouse 1, from the words ("Provided that") down to ("annual payment").—(Viscount Chaplin.)
LORD CLINTON: The noble Viscount understands, of course, that I have not had an opportunity of considering this matter, as the Amendment was not put on the Paper, but the effect of it is, I think, to take out the words relating to leasing or a rent charge, which would take us back to the principal Bill where purchase by the Board was allowed. It is, I believe, for the moment a definitely settled matter by the Treasury that purchase will not be allowed; consequently they have given the additional power to the Board of providing for a certain sort of purchase—namely, a purchase by way of rent charge or other annual payment. That does not preclude—in fact, I think it suggests—the possibility of purchasing by a payment over the longest possible

583
term, possibly 999 years; and this view is probably strengthened by an Amendment which will be moved later stating it may be obtained by feu, which is for a period of 999 years.
LORD LAMINGTON: No; perpetuity.
LORD CLINTON: They then become the virtual owners; and there is no reason under this measure—whatever may be the policy which has been adopted by a recent Government who were against the principle of purchase by the small holder—why they should not sell the land to a small holder for this long period of lease, making him a virtual owner. But I think, for the reason I have stated—that by no possibility can purchase direct by the Board be inserted in the measure—I ought not to consent to accept the Amendment of my noble friend.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: There are two entirely separate questions involved in this Amendment. The first is the question as to whether the occupier of the small holding should be a tenant or a purchaser. That is a point on which I am probably not in complete agreement with my noble friend behind me (Lord Chaplin); and the answer of the noble Lord (Lord Clinton) to my noble friend's complaint is that although the tenant cannot be a purchaser yet he can feu the land for a term of just under 1,000 years. That may meet the case of the tenant and place him very much in the position in which my noble friend would like to see him. But Lord Clinton has not met the other point which my noble friend made with regard to the acquisition of the land. I quite understand, as he says, that the Treasury is not prepared to pay cash for any of the new land to be acquired under this Bill, although I take it from the form of the Clause it may pay cash up to the extent which the first Act allows.
LORD CLINTON: I think that is all exhausted.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Yes; therefore the Treasury is not willing to find money in order to pay cash for further acquisitions. The noble Lord opposite did not answer the argument, which appears to me to be a very strong one, put forward
584
by my noble friend Lord Chaplin, that in a number of cases this may render it impossible for an agreement to be arrived at between the landowner and the Board for the purchase of particular farms. Where an encumbrance exists on those farms—if a mortgage, as my noble friend said, had been called in—the payment of a rent charge by the State to the landowner will not enable him, or in a great many cases may not enable him, to pay off that charge. That, I take it, is not disputed by my noble friend opposite, and he merely states, in reply, that as the Treasury will not provide the money there is no means of making them do so; but, of course, it does not meet the argument advanced by my noble friend Lord Chaplin.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I should like to say a word with regard to the Treasury. I do not know, of course, what are the reasons which have induced the Treasury to refuse this request, when they must have consented recently to other requests according to all the statements we read. In the interests of the miners and the part of the Labour Party interested in that particular industry, requests have been met within the last few days which, so we are told, will add to the burdens of the country to the extent of £24,000,000 a year. It is only a second edition of the process which has been already invoked, I understand, once before, and if that can be done in the one case I do not understand why there is to be such an extraordinary distinction made between two industries, one of which is rightly assisted with enormous sums, and the other the progress of which, we are told, is second only in importance at the present time to the provision of men for the fighting line. I really think we ought to have some reason for this blunt and definite refusal of the Treasury to listen to demands of this kind, when other demands have been readily granted.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD STANMORE LORD STANMORE moved the addition at the end of the clause of the words "or by taking the same in feu." The noble Lord said: The object of this small Amendment is to make it clear that in Scotland land can be taken in feu for the purposes of the Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 25, at end insert (" or by taking the same in feu").—(Lord Stanmore.)
LORD SALTOUN: I do not like this Amendment at all. It seems to me that the whole of this Bill is tentative and experimental. The only thing which is not experimental is the taking of land. It is taken up in perpetuity. Supposing I wish to give a piece of land in the middle of my property and this scheme turns out to be a failure. What am I to do? The land belongs to the Government, who have acquired it, and it is put up for sale. I may make a bid for it, but I may not get it. It may be bought by some one over my head, and there I have a planter in the middle of my property and the planter settles down with absolutely no right to be there. Surely as the Bill is experimental it is only fair that the period for which land is acquired shall be fixed. If the scheme proves a success then the acquisition of the land can be made compulsory, but for the present at all events it should be acquired only for a term of years.
LORD CLINTON: I should be prepared to accept this Amendment, which I understand is required by the Secretary of the Scottish Office. With regard to the remarks of my noble friend behind me, the answer to him, of course, is that this is a purely voluntary Bill, and it is quite unnecessary for him to feu his land or let it if he does not wish to do so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD THE EARL OF LICHFIELD moved the addition of the following proviso, "Provided also that no portion of the additional land authorised by this Act to be acquired shall be so acquired except after consultation with the council of the county in which the land proposed to be acquired is situate."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is put down on behalf of the County Councils Association, and they are very anxious that it should be passed. I have already alluded to the other Amendments standing in my name, and we have passed one of a similar nature standing in the name of Lord Strachie. It is a very moderate proposal, and it seems to be most essential, in order to avoid possible danger of overlapping or of competition with regard to the acquisition of these lands, that the councils of the counties in which the land proposed to be acquired is situate should be consulted in the first instance. They would be in a good position to advise as to the suitability of the land, and as to its being of the desired
586
quality for these small holdings. I think there is very little more to be said. Your Lordships can see for yourselves what the Amendment proposes, and I hope you will give it your support. You will see that it is not permissive. It says that in every case the Board shall consult the county councils.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 25, at end insert (" Provided also that no portion of the additional land authorised by this Act to be acquired shall be so acquired except after consultation with the council of the county in which the land proposed to be acquired is situate").—(The Earl of Lichfield.)
LORD CLINTON: If the noble Earl lays much stress upon this Amendment, I do not see any great objection to it provided it is amended in one or two particulars. As I understand, the only object in bringing it forward is to make certain that there shall not be any competition between the Board and the county councils in purchasing land for this purpose; at all events, that the Board, coining to a county where it does not know local circumstances, shall not purchase land which might be required by the county council. So far there seems to be no reason why the Board should not consult with the councils upon the matter, but the first point I should like to raise is this. County councils only sit as a rule four times a year. Obviously the Board could not wait through a whole quarter for the purpose of consulting the council upon a purchase of land which might have to be settled to-morrow. Therefore it is necessary to make some alteration, so that a committee of the county council could be consulted where urgency required it. I have also one other objection, and that is that sales and purchases are frequently of a very private nature indeed until actually completed, and it might be in certain circumstances impossible to consult anybody in the county under the terms of the proposed agreement between the Board and the vendor. I should have to find words—I think they could be found—which would guard against that. Subject to these remarks, if the noble Earl wishes to place the Amendment in the Bill I shall raise no objection.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: May I say there was no intention in the working of this Amendment that the whole of the council of the county should be consulted, but that information should be tendered to

587
the official clerk or the chairman of the small holding committee with regard to the proposed acquisition of land? That would, no doubt, do away with the objection which my noble friend finds to the publicity attending a consultation with the full council. I never intended that. Therefore, if your Lordships should see well to pass the Amendment, words could be inserted on Report which would put the matter on a footing such as the Board of Agriculture may desire.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY moved to insert a new clause. The noble Viscount said: My object is to safeguard the county councils from suddenly being told that they are to form a small holding colony against their wish, when, perhaps, they know better than those who are members of the Board of Agriculture the value and particular qualities of the land. I wish also to see that they are not compelled to take over a colony formed by the Board of Agriculture. I trust that my noble friend will not think there is anything unreasonable in that view. It leaves the responsibility for forming the colony with the Board of Agriculture as now, and it protects the county councils from being forced against their wish to undertake colonies. I hope the noble Lord will accept the proposal.
Amendment moved—
Insert as a now clause:
"Consent of county council required to form small holding colony.
". A county council shall not be required to form a small holding colony under this Act, or to take over a colony already formed by the Board of Agriculture, without its consent."—(Viscount Galway.)
LORD CLINTON: I do not agree with the noble Viscount that this Amendment is in any sense necessary. I cannot see what possible power is conferred upon the Board to instruct a county council either to form a small holding colony or to take one over. That responsibility rests entirely with the Board, and I do not think there is any means of transferring it to the county councils.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: If the noble Lord assures me that there is no power in the Bill to force it on county councils, I will withdraw.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: May I point out that in Lord Strachie's Amendment which has been already passed it is stated that "the Board may with the consent of the county councils." Does not that meet the noble Viscount's view?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: As a consequence of what took place the other day I have put a new clause down, because I am most anxious that everything should be done to put soldiers and sailors on the land. At the same time, after what has been written in the papers—with what authority I do not know—there seems to be an idea that the ratepayer's money may be used for experimental farming and other purposes. I do not think this is the intention of the measure, and it is to ensure that land acquired under it shall be used for the proper purposes that I put the Amendment down. I am sure we are anxious that the soldiers and sailors should make a success of their colonies, and that nobody else should be put on them. Therefore, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
" Use of land.
". Land acquired under this Act shall not be used for demonstration or experimental farms, but shall be used for the occupation, and possible ownership, of sailors or soldiers with knowledge of agriculture."—(Viscount Galway.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Before my noble friend answers, may I say I did not happen to be in the House when the Bill was under discussion on Second Reading, and my noble friend Lord Galway afterwards drew my attention to what he had said about the Report of the Agricultural Policy Sub-Committee of the Reconstruction Committee? What he said was based on something that was stated in The Times, I think, in respect of part of that Report. I only wish to assure him that, although experimental and demonstration farms are discussed in that Report, they are discussed without any kind of connection with the settlement of soldiers and sailors on the land. There was absolutely no connection between the two ideas.
LORD CLINTON: Under this measure there is no intention of providing demonstration or experimental farms in the ordinary acceptance of the term. It is

589
quite possible that in any colony formed it may be advisable to take some portion of it and use it to show the colonists how the land should be worked. I can quite imagine that in some of our fruit farm colonies or market gardening colonies it would be well if the director took 10 or 15 acres or whatever it may be, and worked them as he believed would show the best methods for working the land profitably; but in the ordinary sense of a demonstration farm I do not think anything was intended. Of course, if the noble Viscount is alluding to the farm at Patrington, which he has been already discussing, no doubt this has been for the time occupied as a large farm. It is occupied as a large farm because for the moment there are no settlers for it, and I do not presume that the noble Viscount, or any one else, would desire us to leave the farm derelict, because apparently the moment has not arrived for it to be turned into its proper function as a small holding colony. I do not think the proposed clause is necessary, because there is nothing in the measure which suggests that the farms could be used as demonstration farms.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: With that assurance of the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I was going to ask my noble friend opposite whether he would object to leave out the words "and possible" in the third line of his Amendment and to insert the word "or," so that it would read "shall be used for the occupation or ownership of sailors or soldiers with knowledge of agriculture."
Amendment moved to the proposed new clause—
To leave out the words (" and possible ") and insert the word (" or ").—(Viscount Chaplin.)
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I am quite willing to accept that.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think it a little unfortunate to introduce the whole question of ownership by means of a very oblique reference in an Amendment which my noble friend behind me (Viscount Galway) desires to withdraw.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: He has just offered to accept it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My noble friend is prepared to withdraw his proposed new clause, and has expressed his desire to do so.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I did not bear that.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I would therefore suggest that as the proposed clause in itself is open to objection—which, I think, Lord Galway is prepared to admit—if it is necessary to raise the question of ownership it should be done in a much more regular way rather than in a perfectly vague and incidental manner. I hope, therefore, it will not be pressed.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I hear so badly that I was not aware that Lord Galway was going to withdraw his Amendment. Otherwise, of course, I should not have moved an Amendment to one that was to be withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment, but it is open to the noble Viscount to raise the question again on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: The new clause the insertion of which I now move is only carrying out what has been done before namely, that we should have a regular balance sheet, a profit and loss account, so that we should know how these small holding colonies go on. I should like to make a slight alteration of the words so that the clause would read, "A regular profit and loss account for the farming year, either from Lady Day to Lady Day or Michaelmas to Michaelmas, according to the date of the tenancy, for each small holding colony, shall be annually presented to both Houses of Parliament." The great difficulty has been that at the end of the farming year every farmer makes up his accounts. It should be some day corresponding to the agricultural custom. No date was put in before, and the result is that we have confusion. Therefore I move that the accounts should be made up to the date of the tenancy, whether Lady Day or Michaelmas.
Amendment moved—
Insert as a new clause:
". A regular profit and loss account for the farming year, either from Lady Day to Lady Day

591
or Michaelmas to Michaelmas, according to the date of the tenancy, for each small holding colony, shall be annually presented to both Houses of Parliament."—(Viscount Galway.)
LORD CLINTON: I do not think the main portion of the new clause moved by the noble Viscount is necessary, because in the principle Act, Section 10, it is stated—
" The Board shall present to Parliament an annual report of their proceedings under this Act which shall include a statement of the financial position of each colony."
I think, probably, this meets the point of view of the noble Viscount. He raised another point which we have already discussed this afternoon, the proper date for closing the account. He says it should be Lady Day because that is a custom of the particular district. I say it should be Michaelmas because that certainly is the most convenient time for closing the account of a grain-growing farm. However, if he thinks that the custom of the country is of sufficient importance to press his alteration on our attention, I will look into the matter and see if in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture it is thought advisable to have Lady Day instead of Michaelmas. The question of an outgoing tenant, as far as the Board is concerned, is of small importance.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Remaining clause agreed to.

SOFT FRUIT PRICES.
LORD HINDLIP LORD HINDLIP had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the unsatisfactory prices fixed by the Ministry of Food for certain soft fruits—

1. To ask that in any future fixing of prices for the plum and apple crop an adequate remuneration shall be allowed to the producer, having regard to the high cost of production and collection and the unprecedented shortness of the crops.

2. What price has been paid by the Government for Dutch black currants delivered in England.

3. What price has been paid for the orange crop in Spain delivered in England; and at what price have these oranges been resold to licensed jam makers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I have to criticise the Department over which the late Lord Rhondda presided so ably. I should like to be allowed to associate myself with the words which fell from the noble Earl the Leader of the House and from the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, at the beginning of business this afternoon. Under ordinary conditions I would postpone my Question, but owing to circumstances over which I have no control I cannot do so, and I understand it is the wish of the Ministry of Food that a statement should be made this afternoon.
The story I have to try to unfold to you is not a new one, and I am afraid I shall have to trouble your Lordships with a good deal of detail. It is again, in my opinion, a story of how the Ministry of Food has gone on the evil path of ignoring the interests of the producer and taking no notice of his side of the case. The prices complained of, fixed for small fruits, are for raspberries, strawberries, and black currants. The prices fixed by the Ministry of Food for red currants and gooseberries have not, I believe, given the same dissatisfaction. Let me try and describe what has happened. When the Fruit Prices Fixing Committee met the Food Production Department's representatives, who are supposed to look after the interests of the producer, they made up their minds to ask the Ministry of Food to fix certain prices. In all cases the growers produced estimates of the crops in various parts of the country, and their cost of production. In each case the representative of the Food Production Department agreed with the estimates of the growers, both as to the probable volume of crop and the cost of production in the various localities.
Not only did the Food Production Department agree with the estimates, but the Ministry of Food sent down their own chartered accountant to Wisbech, to go into the cost of production with the Wisbech growers. I understand that the chartered accountant was perfectly satisfied with the estimate of the cost of production by the growers in Wisbech, and could not pick a single hole in it. You would have thought the Ministry of Food would have been content to take the estimate that had been presented to them. Not a bit of it. What did the Ministry of Food then propose to do? They entered, as far as I can make out, into an unholy alliance with the jam makers, and they said, "We will

593
appoint an independent person to make our own estimate."
To make perfectly certain that the dice was loaded against the food producers, whom do you think they appointed to draw up the estimate for them? They appointed a gentleman who, in ordinary years, is a buyer for jam-makers. I very much doubt whether he has ever grown any fruit. His profession is that of a buyer of fruit for certain jam-makers. I think your Lordships will agree that this is hardly a fair way of getting an estimate of the crop. This gentleman estimated the crops, certainly in the Wisbech part of the country, as well over the average, and the Ministry of Food was apparently satisfied with his statements, and based the price which they fixed for the fruit on the estimates given them by this representative of a firm of jam-makers.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Does the noble Lord say that the fruit prices have been based upon an estimate of well over the average crop?
LORD HINDLIP: I understand that is the case. The Food Controller has always made a case out for putting the price of produce down in order that he may benefit the consumer. I have a case, given me the other day, of the profits of a certain jam-maker in which I do not see quite how the consumer benefited, because last year the jam-maker succeeded in making a net profit of over 90 per cent. I fail to see why the favoured jam-makers should have all the sugar and all the fruit, and have so great a pull over the producer.
Unless the Ministry of Food shows some inclination to treat the producer a little more fairly in the matter of fruit, I think we shall have later on to consider whether the profits of the licensed jam-maker will not have to be investigated. There is no doubt that we shall be told by the Minstry of Food that these prices were fixed, as we were told in the case of the meat prices, in agreement with the Board of Agriculture. When the fruit-growers' representatives on the Fixing Prices Committee met the representatives of the Food Production Department they were asked the prices that they wanted for jams, and they based the prices that they asked on the assumption that the whole crop would be an average one, and would not be commandeered. Your Lordships may remember that last
594
year there was a fixed price for fruit going to jam-makers, and fruit that did not go to the jam-makers was sold on the open market, and was subject to the ordinary laws governing supply and demand. They also assumed that they would be allowed to sell in the open market two or three days a week. As far as raspberries are concerned, they asked £50 a ton, or 5d. per lb., based on the estimated cost of production of £49 an acre and a yield of 23 cwt. an acre. For strawberries they asked the same price, with an estimated yield of 25 cwt. an acre, and for black currants £65 with an estimated yield of half a ton per acre.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Whose figures are these?
LORD HINDLIP: These are figures supplied to me by the growers.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: They are not the official figures of the Board of Agriculture.
LORD HINDLIP: No, these are the prices that the fruit-growers' representatives asked when they met the repesentatives of the Food Production Department, and I understand that the Food Production Department did not disagree with those figures, and asked the growers to allow them to negotiate with the Ministry of Food on the basis of those figures. The Food Production Department's representatives apparently went to the Ministry of Food, and tried to get these prices, or as near to them as they could. The next thing the growers heard was that the Ministry of Food had turned round and commandeered the whole of the crop—not a portion of it, but the whole—and that they had fixed the price of raspberries at £37 a ton, 4d. a lb., or only £2 per ton higher than the jam prices for last year when only part of the crop was commandeered. The figures that have been given to me show that the cost of picking raspberries and strawberries last year, when it was a fair crop, was £9 a ton, and the cost of picking this year, when it is a bad crop, is £18 a ton. The strawberries were fixed at the price of £40 on the stalk, and £44 off the stalk. I believe this is the first case in the history of the fruit trade in which the price of strawberries has been higher than that of raspberries owing to the greater cost of picking.

595
The concession to the consumer or retailer—Mr. Clynes the other day made a eulogy upon it—comes to this, "Well, you may sell fruit in the open markets (only strawberries, not raspberries or black currants) on a Saturday, but you may not charge more than the jam price. You may sell your strawberries at 4½d. per lb. but the retailer may sell them to the public at 9d." He gets 90 per cent. out of it. Raspberries and black currants can be sold, I find, this year by people who have less than half an acre of fruit, but that does not affect the fruit-growers very much. I am told that owing to the very dry weather the raspberry crop is not more than half a ton to the acre, straw berries only three-quarters of a ton, and black currants a quarter of a ton. After the figures which I have endeavoured to give to your Lordships it will not be difficult to realise how very serious the loss is to the growers owing to the fixing of the prices so low. This is very unfortunate for fruit growers in various parts of the country, a large proportion of whom are small men having two or three acres of land. It is very dis-heartening to them.
Let me, if I may, very shortly give your Lordships a few instances of the prices that people were quite willing to pay, and did pay, in the open market before prices were fixed. A commission agent in Birmingham was bid by a shopkeeper £280 a ton for black currants. Certain growers in the South West of England, where the fruit was early and where they were able to get it to the market before the prices were fixed, sold their strawberries at the rate of £175 and even £600 a ton, and the first strawberries that were sold in Birmingham market this year made 8s. 3d. per lb. which is at the rate of £900 a ton. I do not think that any grower has ever asked or dreamt of asking for such prices to be fixed, but surely there was some figure considerably below those prices yet higher than the prices which have been fixed by the Ministry of Food which could have been adopted, and which would have given fruit-growers a moderate return for their money without making it inevitable that they should be faced with a very heavy loss. I hope that we shall not be told that these prices were fixed in agreement with the Board of Agriculture, because it sounds an almost impossible thing to believe.
As regards the Questions that I have on the Paper asking for the price of black
596
currants coming from Holland, and of oranges coming from Spain, my reason for asking that these prices should be given is that there is a considerable feeling that the Government are subsidising the favoured jam-makers at the expense of the English fruit-grower, and are providing the jam-makers with fruit which they get out of the country instead of letting the English growers have a fair price. The price paid for black currants in Holland may not be very high, but unless I am much mistaken the cost of picking on the Continent is considerably lower than the cost of picking now in this country.
I have done with the small fruits and the past, and I come to the part of my Question where I ask that sufficient and due consideration should be paid to the interests of the growers in the future. There are no prices fixed at the moment for the plum and the apple crop, but I understand that they are to be fixed, possibly this week. The Evesham and Pershore districts in Worcestershire are about the only part of England where there are any plums, and the only plums which are to be found in the orchards there this year are what are known as Pershore or yellow plums. They have a very small crop of these, and the coloured plum—the more expensive plum—literally does not exist in England this year. The prices as far as growers are concerned are very moderate. They were told not long ago by a big commission buyer that for yellow plums they could get in the market between 25 s. and 30 s. a pot of 72 lbs. They are only asking to be allowed to charge £1 per pot, which works out at about 3½d. per lb. and I do not think even the Ministry of Food would consider that a very excessive price for this year. This is the worst year for fruit since 1903. It would be quite impossible to fix a price for the plum crop of Worcestershire which would prevent these people from losing money, the crop is so bad. And may I ask that, as the crop of the coloured plum, the superior class of plum, is practically non-existent, the Ministry of Food might, as an act of grace, let it alone and not fix prices for that at all.
There is only one other question as regards the fruit crop, and that refers to the damson and damascene crop. It is a small crop in England, and I understand that in Ireland there is a very good crop. I sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will not differentiate, as they often do,

597
between the interests of the people of this country and the interests of the people in Ireland, and I hope that the price for the damson and damascene crop in this country will not be lower than the price fixed for that crop in Ireland.
As the result of the treatment meted out to the growers of small fruits I heard yesterday that in all parts of the country where these small fruits are grown—in Worcestershire, Cambridgeshire, Kent, Middlesex—a great many really representative growers are so disgusted with the treatment they have received by the Ministry of Food that they are already beginning to plough up their strawberry plants and raspberry canes and cut down their currant bushes, and they are trying to plant some kind of vegetable crops, which the Ministry of Food has not yet and probably will not commandeer. The producer is so continually harassed by the fixing of prices far too low that a considerable amount of damage is done, and much harm is to be apprehended another year. I sincerely hope that we shall get some satisfactory answer from the Government, and that the interests of the producer will be better looked after in the future than they have been in the past.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, my noble friend has made a speech covering a good deal of ground, and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make a somewhat general statement upon this subject which, I think, may be a convenience to those interested in the fruit crop. I may preface my reply by a short statement of the policy adopted by the Ministry of Food in relation to soft fruit and jam, and the causes which have led to the adoption of that policy.
The fruit crop this season is one of the worst that has ever been experienced, and, after full allowance has been made for the importation of such foreign fruit as can be secured, it appears that the total quantity of fruit available will not admit of more than half the quantity of jam being manufactured that was made last year. Navy and Army demands, which absorbed nearly half of last year's jam output, are as heavy as usual, and when they have been met there will remain less than 1 oz. of jam per head per week for the civilian population, as against an average allowance of 4 oz. per head per week during the season 1917–18. That has a large bearing upon every-
598
thing that my noble friend has said. These calculations are based on the assumption that the whole of the crop grown for commercial purposes be converted into jam, and that no fresh fruit is made available for direct consumption by the public. My noble friend spoke of strawberries being sold at £600 a ton.
LORD HINDLIP: At the rate of £600 a ton. It was early in the season.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: And it was stopped. I am very glad it was stopped. Those strawberries, commanding that price, were going to people who did not require them nearly so much as some poor persons who want jam. I think that £600 is a truly indefensible price.
LORD HINDLIP: I was not defending the price.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No, of course not. But the prices were stopped. I am defending the prices being stopped, and I think on the necessity that I can show for jam there is a very strong case for the fixing of prices. The fact is that there can be no question that jam is of far greater importance to the population as a whole than fresh fruit, and the Consumers' Council are fully in agreement with medical and scientific opinion in endorsing the view that under existing conditions the fruit crops of 1918 must be reserved for jam.
The adoption of this policy involved the fixing of fruit prices for the current season on the basis that the whole of the fruit would be taken for jam, instead of, as is ordinarily the case, only that portion of the crop which does not fetch good prices as table fruit. The average price paid for fruit by the jam manufacturer during previous years was therefore ignored. It was decided that maximum prices should be fixed on the basis of estimated yield and cost of production. Detailed costs submitted by growers from all parts of the country to the Board of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food separately showed that the average cost of production per acre of strawberries this season has worked out at £32 7s. 9d., and that of bush fruit, including raspberries, at £30 2s. 9d. These figures are exclusive of cost of picking and of profit.
LORD HINDLIP: Is that all over the country?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes; it is only an average figure; and these figures exclude the cost of picking, and the profit. The average yield per acre, to which Lord Hindlip referred, of the soft fruits was estimated by the Board of Agriculture to be as follows:—

Strawberries

1 ton 3 cwt. per acre.

Black Currants

1 ton 15 cwt. per acre.

Raspberries

1 ton 10 cwt. per acre.

Red Currants

1 ton 10 cwt. per acre.

Gooseberries

Slightly over 1 ton 10 cwt. per acre.

The maximum prices fixed by the Gooseberries (Sales) Order and the Soft Fruits (Sales) Order are as follows:—

Per Ton.

Strawberries (Sterling Castle and Scarlet)

£44

Strawberries of other varieties

£40

Black Currants

£60

Raspberries

£37

Red Currants

£32

Gooseberries

£27

When the cost of picking has been allowed for, the grower whose crop is up to this season's average will derive from these prices a clear profit of nearly £10 per acre.
The law of averages necessarily involves some inequality of treatment and there will be growers who derive considerably less profit than the average, just as there will be growers who will obtain considerably more, but the margin allowed is so liberal in the circumstances that it is hardly possible to credit the statements which have been made to the effect that many growers would rather leave their fruit to rot than pick it for the jam manufacturers at the prices offered. I gathered from Lord Hindlip that raspberry canes, actually before the crop is mature, are being destroyed with a view to planting other crops.
LORD HINDLIP: I certainly gathered that.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That is, of course, a criminal offence; and if my noble friend will give me the particulars I can answer for it that steps will be taken to prevent that; and, what is more, I think I can guarantee that the fruit now in danger of being destroyed shall be gathered. So far the Ministry of Food have been unable to secure the names and addresses of any growers who are de-
600
liberately withholding their fruits in this way, and they will be prepared to take immediate action in such cases on receipt of the necessary information.
Some feeling has been aroused among growers in other districts of England and Wales and in Scotland by the fact that growers of the earliest crops of strawberries, particularly in the Southampton district, were permitted to sell their fruit without restriction as to price or destination before the Soft Fruit (Sales) Order came into operation. The delay in issuing this Order was due solely to the difficulty experienced, during a spell of unusually dry, hot weather, in arriving at an accurate estimate of the average yield of the crops. It will be some consolation to the growers of later strawberries to know that, if prices had been fixed a week earlier, they would undoubtedly have been considerably lower than those now in operation; because the later estimates of yields obtained showed decidedly worse results than the original estimate, owing to weather conditions.
The arrangements made for securing the commercially grown soft fruit for the jam factories are working well, and generally speaking the factories are being kept well supplied. Some difficulty was found in handling Saturday consignments of strawberries, and special arrangements were therefore made to release Saturday strawberries for public consumption. The collection of fruit from small growers and owners of private gardens is in the hands of the Food Production Department of the Board of Agriculture, which has set up county organisations, working in co-operation with the existing Horticultural Sub-Committees, to undertake the collection, transport, and marketing of such produce. The Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply have also made special issues of sugar to the Divisional Food Commissioners of the Ministry of Food in order to enable them to issue additional quantities of sugar at their discretion to private fruit-growers who have no means of sending their fruit to the jam factories, and who, under the general scheme of distribution of sugar for jam, have not received sufficient sugar to enable them to preserve their own fruit crops. These measure will, it is hoped, enable waste of fruit to be prevented, although much must still depend on the energy and good will of the growers themselves.

601
I will now deal with the specific Questions which my noble friend has placed on the Paper. With regard to fixing the prices for the plum and apple crop, the Food Controller has no intention of fixing these prices on any other basis than that adopted in the case of the soft fruit crops. The principle adopted in the case of these crops was identical with that suggested by the noble Lord—namely, to ascertain the average cost of production and collection this season, the average yield per acre, and to make an adequate allowance for profits after taking these facts into account. I pass to the second Question. I think the noble Lord is under a misapprehension in thinking that some favouritism was shown in favour of the Dutch. That is not the case. The Food Controller has purchased no Dutch black currants for delivery to this country.
In reply to the third Question, there, again, we have to buy abroad because we cannot grow the oranges ourselves. The bitter oranges required from Spain for the manufacture of marmalade for the Navy and Army and the civilian population last season were purchased by representatives of the jam manufacturers nominated by, and acting under, the instructions of the Ministry of Food. The oranges were issued as obtained to the manufacturers at a provisional price of 45 s. per cwt. of sound fruit delivered free on rail at the port of arrival, on the understanding that the price would be subject to adjustment when the actual cost of delivery for the whole season had been ascertained. Owing to the high cost of freight and other causes the ultimate price will work out somewhat in excess of the figure quoted, and the jam manufacturers to whom the oranges purchased under this arrangement were allocated by the Ministry of Food will be required to pay their share of the additional cost. It is not anticipated that any charges in respect of these transactions will fall upon the Ministry of Food. I may add that the gentlemen who have assisted the Ministry by undertaking the purchase and delivery of these consignments have performed the whole of their work without remuneration, so that the charges borne by the manufacturers consist only of the actual cost of the oranges, with the necessary expenses for the freight and handling.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, the noble Earl, the Lord Privy Seal, in referring to
602
the question of raspberries, said that £30 was considered the cost of production, not counting the picking; but in making that statement he left out a very important item. I do not know whether the noble Earl is aware of what the cost of picking is at the moment owing to the present price of labour. I am informed that the cost of picking is £18; so that you have to add that amount to the figure of £30, making a total of £48, which is very near the estimate given by my noble friend just now which the Lord Privy Seal disputed. It certainly seems rather curious, when the average production of raspberries is from 25 to 30 cwt. per acre and the price last year was, uncontrolled, £35, that now, when it is estimated that there is going to be a production of only 10 cwt. an acre, the increased price fixed by the Government should be only £2 more—that is, £37 per ton.
I should like to point out to the noble Earl that not only has the cost of labour enormously increased, but that the cost of manure has to be considered in producing this soft fruit. Before the war nitrate of soda could be bought at £12 10 s. per ton by market gardeners, but they tell me that they have to pay £28 a ton for it at the present moment. All I can say is that they are very lucky to be able to get it even at £28 a ton, because the other day when I tried to buy some nitrate of soda, as my oats were looking bad, I found it impossible to obtain it anywhere. I am also informed that fish manure, which used to be bought at £6 a ton before the war, now costs £25 a ton. That is an enormous increase; and, as far as I can see, there has been no corresponding increase in the price of raspberries.
With regard to the other point, it seems to me very unfair if it is the case, as I am informed it is—perhaps by noble friend will tell me if it is so or not—that fruit which has to be sent up by the small growers and which is taken by the Ministry of Food has to be sent in what are called chips—that is, small baskets—holding a small number of lbs. of fruit in each. These chips have to be bought ahead, otherwise one cannot get them manufactured; and I am told on the best authority that, although the fruit-growers have to pay 25 s. a dozen for these baskets, the Government allow them only 12 s. 6d.
I would also like to ask a question with regard to small fruit. The noble Earl

603
said that no black currants had been brought from Holland, but I noticed in the papers that the Government had bought 6,000 sieves of black currants from France, and that unfortunately in the delay of shipping them only 1,000 were any good in this country. I shall be glad if the noble Earl will tell me what was the cost of those currants and at what price it is intended to sell them in this country, if it is intended to put them on the market, although I rather gather that the Government do not intend to sell any fruit they buy but rather to turn it into jam for the use of the Army. I think my noble friend behind me was quite justified in saying that he thought there might be some difference between the price paid in Holland and what was paid in this country for black currants, for this reason, that when the Government bought butter in Holland they paid for it double the price at which they allowed the English producer to sell his produce. So there is reason to think the Government might follow the very bad precedent which they set in the case of butter. Further, I wish to know whether the Government are buying any other fruit from abroad, and, if so, whether they intend to use that fruit for making jam for the Army, or whether they intend to sell it to manufacturers, and, if so, at what price.
Then I would like to know how it came about that Mr. Keeble informed the fruit-growers on May 23 that he did not want any marrows at all, and then on June 10, when it was too late to do anything, he informed them that thousands of pounds would be wanted. I have heard myself from the Government Department interested in the question that they look forward to using marrows very extensively indeed for making jam for the Army. I venture to think that these questions ought to be cleared up, and I should also be glad if the Government would indicate what price they mean in the near future to put upon apples, if they intend to commandeer them, and also on plums and damsons, and further, if it is their intention to fix the price of vegetables, that growers should have notice of such intention well in advance.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords,
I am not prepared to question the general principle which my noble friend on behalf of the Food Control Department has laid down, but he is a very astute person, and he must have seen what was very obvious
604
in the statement he made, that the whole working out of the scheme depends on the doctrine of averages. I quite admit that it may be necessary to act on the doctrine of averages. It would be a very difficult thing to make a calculation and give one price in Worcestershire, another in Cambridgeshire, and another in Kent; but even assuming that the average was accurately and fairly taken as regards the price of production and the crop over the kingdom as a whole, my noble friend Lord Hindlip, who is personally familiar with the conditions of fruit culture in the Worcestershire district, has proved that on soft fruit the Worcestershire growers have made a heavy loss. Nothing that my noble friend has said has really refuted that statement; and what I want to impress upon him, though I am sure it is unnecessary, and through him on the Food Control Department, is that when you are dealing with averages, if you want to avoid discouraging cultivation, which you must do if you inflict great loss on growers, you must fix a price such as will cover cases like Worcestershire, where the crop has been a comparative failure. Otherwise what is the result? You inflict an undeserved loss on men who have been doing their best to assist food production in time of crisis. But that is the very least of the evil you do. You do more to discourage food production by such a result than by any other method, and that is where the Food Control Department, I think, has more than once gone wrong. They have been so concerned to see that the grower did not get too great a price in cases of successful production that they have forgotten that the far greater responsibility lies upon them to encourage production irrespective of whether a particularly fortunate individual has a good year. That is the moral which I would venture to urge through my noble friend, and I am perfectly certain he entirely agrees with me.
LORD HINDLIP: May I make one remark to the Lord Privy Seal? I understand that no fruit has been destroyed, but I gather that what possibly will happen unless the Ministry of Food take steps is that plants and canes will be ploughed up, and I think that the more threats are directed against the growers probably the more canes will come up. I am sure the noble Earl does not expect fruit-growers to continue to grow at a loss. They are not subsidised; they are not bakers. I am afraid

605
the fruit-growers will not be satisfied with the answer given on behalf of the Government this evening, and unless I am very much mistaken the Ministry of Food will have to alter the prices.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am very much gratified by the statement just made by my noble friend. I misunderstood his earlier statement. I thought he said that the process of destruction was going on. Lord Strachie asked two Questions. One was a little complicated and my knowledge is not very complete, and I propose to study our Official Report to-morrow morning and put myself in communication with Lord Strachie. With regard to chip baskets and black currants from France, I think there may be some misapprehension in the noble Lord's mind as to the function of the Food Ministry. I gather he thought its function was buying fruit and sending it to London in small baskets—
LORD HINDLIP: These chips are small baskets which hold 6 lbs. of soft fruit. The price which Lord Strachie gave of 25 s. a dozen ought, I think, to be 25 s. a gross, but the Government collar 50 per cent. all the same. What happened is this. The price was fixed in a great hurry and no preparation was made and no baskets sent down to the fruit centres by anybody. Unless the fruit is to spoil, which the noble Earl would agree would be regrettable, it ought to be sold in the open market, which the Government would not allow to be done. The only things which these unfortunate people had in which to send their fruit to the jam people were these chips, which cost 25 s. a gross, and the Government will only allow 12 s. 6d. a gross. For small people that is a very considerable loss.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The noble Lord has made the case quite clear, and our official record will provide me with the text to make further inquiry. The only other point—perhaps I should not refer to it now that Lord Selborne has left the House—is the question of averages. It is always the unfortunate thing about averages that somebody gains by them and somebody loses by them. But it is impossible to fix prices according to the averages of a county. The ideal thing would be to fix an average for Evesham, one for Wisbech, one for Cornwall, and one for Lancashire.
606
That is clearly quite impossible, and the average therefore must be very much more widespread in its area. I am perfectly convinced of this, that those who are engaged in the Food Ministry in looking after the control of fruit are fully conscious of the plea that was put forward by Lord Selborne, that although it may be necessary to limit prices, none the less the process should not go so far as to discourage production.

FINANCE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of July 2.]
ALDERSHOT GAS, WATER, AND DISTRICT LIGHTING BILL. [H.L.]
  RAILWAY PASSENGERS ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]

    PONTYPRIDD AND RHONDDA JOINT WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
    The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

    Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4).

    Local Government Provisional Order (No. 5).

    London County Council (Money).

    The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

CANVEY DEEP-WATER WHARF AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee that it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before eight o'clock.