Sitting of 15 July 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Morecambe Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Hamilton Estates Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.

POLICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) (RETURNS OF CRIME).
Paper [presented 11th July]; to be printed. [No. 86.]
PUBLIC RECORDS.
Copy presented of the Seventy-ninth Report of the Deputy-Keeper of the Public Records [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Copy presented of the Report of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland for the year 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table

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

County borough of Dublin (two);

Township of Ballyshannon

[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1918.
Copy presented of Order fixing a scale of increased remuneration for Clerks of the Crown and Peace in Ireland in respect
672
of the additional duties imposed on them as Registration Officers [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS.
Copy presented of Thirty-fifth Report of the Controller-General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks, with Appendices, for the year 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 87.]

ASSURANCE COMPANIES.
Copy presented of Statements deposited with the Board of Trade under Section 7 (1) of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, during the year 1916. First, Second, and Third Schedules [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 88.]
Copy presented of Statements deposited with the Board of Trade under Section 7 (1) of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, during the year 1916. Fourth and Fifth Schedules [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MINISTRY OF RECONSTRUCTION.
Copy presented of First (Interim) Report of the Civil War Workers Committee [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 9th July, 1918, granting a Retired Allowance to Mr. Francis Edward Bailey, Officer of Londonderry 2nd Station, Customs and Excise [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copies presented of Order amending the Fish (Prices) Order (No. 2), 1918; Temporary Amendment of the Table of Equivalent Weights of Meat, so far as relates to Butchers' Meat, Bacon, and Miscellaneous Meats (other than Poultry and Game); Home Melt Tallow and Grease (Maximum Prices) Order, 1918; Soft Fruit (Sales) Order, 1918; Butter and Margarine Rationing (Special Districts) Order, 1918; Food Control Committees' (Local Distribution) Scheme Order, 1918, Direction as to the Amount of the Ration; Testing of Seeds Order, 1918; Strawberries (Retail Prices) Order, 1918; Soft Fruit (Sales)

673
Order, 1918, General Licence; Butter (Distribution) Order, 1917, Directions; Milk (Summer Prices) Order, 1918, General Licence; Use of Milk (Licensing) Order, 1918, General Licence; Dried Fruits (Retail Prices) Order, 1918; Order conferring certain Powers on Inspectors of Weights and Measures, and authorising them to prosecute Offences before Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, Authorisation; Bacon, Ham, and Lard (Prices) Order, 1918; Sugar (Brewers' Restriction) Order, 1918; Spirits (Prices and Description) Order, 1918, Direction; Canned Condensed Milk (Retail Prices) Order, 1918; Potatoes (Registration of Wholesale Dealers) Order, 1918, No. 555, as amended by an Order, No. 623, dated 6th June, 1918; and Soft Fruit (Sales) Order, 1918, General Licence: made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    MERCANTILE MARINE.

      OFFICERS' RAILWAY FARES.
      Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the railway concessions provided for the officers of British merchant ships on taking leave will now be extended so that officers may take advantage of these concessions in purchasing first-class tickets, should they so desire, in place of third-class tickets to which they have previously been restricted?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley): I have been in communication with the Railway Executive Committee, and I hope it will shortly be possible to allow mercantile marine officers to purchase first-class tickets at the rates in force prior to the 1st January, 1917, in the cases where at present they are given warrants enabling them to purchase third-class tickets at the old rates.

      WAR SERVICE BADGES.
      Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in reference to the issue of the torpedo badge for the
      674
      merchant service, he will now consider toe desirability of instituting some special form of recognition in the case of officers and crews of merchant ships who, through skilful seamanship and courage, have avoided torpedoing or sinking through gunfire, or other enemy action, and who have thus been instrumental in saving their ships; (2) whether he is now prepared to authorise the wearing of war chevrons by the officers and men of the merchant service as in the case of the officers and men of the naval and military forces; (3) whether officers of the merchant service who have been granted commissions in the Naval Reserve forces and Army since the outbreak of War will now be permitted to wear on their uniforms chevrons for the time they served as officers in the merchant service from the outbreak of war in addition to those chevrons which they are entitled to wear from the time that they received their commissions?
      Sir A. STANLEY: I entirely sympathise with the object which the hon. Member has in view, namely, the recognition of the services performed by the officers and men of the mercantile marine whether they have been torpedoed or not; but I am very doubtful as to the wisdom of multiplying special badges and distinctions, and, as at present advised, I do not propose to add to their number.
      Mr. PETO: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that the torpedo badge is in red worsted, which is quite unsuitable to be worn on any uniform, and that it is in exactly the same form for men and stokers as for officers? Does he not consider that contrary to the interests of discipline on board ship?
      Sir A. STANLEY: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that. I thought the design and general character of the badge had been agreed to by the various interests concerned, but I shall be very glad to take it into consideration.

      INTERNED OFFICERS (EXPENSES).
      Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken to enable those merchant captains and officers, who, having been interned in enemy countries, have now been transferred to Holland and Switzerland, to meet the expense for living which they necessarily incur?
      Sir A. STANLEY: All the merchant captains and officers who have been transferred to Holland and Switzerland are being provided with board and lodging by the officers in charge of the interned in those countries. The majority of the captains and officers are already receiving "officer" treatment, and steps have been taken to secure that all captains and officers shall receive "officer" treatment.
      Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman give his attention to the terms of the question, which relate to meeting the expense of living? When they do receive "officer" treatment tinder the House of Lords decision they do not receive any pay. What they do get is not enough to meet the cost of living in the neutral country.
      Sir A. STANLEY: I gather what the hon. Gentleman has in mind is that the allowance now is not adequate to meet their real needs, and that aspect of the question is now engaging our attention.

      PENSIONS (OFFICERS' DEPENDANTS).
      Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any decision has yet been reached on the question of an increased scale of pensions to the widows and dependants of officers of the mercantile marine who have lost their lives through enemy action during the present War?
      Sir A. STANLEY: Considerable progress has been made with this question, but no decision has yet been arrived at.
      Mr. PENNEFATHER: When is a decision likely to be arrived at on that point?
      Sir A. STANLEY: I hope it will not take any very great length of time. We have to discuss it with the Treasury and other interests, but I will hurry it up as much as I possibly can.

      STANDARD UNIFORM.
      Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade on what date he expects to bring in the Bill to give effect to the findings of the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to consider the question of a standard uniform for the merchant service?
      Sir A. STANLEY: I am afraid there is little possibility of introducing the Bill before the Adjournment.
      Mr. PETO: Will this be an early matter in the business of the House after the Adjournment, and is the drafting of the Bill being proceeded with?
      Sir A. STANLEY: If I remember rightly, the Bill has been drafted, but its introduction is a matter for the Leader of the House. I will consult him with regard to it.

    ALIENS.

      WAMBACH AND COMPANY.
      Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he has any knowledge of Wambach and Company, manufacturers of catgut and sausage-skins, and with businesses in their own or other names at Barking, Colchester, Ipswich, Glasgow, and, before the War, at Harwich and Yarmouth; has he been able to ascertain if the owners are naturalised or not; and have any of them been interned since the outbreak of hostilities; (2) if he will ascertain the nature of the business carried on at Barking, either for himself or another person, by Wilhelm Wambach; is Wilhelm. Wambach a naturalised citizen; and was he at one time interned at the Alexandra Palace?
      Sir A. STANLEY: The businesses carried on under the name of Wambach and Company were inspected by order of the Board of Trade made in April, 1917. The businesses at Barking, Colchester, and Ipswich are owned by four brothers of German origin, three of whom have been naturalised, while one, referred to as William Wambach, is a German subject. The business at Glasgow is owned by one of the brothers who is a naturalised British subject. These businesses have all been placed under supervision. I understand that the partner who is a German subject was interned in July, 1915, but has subsequently been released on licence. My information does not show in what camp he was interned.
      Major NEWMAN: Have all these businesses been acquired since the War or were they in the possession of these people before the War?
      Sir A. STANLEY: I think it would be correct to say, though I say it with some reserve, that all were in their possession prior to the outbreak of war.
      Major NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this particular firm is trying to acquire more businesses of the same nature in order to get a combine?
      Sir A. STANLEY: Yes; I am quite aware of it. If I remember rightly, the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised the question a day or two ago, and we took all steps to prevent it.

      HOLZAPFELS, LIMITED.
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state on what date the 24 per cent. of the share capital in Messrs. Holzapfels, Limited, held on the 18th October, 1916, by two naturalised British subjects of enemy birth was transferred to British-born subjects, also the names of the British-born subjects; and what relationship, if any, existed between the transferors and the transferees of the shares in question?
      Sir A. STANLEY: The shares referred to have been transferred this year, and, as the majority have been sold in small lots to numerous purchasers, it is not possible to give the exact dates and names of the purchasers without a considerable amount of labour. The 89,856 shares formerly belonging to Max Holzapfel were transferred to persons who were not connected with his family. Of the 22,410 shares belonging to A. C. A. Holzapfel, 17,885 were transferred to eight persons who are his children, and one person who is his son-in-law. Their names are Ward, May, and Aston, the name of Holzapfel having been changed to Ward. At the present time the capital of £450,000 is distributed among about 1,200 shareholders, and I should be pleased to show my hon. Friend a list.
      Mr. PENNEFATHER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if any precautions have been taken to prevent these shares from being retransferred back again after the War is over?
      Sir A. STANLEY: I shall be very glad to make inquiries, and if the hon. Member will put down a question I will give him an answer.
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Minister of Munitions whether any priority permits were granted in 1917 to Messrs. Holzapfels, Limited, for copper or other raw material; if so, the dates and amounts of materials granted per month or otherwise; and whether any of the permits were granted with the approval either of the Admiralty or of the Board of Trade?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): During 1917 Messrs. Holzapfels
      678
      were granted the usual stock permits enabling them to order materials for use upon ships and floating craft only. The materials procured are ingredients for paint and compositions for fishing vessels, trawlers, and ships' bottoms. The permit is issued on condition that all orders and all supplies ex such orders shall previously be certified as approved by the local Board of Trade surveyor. The firm also holds the usual repair and maintenance permit for spare and repair parts. Those permits have been arranged in consultation with the Admiralty, and are subject to the supervision of the Board of Trade surveyors.

      GERMAN BANKS.
      Mr. GILBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a British company, the Columbia Navigation Company, entered into a contract with a German firm in Bremen in August, 1913, for the delivery of steamers and boilers, and that one of the conditions of the contract was that the full amount of same £7,000 was to be deposited with the Deutsche Bank, London, which was done, and that of this amount the bank have paid over to the Bremen firm £2,567 up to date, against which no delivery of goods has been made; whether he is aware that, as the contract cannot now be carried out, the Columbia Navigation Company have applied to the liquidator of the bank here for the refund of the balance of the deposit, £4,432, which is still here, and that special permission was given for the bank to apply to their Bremen office for permission to repay the balance, who refused consent on the probability of the contract being completed after the War; whether he is aware that the instructions of the Government to the liquidator of German banks does not allow him to return British companies moneys in the case set out; whether it is the intention of the Government that German contracts should be maintained in this manner until after the War; and, if not, will he forthwith issue new instructions to the liquidator of the German banks that all British money retained here by the Deutsche Bank, London, as in the case of the Columbia Navigation Company, and any similar cases, shall be returned to the British owners at once?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): No instructions have been given by the Government prohibiting the return of the sum in

      679
      question to the company. I understand that certain arrangements were proposed under which the money would have been repaid but that they were not agreed to by the company. It will be the duty of the controller appointed under the Trading With the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916, to apply to the Court for directions whether the money deposited with the London agency of the Deutsche Bank should be refunded to the company.

      ADMINISTRATIVE METHODS (CHANGES).
      Mr. ROCHasked the Home Secretary (1) if he will circulate, as soon as may be, a Parliamentary Paper indicating precisely the changes, other than legislative changes, and administrative methods to be adopted in dealing with aliens and persons not the sons of British-born subjects announced by him in his statement on Thursday last; and (2) if he can give the names of the members of the Committee which is to be appointed to consider the cases of persons in Government Departments who are not the sons of British-born subjects; if he can give the terms of reference to this Committee; and if he can say whether all persons occupying any position in any Government Department who are not the sons of British-born subjects will have to present themselves before this Committee and have their claims for exceptional treatment adjudicated on?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): I do not think it necessary to circulate a Parliamentary Paper as suggested. The proposals of the Government as to changes of name and identity books can be carried out by Orders in Council, which will be made at an early date. The proposals as to the review of exemptions, and as to the employment in Government offices of persons who are not British born, require the appointment of Committees, and I hope that it may be possible very shortly to make an announcement as to the constitution of these Committees. The order to wind up the enemy banks will, I understand, be made forthwith. The remaining proposals will require legislation, which will be introduced, and, I hope, passed before the Recess.
      Mr. ROCH: May I ask whether any terms of reference will be given to either or both of these Committees?
      Sir G. CAVE: Certainly.
      Mr. SHER WELL: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell us explicitly what is meant by "persons occupied in Government offices"? Does it apply also to Ministers of the Crown?
      Sir G. CAVE: The expression is easy to understand. I should certainly think it applies to Ministers.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      SALMON.
      Mr. CHANCELLORasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the fact that on Friday last train-loads of salmon arrived at Billingsgate in such a condition that they were taken down the river in barges in carbolic tanks; can he account for this waste of foodstuffs; and will he say what arrangements have been or will be made to prevent its recurrence?
      Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The total quantity of salmon condemned at Billingsgate on Friday, 5th July, was 5 stone, an Irish consignment spoiled by delay in transit. It is impossible to prevent an occasional occurrence of this kind in warm weather.

      GRASS LAND PLOUGHED.
      Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will have complete statistics collected and made public from each county in England and Wales of the acreage of grass land ordered to be ploughed, the acreage actually ploughed, and the cropping, as well as the result, whether good, moderate, partial, or total failure?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): The collection of the full statistics and details to which my hon. Friend refers will not in any case be possible until after harvest, and will necessitate an exhaustive inquiry, the time and labour for which are not at present available. If it appears that any valuable information can be obtained from such statistics as are asked for, the Board, after examining the detailed figures of the production of this year's crops, will consider how the figures can be best obtained.
      Mr. PETO: Are we to understand from the reply that the necessary labour will

      681
      be available after harvest to collect these statistics, and that the Board of Agriculture will have the figures before them; and, if so, is it not simply a question that one county may know with what success another county has had in carrying out the policy?
      Sir R. WINFREY: The Board recognises the importance of the question. It is only a question of the particular time at which it can be done.

      SCOTTISH DEPARTMENT (SALARIES).
      Mr. WATTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his Department employs ninety-seven men in Scotland at salaries over £200 a year; whether one is paid £1,000 a year, one £900, three £800, six £600, nine £500, five £450, seven £400, one £365, and seven £350; and, if so, whether it was found necessary by his Department to pay such salaries in war-time to get the duties of his Department in Scotland satisfactorily performed?
      Mr. PARKER: The statements in the first two parts of the question are substantially correct. It does not appear to me that the salaries are excessive or the appointments too numerous, having regard to the variety, extent, and importance of the duties to be performed.
      Mr. WATT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether those salaries are included in the £1,750,000 of salaries paid per annum, as indicated by the representative of the Department in another place?
      Mr. PARKER: I cannot say. The hon. Member had better put a question down.
      Mr. WATTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether of the ninety-seven men employed by his Department in Scotland at salaries of from £1,000 to £200 per annum seventy-six are of military age; if so, whether any attempt was made by his Department to get men to fill these posts over military age or who had served in the Army, had done their share of fighting, and had been discharged; and was this attempt unsuccessful?
      Mr. PARKER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, taking the military age as under fifty-one. Every effort has been made to fill the necessary posts with men not available for military service, but in view of the
      682
      onerous nature of the duties to be performed, the special qualifications needed, and the urgency of the situation, it was not always possible to avoid the employment of men liable to some form of duty with the forces. The entire provincial staff of the Ministry is being drastically reviewed by the Committee appointed by the Minister of National Service, whose operations are expected to be complete in two or three weeks.
      Mr. WATT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Department have tried to get discharged men who have done their fighting?
      Mr. PARKER: I cannot say as to that, but the hon. Member will realise from the answer I have read out that this matter is being carefully looked into.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Could not all these men be taken into the Army and given commissions as Staff captains, and so be employed at a lower rate of pay?

      STEAMSHIP "OBERON" (CARGO REQUISITIONED).
      Mr. WILESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the fact that the freight on the cargo of linseed which was laden on the "Oberon," bound from Buenos Ayres to Rotterdam and ordered into the Falmouth River in November, 1916, owing to submarine danger, and which was requisitioned by Government Order on 1st December, 1917, has not yet been paid; is he aware that the delay is caused by his Department, which requires the assent of the former owner to the payment of freight although, having lost the goods and handed the bills of lading to the Ministry, the former owner has no means of checking the accuracy of the freight account; that no payment on account of the amount due has been made although the Ministry offered, on 29th December, 1917, to pay £28 a ton, less 1 per cent. brokerage, which was afterwards reduced by the Ministry to £ per cent., to be paid to a firm of brokers employed by the Ministry; and that this offer was refused only because the London agents of the former Dutch owner of the linseed refuse to pay ½ per cent. brokerage to brokers whom they had not employed and who had done nothing for them; and will he take such steps that will ensure the prompt payment of the freight to the ship-owner

      683
      and the net value of the goods to the firm from whom they were requisitioned?
      Mr. PARKER: I am informed that instructions have now been given for the payment of the freight referred to, and that payment will shortly be made on account of the price of the linseed requisitioned. With regard to the question of brokerage, I understand that a representative of the charterers has been asked to meet the Chairman of the United Kingdom Brokers' Association with a view to the appointment of a trade arbitrator to settle the outstanding points of difference, and it is hoped that an agreement may be reached at an early date.

      CHEESE.
      Captain WRIGHTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the position of the Bridge Sollars and District Dairy Society, near Hereford, in connection with the British Cheese Requisition Order No. 5, under which all surplus cheese has to be forwarded to a distant market, while there is a large unsatisfied local demand for the cheese; and whether he will appoint a local tradesman as the approved factor for this society?
      Mr. PARKER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Equitable distribution of home-produced cheese must involve the transfer of a certain proportion of the output from producing areas to consuming centres, even if this leaves part of the demand in the producing areas unsatisfied. The Food Controller cannot undertake that all the cheese produced in the Hereford district shall be retained for consumption locally, and he is not, therefore, prepared to appoint a local tradesman to act as approved factor for the society in question.
      Captain WRIGHT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is necessary that all the output of the factories should be transferred to London?
      Mr. PARKER: If it is my hon. Friend's suggestion that that is being done, I will draw the attention of the Food Controller to it.

      TEA.
      Sir ALFRED YEOasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food
      684
      if he can give a Return of all the varying rebates granted to different distributors of tea?
      Mr. PARKER: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the latest instructions on the subject of rebates, which will, I think, give all the information required. The paragraph on the subject of van delivery rebates will require some modification in view of the new distribution scheme.

      FRUIT FROM OVERSEAS.
      Mr. MACMASTERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the failure of the hard fruit in the United Kingdom this year, he will relax the restrictions on the importation of apples, pears, peaches, and like products from our Dominions and Dependencies overseas and also from the countries of the Allies; and, if so, whether he will see that such relaxation and relief is promptly made, in order that the people of the United Kingdom may receive the fruit now ripening abroad during the approaching autumn and winter?
      Sir A. STANLEY: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I have this matter now under consideration, in consultation with the Ministers of Food and Shipping.

    COAL SUPPLIES (IRELAND).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the shortage of coal in Ireland is at present acute; that there has been reduction of the ordinary train services; that, as a result, the travelling and business public are inconvenienced and the interests of Irish seaside and holiday resorts injuriously affected; and that no less than six auxiliary trains, formerly known as specials, were advertised by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to run for the Curragh races on 25th, 26th, and 27th June, making for both journeys thirty-six special trains altogether; whether these trains were run as advertised; and, if so, whether, in the public interests, he will take steps to secure that such provision for the railway accommodation of race-goers shall not be provided in future, in order that the general public of Ireland may have their fair share of railway travelling facilities?
    Sir A. STANLEY: There is undoubtedly a shortage in the supply of coal to Ireland, and economy in its use is therefore necessary. The railway companies have in consequence been called upon to reduce the passenger services, and this reduction must, I am afraid, cause some inconvenience to the public. I am in communication with the Irish Railway Executive Committee as regards the running of trains for the purposes of the race meeting to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. WHYTE: Why is not the coal rationing system applied to Ireland?
    Sir A. STANLEY: It is not possible. The conditions in Ireland are so totally different that it would be impossible to apply the same system in Ireland as in Great Britain, but the amount of coal imported into Ireland is reduced, so that the results are practically the same.
    Major NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the fact that coal is not rationed in Ireland, it is almost impossible for people who ought to have coal to get it, and there is consequently a general scramble for it?
    Sir A. STANLEY: It has not been brought to my attention, but I shall be glad to look into it.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Were not these thirty-six trains advertised, and therefore there is a grievance with the civilian population?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I will go into the matter at once.

    BASINGSTOKE AND ALTON LIGHT RAILWAY.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade why the light railway between Basingstoke and Alton has recently been taken up; if it has been removed with the rolling stock to one of the military fronts, where it has not been used; and, if so, can he have it replaced, as it was a convenience to the inhabitants of these districts?
    The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. This railway was taken up to provide material for overseas requirements, but I am afraid it would be difficult to
    686
    ascertain where the track is now being used. No rolling stock special to the Basingstoke and Alton Railway has been sent overseas. I understand from my right hon. Friend that it will not be possible to replace this railway during the War.

    PORT OF LONDON (EXPENSES).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the State contributes anything towards the expenses of the Port of London; and, if so, how much per ton in 1907, in 1914 before the War, and at the present moment?
    Sir A. STANLEY: No, Sir.

    SHIPPING DUES, LONDON.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the President of the Board of Trade how the total shipping dues per ton for London compare with those for Hamburg for 1907, in July, 1914, and in June, 1918, or at the latest date for which figures are available?
    Sir A. STANLEY: The basis on which shipping dues are charged at Hamburg differs too much from that in London to enable any trustworthy comparison to be made. There have been appreciable changes in London during the War, and possibly at Hamburg also, but as to the latter I have no information.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to state what are the total charges?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I am afraid not. I do not possess that information.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the President of the Board of Trade what were the total shipping (dock and river) dues per ton in London in 1907, in June, 1914, and in June, 1918, respectively; whether these sums cover the same services rendered or the same facilities afforded; and, if not, to what degree are they not comparable and why?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I am obtaining from the Port of London Authority a detailed statement of the particulars desired by my hon. Friend, and I will send him a copy of the statement.

    DAMAGE TO ROADS (TIMBER HAULAGE).
    Mr. BECKETTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can yet state the decision arrived at as to the making of Grants to local authorities for the repair of roads damaged by the haulage of timber used for national purposes; and whether he is aware that, owing to the delay of the Board in affording relief, local authorities have in certain cases been compelled to issue writs against the contractors for the damage done, and thus much waste of time and money has occurred?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on this subject on Thursday last to a question by the hon. Member for Tiverton.

    NATIONAL DEDICATION SERVICES (USE OF PETROL).
    Mr. GULLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the national dedication services to be held throughout the country on Sunday, 4th August, he will authorise the use of petrol for conveyance to church on that day, so that old people, invalids, and young children living at a distance from their church may be able to attend public worship without incurring the risk of fine or imprisonment?
    Sir A. STANLEY: It has been decided to permit the use of petrol in private or hired motor vehicles where no other means of conveyance is reasonably available for the purpose of attendance at public worship on Sunday, 4th August. An announcement on the subject will be made in the course of a few days.

    INDIA.

      COWHIDES (EXPORTATION).
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that in the three and a half years before the War nearly 19,500,000 cowhides were exported from India to the ports of Hamburg, Bremen, and Trieste, and this important Indian trade had practically passed into German hands, he will now state what measures have been taken, or are being
      688
      taken, by the Government of India or the Home Government to prevent the possibility of this German monopoly ever being re-established, and to ensure that in future the industry shall be wholly British and Indian?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave on the 10th July to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford.
      Colonel YATE: Is there any reason why there should be any further delay in settling this matter definitely; why is it still under consideration?
      Mr. MONTAGU: It is not under consideration. I gave a complete reply, showing that the German influence in this trade has been completely and permanently removed.
      Colonel YATE: Were not the words which the right hon. Gentleman used, "The Government of India have the future regulation of this trade under consideration"?
      Mr. MONTAGU: Yes; that refers to the after-the-war policy. I think all the steps possible for the moment have been taken.

      INDIAN ARMY (BRITISH OFFICERS).
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India what improvements have been effected in the conditions of service of British officers of the Indian Army since the commencement of the War; and whether the question of increasing the pay of the British officers of the Indian Army will be considered by the Government of India at the same time as they are considering the question of increasing the pay of the Indian officers and soldiers?
      Mr. MONTAGU: The following improvements have been effected since the outbreak of war:
      Promotion has been accelerated in accordance with a scheme which has been publicly announced. The system of acting promotion in force for the British Army has been extended to the Indian Army. When invalided from the field Indian Army officers now receive pay of rank plus half staff pay of their substantive Indian Army appointment up to a maximum of six months after the expiry of three months on full pay and it is only after the end of

      689
      the ninth month that they are placed on sterling rates of leave pay. The Pensions Warrant of 1st August, 1917, has been extended to officers of the Indian Army. The rates of temporary non-effective pay have also been improved, and hospital stoppages waived where illness is due to military service. No further increase of pay in the case of Indian Army officers is under consideration.

      REFORMS PROPOSED.
      Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for India whether any steps are being taken to embody in draft bill form the proposals for Indian reform, or if that stage must await Cabinet approval of the scheme in detail?
      Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, Sir; the steps to which my hon. and gallant friend refers are now being taken.
      Mr. WHYTE: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to set up a Standing Committee of this House on Indian affairs?
      Mr. MONTAGU: I cannot answer that question until the Government have decided what policy they will adopt.
      Mr. WHYTE: That is part of my right hon. Friend's policy?
      Mr. MONTAGU: It is a part of the policy which his Excellency the Viceroy and I recommend to His Majesty's Government.
      Mr. WHYTE: Will my right hon. Friend recommend it to his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and suggest that what is good for the India Office is also good for the Foreign Office?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is rather a long way from the question on the Paper.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this draft Bill will or will not be finished within three months' time?
      Mr. MONTAGU: I cannot say yet. My hon. Friend will realise that it is a very complicated Bill to draw up, but it is being proceeded with as quickly as possible.
      Mr. G. TERRELL: May I ask whether the Bill for giving Home Rule to India is considered a war measure?
      Mr. MONTAGU: I do not understand that. I am not drafting a Bill for Home Rule for India.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Will it be done as expeditiously as the Bill for Home Rule for Ireland?

    BRITISH PROPERTY IN GERMANY.
    Major PEELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what policy, by way of liquidation or otherwise, is being pursued by the Government of Germany towards British property in that country; and whether a similar policy is being pursued by the Governments in alliance with Germany?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): A German decree of September, 1914, gave power to place all British property in Germany under compulsory administration, and a later decree authorised the liquidation of all British undertakings in Germany of which the capital was provided by British subjects, or which were controlled or conducted from British territory, or which had been so controlled or conducted up to the outbreak of war. It is understood that wide use has been made of these powers.
    In July, 1916, the Austrian and Hungarian Governments issued similar Orders enabling firms of enemy nationality to be put under Government administration and, if necessary, liquidated, and, so far as is known, effect has been given to these Orders in a number of cases.
    The Bulgarian Government passed a law in April, 1917, authorising the liquidation of enemy property, and by an Order of 31st October last this law was applied in its entirety to all commercial and industrial enterprises in Bulgaria belonging to British subjects.
    I have been unable to obtain definite information in regard to any laws or regulations governing the treatment of enemy property in Turkey, but up to January, 1917, no measures had been taken to sequestrate or close the businesses of British subjects.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what happens to the assets of these companies which are put in liquidation under the Orders he mentioned?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have no information on that subject. Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question down.
    Mr. D. MASON: May I assume that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government will keep alive these claims of British owners of property when peace comes?
    Mr. BALFOUR: It is quite evident that all these questions of private rights in the various countries must be considered.

    Mr. HAROLD WILLIAMS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will say in what capacity Mr. Harold Williams, till recently a journalist in Russia, is now employed in the Foreign Office; and whether his recent speech on 5th July in favour of Allied armed intervention in Russia was delivered under Foreign Office auspices and represents the policy of the Allies?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Mr. Harold Williams is not employed at the Foreign Office. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

    M. NABOKOFF (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what was the latest date on which money was advanced to, or on behalf of, M. Nabokoff, formerly Russian Chargé d'Affaires in London; whether M. Nabokoff has now been informed, or will be forthwith informed, that no further advances will be made to him unless he is duly accredited by a de facto Russian Government; and whether at any time since he ceased to be Prime Minister of Russia, M. Kerensky has received, directly or indirectly, any financial assistance from the British Gvernment?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The last date on which money was advanced to Monsieur Nabokoff was 9th July. The answer to the last two parts of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. KING: Is the Grant made to M. Nabokoff only last week to be the last of these payments? I hope it is.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman in my answer that I cannot give any pledge on that subject.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we going to go on indefinitely paying the ex-Russian Ambassadors and their staffs?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not profess to be able to look into the future.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Under what authority is the payment made?

    COMMERCIAL TREATIES (DENUNCIATION).
    Captain LLOYDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any and, if so, how many commercial treaties containing Most-Favoured-Nation Treaty Clauses have recently been denounced by His Majesty's Government; whether there is any reason for delay in promptly carrying out the policy in regard to these treaties recently announced by His Majesty's Government; and, if so, what is the cause?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the general policy of His Majesty's Government in these matters, I can add nothing to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Hexham on 24th June last.
    Captain LLOYD: In view of the extreme importance of this question, can the right hon. Gentleman give us any hope that the matter will be settled shortly?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I hope it will, but as my hon. Friend will see this is not a Foreign Office question. The Foreign Office is the office, no doubt, which would make any announcement to the foreign Governments, but the policy is the policy of the Government as a whole, and I hope my hon. Friend will address any question he has to the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Leader of the House stated some time ago that the Government had decided to denounce these treaties, and when does he propose to move in the matter?
    Mr. BALFOUR: A question was put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he did give an answer, the answer to which I have referred—an answer given, I think, on 24th June last

    693
    to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt). That is the last statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. TERRELL: May I ask whether it was not to the effect that the Government had decided to denounce these treaties?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That can be ascertained on reference to it.

    SHAMEEN (GERMAN LEASES).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs' what decision has been come to in regard to the legal questions involved in the taking over of the buildings belonging to the German Consulate, bank, post office, and trading firms in the British concession of Shameen, in China; and whether the leases have now been terminated?
    Mr. BALFOUR: It has been decided for the present to apply the same treatment to German property within the concessions as is being applied by the Chinese Government to German property outside the concessions, and the necessary instructions have been given. This will involve the termination of the leases.

    SMALL HOLDINGS (CROWN LANDS).
    Major PEELasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the demand for small holdings and of the difficulty of providing these in existing conditions, he will entertain the policy of giving priority to the claims of small farmers in the letting of Crown lands under his control?
    Sir R. WINFREY: Such priority is already given in cases where Crown land is suitable for small holdings and there is a demand for them in the district. Up to the present about 13,400 acres of Crown land in England have been let in small holdings or allotments.

    MUNITIONS.

      OIL-BORING (UNITED KINGDOM).
      Captain WRIGHTasked the Minister of Munitions (1) if he will now state the names of the three firms with Which the Ministry have been negotiating
      694
      agreements for boring for oil; what are the terms of the agreements; what, if any, effect upon these terms will the new Petroleum Bill have if it becomes law; (2) the number and names of the British firms which, subject to obtaining certain priority certificates, are now in a position to commence boring for oil in the United Kingdom?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I cannot usefully add anything to the reply given by my hon. Friend to my hon. Friend on the 21st March last except that the negotiations are not yet completed. Any terms arranged will, however, be subject to any legislation that may be passed.
      Captain WRIGHT: What are the reasons which have delayed the completion of these agreements?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There are some difficult points to settle.

      HEADQUARTERS STAFF (HONORARY SERVICES).
      Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Munitions if any subsistence allowances are given by his Department to persons who give honorary services; if so, what is the amount of these allowances; and the number of persons in his Department who receive such allowances and the number for each scale of allowance?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: Yes, Sir. The amount of the subsistence allowances paid to persons on the headquarters staff who give honorary service in the Ministry is £13,460. These allowances are at the rate of £1 per working or calendar day, and are paid to forty-one persons. As I stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for West Ham on 18th March, they are professional and technical assistants holding positions of considerable responsibility, for which the Ministry would normally have to pay salaries much in excess of the allowances named.
      Mr. WATT: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many Members of this House derive such assistance from his Department?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I have not that information, but I will give it to my hon. Friend if he will ask for it.

      OMNIBUS SERVICES (WORKERS' CHEAP FARES).
      Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Munitions how many cheap return fares have been arranged with the London General Omnibus Company in South-East London for munition workers, and can he give an example of these cheap fares; what system exists in order to secure that these fares are only given to bonâ-fide munition workers, and what checks or control the company have on the persons applying for such tickets; and is it a condition of the financial Grants that the company have to give preference to munition workers on all services over all other passengers?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Cheap return fares have been arranged on ten routes in the South-Eastern district of London, as, for example, the route between Bell Green, Catford, and Woolwich, for which the return fare charged is 6d., which is comparable with an ordinary double fare of 11d. The cheap fares are issued only to Arsenal workers on production of an identity disc, which also shows the limit of travel required.

      REFORMATORY BOYS (HOURS OF WORK).
      Mr. R. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Munitions if his attention has been drawn to the fact that in certain shell works from eighty to ninety boys from a reformatory are employed each day on the day and night shifts and used for general labouring work, much of which is of a specially heavy kind, including the pushing of trucks with weights of 6 cwt. and 7 cwt.; whether, whilst the shifts of the ordinary workers in this factory are of twelve and twelve and a half hours during the night, that of these boys is thirteen hours, and for the day nine and a half for men and ten and a half and sometimes twelve and a half for the boys; whether he has received any guarantees before sanctioning the employment of these boys that they will not be called upon to do reformatory work in addition; whether he can say if this guarantee has been and is being observed; whether he has made arrangements with the institution which will protect adequately the rights of the boys in their wages, and not make their employment of special benefit to the institution rather than to themselves; whether he is aware that cropping of the hair after the manner of criminals is imposed for trivial offences upon these boys; and
      696
      whether he is fully satisfied regarding the general conditions of their employment in view of their character and good work?
      The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I presume my hon. Friend refers to the boys from Kibble Institution, who are employed at certain munition works in Scotland. Some eighty-four boys are so employed, their work being general labouring work. I am informed that the work includes the pushing of trucks, the carrying capacity of which is 7 or 8 cwts., but that the lads fill the trucks to suit their own convenience, and push either 4 cwts. in two runs, or 2 cwts. in four runs. Each truck is manned by two boys. The average number of hours worked on the night shift by the boys is ten and a half, and on the day shift nine hours, except in the case of a few senior boys who have worked ten hours. The work is, of course, not continuous either on the night or the day shift, regular and ample intervals being, according to my information, allowed for rest. The boys employed on munitions work do not do any work in the school. As regards the earnings of the boys, an instruction was given to all reformatory and industrial schools that not less than one-third of the earnings should be allotted or credited to the boys themselves, the balance being retained for their maintenance, clothing, etc. I am informed that this instruction is followed at the Kibble Institution. Cropping of the hair is, I understand, not employed as a method of punishing trivial offences. The school is regularly inspected, and will be inspected again shortly, when particular attention will be paid to the questions raised by my hon. Friend.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any steps to reduce the hours of labour worked by these boys, seeing that this long number of hours is only the average number?
      Mr. MUNRO: All these matters will be reconsidered after the inspection is made.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: When is it to be?
      Mr. MUNRO: At an early date.

    NATIONAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT (IRELAND).
    Major NEWMANasked the Minister of National Service whether he is satisfied

    697
    with the work that is being done by the Irish Department of his Ministry; and, if not, what changes does he propose to make?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): I have been asked to reply to this question. The National Service Department for Ireland is responsible to the Irish Government. Generally, I am satisfied with the work done by the Department in its present condition, but steps are being taken to reorganise the women's side of the Department.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      MEDICAL GRADING.
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Minister of National Service whether men of the new military age who were given grade cards during the week prior to Monday, 8th July, will be entitled to have the new classification distinctly marked on their grading cards in the same manner as on the cards of men who were graded after that statement was made; if so, what procedure is necessary; and, if not, will he explain what difference of treatment will result before the tribunals in connection with appeals made by men graded before and those graded after 8th July?
      The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir Auckland Geddes): Any man of the new military age who was graded before 8th July and is still in civil life can, if he so desires, have his grade card altered to conform with the new instructions by presenting it, and his birth certicate, at a National Service area office. There is, however, no necessity for him to do so, and his disposal when he comes up for posting will be similar to that of men medically graded subsequently to last Monday. With regard to the last part of my hon. Friend's question, tribunals have received full directions from the Local Government Board or the Scottish Office, and their decisions will be given with full knowledge of the current arrangements.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what arrangements have been made by the Army Council for observing the special grading of men above the age of forty-three instituted by the Minister of National Service?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Instructions for the alteration of medical categories to meet the new grading will be issued in the course of the next day or two.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the older men at the present time are being subjected to a training equally rigorous with the younger men?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: My information is quite to the contrary. If my hon. Friend will bring a case to my notice I will consider it.
      Mr. PRINGLE: I certainly will.

      SCOTLAND'S QUOTA.
      Sir JOHN AINSWORTHasked the Secretary for Scotland why Scotland's quota of men recently taken from agriculture for enlistment was fixed at 5,500, while England, with a population eight times that of Scotland, was only asked to provide 30,000 (since reduced to 27,000)?
      Mr. MUNRO: The figures were based, not on population, but on the relative numbers of male agricultural workers in the two countries. On that basis, according to the most recent estimate, the figures are as nearly as possible proportionate.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that the figures per 100 acres of arable land in Scotland were only 3.1, and that they now are 3.8?

      AGRICULTURISTS.
      Sir J. AINSWORTHasked the Secretary for Scotland if he has received a request from the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture for a statement of the number of men actually taken from agriculture in England and Scotland and in each county subsequent to the date of the Royal Proclamation affecting men from nineteen to twenty-three years of age; and whether he intends to take steps to obtain this information?
      Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service on the question whether the figures referred to can be given.

      YOUNG SOLDIERS.
      Mr. P. A. HARRISasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether the youths of eighteen and a half called to the Colours are the equivalent of the French

      699
      1920 Class; whether the French have yet put into the trenches their 1920 Class; what is the age at which the Americans are calling men to the Colours; and whether the Army Council is prepared to revert to the former practice and not send men overseas until they reach the age of nineteen, now that such large reinforcements have arrived from America?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The French 1920 Class consists of all youths whose eighteenth birthday occurs during 1918, and I understand that no lads of this class have yet been put into the trenches. The minimum age for service in the United States Army is twenty-one years. As regards the last part of my hon. Friend's question, I regret that the circumstances do not admit at present of any alteration in the existing conditions under which men are drafted overseas.
      Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong feeling about this matter in the country, and will he give some indication that these men shall not be put into the front line even if they go to France and are employed on the lines of communications?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret to say that I can give no such undertaking, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the speech which the Prime Minister made on 9th April last.

    LUNACY WARDS (CHILDREN).
    Sir A. YEOasked the President of the Local Government Board the number of children under the age of fourteen who are detained in the lunacy wards of the London workhouses or infirmaries, the longest period so detained, and the number detained on 1st July for more than fifty days?
    Colonel GIBBS: My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board regrets that the information desired by my hon. Friend is not in his possession. If, however, he will furnish particulars of any cases which he has in mind, my right hon. Friend will be glad to make inquiries.
    Sir A. YEO: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us from what Department we can get the information—is it available?
    Colonel GIBBS: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put down another question to my right hon. Friend.

    STREET COLLECTIONS, DERBY.
    Captain WRIGHTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution of protest passed on 30th June last by a large meeting of the citizens of Derby, held in the market place, against the action of the Derby local authority in failing to assent to the application of the Derby branch of the National Federation of Discharged and Disabled Sailors and Soldiers to make collections at their open-air meetings in support of the objects of the federation, while allowing pacifists, and others not assisting in the defence of their country, to make collections at their frequent meetings for their purposes; and whether he has any, and what, power to direct the local authority to give equality of treatment in the matter of making collections as between our sailors and soldiers and the pacifists?
    Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am informed that an application was made by the National Federation of Discharged and Disabled Sailors and Soldiers for a permit to hold eight street collections, covering a period of three and a half weeks; but the Watch Committee, having regard to the large number of applications for permits which have been made by various bodies, did not see their way to accede to it. A permit for a street collection had been granted by the Watch Committee to this federation as recently as March last. I have no power to control the Watch Committee in the exercise of their powers with regard to the grant of permits.
    Captain WRIGHT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that meetings of the character mentioned in the question other than those of the National Federation of Discharged and Disabled Sailors and Soldiers are held weekly, almost daily, and that collections are made?
    Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir; I am not aware of it.

    CIVIL SERVICE (OATH OF ALLEGIANCE).
    The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Sir HENRY CRAIK:
    45. To ask the Prime Minister whether the Government are prepared to require an oath of allegiance from every person who enters the Civil Service of the Crown?
    Sir H. CRAIK: A fortnight ago I was asked to postpone this question to that day fortnight. On arriving at the House to-day I received a request asking me to further postpone it. I shall put it down for a week to-day, and shall then press for a decision.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS.

      WOMEN REPRESENTATIVES.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Prime Minister the result of his inquiries into the question of the position of women with reference to admission to this House?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: A conference is being held this week to discuss this question.

    GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENTS (JOINT COUNCILS).
    Sir WILLIAM COLLINSasked the Prime Minister whether the Interdepartmental Committee which is about to consider the applicability of the principle of joint standing district councils to Government establishments will also have referred to it the questions raised in paragraph 25 of the Fourth Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, 1914 [Cd. 7338], and which that Commission recommended should be the subject of a special inquiry to be held without undue delay?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to this question was circulated as a written reply on Friday. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has noticed it?
    Sir W. COLLINS: Do not the questions raised in the Report of the Royal Commission mentioned in the question, such as the right of Civil servants to join associations or trade unions and the recognition of such bodies or their affiliation with political parties, arise on any question of applying the principles of the Whitley Report to the Civil Service?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not the facts in mind, as I considered the question was answered last week; but I will look into the matter, and let my hon. Friend know.

    PETROLEUM BILL.
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the
    702
    Government to introduce the Petroleum Bill before the Recess; and, if so, on what day?
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary if he proposes to introduce legislation before the Recess relating to the exploration for oil in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope that it may be possible to introduce this Bill before the Recess, but I cannot name a day.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the urgency of securing an exchange of the British and Indian prisoners in Turkish hands, if a further high death-rate next winter is to be avoided, the Government will consider without delay what proposals it will make to the Turkish Government, so that these proposals may be put forward directly the Hague Convention is signed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I should have informed the House in answer to a question which has not been put, an agreement has been reached by the delegates at The Hague. Of course, it is subject to ratification by the two Governments. As soon as the delegates return this other question will be taken up promptly.

    FUEL AND LIGHTING ORDER.
    Mr. HARRISasked the Prime Minister whether a copy of the new Coal and Light Order will be laid upon the Table of the House; whether an opportunity will be given to discuss the same; and whether he is aware of the feeling that the complexity of its provisions may involve law-abiding citizens unwittingly in infringement of the Orders with consequent heavy penalties?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no objection to the Household Fuel and Lighting Order being laid on the Table of the House. The Clauses which refer to consumers are limited in number, and a pamphlet embodying them only is being issued to the public. The local fuel overseers will render every assistance to the public in carrying out the Order, and will explain any provision which at first sight may appear to be complex. I am not prepared to give special facilities for this discussion.
    Mr. HARRIS: Will the Regulations be drastically enforced and penalties imposed in any case of infringement?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no doubt that that is the intention, but that question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Before the right hon. Gentleman finally decides not to give an opportunity for discussing this Order, would he take into consideration the widespread interest that is taken in it, and the prospect that is held out to very large numbers of householders to go cold in the coming winter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I really do not think it is possible to find time for every subject which arises in this way. But my right hon. Friend knows that if there is a general desire on the part of the House to discuss this or any other question I shall try to give facilities, but I hope it will not be necessary.
    Major BOWDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman let the consumers and small householders know where they will find these local fuel overseers? I am spending all my time making calculations for the householders.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Really, a question of that kind must be addressed to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. WHYTE: Would it not save the time of the President of the Board of Trade, if the matter cannot be discussed here, to meet the Members upstairs?

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
    Mr. THOMASasked whether the Committee of Ministers, which in 1917 examined the question of establishing a Ministry of Health, submitted a Report to the Cabinet; and, if so, whether that Report will now be published?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is not, however, possible to publish a confidential Report by a Cabinet Committee.

    EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
    Captain STARKEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether firms who place money on deposit with their bankers are liable to have the interest they receive
    704
    assessed for Excess Profits Tax; or whether the money placed on deposit is included in the capital of the business?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Where money which is placed on deposit at a bank will shortly be required for business purposes it is treated for Excess Profits Duty as capital employed in the business. The interest is in consequence included in the profits, but this addition is more than counterbalanced by statutory adjustments occasioned by the inclusion of the deposit in the business capital.

    SOLICITORS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government will find time before the Recess for the introduction and discussion in this House in all its stages of the Solicitors (Qualification of Women) Bill which has already passed the other House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that it will not be possible to give facilities for this Bill.
    Mr. GULLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman give facilities for the Scottish Bill, which will go before the Scottish Committee, and so save the time of the House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The principle on which I am guided, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is not to give Government time for a measure that is controversial. From all the information that reaches me this will be controversial.
    Mr. TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish a list of the Bills he proposes to take before the Recess?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Not to-day.

    INCREASE OF RENT ACT.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the recent Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Act was meant by his Department to apply to all houses in Scotland under £30 rental, including those occupied by the owners themselves; if so, is he aware that some assessing authorities are raising on their valuation rolls the rentals of such houses, thus increasing the rents of these; and,

    705
    if so, will he take any action, by circular or otherwise, to prevent local authorities from acting in this way?
    Mr. MUNRO: I regret that I am still unable to grasp the point of my hon. and learned Friend's question. I may, however, remind him that it is the entry in the Valuation Roll for the year to May, 1915, which alone is relevant to the question whether or not the Act mentioned applies to a house in Scotland.
    Mr. WATT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that this would prevent a breach of the Act?

    EDUCATION BILL (ENDOWMENTS).
    Mr. SUTHERLANDasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, under the new Education Bill, it is contemplated to reserve local educational endowments for particular localities, or whether such endowments are to be applied to the whole area of the local education authorities?
    Mr. MUNRO: It is impossible to give a general answer to this question. The terms of each particular endowment would have to be examined, and the effect, if any, upon then: of subsequent legislation duly considered.

    MINING ROYALTIES (COMMUTATION).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Minister of Reconstruction whether any of the Committees appointed by him is instructed to consider the desirability of legislating for the commutation on reasonable terms of mining royalties in the United Kingdom?
    The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): The whole range of economic questions connected with mining royalties was exhaustively considered by a Royal Commission in 1891, and, as the hon. Member will be aware, the suggestion which he puts forward was not adopted by the Commission. There is no Committee at present engaged in considering the question of commutation.
    Mr. WATT: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiries as to how many owners of mining royalties actually live in Leith Burghs?

    AGRICULTURAL RATES (RELIEF).
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Secretary to the Treasury what were the aggregate amounts payable by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in relief of agricultural rates for the financial year 1917–18 under the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, and the Agricultural Rates, Etc. (Scotland), Act, 1896, respectively; and what was the aggregate amount payable by the Commissioners for that financial year in relief of rates on tithe rent-charge attached to benefices in England and Wales under the Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Act, 1899?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): The payments in 1917–18, under the Agricultural Rates Act, were:
    To Local Taxation Account, England, £1,323,645 5s. 4d.
    To Local Taxation Account, Scotland, £182,001 4s. 6d.
    The payments under the Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Act, 1899, in 1917–18, amounted to £193,329 16s. 9d.
    Mr. WHITEasked the Secretary to the Treasury what was the amount of the supplementary Grant in aid of agricultural rates in Scotland, for the financial year 1917–18, out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, under the Local Taxation (Scotland) Act, 1898, over and above the amount payable in relief of agricultural rates in Scotland under the Agricultural Rates, Etc. (Scotland), Act, 1896.
    Mr. MUNRO: The amount in question is £20,000.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (CHEVRONS).
    Captain GANZONIasked the Undersecretary of State to the Air Ministry whether he is aware that a recent Order forbids the wearing of service chevrons by officers and men of the Royal Air Force; whether any reason can be given for this decision; whether he will explain why this differentiation has been made in practice between the Royal Air Force and the two senior Services; and, if the new Order must be adhered to, will any Service distinction be devised entirely suited to the conditions prevailing in the Royal Air Force?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE to the AIR MINISTRY (Major Baird): The question of wearing service chevrons was

    707
    very carefully considered by the Air Council, and it was decided that they should not be allowed, as in the Royal Air Force the general conditions are such that service abroad need not involve more risk and discomfort than service at home. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, pilots and observers wear distinctive badges and will continue to do so.

    SUBMARINE WARFARE.

      BRITISH SEAMEN (OFFICIAL INQUIRY).
      Colonel WEDGWOODasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether one of our patrol boats recently rescued the crew of a derelict U-boat, the captain of which deliberately left on board four British seamen, who would have been drowned if they had not been heard knocking and been rescued; and, if this is so, what steps have been taken to deal with the captain of the U-boat?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The Admiralty have officially stated in the Public Press that they have no knowledge of this reported incident, and that the statement was made without their authority.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that this statement is absolutely without any basis of fact and is, in fact, a lie?
      Dr. MACAMARA: We have stated that we have no information in confirmation of the statement which was made.
      Mr. WHYTE: Has the officer concerned been asked to substantiate the statement?
      Mr. PR INGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statement which appeared in the Tress was censored before publication?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot tell.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is there no Regulation providing that such a statement should be submitted to the Censor before publication with a view to preventing discredit falling upon the reports issued in this country?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: As far as we know, it is without foundation.
      Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Does the Admiralty not consider this allegation
      708
      of sufficient importance to be the subject of close and careful official inquiry, with a view to making public the facts of the case as to whether the report is true or not?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I may say that we at once communicated with the officer as to the grounds on which he made the statement.
      Mr. G. TERRELL: Has there been a reply?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say anything about the reply, because we have not an opportunity of reaching him at the moment, but we shall certainly get a reply from him.
      Sir F. FLANNERY: Will you make public the result?
      Mr. HOLT: Can we have an assurance that the Admiralty will make an official statement whether it is true or not?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes; I have already said that directly the report appeared in the newspapers we said we had no information about it, and we could not confirm it in any way whatever; but if we find that it is entirely without foundation, I shall certainly do so. The last tiling we want to do would be to bring discredit on any statement we make.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: What will happen to the officer?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I have not the slightest doubt that the Board will take very severe action if it should be found that the statement has no foundation.

    NON-FERROUS RAW MATERIALS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked whether, on any dates between 1st June, 1917, and 31st March, 1918, any priority permits were issued to Messrs. Holzapfels, Limited, at the instance or with the approval of the Admiralty, for the purpose of enabling Messrs. Holzapfels, Limited, to obtain non-ferrous raw materials for the purpose of their manufactures; and, if so, will he state the dates on which such permits were issued?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We have no record of any permit being issued during the period mentioned by my hon. Friend. But I should add that if priority were necessary

    709
    for raw material for the execution of orders, it would have been granted by the Department controlling the material.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty the reasons why, after the Admiralty had resumed business relationship with Messrs. Holzapfels, Limited, in 1916, the Admiralty again suspended business relationship with them in July, 1917; and what has happened in the meantime to induce the Admiralty to resume business relationships with that firm?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Business relations with the company were suspended in 1917 in order to act in unison with other Government Departments which had removed the firm from their list. As regards the second part of the question, it was decided to resume business with them for the reasons mentioned in my reply of the 4th July, that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had assured us that enemy interests in this company had been practically eliminated.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by practical?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think the President of the Board of Trade gave the details of the shareholders in an earlier answer.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are there any Germans amongst the shareholders now?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That I cannot say.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Is the right hon. Member aware that the President said that the shares had been transferred from father to son?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes. Let me say further that in consequence of a supplementary question put to me last Thursday week I inquired into the matter, and the subject must remain where it is until I can get further information.

    WOOD PULP (SHIPPING FACILITIES).
    Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller what steps he proposes to
    710
    take to supply shipping facilities for the carriage of wood pulp for paper making from the mill of the Ha Ha Bay Sulphite Company in Canada to this country; if he is aware that this mill was equipped with the special support of the Foreign Office and the Canadian Government, and was built to help to render this country free from the Scandinavian Wood Pulp Association, and that special facilities were afforded by all Government Departments so that it might be rapidly at work producing wood pulp; that the steamship "Gyp" the last steamer belonging to the company, has been requisitioned to carry coal to the Mediterranean, in breach of a promise that it would be used on the American trade and the deck space reserved for wood pulp; and has he realised that the Canadian pulp can be sold at half the price charged by the Scandinavian trust or combine, and the loss that will fall on this country if shipping facilities are withheld?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): I regret to say that the Shipping Controller cannot at present take steps to provide tonnage to convey wood pulp from Canada in order to save the extra expense of obtaining the material from the nearer market of Scandinavia, or to give financial assistance to the company referred to. It is only by obtaining supplies from the nearest possible markets that the Shipping Controller is able to supply the nation with food and munitions, and the steps proposed by this company would amount to a direct substitution of wood pulp for food or other vital necessities. The requisition of the vessel named was in no way a breach of any promise, the temporary arrangements made in January, 1917, as to deck space being definitely determined in April of the same year. I may add that this company has been treated in exactly the same way as another important British enterprise, whose wood pulp and paper we have regretfully had to refuse to transport and whose special ships we have had to requisition.
    Sir A. FELL: Have the special conditions under which this factory was erected been considered?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I am not aware that the statement has any foundation in fact, but perhaps my hon. Friend will give me particulars.

    KING MANGO BELL.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the published evidence that King Mango Bell, of the Cameroons, was hanged as early as 8th August, 1914; whether he has yet received any information, as to what charge was made against King Bell; and if any opportunity was given to him to defend himself before being summarily executed?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): I have no further information beyond that given by my predecessor on the 1st November, 1916, in reply to the hon. Member for Stafford.

    LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (ADDRESS).
    Mr. WALTER ROCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether instructions were given by him to the Dublin newspapers prohibiting them from publishing on 4th July any portion of the address of the Lord Mayor of Dublin and others to the President of the United States of America; and, seeing that this address was permitted to appear in the Press of the United Kingdom, will he say why this distinction was made?
    Mr. SHORTT: The publication of the address of the Mansion House conference to the President of the United States was temporarily suspended by the Irish Censor on the night of the 3rd inst by my direction, in order that it might be considered. Where matter is submitted for censorship at a late hour it is impossible to guarantee precisely similar action by the censorship in both countries.
    Mr. ROCH: Why is a distinction made between the Press of the two countries?
    Mr. SHORTT: There was no distinction except that we in Ireland, so far as I know, may have been a little more dilatory.
    Mr. ROCH: Were any instructions given to the Press in this country not to publish this report?
    Mr. SHORTT: I know nothing about the censorship in this country.
    Mr. KING: Is it not a fact that the Government in Ireland are much more nervous and fearsome?
    Mr. SHORTT: Not a bit, Sir!

    LANDS DIRECTORATE (WAR OFFICE).
    Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his Department advertised for a legal assistant in the Lands Directorate of the War Office Who should have a general knowledge of law and practice, experience in the handling of cases, and knowledge of bookkeeping; whether 110 applicants desired to fill this post; whether his Department chose out of these one who was admitted a solicitor in December, 1917; and will he say whether this successful applicant is of military age?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: As regards the first two parts of my hon. Friend's question, I would refer to my reply to a question which he asked on the 25th April last. The gentleman selected was admitted a solicitor in December, 1917, having qualified in 1915 and had ten years' experience in legal work. He is of military age, but his medical category is C 3.
    Mr. WATT: Is it the policy of the right hon. Gentleman to appoint men of military age at the War Office?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am informed that this man is absolutely useless for military duty. He is C 3.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that he had had sufficient legal experience for this post?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: He was only admitted as a solicitor pro forma in 1917, but he has had ten years' experience of legal work.

    QUEEN MARY'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS.
    Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENNasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the members of Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps are subject to military discipline; and if they are entitled to the same rights as soldiers to demand courts-martial?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Members of the Queen Mary's Auxiliary Corps are, as regards military discipline, in the same position as any other civilans who are followers of or accompany His Majesty's troops when employed on active service. In view of the provisions of Section 184 of the Army Act, they are not in any event

    713
    liable to summary punishment by a commanding officer, and the question of electing trial by court-martial accordingly cannot arise in their case.

    ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE (TEMPORARY SURGEONS).
    Sir WATSON CHEYNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if dissatisfaction exists with regard to the more recent methods of dealing with the pay of temporary surgeons in the Army Medical Service; is he aware that a medical officer, now over the mitliary age, joined the Royal Army Medical Corps in 1915 voluntarily on a contract for a year at 24s. a day and £60 gratuity at the end of the year, payment of which sums was made, and that in 1916 he renewed the same contract for a year with the same result; is he aware that in 1917 this medical officer was asked to renew his contract not yearly but till termination of the present emergency or until his services were no longer required, whichever shall occur first, and he did so on exactly the same terms as to pay and gratuity, but that when it came to the end of the year he was told that his gratuity was not to be paid till the end of the War, and seeing that the contract did not say anything about delay in paying the gratuity, will he explain why the gratuity is withheld; and will he take steps to remedy the matter and to ensure the gratuity being paid annually as it was before this medical officer signed this last contract?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Gratuities are usually paid at the termination of service, and the renewal contracts for temporary service with the Royal Army Medical Corps contemplated payment on completion. The question, however, is receiving further consideration.
    Sir W. CHEYNE: Will the gratuities carry interest while the matter is being considered?
    Mr. FORSTER: The whole question of the date on which the gratuities become payable is receiving attention.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether there is diversity in the way
    714
    in which Defence of the Realm Regulations are used in various localities; whether he has any power to ensure uniform and reasonable action by the various police authorities; whether a conference to advocate peace, convened by the Free Churches at Tumble, Carmarthenshire, has been prohibited, though exactly simlar conferences under the same auspices have been held recently, without any disturbance or offence, in places not far distant; and whether he will issue a circular to police authorities with a view to secure equality of treatment?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have made inquiry regarding the alleged prohibition of a meeting at Tumble, and find that the hon. Member has been misinformed. No meeting there has been prohibited by the police. Under Regulation 9 A a chief officer of police can only prohibit a meeting if authorised for the purpose by the Home Secretary. There is no need to issue any circular upon the subject.

    JUVENILE CRIME.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Home Secretary the number of boys and girls, previously committed to reformatories or industrial schools, who were charged during 1917 with fresh offences, either on absconding from the schools or when placed out on licence?
    Sir G. CAVE: The numbers are, for reformatories forty boys and four girls and for industrial schools eighty-one boys and four girls. These figures are subject to correction when the returns have been more fully analysed.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Home Secretary the number of juvenile adults who were sent to prison under sentence or on remand or to await removal to other institutions during 1917?
    Sir G. CAVE: The number of prisoners between the age of sixteen and twenty-one received into prison on conviction during 1917–18 was 3,332 males and 1,329 females. I have no statistics showing the number of prisoners of this age who were committed to prison on remand or to await removal to other institutions.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Sir DANIEL GODDARD reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills: Mr. Dillon; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Scanlan.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, That the Proceedings 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.
  As amended, considered.
  EDUCATION BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Tests for Teachers.)
    In all schools, colleges, or institutions aided or maintained by contributions from the local authority or from money provided by Parliament teachers shall be appointed without reference to religious creed or denomination.—[Mr. King.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I have several new Clauses on the Paper, but I do not intend to move all of them, and those which I do move I shall endeavour to move as clearly and as concisely as possible, with the object of completing the Report stage by to-morrow night. This Clause raises a very old standing question which has not hitherto been raised in the course of our discussions upon this Bill. I myself hesitated about raising it, but representations which I have received from outside have gone to show that there are a large number of persons who think that the Bill ought not to go away from this place without some reference having been made to what has long been and still is regarded as a great blot upon our educational system. At present practically the whole cost of elementary education is found by public money. The amount found by private voluntary subscriptions is very small indeed. Yet many important posts are reserved for nominees of privileged societies or institutions. The fees and salaries are paid entirely out of public money, but the control is exercised by special or denominational interests. This is felt to be a great grievance and an administrative or educational difficulty. Educational authorities, when they have a large number of posts to fill, must think not of the educational or vocational attainments of the applicants, but of the special
    730
    creed or denomination of the candidates. The result is that many of the best educational authorities—I can speak with confidence, having served for a considerable time upon an education committee—find it a real difficulty. Although the feeling and the strong desire which created the grievance is growing less and less, yet the grievance itself resulting from this double class of teachers remains.
    It has a very particular difficulty, which I myself have come across over and over again. Take a large county educational authority with a large number of schools. The head teachers' places in the elementary schools in that area are very desirable posts, and their system of advancement naturally is to give the posts of head masters in the large schools to those who have done well as head masters in the small schools. Here they come up against this difficulty: The large schools are almost entirely council schools provided by the local authority, while, on the other hand, the small schools are almost entirely voluntary schools non-provided by the local authorities. If they want to carry out their natural scheme of advancement from the small schools to the large schools by advancing the head teachers in that way, they are met with the difficulty that they have no small schools to which they can go for head teachers who are not members of the Church of England. The result is it is a great difficulty in some counties that the prospects of a Nonconformist teacher becoming a head teacher in a large council school or non-provided school are less by far than they were before the Act of 1902 and have become increasingly less since that time.
    I know myself of two families, one of them a family with whom I have been long associated in my own Constituency, a number of the members of which are teachers and are very strong Nonconformists. I have often wondered whether they were more devoted to their teaching profession or to the Baptist church of which they were members. Five or six years ago the young people were coming on, and had the prospect of securing scholarships and becoming teachers or of going into some other profession. The father of this famly and his brother, also the father of a family, definitely decided that they would discourage their own children from entering their own profession on the very definite ground that the prospects of advancement of Nonconformists to the head teacherships at the

    731
    present time were worse than they were before. I can give chapter and verse. I do not want to raise grievances or to raise claims of injustice. I put it to educationists that, in the interests of education and of administration, sooner or later you will have to abolish the present system of tests for teachers.
    I am not at all disinclined to make certain provision in schools which are predominantly Catholic or Church of England schools for religious education to be given by persons who have the confidence of members of those denominations, but that is a totally different thing from reserving the higher places of head teachers in these schools by means of the test of religious denomination. On the ground, therefore, of educational progress, apart from justice, and on the ground of educational administration and efficiency, if you want to prevent choking off a considerable class of the most sincere, earnest, really the most seriously-minded, devoted people you could get, the sooner you do away with the present system of tests the better. The whole charge for elementary education now practically falls on the public purse, either on the rates or the taxpayers. The amount to be received from taxes is to be very much increased under this Bill. At the present moment, roughly speaking, each child in attendance at an elementary school gets something like £2 out of the rates on an average all over the country, and £2 or £2 10s. or £3 from the taxpayers. That £2 10s. out of the taxes is certainly going to be raised to £3 10s. and even to £4 in many cases. You are giving to the managers and administrators of schools all over the country an immense increase of public money. Is not this an occasion when you ought to say that you will relax in some way the special denominational tests and privileges which were set up under a very different system of public support fifteen to twenty years ago? Apart from the question of injustice, which we should be glad to forget but which still rankles in some quarters, I put the case on the grounds of educational efficiency, administrative consistency and simplicity, and especially on the ground that, as the cost of education comes out of the pockets of us all, without any consideration of our creeds or why we give, these tests ought to be abolished.
    Mr. R. LAMBERT: I beg to second the Motion. I do so not altogether on the
    732
    same grounds as those advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Mr. King). He speaks for Nonconformists; I speak as a member of the Church of England. At a time like this, the more we can avoid tests for teachers and bringing up religious differences the better. It is mainly on that ground, and also on the ground of educational efficiency, that I second the Motion.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The hon. Member who moved this Clause has raised a very grave question of educational policy. It is a question which the Government is precluded from considering at this juncture, because it is an acutely controversial question, and one which raises the whole denominational problem. If the Amendment were to be accepted, it would preclude the appointment of Catholic teachers to Catholic schools.
    Mr. KING: It would not preclude that.
    Mr. FISHER: It practically would preclude that.
    Mr. KING: Not at all!
    Mr. FISHER: In any case, the acceptance of this Amendment would run counter to the main principles upon which this Bill is founded. This Bill is founded upon an acceptance of the administrative and educational arrangements set up in 1902. Our problem is to obtain as great an extension of public education as possible, consistently with the preservation of the administrative system which has been left us. I feel that is the only safe ground on which we can proceed. For that reason I am unable to accept the Amendment.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No doubt the decision arrived at by my right hon. Friend is the only one open to him on the matter. Still, the Motion made by the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) affords an opportunity of bringing this question before the right hon. Gentleman's notice in a way which has not previously been done since he has been a member of this House—it brings to his notice the protest which must of necessity be made not only by Nonconformists but by many educationists against the continuance of the present system. I agree that this Bill is not the occasion for dealing with this question, whether it be viewed from the point of view of the administrator—the head of

    733
    the Board of Education.—or from the point of view of the parents, or from that of Nonconformists, who have felt this grievance for many years past, and never more intensely than they do at the present time. Take the position of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education. The whole success of this scheme in the future will depend on his obtaining a sufficiently large number of well-equipped teachers, and if he is not to be able to draw them from a very wide area, without any respect for the religious denominations to which they belong, obviously he will not receive the number of applicants for entry into the profession which his scheme demands. It will be impossible for him to go on with the continuation scheme without an enormous increase in the staff of teachers. Therefore, from the point of view of the Board of Education, it is obviously desirable that there should be no obstacle put in the way of young applicants who wish to become teachers. The free circulation of teachers is very much impeded under the present arrangement, whether it be county areas or in big towns. It is interrupted, notwithstanding the great desire of education committees and officials to promote it, and on some occasions it is made altogether impossible owing to the interference under the present law of this system of tests for teachers. Let me say a single word about the children. Instead of the children in some of these schools getting the benefit of the widest possible choice of teachers they are very much restricted, because the teachers must be drawn from one denomination, and one only, and it means that the children in these schools of necessity do not get the best teaching that would be available if the whole range of the teaching profession were open to the management for choice. The opposition of Nonconformists is not less now than formerly, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that if this issue is not raised now as a definite challenge yet sooner or later some effort will have to be made to deal with the disabilities under which managers, teachers, and children alike suffer. If the new Clause of my hon. Friend were passed it would make the position of the Catholic school authority, and of course the Church school authority also, entirely different from what it is at present. I would not go so far as my right hon. Friend and say that it would preclude a Catholic school from having a
    734
    Catholic teacher, but it would cause it to run the risk of having a Protestant teacher appointed. That is a rather different thing, and that is a very serious prospect for those who are supporters of these denominational schools. If this question wore raised in the form this Clause suggests the whole religious controversy would have to be raised from the beginning, and because my right hon. Friend, as I think rightly, suggested that this is not the occasion for raising it, I shall support him in the position which he has taken up.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am not very clear as to the new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset—(Obligation to Provide Accommodation). It appears to me to be a proposal to make a charge on the rates. It places on the local education authority a duty which under the Bill lies upon the council to develop and organise education.
    Mr. KING: On that point may I say a few words? This really has reference to Clause 2 of the Bill, which says it shall be the duty of the local education authority to make adequate and suitable provision in order that full benefit may be derived from the system of education. That Clause deals with the providing of schools, teachers, and equipment under the scheme, and the object of my new Clause, which I endeavoured to get by an Amendment to Clause 2 on the Committee stage, but was ruled out of order, is to provide that one of the duties of the local education authority shall be to provide buildings independently of whether there be a scheme or not. That, I submit, is a different thing.
    Mr. SPEAKER: But how is the building to be paid for? Is it to be paid for out of the rates?
    Mr. KING: It is not a new charge, for it is already laid down that the buildings shall be provided. No new charge therefore is imposed. The Clause only says it shall be the duty of the local education authority, if school places are wanted, to provide them under the Bill.
    Mr. SPEAKER: But that is already there in the Act. If this new Clause does not add to the law it is unnecessary; if it does add to the law, it imposes a new charge. The next Clause—(Size of Classes)—

    735
    is an administrative matter which will be dealt with by Regulation. The next Clause—(Managers to be Representative)—ought to be brought forward as an Amendment to Clause 4. As to the Clause as to teachers' salaries, I understand that the hon. Gentleman postpones what he has to say about that. I think the next Clause can be moved.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Direct Election for Education Purposes Only.)
    Any council having powers under the Education Act, 1902, to make a scheme constituting an education committee or education committees may include in any such scheme provisions enabling some portion of the members of the education committee to be directly elected for this purpose only by the ratepayers of the area for which the committee is formed.—[Mr. King.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The object of this Clause is very clear. It does not impose any duty on the local education authority when the scheme is made; it only gives them power, and a power which probably exists at the present time, when setting up a committee to manage: education in a particular area, to declare that a certain proportion of the committee of managers under the scheme shall be directly elected by the people. The principle of the Act of 1902 is that when an education committee is set up there are always to be certain co-opted members to allow of experts, men of position and authority, and with special interests to be brought in from outside. With that provision I do not interfere. I only attempt here to get the possibility, and not more than the possibility, of direct representation of the ratepayers in the management of their own educational affairs. For some years past there has been controversy as to whether education authorities ought to be elected on the ad hoc principle—to be elected definitely for that purpose. For some years the current of opinion, certainly at the time the Act of 1902 was passed, was definitely and strongly against the ad hoc principle. But the tide has now turned, and the sign of that is that in the Scottish Education Bill of last year it was proposed to abolish ad hoc elections for education authorities and school boards in Scotland, but so strong was the opposition in Scotland, a feeling which has found a response in this country, that the Government has introduced
    736
    its Bill this year in quite a different form, preserving the ad hoc principle. I do not go so far as to desire to set up an ad hoe authority. I only go so far as to allow schemes to be proposed which would enable the Board of Education to give official sanction by which a certain number of the members of the committee of managers under the scheme shall be directly elected. I do not desire, and I do not think it necessary, to have special elections for the purpose. There is no reason whatever why, if there were a town council election, an election should not also be held at the same time of a certain number of persons for the education committee of the town. Elections in this way might easily be joined without any expense, difficulty, or confusion to the issue. I think the right which I am claiming to have inserted here possibly exists already, although there is no legislative or definite sanction for it. If it does so exist, why should it not be put definitely in the Act? A great many things will be more seriously taken and a great many rights will be more generally used and appreciated if they are embodied in the Act of Parliament than if they only had a vague sort of acknowledgment by experts in the law.
    Mr. R. LAMBERT: I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr. FISHER: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct in his assumption that the right for which he pleads in his Amendment is already secured under the existing state of the law. There is nothing inherent in the existing law which makes the hon. Member's plan impossible. If the local education authority represents to the Board that they desire some members of the education committee to be directly elected ad hoc by the ratepayers there is no reason why the Board should not consent to this course, subject to the provision of appropriate machinery. In fact, the Board has had many applications from trade union bodies and from teachers for the right to be represented on the local education authorities, and the Board has always replied that that is a matter for the authority itself. The Board has no objection to a properly constituted body being elected ad hoc with the consent of the local education authority, and in view of that fact I think my hon. Friend's Amendment is unnecessary. I also think it might have perhaps, in view of the terms

    737
    in which it is couched, a restricted purpose which he does not contemplate. It seems to allude to the election by the ratepayers of the area. It is perfectly competent for the local education authority to accept some representative if it thinks fit from the trade union in the locality. In view of that, I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.
    Mr. KING: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's very satisfactory explanation, I beg leave to withdraw.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Prohibition of Differentiation of Salary on, Ground of Sex.)
    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."
    Throughout the profession the demand is made for equal pay for the same work and for women not to be placed under a sex disqualification. Throughout the whole industrial world the same movement is making progress and it is recognised now very generally that it is only fair that women should be paid for the same work at the same rate as men. It is necessary for the Government to set a good example to the country in this respect. Other Departments of the Government are setting this example. The whole of the legislation that this House has passed with regard to trade boards makes no sex distinction and no trades board appoints a different rate of pay for a woman, because of sex, for the same amount of work. At an earlier stage of the proceedings on this Bill the right hon. Gentleman said this was a matter for the local education authorities themselves, and he rather sought to place the responsibility for making this change upon local education authorities. That argument is perhaps not wholly a sound one, and it is not a principle that he himself has observed in the past, because quite recently the Board directed that a minimum salary of £100 should be paid to a male certificated teacher, and for a female teacher a minimum salary of £90 should be paid. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion did not take the view, that the fixing of a minimum salary was a matter for the local education
    738
    authorities. He intervened and fixed what the Board thought was a proper minimum rate of salary. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman can hardly base his objection to this Clause upon that argument. I certainly hope he will feel that it is not outside his province to direct that education authorities receiving a Treasury Grant should make no distinction upon the ground of sex. I believe, on the ground of justice, it is impossible to resist this Clause. I have never heard any argument or any statement of any kind taking the line that this was an unjust demand, and as it is a just demand, as it is demanded by the profession, and as it is demanded and being increasingly acceded to in all departments of industry, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that the Board of Education sets a good example in this respect.
    Mr. R. LAMBERT: I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr. FISHER: The Clause, if it were carried, would undoubtedly be an expensive one for the local education authorities, and I cannot accept it. It would involve a very large increase in the cost of elementary education, and a large portion of that burden would be borne by the local education authorities. My reason for resisting the Clause is that if the State were to come to the conclusion that there should be no differentiation in pay grounded upon sex, it should come to it first of all in reference to its own employés, and not in reference to a great body of servants who are appointed, dismissed, and controlled by other bodies. For that reason I think it would be improper for the Government to adopt the Clause.
    Mr. KING: I am disappointed with the right hon. Gentleman's reply. It seems to me that he is not facing the question fairly.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman says if the Clause was carried it would impose a very great increase in charge upon the ratepayers and the State. If that is so, is the Clause in order?
    Mr. KING: On the point of Order. It does not at all logically follow that it would cause a great increase.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the effect of it would be to cut down the salaries of the male teachers in order to provide salaries for

    739
    the female teachers, that would be one way of looking at it. The hon. Member appears to give his assent.
    Mr. KING: That is very satisfactory, because then the Clause is in order. The real point I wish the right hon. Gentleman and the House to face is this: What is going to be the effect on education and on the status of the teachers, and on the attractiveness of their position? I look upon it as one of the great defects in our recent Debates on the Bill that we have not really faced one of the great problems, how to get the teachers for this great scheme that we are passing. The cost or the equipment, or anything else, seems to me to be nothing compared with the supply of teachers, and especially the lack of attraction which the teaching profession now offers to young men, and especially to young women. Only within the last three weeks two young teachers have come to me with accounts of having been years in the profession and their position as teachers has not risen anything like the advance of salaries which other professions have had during the War, while the cost of living for them is even greater, and a not unimportant point in considering the position of women teachers is this. They have longer holidays than almost any other profession, and that in many cases is a very serious difficulty in meeting their expenses. To be away from their vocation on holidays is a cause of constant expense, and for women teachers it is a particularly serious thing, especially for those who have not parents' homes to go to. I, therefore, look upon this question of paying men and women teachers alike as much larger in its real importance than the right hon. Gentleman's speech would admit. It is a question of whether you are going to attract women as they ought to be attracted. You are going to ask from them the same amount of previous experience and education, you are going to submit them to the same examinations, you are going to give them the same work to do and the same hours of labour, but you are not going to give them the same salary. You cannot ride off by saying that the State does not recognise men and women as having equal pay in other Departments. In no other department of national activity is the work so really identical between the two sexes. There is no other Department where the actual duties, labours, responsibilities, and work
    740
    so coincide as in teaching. The expense, equipment, education, and acquirements are the same, and the right hon. Gentleman's speech was certainly unfortunate and unequal to the occasion. If my hon. Friend goes to a Division, I shall have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Clause.
    Sir W. DICKINSON: I also regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with this question rather more seriously than he has. It is one on which the Board of Education will be bound to make up its mind in a very short time. I should like to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman an expression of opinion a little more definite as to what the Board of Education is going to do on the question in future. He said it is a matter for the local authorities. From my own experience, it ought not to be left to the local authorities to settle. They will settle it in very various ways. In one part of the country the woman will receive less pay than the male teacher, who is doing exactly the same work, and in other parts of the country she may receive the same pay, and the Board of Education will find it absolutely essential, if they are going to lift up the standard of teaching throughout the country, in a very short time to lay down some definite rule. I should like to see them grapple with the question at once and say that in all cases where women labour is employed, where the results are equally valuable with those of men, they should receive the same pay. I know very well the objections which are raised to it. I have been through all of them myself at various times in connection with the salaries not only of teachers, but of other Government employés, and I feel certain that immediately after the War there will arise a very serious difficulty, not only with regard to teachers, but with regard to other servants of the State, and, indeed, to those in private employment. I believe that if in a case like this, where there can be very little doubt the work of the woman is of equal value with that of the man, the Government Departments concerned could very soon lay down rules that equal work deserves equal pay, it would go very far towards solving questions of the general employment of women all through the country. I can quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman takes up the attitude that he cannot put this into the Bill, but I regret that

    741
    he is not able to foreshadow a little more definitely what is going to be the attitude of the Board of Education in regard to this question, which must be settled very soon.
    Mr. JOWETT: As I understand the Clause will be pressed to a Division, I shall vote for it, but not on the understanding that seems to prevail amongst some of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend (Mr. Whitehouse) was invited by Mr. Speaker to say whether he intended to reduce male teachers' salaries.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The next new Clause—[Prohibition of Fees in Secondary Schools]—standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) is one which clearly imposes a charge.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I address you, Sir, on a point of order? I wish to submit that it does not impose a charge because it seeks to make statutory a power that the Board of Education already have, because in the Section relating to
    Sir F. BANBURY: He said so.
    Mr. JOWETT: That was no doubt intended to escape a pitfall in the Standing Orders. I want to make it perfectly clear that when my vote is given there will be nothing of that sort about it. I intend, as I believe my hon. Friend intended, to level up and not down.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 93.

    Division No. 62.]

    AYES.

    [4.32 p.m.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Rowlands, James

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    King, Joseph

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Bowden, Major George R. H.

    Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Wedgwood, Lt.-Commander Josiah C.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Millar, James Duncan

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Glanville, Harold James

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Pringle, William M. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Whitehouse and Sir W. Dickinson.

    Hogge, J. M.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    NOES.

    Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Philipps, Maj.-Gen. Sir Ivor (S'hampton)

    Anstruther-Gray, Lt.-Col. Wm.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

    Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

    Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Pratt, John W.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gretton, John

    Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Ed.)

    Reid, Rt. Hon Sir George H.

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

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence (Ashford)

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bathurst, Capt. Sir C. (Wilts)

    Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hills, John Waller (Durham)

    Rutherford. Col. Sir J. (Darwen)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Samuels, Arthur W. (Dub. U.)

    Bird, Alfred

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

    Boles, Lt.-Col. Fortescue

    Hunter, Maj. Sir Chas. Rodk.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

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

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Aston)

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Bridgeman, William Clive

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

    Stirling, Lt.-Col. Archibald

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

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

    Burgoyne, Major Alan Hughes

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Macmaster, Donald

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth, S.)

    Clyde, James Avon

    Marriott, John A. R.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince)

    Coats, Sir Stuart (Wimbledon)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

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

    Colvin, Col.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Weigall, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.

    Craig, Ernest (Crewe)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Whiteley, Sir H. J. (Droitwich)

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

    Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Norton-Griffiths, Sir John

    Winfrey, Sir R.

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir James B.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Worthington-Evans, Major Sir L.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

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

    Partington, Hon. Oswald

    FitzRoy, Hon. Edward A.

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Edmund Talbot and Captain Guest.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Grants, which is numbered 43, and which repeats the existing law, the Board of Education already has power to pay whatever proportion of fees or the whole of the fees in any class of school that it decides to do by Regulation. Therefore, the effect is not to impose a charge in the sense of giving additional power to make a charge, but merely to make statutory a power the Board already have by Regulation.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is inviting the House of Commons to lay down a rule, the effect of which may well be that a deficit will occur through the absence of any fees, and that must be made up out of some fund, and the only fund out of which it can be made up is the rates.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Development of Education in Public Elementary Schools.)
    It shall be the duty of a local education authority for the purposes of Part III. of the Education Act, 1902, to make adequate and suitable provision in order that full benefit may be derived from the system of public elementary schools, and for that purpose, amongst other matters—

    (a) to make adequate and suitable provision by means of central schools, central or special classes, or otherwise—

    (i) for including in the curriculum of public elementary schools, at appropriate stages, practical instruction suitable to the ages, abilities, and requirements of the children; and

    (ii) for organising in public elementary schools courses of advanced instruction for the older or more intelligent children in attendance at such schools, including children who stay at such schools beyond the age of fourteen; and so much of the definition of the term "elementary school" in Section three of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, as requires that elementary education shall be the principal part of the education there given, shall not apply to such courses of advanced instruction for older scholars; and

    (b) to make adequate and suitable arrangements for co-operating with local education authorities for the purposes of Part II. of the Education Act. 1902, in matters of common interest, and particularly in respect of—

    (i) the preparation of children for further education in schools other than elementary, and their transference at suitable ages to such schools; and

    (ii) the supply and training of teachers;

    and any such authority from time to time may, and shall when required by the Board of Education, submit to the Board schemes for the purposes aforesaid.

    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, in paragraph (a—ii.), to leave out the words, "and so much of the definition of the term 'elementary school' in Section 3 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, as requires that elementary education shall be the principal part of the education there given, shall not apply to such courses of advanced instruction for older scholars; and," in order to insert instead thereof the following new paragraph:
    "(b) To make adequate and suitable arrangements under the provisions of paragraph (b) of
    744
    Sub-section (1) of Section thirteen of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, for attending to the health and physical condition of children educated in public elementary schools; and."
    This Amendment is introduced to meet the general sense of the House as expressed in the Committee stage, that it should be compulsory on local education authorities to provide medical treatment in public elementary schools. It is considered best that it should be laid down as part of the duty of the Part III. authority, and the Board of Education can require a scheme to be submitted showing how it is proposed to carry it out. The House will realise that in the existing state of law a local education authority is compelled to provide inspection, and is empowered to provide teachers. Under the Clause as amended the local education authority will be compelled to provide both treatment and inspection. As I pointed out in the Committee stage, a very large number of local education authorities have already availed themselves of their power to provide treatment and, in fact, there are only thirty-nine authorities out of 318 who have not provided treatment in some form or other. The effect, therefore, of this Amendment is more restrictive than might appear to be the case at first sight. No doubt it will have a general effect in stimulating local education authorities to provide more medical treatment than they already have done. And I think it will be generally, agreed that that effect would be beneficial.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman has just told us that this Clause will compel the local education authority to provide medical treatment. If that is so, does not that impose a charge, and is it not, therefore, out of order at this stage?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid my attention was taken away for the moment when the right hon. Gentleman began his speech with regard to this Amendment. Will he deal with the point whether the effect will be to impose a charge? The Government have no privilege in the matter of imposing a charge at this stage.
    Mr. FISHER: I take it the effect of this Amendment would probably be to impose a fresh charge—
    Mr. KING: No—to increase an old one.
    Mr. FISHER: Or, as my hon. Friend (Mr. King) says, to increase an old one. The local education authorities are at present empowered to provide treatment; 279 authorities out of 318 have availed themselves of that power. Thirty-nine have not availed themselves of it. It is proposed under this Clause to make some form of treatment mandatory on local education authorities. It would, of course, be quite possible for a local education authority to arrange for a system of treatment which would not impose any fresh charge. For instance, a local education authority might invite the medical practitioners of its area to establish a cheap contract practice among the children of the poor, and under the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, a parent who can afford to pay for treatment must pay for treatment. It is, therefore, quite possible that this duty might be carried out in any given area, and quite possibly in all areas, without any increase of charge.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think that if there is the possibility of a charge being incurred which would fall upon the rates, it would not be in order to move the Amendment at this stage.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): May I point out that the earlier part of this Clause provides that it shall be the duty of a local education authority to mike adequate and suitable provision in order that full benefit may be derived from the system of public elementary schools. We have now the powers which this will only make explicit.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Those words are really a preamble, and are not enacting words.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: If this Amendment, which is practically an agreed Amendment, be inserted in another place, and comes back to this House, would it be possible for this House to waive its privilege?
    Mr. LEWIS: May I draw attention to the provision of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, which includes among the powers and duties of a local education authority the duty of providing for the medical inspection of children immediately before or as soon as possible after their admission to a public elementary school and the power to provide treatment. The power is now in existence. This only makes it mandatory.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It is not compulsory. That is the whole point. Some of these authorities have not exercised this power. The object of the Amendment is to make them exercise this power.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think that the better way to proceed would be, before the Third Reading or on the Third Reading, to recommit the Bill in respect of this particular Amendment. There would then be no difficulty in the matter, and no objection could possibly be taken.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Might I draw attention to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark. Would it be in order if this Amendment were inserted in another place, for this House to waive its privilege and accept the Amendment in that way? I only ask this with the object of saving time. I know that it is rather irregular for this House to give any indication beforehand as to whether it would or would not waive its privilege, and perhaps it would be a rather dangerous thing to do, but I make the suggestion in order to save time.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question which the right hon. Gentleman has put to me is one which I do not like to answer offhand. The course which he suggests might be adopted, but I think that the plan which I have suggested is a better plan. It would not result in any loss of time, because the Motion to recommit could be made the moment the Bill has gone through the Report stage. It could be recommitted, and reported upon at once, or it could be taken the first thing on the day fixed for Third Reading.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, after the word "fourteen," to insert the words, "and those who stay at such schools till the age of sixteen."
    We are met in this Bill with a very important question which, after repeated study of the Bill and of the Education Acts, seems to me to be left still in a state of uncertainty. In the Education Act of 1870 there was practically no limit of age for those who attended a public elementary school. Indeed, night schools at that time were public elementary schools, with the result that you had many students up to the age of eighteen, and even the age of twenty, attending public elementary schools. They were regarded

    747
    as attending schools for children. The result is that if you look through the Education Acts to find out at what age a boy or girl ceases to be a child you are landed in a hopeless difficulty. I believe that the Act of 1876 does define the age of child as up to fourteen, but that Act is now only necessary and is only enforced in regard to sending children to industrial schools. In all other respects there is uncertainty as to the age at which a boy or girl ceases to be a child. The Government proposes in the Definition Clause at the end of the Bill to provide that a child is a boy or a girl who, under the conditions in which that boy or girl lives, is under obligation to attend school. No age is given. The greatest age might be fourteen in one case and fifteen in another. The age of childhood under this Bill will vary in different localities. This is a very unsatisfactory position. It is especially unsatisfactory in view of the main provision of the Bill, which is that up to sixteen, at any rate, there is to be compulsory education for all children or young persons.
    I desire to make public elementary schools available for taking children and young persons up to the age of sixteen. The President of the Board of Education quite realises that there might be many places where it would be the policy of the education authority to put, as it were, a top storey on the present elementary school and to continue the children in those schools up to sixteen. I am not quite sure that the President may not say that this Amendment is not necessary. In many cases in which we have put forward suggestions which we thought desirable in order to make clear the objects of the Bill, we have been met by the statement that they were not necessary. In a long, complicated Bill like this, which has to be read in connection with other Acts of Parliament, and which brings in a new system under which you are driving education along different lines in elementary, continuation, and higher elementary schools, it is obvious that there may be points which are covered more than once in different parts of the Bill and in different Acts, but I desire to introduce these words to make the meaning clear. At present the age of leaving school is almost everywhere fourteen. In the scheme under this Bill we have various ways of treating the educational problem between fourteen
    748
    and sixteen, and therefore you have in an elementary school only those who are obliged to be there as elementary school scholars, and those who are continuing the necessary education which they must get either there or elsewhere. I hope that I have shown a reason why this Amendment, even if not absolutely necessary, is really desirable, and will add to the clearness and certainty of the Bill.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I desire to second the Amendment, and to ask the President of the Board of Education a question. Whether he accepts the Amendment or not, it is necessary to add words after the word "children," because this Clause gives power to the local education authorities to arrange special courses of instruction for children who stay at school beyond the age of fourteen. But a child ceases to be a child at the age of fourteen unless the local education authority has adopted a by-law making attendance at school compulsory until the age of fifteen, and unless this is done the word "children" in the Clause will not give the local education authority the power to arrange courses of instruction for those children who stay at school beyond the age of fourteen. This is a real difficulty, but it can be got over by inserting the words "or young persons," after the word "children."
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. Member for North Somerset, at an earlier stage in our proceedings, drew my attention to what was undoubtedly a lacuna in the Bill. He pointed out that it would be very desirable to make provision in the Bill for the continuance of children at elementary schools in certain cases, and in order to meet him I have put down an Amendment to Clause 8 which. I believe, meets his views in that regard. That being so, I submit that the Amendment which the hon. Member proposes now is unnecessary. What he is contending for is that there should be provision for the continuance of children at elementary schools up to the age of sixteen. This Sub-section alludes to children who stay at such schools beyond the age of fourteen. Obviously, those words would apply to children who stay up to the age of sixteen, and consequently I submit that the words which my hon. Friend desires to insert are really unnecessary to give effect to his wishes.
    Amendment negatived.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, after the word "fourteen," to leave out the words,
    "and so much of the definition of the term 'elementary school,' in Section 3 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, as requires that elementary education shall be the principal part of the education there given, shall not apply to such courses of advanced instruction for older scholars; and."
    This is merely a drafting Amendment, but at the point where we inserted the Amendment in the Committee stage it did not read well, and it was thought that it was much better to put it as a separate proviso.
    Mr. KING: I concur in this Amendment, which is partly, or largely, due to me. I entirely concur in the form in which it is now put.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words,
    "So much of the definition of the term 'elementary school' in Section 3 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, as requires that elementary education shall be the principal part of the education there given, shall not apply to such courses of advanced instruction as aforesaid."
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Establishment of Continuation Schools.)
    (1) With a view to continuing the education of young persons and helping them to prepare for the freedom and responsibilities of adult life, it shall be the duty of the local education authority for the purposes of Part II. of the Education Act, 1902, either separately or in cooperation with other local education authorities, to establish and maintain or secure the establishment and maintenance under their control and direction of a sufficient supply of continuation schools in which suitable courses of study, instruction, and physical training are provided without payment of fees for all young persons resident in their area who are, under this Act, under an obligation to attend such schools.
    (2) For the purposes aforesaid the local education authority from time to time may, and shall when required by the Board of Education, submit to the Board schemes for the progressive organisation of a system of continuation schools and for the purpose of securing general and regular attendance thereat.
    (3) The council of any county shall, if practicable, provide for the inclusion of representatives of education authorities for the purposes of Part III. of the Education Act, 1902, in the body of managers of continuation schools within the area of those authorities.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "training" ["and physical training are"], to insert the words, "of a non-military character."
    750
    At each appropriate stage of the Bill I have called attention to what I suggest is a very grave defect in a measure establishing what it describes as a national system of education, but which gives power to the local education authority to introduce military instruction and military methods both in our elementary schools and into the new continuation schools. I regard that as a very grave defect indeed, and I move this Amendment in order to challenge this matter on the question of principle. Discussions have taken place on this subject, and the view has been taken by some hon. Members, and by some of my hon. Friends immediately behind me, that it was impossible to distinguish between military training and other forms of training. It may be urged that organised physical exercises do form part of military drill, because in the Army some such exercises are gone through, but I submit that it is not a real objection to this Amendment. What is meant by the Amendment is perfectly clear, and, indeed, I venture to say, for my own part, and on behalf of those who are associated with me, that we shall only be too glad to have the principle of the Amendment adopted in any other form which would make it clear. Briefly, we object to a system of education with a military bias, which might be under military control, and partly consist of instructions in the art of war and in the use of military weapons. If the House were considering a Bill for the future defence of this country, or a Bill to make provision for the future training of the Army, it would be appropriate to take the opinion of this House as to whether methods of military instruction should be introduced into our schools and continuation classes.
    I submit, with respect to a Bill dealing with education, that it is not appropriate in passing that Bill, to pass it in such a form that its scope in this respect is unrealised by a great many Members of the House. We might find, at a later stage, that under the provisions of the measure the local education authority might introduce military methods and military schemes of instruction into our schools and new continuation classes. I urge that the question of military training should be kept distinct from the Education Bill. If we were dealing with a Bill for the military training of the youth of this country, I would submit arguments against the proposal on principle, for I

    751
    believe that the military system of training children and young persons in this country is the worst possible system of training. I believe that such a system of training would be very reactionary indeed, and it is a system which is opposed by the greatest educationists of to-day. It is contrary to the whole trend of educational process, and, indeed, the President of the Board of Education, in the previous discussions on this question, has made quite clear his own personal view, not once but several times, that he does not regard it as the duty of the Board of Education, or the duty of schools controlled by the Board of Education, to provide for military instruction in the schools of this country. The right hon. Gentleman has made a very clear distinction between his duties as President of the Board of Education and duties which could only toe performed by the War Office, after receiving the sanction of this House. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to put that view, which meets with acceptance in many quarters of the House, into this Bill. Otherwise we have no security whatever against the militarisation of the schools of this country. I have put this definite question to the President of the Board of Education: Will it not be possible, under this Bill, for a local education authority to introduce military drill, and instruction in the use of military weapons, and to have Cadet Corps in connection with continuation classes or elementary schools, and so forth? And the right hon. Gentleman has said, in reply, that whilst it would be possible for the education authority to do that they would have to obtain the assent of the President of the Board of Education, and he personally would refuse to give assent to any such scheme. I quite believe that so long as the right hon. Gentleman is President of the Board of Education he will refuse to give his assent to any such scheme for the introduction of military training and military methods into schools under his control.
    But I desire to point out to the House that if another Minister presided over the Board of Education, a man of different political, and social, and educational views, it would be possible for him to give assent to any such schemes as were sent forward by the local education authorities and, therefore, the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that he should refuse assent to any such schemes, is no safegaurd for this House, though it
    752
    may be a safeguard so long as the right hon. Gentleman occupies his present position. That is a point of real danger because, as was stated when this subject was previously under discussion, there are powerful organised bodies guiding and influencing public opinion, and seeking to get a sufficient body of support to all sorts of ideas and schemes for military training in connection with the elementary schools of this country. One public man, of authority and influence, has declared that it was only a matter of a few months before military Cadet Corps could be organised in connection with every elementary school in the country, and such schemes could be carried out under this Bill, provided the assent of the President of the Board of Education is obtained. I submit that if such schemes are to be urged, definite schemes for military training, they ought not to be introduced in the vague language contained in this Bill, and which solely depends for its effect upon the view taken by the President of the Board of Education for the time being. The Amendment which I submit is entirely in the spirit of the declaration made by the President as to what the duties of the elementary school are. The Amendment ensures that before any vital change like this takes place in our schools the assent of this House must be obtained, in a Bill directed to that specific purpose. Therefore I earnestly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to retreat from the position he has taken up in the past, and will accept this Amendment, which does not take away any power that he seeks to keep, and which simply safeguards the schools of this country against the premature adoption by the local authorities, without the sanction of this House, of methods of instruction which would give an entirely new bias to our system of popular education.
    Mr. KING: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I shall support my view on rather different lines from those of my hon. Friend who has just spoken. I look upon the introduction of military exercises and drill into our schools as very objectionable, on two grounds. One is the strong opposition to it that is felt by the working classes generally. Probably the right hon. Gentleman is not aware that there have been trade union conferences of representatives of the Labour party entirely upon this subject of military training.

    753
    Those conferences have been attended by extraordinary numbers, and have been marked by extreme unanimity and enthusiasm in condemning military training connected with the educational proposals which are included in the Bill, and which have been so enthusiastically endorsed by the country. The working classes, as a whole, are strongly opposed to military training for various reasons. One is because they know that there are some sections amongst them who would never allow their children to go to schools where there was military training, which they look upon as preparatory to universal Conscription. I have spoken again and again to trade union leaders who, without divergence of opinion, have condemned the proposal, so strongly made in certain quarters, for military training. There is another reason. I look upon the sports in connection with our schools as of absolutely vital importance to the British character, and I think that if you are going to supplant cricket and football and other games by military drill, by out-marching, the forming of fours, rifle range practice, miniature ranges, and all that sort of thing, you are going to do a great deal of injury and, I believe, deteriorate British character. I believe that our schools would be quite strongly opposed to it. Everybody who knows the condition of our public schools at the present time knows that they are suffering very much by the necessity of carrying on the Officers' Training Corps. The boys are leaving earlier and the time that should be given to games is being largely taken from them to do Officers' Training Corps work. Many masters, many parents, and many boys regret that. They look upon it as one of the unfortunate things of this time. I only mention that to support my view that if you are going to have military training in schools you are going very much to take away from the old character and true traditions of our schools and you are going to make the boys and young men of the future less sporting individuals and more of military mechanisms.
    Sir GEORGE REID: This matter has been debated several times, and I should be extremely surprised if the President of the Board of Education is going to derive any mysterious new light on the subject which would induce him to retreat, as he has been requested to do. I feel very diffident with reference to expressing an
    754
    opinion as to the feelings of the working classes of this country, but I can speak as to the very democratic community which I represented for many years. I might be able to reassure my hon. Friend that many years ago these military evolutions of a harmless character were adopted in the public schools of New South Wales, and I think gradually of all Australia, and there is no country where sport has a more thriving existence. I go further than that. The practical objection to this proposal is that it would result in frequently appealing to our Courts of law as to whether this particular form of military or non-military amusement infringed the provisions of the law. Well, I hope we are not going to encourage that feeling of unrest over this subject. I go further with reference to the experience of Australia. Long before there was any idea of war the Australians were the most peaceable people on the face of the earth. They never dreamed of war, but when this principle of universal training was introduced with the approval of the Labour bodies of Australia at a conference of the Labour parties it was impossible to avoid noticing a wonderful change among the young men of Australia, and there is not a soul in Australia not the most rabid lover of peace who is not heartily in favour even of that extreme form, compared with which this is merely a playground affair, of military training. And I want to say more than that. If the boys of England do cherish any desire for military training it is not from a desire of conquest, of military glory. It is from the desire to be able if the need come to defend their native land against all comers. Surely that is a patriotic spirit, and there never was a time when such desires can make a stronger appeal to our common sense of patriotism.
    Mr. FISHER: The right hon. Member for St. George's (Sir G. Reid) has stated very clearly the practical objections to the acceptance of this Amendment. It would involve constant disputes as to whether a particular form of physical drill was or was not military. The mover of this Amendment stated that he wished to dissever military training from the Bill, but military training is not mentioned. The words mentioned in the Bill are "physical training," and to those words the Government intends to adhere. The hon. Member will recall that an

    755
    Amendment was moved in Committee to make military drill a compulsory part of continuation training. That Amendment was resisted. Continuation training would be after all a training for very few hours of the week, and the Government feels that physical training properly given within the very narrow limits of time which will be available in our continuation classes should be physical training of the most intensively practical character. Military training would be the last form of training which would be appropriate to training in a continuation school, and even if there were no other reason, that reason would be decisive against it. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment spoke of me as having stated a personal position in this matter. On this occasion I am not stating what my personal position is but what the policy of the Board of Education has always been with respect to this matter. The Board of Education has never viewed itself as responsible for military training in schools. The Officers' Training Corps and the Cadet Corps so far as they are assisted financially are assisted not from the Board of Education but from the War Office and that I take it will continue. But I think it would be very unfortunate if we accepted the words suggested by the hon. Member, because I am certain they would
    give rise to a very considerable amount of practical difficulty. I hope, therefore, the House will support the Clause.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I am not myself in favour of seeing military training introduced into the schools for the reasons which have been stated, and therefore I can approach the Amendment not in any hostile spirit, though I for one could understand there might be forms of training like that for boy scouts which would do much. But this Amendment is like another Amendment which was recently moved in Committee from the same quarter. I really cannot congratulate those who have taken up this matter on the way in which they propose their Amendments. This suggests there should be special restrictions in the case of continuation schools. If the Bill passes in its present form there would be no such restriction in the case of elementary or secondary schools. You have suggested your Amendment in each case in a form that is really quite unfortunate, and which while not excluding this particular form of education from elementary and secondary schools excludes it in a perfectly illogical way from continuation schools.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 20: Noes, 120.

    Division No. 63.]

    AYES.

    [5.29 p.m.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Glanville, Harold James

    Roch, Walter F.

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Hudson, Walter

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Thomas Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Collins, Sir William (Derby)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Whitehouse and Mr. King.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    NOES.

    Ainsworth. Sir John Stirling

    Bryce, John Annan

    Gretton, John

    Anstruther-Gray, Lt.-Col. Wm.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Ed.)

    Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence (Ashford)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Cheyne, Sir William W.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

    Clyde, James Avon

    Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire)

    Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Barran, Sir John N (Hawick, B.)

    Coats, Sir Stuart (Wimbledon)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Bathurst, Capt. Sir C. (Wilts)

    Colvin, Col.

    Hills, John Waller (Durham)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Courthope, Maj. George Loyd

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry

    Dawes, James Arthur

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

    Bigland, Alfred

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Bird, Alfred

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir James B.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Hunter, Maj. Sir Chas. Rodk.

    Boles, Lt.-Col. Fortescue

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

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

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

    Bowden, Major George R. H.

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Brace, Rt, Hon. William

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

    Brunner. John F. L.

    Greig, Colonel James William

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

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

    Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth, S.)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Pratt, John W.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince)

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Prothero, Rt. Hon. Roland Edmund

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

    Macmaster, Donald

    Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.

    Weiqall, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    White, James Dundas (Tradeston)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Whiteley, Sir H. J. (Droitwich)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Robinson, Sidney

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham)

    Marriott, John A. R.

    Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)

    Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (N w)

    Winfrey, Sir R.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

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

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Morgan, George Hay

    Samuels, Arthur W. (Dub. U.)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Partington, Hon. Oswald

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

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Stirling, Lt.-Col. Archibald

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain F. Guest and Lord Edmund Talbot.

    Philipps, Maj.-Gen. Sir Ivor (S'hampton)

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

    Sir H. CRAIK: On a point of Order, Sir. I desire to say that I voted in the "Aye" Lobby, instead of in the "No" Lobby, and I desire to have it corrected in the records.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I am not sure if the records can be altered. The hon. Member will no doubt have eased his conscience by what he has said.
    Colonel YATE: I beg to move, at the end! of Sub-section (1), to add the words,
    "and to devote at least one-fourth of the time allotted for such courses to physical training."
    In moving this Amendment, I shall be carrying out the wishes of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Board of Education, whom I am glad to see in his place, and I feel sure that the President of the Board will also agree to this, because I should not think he would like to be in any way against the wishes of his own Under-Secretary or to say anything inconsistent with the speech of the Under-Secretary. Perhaps I ought to remind the Under-Secretary of the words he used when speaking on the 30th May. He said:
    "The enlistment and recruitment of our new Army has revealed great and most serious defects in the physical constitution of a large proportion of the population of these islands. We wish to improve the physique of the coming generation, and an essential part of the education and training which will be imparted to young people between the ages of fourteen and eighteen will be physical training. But I would remind the Committee that none of the objects I have referred to can possibly be achieved unless the system is made a universal system."
    That is what I ask the right hon. Gentleman to put into the Bill, and I trust he will agree to this and accept my Amendment. In 1914 I was a member of the recruiting committee for Leicester. The House will remember the enormous
    758
    numbers of men who came forward then voluntarily to enlist. In Leicester we found that 27½ per cent. of the men who came forward and offered to enlist were rejected because they could not come up to the standard, either in height or chest measurement. We of the Committee took this matter in hand and formed a reject Sub-committee, and we gave those men who came forward voluntarily physical drill The little drill which we gave the men in the evenings when they had finished their work was so successful that out of 849 men we brought 638 up to the physical standard in height and chest measurements, and enabled them to enlist if they wanted. All these men simply lost their natural physique for want of proper physical training in their youth. It ought to have been given to them at school, but it was not given. Under the present system of education the physical training of our boys is neglected, and unless we do something we shall lose the national physique of our race. The parents of the boys have recognised this, and there is a universal demand amongst all the parents I have come across that physical training should be made universal. If the time that I propose is really used to the best advantage by well-qualified physical instructors, it will be of the greatest advantage to the youth of this country. We shall have a large number of instructors available before very long and if the schoolmasters are only sent to attend courses we shall be able to give the boys the proper training that they require. We have an excellent syllabus at the present time from the Board of Education. The syllabus is good, but the great difficulty has been in getting properly qualified instructors to carry through the syllabus on intelligent lines. Physical training is

    759
    just as important for our youth as mental training. It ought to be half and half, but I have put the minimum down at one-fourth, so as to allow for different conditions in different localities. Boys engaged in agricultural work do not require the same amount of physical training as the boys who go into factories. A boy who leaves an elementary school at the age of fourteen and goes into a factory seems to have his physical development stopped, and I ask that the proper steps may be taken to provide against this in the future. We all know the old saying of "Mens sana in corpore sano." We must try to give our boys a sound mind in a sound body, and they both go together, and one is as important as the other. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary to the Board of Education will agree to my Amendment.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I beg to second the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend. I quite admit the force of the arguments that he has brought forward in favour of the necessity and importance of this physical training for strengthening the whole physical force of the younger generation, but my support of the Amendment is even stronger from an educational point of view. If we look back over some twenty or twenty-five years of our national education there is nothing that we have more to regret, that has worked more evil in the whole course of our State-aided schools than the perverse, the persevering, the ineradicable neglect of physical education, and all that physical education means. I myself was brought up in Scotland, in the pre-scientific, pre-physical education days, when games in Scottish schools were not enforced, and nothing struck me more when I came into contact with the young boys who have gone to public schools in England than the intense love that they had for their schools. What did that come from? It was because their schools were not constantly considered as mere places where book learning and lessons had to be taught, but where there was something more, an esprit de corps, and a discipline in the physical side of life, and in the enjoyment of life, and nothing binds together the pupils of a school more, nothing gives them such influence in that common discipline, which educates them perhaps more than the discipline of their masters, than the physical instruction which they get at our
    760
    great public schools. It was only some sixteen years ago that I succeeded, in connection with my own Department, in getting the first Royal Commission appointed to deal with physical instruction in our ordinary State-aided schools. We had had plenty of Commissions about education, but we never really had systematically dealt with the question of physical education. That Commission found that the amount that was given in these ordinary State-aided schools for physical instruction was a mere fraction of what was given in any schools where we would have our own boys educated. Would it be considered that in any public school it was too much to say that after six hours of book work, two hours should be given to games? Is there a single public school in England now that does not give more than that of the time of their pupils to physical instruction?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: This Amendment deals only with the continuation classes and not with the schools at all.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Can the hon. Member not see that what applies to boys of one age applies also when they get over the age of fourteen, and even much more strongly? There is no time when more physical waste is incurred amongst our growing boys than after the age of fourteen. Up to that time they have a little physical instruction, but after that they loiter about street corners; and would it not be far better to give them this systematic physical instruction, which will endear their schools to them, which will make them feel that they themselves are performing a part of their education and helping to teach themselves, which would give them that esprit de corps which binds them together as comrades in their school, and which will bind them together in future also—is it too much to ask that for these poor boys after you have given them six hours of book work within the four walls of a room you should insist that there should be at least two hours of healthy, physical training? I do not care how much games may be given if they are under proper supervision. But for the sake of the educational effect, apart from the building up of the strength of the younger generation who might have to fight for their country, I am looking at it from another point of view, and I say, for the sake of education, and for the sake of the impulse it will give to the children, for the sake of the spirit it will create

    761
    and the memories it will instil, I do ask the President of the Board of Education to agree to this very moderate Amendment, and to say that, after they have had six hours' book learning, however good and useful that may be, they shall at least have two hours of healthy, physical training, which will build up their bodies. I beg him to concede this point, which I believe will be a great security and great help both to the prosperity of these schools and the future welfare of the pupils.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I should like to make clear the meaning of the interruption which I addressed to the right hon. Gentleman when he was speaking, because he entirely misunderstood the meaning of that interruption. The right hon. Gentleman was arguing for this Amendment on the basis that it applied to the schools of the country, and proceeded with his argument on that assumption, whereas the Amendment is solely directed to the continuation schools, which are less than one hour each day. I entirely agree with all that has been said about the need and the desirability of providing for the physical development and recreation of the boys who attend these continuation classes, wholly associating myself with the attempt that has been made to give these boys physical training in the open air, games and recreation appropriate to their age. It is because I feel so strongly on that point that I very much hope the President of the Board of Education will not accept the Amendment, which I hope to be able to show is not a widening Amendment, but a limiting Amendment. One feature of the training that is to be given in these continuation classes is expected to take the form—and I sincerely trust will take the form—of summer schools or summer camps, organised on an educational basis, and I am quite sure that a week or a fortnight, or, better still, if a longer period, but even a comparatively short period spent by these adolescents at an open-air summer school or camp, where they will be taught to play, to study outdoor subjects and to touch life at many new points, will be the very best thing for their physical, mental, and spiritual development. And it may well be that, whilst the education we have in connection with these continuation classes can best be done, perhaps, at schools in the winter, the most important part may be done in connection with these summer schools or camps. Therefore, it is impossible, in
    762
    considering these alternative but not competing methods of instruction, to state that one method of that instruction should be limited to a certain number of hours. It might well be, for instance, that you could give the whole of the continuation instruction, or a great part of it, at a summer school. You might not be able to give a very considerable portion at the summer school, and yet the value of that part which was given at a summer school or summer camp would be much more valuable, perhaps, than at the other class or school. Therefore, in that sense, the Amendment, so far from being a widening Amendment, is a limiting Amendment. I suggest it is far better, having laid down the principle of physical instruction in the Bill, and having given instructions to local education authorities to provide these summer classes and summer camps, not to seek to assess the exact number of minutes to be allotted, but to leave it to the good sense, initiative and enterprise of the local education authorities, with the guidance which the Board would give.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I desire to support the Amendment, primarily on the ground of social equality. You are only seeking by this Amendment to give to the adolescents of those classes who attend the continuation schools the same sort of advantages which are already enjoyed by those who belong to the class among whom we have been educated. I hope, therefore, the President of the Board of Education will give very sympathetic consideration to this Amendment.
    Mr. LEWIS: I have listened with sympathetic and appreciative interest to the speeches that have been made upon this question. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment quoted some words of mine. I am not sure that I attach the same kind of meaning to the word "universal" which he quoted. He might have gone further and quoted from the Report of a Departmental Committee, of which I was chairman, and of which the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Mr. Goldstone) was also a member. We took a considerable amount of evidence upon this and other aspects of the question of education after the War, and we came to the conclusion that physical training was undoubtedly an essential part of the education that ought to be given in these continuation classes, and we expressed ourselves very strongly indeed to

    763
    that effect, so that, so far as the desirability of physical education is concerned, my hon. and gallant Friend is knocking at an open door. The President of the Board of Education, in the course of speeches he has made in different parts of the country commending the Education Bill to the public, has always given a leading place to the subject of physical instruction. But the question is whether it is desirable that we should lay down any hard and fast lines with regard to this or any other part of the curricula, and, if we were to lay down these hard and fast lines, what the effect would be. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanark has indicated one possible and unfortunate effect. I submit it is very undesirable that the Bill should go into details with regard to the curricula, or as to the precise amount of time to be given to the various subjects in the curricula, the instruction which would be suitable for young persons of different ages, in different schools, engaged in different occupations, and living under different conditions of locality. They will vary considerably, and these variations will naturally affect the arrangements for physical training, as well as those for other objects.
    Compare, for example, the needs in this respect of the factory child of poor physique, working under bad conditions. They are very different from those of the farm lads working in the fields who may, not improbably, have to walk a considerable distance in order to attend a school. Then, again, the time to be devoted to physical training may be affected by the question whether the 320 hours shall be spent in a full day course or shall be spread over several days in the week. The time to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers might be very well spared in the case of a number of young persons whose aptitude for mental study is not very great. But there will be a substantial minority who do follow serious courses either of a technical kind or in general subjects which appeal to them, and the limitation of six hours might be undesirable in those cases, especially if the students are living in healthy conditions. Now, my right hon. Friend who seconded the Amendment spoke of the education as if it were wholly book education. He spoke of six hours of book education in the course of a day. Why should it be all book education? Surely a considerable part of the education will consist of
    764
    training of the hand and eye, and will not necessarily be confined to books. There is a danger, as has already been pointed out, that a minimum, if laid down in an Act of Parliament, may become a maximum, and I hope the House will not run the risk of such a course in connection with this particular part of the Bill; but, taking the question as a whole, realising as I hope the House does, the attitude of the Board of Education towards it, realising also that we shall be for some time to come in the experimental stage, I think it will be unwise, and it may be a danger to physical education itself, if we lay down hard and fast lines in this matter.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir R. NEWMAN: I beg to move, after Sub-section (1), to insert,
    "(2) In all rural areas the continuation schools established shall afford facilities for teaching practical subjects connected with agriculture.
    6.0 P.M.
    The object of the Amendment is simply to give an opportunity to the boys in the country who are hoping to make agriculture their career some opportunity of getting really a good education in that direction. I, personally, may be rather sanguine, but I sincerely hope that in any great scheme of reconstruction the policy so ably advocated for so many years by the right hon. Gentleman who represents one of the divisions of Birmingham will be adopted, and that we shall go as far as possible in the direction of encouraging the small ownership of land—those who cultivate the land they own. I feel that this will be quite useless unless those who wish to lead a life of that sort have really thoroughly up-to-date, practical, scientific agricultural education. The object of this Amendment is simply that facilities should be afforded to the rising generation who live in the rural areas to have the opportunity of continuation schools so that they may get some practical knowledge of agriculture. Without this I am afraid their career may not be very successful. I think we all realise that the land might produce even more than at the present time if there was any opening for the small man to get back to the land and cultivate it with any prospect of financial success. It is, however, absolutely necessary that he should be equipped with the very best possible scientific and agricultural education. The only way I can see that such education can be extended

    765
    to the very poorest in our communities is to give them continuation schools in our rural districts, and such facilities as have been spoken of, so that they may be equipped for their career on going forth to an agricultural life. This is a thing which, I am quite sure, we are anxious to see encouraged in our country districts.
    Mr. D. MASON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I feel that every effort to give more technical facilities which, I assume, this Amendment aims at, will be universally supported. We are all very anxious, and particularly those in our rural districts who know something of scientific farming, to help this matter forward. Anything that encourages and helps to make our students in rural districts not only good students, but scientific and educated students, should get our support. I have no doubt it will receive support from the education authorities. Whether it is or is not possible to increase these facilities is a query which the Board of Education will no doubt be able to answer, but if they can in any way add to the technical instruction of our agricultural students I hope that they will in this matter give favourable consideration to the Amendment.
    Mr. LEWIS: The Board of Education are in full sympathy with the desire that continuation schools should impart an appropriate bias to the teaching they give. So far from saying anything in discouragement of agricultural education, perhaps I may be allowed, as a very old Member, to say that I myself brought the question forward in this House close upon a quarter of a century ago. The question, however, before the House is whether we shall or shall not make special mention of agriculture. We have been pressed from many quarters of the House to insert in the Bill particular references to special questions. Over and over again we have been urged to do this. If we were to begin to accept Amendments in this particular direction there would simply be no end to them. Having discouraged others from putting down Amendments relating to other very important industries, we are obliged to give to each and all the same answer—that it is inexpedient to make a particular reference in the Bill to one particular industry. May I draw the attention of my hon. Friends who moved and seconded the Amendment to the provision which
    766
    the Bill makes in the very Clause which they seek to amend? Clause 3 refers specially to continuation schools in which "suitable courses of study, instruction, and physical training are provided without payment of fees." It will be for the local education authorities to present schemes to the Board of Education for that purpose, and it will be for the Board to see that those schemes are suitable. Naturally in looking over schemes which deal with agricultural districts the Board of Education will very carefully inquire as to whether or not the education proposed is suitable for that district, and whether or not the interests of agriculture in this connection are duly safeguarded.
    Mr. KING: I do not generally feel much moved or attracted by the excuses put forward by the President or by the Treasury Bench generally for refusing Amendments, especially if they are obviously very sensible and good Ones. I think, however, the excuse on this occasion is rather more weighty than usual. It is really one of the good points of the Bill that there is no specific mention of any particular interest or any branch of education in this Clause. It is intentionally vague, and it gives the authorities power to make their schemes for continuation schools suitable to their own districts. I am perfectly certain—and I would wish the hon. Member for Exeter was as certain as I am—I believe he is connected with the Devonshire Education Committee—that when this matter conies before these bodies in Devon and elsewhere they will see that certain provision is made for agricultural instruction in these schools. Similarly everywhere, where there is a great interest and vocation—in the coalmining districts, in the iron-trade districts, in the potteries, and so on—wherever these schemes are put forward special attention will be directed in the continuation schools to these great and vital industries. If they are not, I believe the Board of Education, much as it needs prompting and pushing, will act on its own initiative, and will come to the assistance of those who wish to sec the education practical in the sense the discussion indicates.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words,
    "and in preparing schemes under this Section the local education authority shall have regard

    767
    to the desirability of including therein arrangements for co-operation with universities in the provision of lectures and classes for scholars for whom instructions by such means is suitable."
    This Amendment has been introduced to implement a pledge which was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, and it is designed to meet a very valuable suggestion which met with a good deal of acceptance by the Committee. The pledge was given on the Committee stage; it was as to some reference being introduced into the Bill as to the desirability of educating older persons in the continuation schools by means of university extension lectures. If this Amendment meets the views of my hon. Friend I hope it will be accepted.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: The Amendment carries out in substance, and, if I may be allowed to say so, in very improved substance, the Amendment which I moved in Committee. I should like, in two or three words, to express my very great gratitude, and the gratitude of those on whose behalf I was acting, for the Amendment which has just been proposed by the President of the Board of Educatin. It fulfils, and more than adequately fulfils, the promise he gave us. The House will remember that on the Committee stage this Amendment was supported, almost unexpectedly supported, from every quarter of the House. I am quite sure the President has accurately gauged and accurately interpreted the wishes, not only of a very large number of Members of the House itself, but a still larger number of those outside this House, who are interested in progressive education. What will this Amendment do? It will compel the local education authorities, in framing their schemes, at any rate, to consider the advisability of availing themselves of the machinery for extra-mural teaching, which is now provided by the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, London, and, indeed, most other universities of the United Kingdom. I tried to make it clear in Committee that, so far as I am concerned—and the point has been taken by the President—that this Clause will be applicable only to the elder pupils in the continuation schools. The machinery of extra-mural university teaching is really only applicable to the higher classes in secondary schools, and, of course, in these continuation classes. Indeed, the present regulations of the
    768
    Universities of Oxford and Cambridge do not permit a candidate of less than fifteen years of age to enter for one of the examinations of the extra-mural lecture classes. As a matter of fact, in practice, except in the special secondary school centres, of which there are a certain number, most of the candidates are very-much above that age, being seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, and even more than that.
    What I hope will be attained in connection with this Clause, which the President has been good enough to move, and which I hope the House will accept is this: that in the smaller towns the local education authorities will avail themselves of the existing facilities provided for extra-mural teaching, but that in the larger towns the local education authorities will themselves organise such lectures and classes. In every case young persons of sixteen or seventeen will be brought into contact with a fresh type of teacher, and with fresh educational methods. I am quite certain it will be the fault of the teacher if some considerable proportion of these adolescent pupils are not carried on far beyond the stage of the continuation schools—for these lectures and classes will, I hope, form in the future, as, indeed, they have formed in the past, a very valuable link between our secondary and our tertiary system of higher education. I know it is part of the fashionable jargon of progressive educationists to-day to repudiate the idea of the educational ladder, and to substitute for it the idea of the educational highway. I do not quarrel with that, except for this reason—if I may be allowed to say so—I rather like the metaphor of climbing a ladder, for it does imply some effort on the part of the climber. The highway suggests that the way should be made as easy as possible. I think you can make things too easy in matters of education. I desire some effort on the part of those who seek to attain the desirable things of the mind. But that is by the way. The great point is that the opportunity should be brought within the reach of aspiring scholars, and that for all classes there should be a real opportunity for higher education. I believe that this Clause will bring that opportunity within their reach, and for that reason I am exceedingly grateful to the President for having accepted it.
    Mr. GOLD STONE: I have no objection to the proposal that the universities

    769
    should be consulted in making provision for lectures and classes for young people when they reach the continuation school age. I think, however, that the universities are fortunate in securing for themselves a preferential mention in this Bill. I want to ask whether this particularisation of the universities involves the partial rejection of the consideration of the Workers' Educational Association.
    Mr. FISHER: No.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I am glad to get that information because that association does not get the special mention which is given to the universities, although in my opinion they have certainly done more in providing this education than any other body, because they have provided the organisation. That association represents one of the finest educational movements for young persons that this country has ever seen. When the local authorities are making their schemes I want them to consult others besides the universities, and I do not want anything conceded to the universities which will prejudice the position of the Workers' Educational Association. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) referred to the educational ladder. Personally, I believe in the high way to education. The ladder with its broken rungs has usually been reserved for the children of the poor, whilst the highway has been open to the children of the rich. We want a highway which shall be the common road of both rich and poor, the only passport being ability to profit by the higher forms of education. I should like a specific reference to the Workers' Educational Association, so that we may have a direct assurance on record that they will not be prejudiced in their work.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I have moved this Amendment as much on behalf of the classes to which allusion has been made as to any other part of the work, and for this reason I included the word "classes" as well as lectures in my Amendment. I am sure the President will associate himself with me when I state that there is no such intention on my part as that to which the hon. Member has referred.
    Mr. FISHER Mr. FISHER indicated assent
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (3), leave out the word "the" ["the body of managers"] and insert thereof the word "any."—[Mr. Fisher.]
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, after Subsection (3), to add:
    "(4) Before submitting to the Board of Education any scheme under this Act the council shall consult, after due notice and public announcement, any ratepayer or resident in the council's area, and representative persons or bodies, especially trade unions, co-operative and friendly societies, and minor local authorities, and shall discover and consider the wishes of teachers and parents of scholars in the council's area."
    I move this Amendment, although I am afraid it will not be accepted, because it give me an opportunity to point out that we are going to have schemes brought forward from all parts of the country from the different local education authorities. I am afraid in some places schemes will be submitted without any knowledge of the public as a whole or any public interest being taken in them, and very often important interests, and the impetus you want of public interest, support and criticism behind the schemes, will be lacking. It is quite possible, if you read the Bill as it is, for an education committee without any notice to the public to proceed to the consideration of a scheme. That scheme might then go to the local education authority, the town council, the borough council, or the county council, and it might be adopted with a lot of other business without any due notice or discussion in public. It would then go up to the Board of Education, and in a few days it might become a scheme operating amongst thousands of people, involving the expenditure of thousands of pounds, and there may have been no popular support behind it. I know there are provisions that after the scheme has got through the councils and before it is finally adopted there must be some publication, and that was a provision inserted during the Committee stage; but there is no previous consultation necessary of the public or of the interests such as the ratepayers or big organisations like the trade unions or other persons or parties interested. Take a large mining district. I should feel that unless the miners' organisation has been consulted as to the schemes put forward for continuation schools a great mistake would be made.
    Mr. FISHER: If the hon. Member will look at Section 4, Sub-section (2), he will find it provided there that
    "Before submitting schemes under this Act a local education authority shall consider any representations made to them by parents or other persons or bodies of persons interested."

    771
    I think that meets the hon. Member's point.
    Mr. KING: That does not quite meet my point.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Ought not this Amendment to come on Clause 4? I think that would be the proper place for it.
    Mr. KING: Then I will move it on Clause 4.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Preparation and Submission of Schemes.)
    (2) Before submitting schemes under this Act a local education authority shall consider any representations made to them by parents or other persons or bodies of persons interested, and shall adopt such measures to ascertain their views as they consider desirable, and the authority shall take such steps to give publicity to their proposals as they consider suitable, or as the Board of Education may require.
    Colonel Sir MARK SYKES: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words,
    "If any persons or bodies of persons interested in existing efficient schools or colleges, or proposing to provide and to staff with teachers any such school or college, are dissatisfied with the proposals of the local education authority when so published as aforesaid, or if the local education authority at any time after a request by any such persons or bodies of persons refuse to submit an amending scheme for the purpose of including in the original scheme any school or college so proposed to be provided and staffed with teachers, the persons or bodies of persons so dissatisfied or aggrieved by the refusal as aforesaid may appeal to the Board of Education, who shall hold a public inquiry for the purpose of deciding, as the case may be, whether the proposals of the local education authority are sufficient, or, in the event of such a refusal as aforesaid, whether an amending scheme should be submitted by the local education authority."
    I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider this Amendment, and see if he cannot meet us in some degree upon this matter. The Amendment is conceived on the basis that the present Education Bill, when it becomes law, will have a tremendous influence on the whole of the future of the country, and, therefore, as several speakers have already declared on the First Reading, it is desirable that individual views, as far as possible, should be consulted. It appears to me that there are three elements interested in the education of the children of this country, and there are three points of view from which education can be regarded. Firstly, the
    772
    point of view of the parent—that is the individual point of view; secondly, the point of view of the local authorities—and that is the local point of view; and thirdly, the point of view I presume of the Board of Education, which really has the large and national side of the matter to take into consideration. I think it must be taken that each one of these elements have to take into consideration as much as possible the views and feelings of the other two. This particular Amendment is drafted for the purpose of enabling the Board of Education to decide in the event of their being a difference of opinion between the other two—that is the local education authority and the individual parent represented by bodies to which that individual parent belongs. I think the right hon. Gentleman should take into consideration the views of parents represented by bodies of individuals, because they represent a permanent element in the country.
    Certain people will take a certain fixed view and will continue in that view, whereas the local authority is very often only representative of a transient view, or a view which is sometimes predominant and sometimes not, and if there is a difference of opinion between those two it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Board of Education, which must look at this matter from a wider aspect, should decide on the merits of the case in favour of one or the other. If this Amendment or its purpose is included in the Bill, the advantage will be that in future the local authority will take into consideration, or be more likely to take into consideration, the views of bodies of parents if they know there is a reasonable case and an opportunity of an appeal. Constantly these cases might arise if this proposal is not incorporated in the Bill. Consequently, if bodies of persons or parents or people representing individual views are taken into consideration, the right hon. Gentleman then attaches to education and secures for it a great amount of enthusiasm and individual effort which might otherwise not be included.
    A third advantage I submit to the right hon. Gentleman is that the Board of Education will be made acquainted with matters upon which there may be a feeling which, if not dealt with in a just and reasonable way, and if passed over time after time, might give rise to a widespread agitation which might lead to one of those educational wrangles which have

    773
    done so much damage to education in the past. I submit that no unreasonable proposal is likely to be brought forward because it is to be a public inquiry, and it has to be decided by the Board of Education itself. Therefore this proposal is not likely to encourage people to make unreasonable appeals. If unreasonable appeals are made they can always be turned down after public inquiry, and then the reasons why they are turned down will be known to the public.
    Sir STUART COATS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has stated the case for his Amendment with great moderation, and he has brought forward some reasons in support of it which deserve to be carefully considered. Before dealing with the subject of the Amendment, let me point out two Clauses in the Bill which, I think, go a long way towards meeting the point which he has brought forward. Subsection (3) of Clause 4 lays down that
    "A council in preparing schemes under this Act shall have regard to any existing supply of efficient or suitable schools or colleges not provided by local education authorities, and to any proposals to provide such schools or colleges."
    Let me also draw his attention to Subsection (9) of Clause 10—
    "In considering what continuation school a young person shall be required to attend a local education authority shall have regard, as far as practicable, to any preference which a young person may express."
    Those two Clauses were inserted with a view of meeting the considerations which were urged by my hon. and gallant Friend during the Committee stage of the Bill, and I think he will admit that they go a very long way to meet him. What he is now asking for is that any body of persons offering to provide a continuation school shall have a right of public inquiry in case the local education authority does not see its way to accept that school. That is the point of his Amendment. We have to remember that the bodies of persons who are most likely to offer continuation schools will be employers of juvenile labour, who are desirous of reducing to the narrowest possible dimensions the loss of industrial power involved in the continuation class system. It put it to the House: Would there not be a practical danger in allowing every employer of juvenile labour to offer a school possibly under the most unreasonable conditions, and if that offer
    774
    were not accepted claim a right to public inquiry? As the Bill stands, my hon. and gallant Friend has every substantial guarantee that he may require. Let us assume that a body of persons has offered a site and building, and has offered, perhaps, as well to recommend teachers. Let us assume that it would be unreasonable on the part of the local education authority not to comply with that offer and not to accept it. Let us assume that it does decline to accept that school. What happens? The body so aggrieved will clearly write to the Board of Education; the Board of Education will enter into correspondence with the local education authority, and, if the Board of Education feels that the local education authority is using its discretion unwisely or unjustly, it will remonstrate with that authority and attempt to bring it into a better frame of mind. Everything substantial which my hon. and gallant Friend desires to obtain by this Amendment is, I believe, already conceded to him under the terms of the Bill as it exists, but I do submit that there would be a considerable danger in the practical and efficient working of this scheme if every employer of labour were given notice that he might obstruct the work, which is already difficult and hard for the local education authority in respect of the organisation of these new schools, by offering a school and then demanding the costly and lengthy process of a public inquiry. For these reasons, we feel ourselves unable to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. G. THORNE: I beg to move, after Clause 4, to insert the following new Subsection:
    "(5) In schemes under this Act adequate provision shall also be made in order to secure that all young persons referred to in Section ten, Sub-section (a), may, during the period of seven years therein mentioned, attend continuation schools as in such Section referred to if such young persons, or their parents on their behalf, claim in writing the right to so attend."
    The object that I have in view seems to me so clear that I will not occupy the time of the House in endeavouring to elaborate it. In Committee, the right hon. Gentleman, to the regret of many of us, made a concession of seven years under Clause 10 with regard to the compulsory powers. Although we regret it, we are supporters of the Bill, and we loyally accept the concession. In this

    775
    Amendment I do not refer to compulsion, but to those who would have come within the terms of the Section but for the modification, and who voluntarily desire to be so instructed. I imagine the President of the Board of Education and all others interested in education would desire the principle of this Amendment to be carried out. I have had it put to me that there are two objections. The first is from the standpoint of the employer. I submit that is not an objection of substance. My Amendment only refers to young persons who, or whose parents, ask for it. I assume that they would only ask for it if the assent of the employer had already been obtained, and that difficulty, therefore, would not stand in the way. An objection has been put to me of much greater substance, and it is that there would be administrative difficulty. I should be the very last man who would desire to place any administrative difficulty in the way of local authorities working this Act. I want to see it worked fully and effectively and with as little friction as possible, but at the same time I am very anxious to secure the object expressed by this Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that in the form in which it is put it would have administrative difficulties, of course I shall accept the statement coming from so high an authority, but in that case I sincerely hope that he will be able to suggest how the object that I have in view may be obtained. I am not in the least degree wedded to the precise terms in which I am making this proposal. I only want to secure that those who, but for the alteration of the Bill, would have come under the compulsory powers and who now desire this education voluntarily shall have it provided for them.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. FISHER: I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied with an assurance, which I am very ready to give him, that during the suspensory period of seven years the Board will give every encouragement to local education authorities and will press them to provide day as well as evening continuation schools for young persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen. This is a matter to be secured by administrative pressure, and I can assure my hon.
    776
    Friend that so far as the Board is concerned he may look with confidence to that pressure being applied.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Provisions as to Co-operation and Combination.)
    (1) For the purpose of performing any duty or exercising any power under the Education Acts, a council having powers under those Acts may enter into such arrangements as they think proper for co-operation or combination with any other council or councils having those powers, and any such arrangement may provide for the appointment of a joint committee or a joint body of managers, for the delegation to that committee or body of managers of any powers or duties of the councils (other than the power of raising a rate or borrowing money), for the proportion of contributions to be paid by each council, and for any other matters which appear necessary for carrying out the arrangement.
    (2) The Board of Education may, on the application of two or more councils having powers under the Education Acts, by scheme provide for the establishment and (if thought fit) the incorporation of a federation for such purposes of any such arrangements as aforesaid as may be specified in the scheme as being purposes relating to matters of common interest concerning education which it is necessary or convenient to consider in relation to areas larger than those of individual education authorities, and the powers conferred on councils by this Section shall include power to arrange for the performance of any educational or administrative functions by such a federation as if it were a joint committee or a joint body of managers.
    (3) A scheme made by the Board of Education constituting a federation, and an arrangement establishing a joint committee or a joint body of managers, shall provide for the appointment of at least two-thirds of the members by councils having powers under the Education Acts, and may provide either directly or by co-optation for the inclusion of teachers or other persons of experience in education and of representatives of universities or other bodies.
    (4) A scheme constituting a federation may on the application of one or more of the councils concerned be modified or repealed by a further scheme, and, where a scheme provides for the discontinuance of a federation, provision may be made for dealing with any property or liabilities of the federation.
    (5) Where any arrangement under this Section provides for the payment of an annual contribution by one council to another, the contribution shall, for the purposes of Section nineteen of the Education Act, 1902, form part of the security on which money may be borrowed under that Section.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    Just now, Sir, you intimated that a new Sub-section in Clause 3 which I proposed might come as an Amendment to Clause 4. I do not propose to move it. I move this Amendment in order to give the President

    777
    of the Board of Education an opportunity of justifying the Clause. On the Report stage we are accustomed to have many Amendments to leave out individual Clauses, and it is a remarkable fact that this is the only Clause which any Member proposes to leave out of this Bill. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that fact. It shows that on the whole it is a very remarkable and successful Bill in carrying the sense of the House with it. I have the unique distinction of being the one Member who proposes to leave out one Clause of the Bill. I do not know whether I am entitled to be congratulated upon that fact, but I intend to use the privilege that I have in having the Amendment upon the Paper. The Clause proposes a federation of various authorities or districts to deal with educational problems. It is a very wide and comprehensive Clause. Its proposals are very different from those in the first Bill a little over a year ago. That Clause was indeed a sweeping proposal, by which the Board of Education seemed to intimate that they would set up federations of authorities over large areas of the country, combining willy-nilly various education authorities. That proposal, fortunately, is dropped. It might have worked well, but I believe it would have worked well in the interests of the bureaucracy, and even now there is too much bureaucracy in the Bill.
    The Clause that we have now proposes to set up federations for different areas for different educational subjects. It is a very loose proposal, and, before I had some private conversations with people who understand these things better than anybody can who has not the secret or the suggestion or the advice of the great men of the Board of Education, I imagined that it was only to be put into effect in a few cases and in rather large areas for rather large problems. I understand now that it will be proposed as time goes on to have federations in a great number of places. They can now have joint committees, but these joint committees will have to give way to federations where two counties come together and where geographically or by reason of the population there are well-defined districts under two local authorities. You may there have a federation for the purposes of higher education, leaving elementary or continuation or other parts of our educational system as at present. It is obvious, therefore, that as this
    778
    federation Clause was very little discussed in Committee and has had very little public discussion, it ought to be justified, and I hope we shall have some elucidation of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions in this matter. Apart from that, however, I believe it requires some justification, because it undoubtedly is a rod—I might even say an instrument of execution—held over the heads of local authorities. It is going to be a power to make them give up a large part of their life, if not the whole of their separate existence. I do not like that. I do not believe the President wishes to have any part of this Bill carried through with any feeling of threat or with any feeling of lack of sympathy or agreement with those authorities with whom he has to work this Bill. It is with the feeling that this policy and the reasons for this Clause need great elucidation that I move its omission.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    There are parts of this Clause to which I, for one, have profound objection. It is a very great pity that this Bill, which in almost every other particular carries with it the almost universal assent of the House, and have had put into it this Clause, which, by means of very intricate and adroit words, contains a suggestion of federations, not limited to any one object or any series of objects, but of a wide variety of indefinite extent and of indefinite power. In a word, you shadow forth in this Clause the policy of semi-compulsory federation. I know that the words have been very carefully considered and, if one looks back to Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, can be defended as being voluntary or intended only for the moment to be voluntary in action. I hope I shall not be thought to be obstructing the Bill or to be acting in any way other than as a strong supporter of the Bill generally when I respectfully make my protest against the policy of this Clause. It is not liked at all by the county councils, and it is only because one does not want to delay the Bill and Debate more points than are necessary, and because the counties have been so fairly met by the right hon. Gentleman in all other matters, that there is not a sheaf of Amendments put down to this particular clause.
    The real objections are these: The moment you get a federation, particularly if it be incorporate, and if these provisions are adapted for a long period of

    779
    time and are connected with capital expenditure and with the building of institutions, you have established an education authority which is responsible neither to the ratepayers nor to this House. The grave danger of these hybrid authorities is not only the sterility which accompanies hybrids too often, but the fact that you cannot get at them either for stimulus or for criticism. What is done by the Board of Education can be attacked or criticised in this House, and might lead to a change of policy or even a change of Government. What is done by a county council can be criticised and, if necessary, punished by those who elect them. But these hybrid federations are inaccessible to effective regulation and to effective criticism. While I admit that there may be matters, such as the training of teachers and widespreading scholarship schemes, which are matters to be carried out by one local authority alone, and which are not easily worked from the centre by the Board of Education, I would much prefer separate Clauses in an Act of Parliament, or even a separate Act of Parliament, to deal with those exceptional matters rather than to provide, as this Clause does, for an indefinite possibility of these remote federations, because I am confident that the convenience which the federation idea has to the bureaucratic mind has been, is, and will be, a great temptation for the creation of these bodies. I believe that the education of this country thrives best when there is strong public interest in it, and strong public feeling behind it. You can neither awaken that interest nor organise that feeling when you are dealing with bodies which are neither directly responsible to Parliament nor responsible to the electorate. Therefore, I make this protest at this stage. While as to the rest of the Bill I am proud to be a Member of Parliament in its support, I dissociate myself from this policy for the reasons I have put to the House.
    Mr. FISHER: The two hon. Members who have spoken against the Clause have thrown down a challenge which it is my duty to take up. The Clause itself is prompted by a very serious and very urgent educational motive. Nobody who has had any experience of the working of our educational machinery in this country, with its 319 local education authorities, can fail to be impressed with the importance. I would even say the urgency,
    780
    of securing a combination between adjacent authorities for certain specific purposes. My hon. Friend the Member for the Middleton Division (Sir B. Adkins) alluded to that necessity as something exceptional. In my view, it is a necessity which is chronic and universal. You cannot frame an adequate scholarship scheme for an area without combination. You cannot have a satisfactory system of residential schools. You cannot have special schools for defectives without combination. You even cannot manage a single elementary school on the border of two authorities without combination. You cannot organise a satisfactory scheme for the supply and training of teachers without combination. These objections and purposes are incidental to the common ordinary life of public education in this country, and existing Education Acts contain many provisions to encourage co-operation between authorities. The general purport of this Clause is to repeal the existing provisions and to substitute a wider and more general power in place of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton expressed his objection to hybrid authorities. I perfectly realise that the scheme is open to the particular line of criticism which he has addressed against it; but I would ask the House to observe the very careful safeguards which accompany this Clause and which are embodied in it. In the first place, a federation is debarred from raising a rate or borrowing money. In the second place, it is provided under Sub-section (3) that an arrangement establishing a joint committee or a joint body of managers shall provide for the appointment of at least two-thirds of the members by councils having powers under the Education Acts. Those two provisions, the one limiting the financial powers of federations and the other affecting the composition of a joint body of managers established under the provisions of this Clause, do very largely meet the objections which my hon. Friend has brought against the Clause. I regard this Clause as a most important instrument of educational progress, and I should consider it a disaster to the Bill if the Clause were dropped. I may add, perhaps, that the representative associations of the local education authorities have raised no objection to this Clause. We have had no indication that it is unfavourably looked upon by them. It is further to be observed that the federation is voluntary. My hon. Friend spoke of these

    781
    federations as being something compulsory. I see no vestige or scintilla of Compulsion in this Clause.
    Sir R. ADKINS: May I point out that the Education Committee of the County Councils Association asked that all the Clause except Sub-section (1) should be eliminated? I do not want it to go on record that the local authorities have no objection to it.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg the hon. Member's pardon; that is the solitary protest.
    Sir R. ADKINS: It is an association representing all England.
    Mr. FISHER: It represents the counties, but there are other authorities besides them which are very numerous. I would urge the House to support the Government in maintaining this very valuable Clause as a constituent part of the Bill.
    Major WOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one question? I have just had put into my hands a letter from a correspondent in Lancashire, who raises a point with which, I admit, I am not very familiar, but which I am bound to bring before the right hon. Gentleman's notice. My correspondent and those for whom he speaks appear to be very much afraid that under this Clause something, as he describes it, like a compulsory policy of centralisation of the higher classes in the non-provided public elementary schools may be in contemplation. I will read the right hon. Gentleman one paragraph from the letter:
    "It would allay much anxiety in the minds of many of my friends, as well as my own, if this question could be answered satisfactorily. In the discussion of the Clause a full declaration of policy should be asked for, otherwise we may one morning receive orders that all our higher classes are to be marched off to some centrally provided school. This would be calamitous."
    He reinforces that with an argument with which I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree, namely, that up to the time a child goes to a continuation school it is desirable, on all grounds, if other things are satisfactory, that his education should be completed—at least, that stage of it—in the school with which he has associations, attachments, and traditions. If the right hon. Gentleman would give some assurance that what my correspondent fears is not intended by the Clause it would be gratifying.
    Mr. FISHER: I am very willing to give my hon. and gallant Friend that assurance. There is no such intention embodied in this Clause.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 8.—Provisions as to Compulsory Attendance at Elementary Schools.)
    (2) In Section seventy-four of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, as amended by Section six of the Elementary Education Act, 1900, fifteen years shall be substituted for fourteen years as the maximum age up to which by-laws relating to school attendance may require parents to cause their children to attend school, and any such by-law requiring attendance at school of children between the ages of fourteen and fifteen may apply either generally to all such children, or to children other than those employed in any specified occupations;
    Provided that it shall be lawful for a local education authority to grant exemption from the obligation to attend school to individual children between the ages of fourteen and fifteen 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.
    (3) A local education authority may with the approval of the Board of Education make a bylaw under Section seventy-four of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, providing that parents shall not be required to cause their children to attend school or to receive efficient elementary instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic before the age of six years:
    Provided that in considering any such by-law the Board shall have regard to the adequacy of the provision of nursery schools for the area to which the by-law relates, and shall, if requested by any ten parents of children attending public elementary schools for that area, hold a public inquiry for the purpose of determining whether the by-law should be approved.
    (4) The power of a local education authority under Section Seven of the Education Act, 1902, to give directions as to secular instruction shall include the power to direct that any child in attendance at a public elementary school shall attend during such hours as may be directed by the authority at any class, whether conducted on the school premises or not, for the purpose of practical or special instruction or demonstration, and attendance at such a class shall, where the local education authority so direct, be deemed for the purpose of any enactment or by-law relating to school attendance to be attendance at a public elementary school:
    Provided that, if by reason of any such direction a child is prevented on any day from receiving religious instruction in the school at the ordinary time mentioned in the time-table, reasonable facilities shall be afforded for enabling such child to receive religious instruction in the school at some other time.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words,
    "It shall not be a defence to proceedings relating to school attendance under the Education

    783
    Acts or any by-laws made thereunder that a child is attending a school or institution providing efficient elementary instruction unless the school or institution is open to inspection either by the local education authority or by the Board of Education, and unless satisfactory registers are kept of the attendance of the scholars thereat."
    7.0 P.M.
    The general sense of the House as expressed in the Committee stage with reference to Sub-section (2) of Clause 8 was that it was undesirable to take away from the magistrates the ultimate power of determining whether an elementary school is efficient. But, on the other hand, there was a very general sense that great scandals existed under the present state of the law, owing to the fact that the magistrates were not sufficiently provided with expert information to enable them to determine the point. As matters stand at present neither the local education authority nor the Board of Education have any right of access to private elementary schools, and they are not in a position to inform magistrates what is the character of the education given therein. This Clause provides that if the private elementary school claims to furnish efficient education it must open its doors to the local education authority or to the Board of Education in order that they may ascertain whether the claim is well founded should any question on the point be raised. Secondly, it is required to be a place of education which keeps satisfactory registers of attendance. That now is a requirement confined to day elementary schools, and one objection to these private elementary schools is that they have been frequently the refuge of children who desire to escape from the enforcement of the obligation of regular attendance at school. Therefore this Amendment proposes to impose on private schools the obligation to keep a satisfactory register.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I am exceedingly obliged to the President of the Board of Education for the action which he has taken in this matter. In the Committee stage I moved the omission of the Clause to which the President has made reference, and I am quite sure that in all parts of the House there was a strong feeling that it was not desirable to proceed with it in its original form. But in the form in which it is now proposed by the President I, for one, can see no possible objection to it, and I am very much
    784
    obliged to my right hon. Friend for thus meeting the wishes of those with whom I was acting in the matter.
    Amendment agreed to
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to insert the words.
    "Notwithstanding anything in the Education Acts the Board of Education may, on the application of the local education authority, authorise the instruction of children in public elementary schools till the end of the school term in which they reach the age of sixteen or (in special circumstances) such later age as appears to the Board desirable.
    Provided that, in considering such application, the Board shall have regard to the adequacy and suitability of the arrangements made by the authority under Section two of this Act and to the effective development and organisation of all forms of education in the area."
    This Amendment is framed to meet the criticisms which, I think, were initiated by the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King), who pointed out that some special provision should be inserted in the Bill to make it clear that children in certain circumstances should be enabled to continue their education in elementary schools up to the age of sixteen. The London County Council have always boon anxious it should be made clear that children attending the central elementary school should have a free run up to sixteen, and they pressed us to amend Section 22 of the Act of 1902 in that sense. I believe that this Amendment, as it is framed, will not only permit that object to be attained, but, with the safeguards which accompany it, will prevent any undue competition between elementary schools, on the one hand, and the secondary schools and other schools of higher education on the other.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: This is really a very great enlargement of the powers of the Board and scope of the Act, and I do not know if the House has realised it—indeed, I do not quite understand the meaning of the proposed Amendment. What it says is that the Board of Education may, on the application of the local authority,
    "authorise the instruction of children in public elementary schools till the end of the school term in which they reach the age of sixteen or (in special circumstances) such later age as appears to the Board desirable."
    Does that mean that they can be compelled to attend the elementary school till that later age?
    Mr. FISHER: No.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: That is so fax satisfactory. But still I think it is very doubtful, in the form in which the Amendment appears on the Paper, whether the authorising of the instruction does not also mean compulsion as well. Assuming that such children are being instructed in a public elementary school, will such attendance be taken as an excuse for non-attendance at continuation schools?
    Mr. FISHER: If a child has been educated and put in full-time attendance at an elementary school up to the age of sixteen, he will be exempt from further obligation to attend a continuation school from sixteen to eighteen.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Then it is not to be compulsory attendance during those two years?
    Mr. FISHER: No.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: And it will be a question as to whether he has attended properly up to those years? May I ask a further question? Will an extra Grant be made to non-provided elementary schools as well as to provided elementary schools in order to meet the extra cost?
    Mr. FISHER: They will be on the same footing.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I understand there is no limit as to the age to which the Board may authorise public elementary school education to be carried. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation he has given me as to the effects of the Amendment.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I am a little surprised to see such an additional proviso brought up on the Report stage. It is one which alters considerably the meaning we all attach to elementary schools. Under this Clause it would appear the local authority may be empowered to provide instruction in elementary schools for children right up to the age of sixteen, or in special circumstances such later age as may appear desirable. There must be some unnecessary confusion as a result of that in the minds of the ratepayers with regard to what is understood to be an elementary school, if children are to have the opportunity of attending a public elementary school up to the ages of seventeen or eighteen. I see nothing in this Clause to suggest any higher limit to the age at which children may be required to attend, but I would point out that the
    786
    whole scheme of instruction in the elementary school would have to be arranged in accordance with the age of the children, and it might really convert the public elementary school into a secondary school, making any distinction between the two kinds of school difficult for any ordinary person to understand. I do not know whether the President can tell us why it was that some such arrangement was not inserted in the Bill, so that it might have been discussed on the Committee stage more fully than is now possible. I cannot help thinking it will create a considerable amount of confusion in the minds of the local authorities and render it very difficult for them to determine the kind of education which should be given to children, not only up to the age of fourteen, but possibly up to the ages of sixteen or seventeen in elementary schools.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I fully share the views expressed by the last two speakers with regard to the vital importance of this Amendment. I do not think the significance of the Clause has yet been realised even by the Board of Education itself. Certainly it has not been realised by Members of this House, and I want, if I may, very respectfully to point out what may be the possible consequences of this Amendment. It authorises the local authorities to keep children at the school if they wish to remain there until the age of sixteen, or even later. This will tend still further to intensify the difference between elementary education and secondary education by giving two distinctive systems of education not concerned with the ages of the children but rather with their social class. I am very glad indeed that the Member for London University endorses that view. The temptation to the local educational authority will be, in order to avoid the expense of providing secondary school education, to avail itself of this Clause, and not provide a secondary school for the children in its area, but keep those children at the public elementary school until they attain the age of sixteen. When a similar proposal was under discussion at an earlier stage of the Bill the President will remember there was strong opposition expressed to the proposal, and he will remember, too, that he assented to a statement which was made that these children ought not to be encouraged to remain at elementary schools until they reach the age of sixteen, if by so doing

    787
    they are going to receive a less appropriate and less efficient amount of education than they could obtain in a secondary school. But the President by this Amendment is going to make it easy for the local education authority to get out of providing secondary education at all, as, in order to avoid that expense, they will keep these boys and girls up to the age of sixteen, or even later, under elementary school teaching. This is one of the most important Amendments in the Bill we can possibly discuss, and I think a much fuller reply should be given by the representative of the Board, especially in view of the feeling expressed by Members who hold widely different views on this aspect of the Bill. Let me put this further point: Elementary education is a phrase the meaning of which is determined by Act of Parliament. That meaning is denned in the Act of 1870, subject to certain Regulations made by the Board of Education. I want to know whether these children from the ages of fourteen onward are going to have simple elementary education, or is the President going to arrange that these classes in the elementary schools for children between fourteen and fifteen shall be secondary classes? Is there going to be a distinction in the kind of instruction which will be given to these elder children up to sixteen and eighteen? Is it going to be secondary instruction, or is it simply going to be elementary instruction, with all the restrictions which Acts of Parliament and the regulations of the Board have introduced into the term, "elementary education"? If we adopt this Amendment we are going to set up, in a very intensified form, two methods of education. For the children of the well-to-do there will be the secondary schools. They will either be there for their whole school life or will go about the age of twelve. But the poorer children who cannot afford to go to secondary schools or elementary school children for whom the local education authority refuses to provide a secondary school, are going to be kept at the elementary school until sixteen or later, and are going to be given an elementary school education. If they are going to be given a secondary education, let it be in a secondary school. Let the term "secondary school" stand not for a class system of education, but for the education appropriate to a certain age, and not to a social class. The right hon. Gentleman,
    788
    by asking us to accept the Amendment, is making a vital mistake, and is introducing something wholly reactionary.
    Mr. LEWIS: The object and the scope of this Amendment have been entirely misconceived by some speakers. It is necessary because, under the existing law a child must leave the elementary school before the age of sixteen unless the age limits have been extended by the Board. The result of that is that full time education in an elementary school up to nearly the age of sixteen would not count for exemption from attendance at compulsory continuation classes, whereas children who stay in the secondary schools up to the age of sixteen will be excused. Protests have been made in the course of the Debates on this Bill against the social injustice which would arise from the fact that, while children of sixteen years of age who have been in the secondary schools will be released from attendance at compulsory continuation classes, those who have had their education in elementary schools up to nearly the same age would not be so released. The object of this Amendment is to enable a child to attend up to the age of sixteen in an elementary school, and, in exceptional cases, a longer period than that if necessary. May I draw special attention to the proviso, which enacts that the Board is to have regard to the adequacy and suitability of the arrangements made by the authority under Clause 2, and to the effective development and organisation of all forms of education in the area? That indicates quite clearly that the procedure provided for in the earlier part of the Amendment is to apply only in exceptional cases, and for the specific purpose which I have named. We look forward to a considerable development of elementary education in the higher classes. We believe that a number of children will elect to go on, where such development has taken place, to the age of sixteen, and we see no reason why they should not enjoy the same privileges of exemption from attendance at compulsory continuation classes between the ages of sixteen and eighteen as are accorded to those who have attended secondary schools.
    Mr. KING: I must say a word in support of the President of the Board of Education. I do not know whether he values or needs my assistance, but he has it most wholeheartedly. I should like on this occasion,

    789
    for the first time in connection with the Bill, to dissociate myself entirely from my hon. Friend (Mr. Whitehouse). He is a great educationalist, and he has done a great deal of service in connection with the Bill. He knows the educational system of Scotland and of the United States well, but not so well, in fact, not at all, the educational system of England. He does not realise, for instance, the position which the central school is playing in London and in other districts, and which it will play, and ought to be made to play, in our educational system. If central elementary schools of the higher elementary type are developed they will become a perfectly whole time up to the age of sixteen, and admirable means of free education for will be quite as good as many secondary schools in different parts of the country. And though Scotland has got very fine secondary schools, yet we shall have in our central higher elementary schools just as good schools for the purpose up to sixteen as the Scotchman has in the secondary schools. There are other points in connection with this, as, for instance, the peculiar applicability of higher classes in elementary schools to certain areas, like the shipbuilding areas, which want strong, intelligent young men at sixteen, and not before. Put them into higher elementary schools with higher classes, superior to those you have now, and send them out strong, independent young lads of sixteen. They will have to give their whole time. It is part of the essential organisation of that trade. In an industry like that and in others on the same sort of lines you have the justification and the necessity for this proposal, which I heartily welcome, and I am sure it makes the Bill a great deal better than it was before.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think my hon. Friend (Mr. Whitehouse) was altogether on a false point. I think what obviously was in his mind was what has been apparent to many people in the past, and that is that some local authorities are not sufficiently enthusiastic about the provision of secondary education, and the fear that he expressed that there might be a tendency for local authorities rather to make use of the extension of these elementary schools with the object of avoiding the provision of secondary schools is a danger that should be provided against. I do not think it can be done in this Bill, but I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might keep in mind the possibility
    790
    of its being misused, and if it were misused it would be misused to the detriment of the children of the area. We are all aware of the excellent work which has been done by higher elementary schools, but I am sure the Board would not contemplate the higher elementary schools acting as a permanent barrier to the provision of secondary schools. I hope the Board will take a strong line in the provision of secondary schools.
    Sir M. BARLOW: I do not want there to be any misconceptions about this. I am not quite sure that a good many Members are aware that Section 22 of the Act of 1902 fixed the age limit for elementary education at sixteen. I cannot conceive that they were really under a misconception but they have been talking as though the age limit was still fourteen. The Cockerton judgment had to deal with that very point. Under that judgment education could not be carried beyond fourteen. The result of the decision was that the Act of 1902 expressly made provision that elementary education might be given up to sixteen. That was the intention of the legislature, but owing to the way the Clause was drafted it was not carried out, and the limit varied with different children. There was also a proviso that the age might go beyond even sixteen, but that proviso is very limited in character. I take it this Amendment really means to carry out the intention which the legislature expressed in the 1902 Act. I think really we are rather making a mountain out of a molehill of the whole matter.
    Mr. A. K. LOYD: May I ask the hon. Gentleman who has an intimate knowledge of the history of the matter, what is the bearing of paragraph (a) of Clause 2 of the Bill? The effect seems to be that it shall be the duty of the local education authority, for the purpose of Part III. of the Education Act, to make adequate and suitable provision in order that full benefit may be derived from the system of public elementary schools and for that purpose amongst other matters, to make provision for organising in public elementary schools courses of advanced instruction for the older or more intelligent children, including those who stay at such schools beyond the age of fourteen. Does not that contemplate precisely the state of things with which we are now dealing, and is it not too late, with that paragraph in the

    791
    Bill, to object to an Amendment for carrying it in its effect as if it were importing a startling innovation?
    Sir M. BARLOW: Of course, the powers as expressed in Clause 2 go a great deal further. It is a co-ordinated general scheme. What was suggested in the Act of 1902 was merely an occasional exercise of power. It was to prevent surcharges on the rates, such as happened in the Cockerton case. That was an exceptional thing. What is suggested in Clause 2 is a much wider, a generalised, better organised whole, but the power existed before.
    Mr. LOYD: Is not the present Amendment supplemental to a part of the Bill which we have already passed?
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (4), after the word "afforded" ["reasonable facilities shall be afforded"], insert the words "subject to the provisions of Section seven of the Elementary Education Act, 1870."—[Mr. Fisher.]

    CLAUSE 10.—(Compulsory Attendance at Continuation Schools.)
    (1) Subject as hereinafter provided, all young persons shall attend such continuation schools at such times, on such days, as the local education authority of the area in which they reside may require, for three hundred and twenty hours in each year, distributed as regards times and seasons as may best suit the circumstances of each locality, or, in the case of a period of less than a year, for such number of hours distributed as aforesaid as the local education authority, having regard to all the circumstances, consider reasonable:
    Provided that—

    (a) the obligation to attend continuation schools shall not, within a period of seven years from the appointed day on which the provisions of this Section come into force, apply to young persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, nor after such period to any young person who has attained the age of sixteen before the expiration of that period; and

    (b) during the like period, if the local education authority so resolve, the number of hours for which a young person may be required to attend continuation schools in any year shall be two hundred and eighty instead of three hundred and twenty.

    (2) Any young person—

    (i) who is above the age of fourteen years on the appointed day, or

    (ii) who has satisfactorily completed a course of training for, and is engaged in, the sea service, in accordance with the provisions of any national scheme which may hereafter be established, by Order in Council or otherwise, with the object of maintaining an adequate supply of well-trained
    792
    British seamen, and, pending the establishment of such scheme, in accordance with the provisions of any interim scheme approved by the Board of Education, or

    (iii) who is above the age of sixteen years and either—

    (a) has passed the matriculation examination of a university of the United Kingdom or an examination recognised by the Board of Education for the purposes of this Section as equivalent thereto, or

    (b) is shown to the satisfaction of the local education authority to have been up to the age of sixteen under full-time instruction in a school recognised by the Board of Education as efficient or under suitable and efficient full-time instruction in some other manner,

    shall be exempt from the obligation to attend continuation schools under this Act unless he has informed the authority in writing of his desire to attend such schools and the authority have prescribed what school he shall attend.
    (4) Where a school supplying secondary education is inspected by a British university, or in Wales by the Central Welsh Board, under Regulations made by the inspecting body after consultation with the Board of Education, and the inspecting body reports to the Board of Education that the school makes satisfactory provision for the education of the scholars, a young person who is attending, or has attended, such a school shall be entitled to such exemption as he would be entitled to under this Section if he were attending, or had attended, a school recognised by the Board of Education as efficient.
    (6) The local education authority may require in the case of any young person who is under an obligation to attend a continuation school that his employment shall be suspended on any day when his attendance is required, not only during the period for which he is required to attend the school, but also for such other specified part of the day not exceeding two hours, as the authority consider necessary in order to secure that he may be in a fit mental and bodily condition to receive full benefit from attendance at the school: Provided that, if any question arises between the local education authority and the employer of a young person whether a requirement made under this Subsection is reasonable for the purposes aforesaid, that question shall be determined by the Board of Education, and, if the Board of Education determine that the requirement is unreasonable, they may substitute such other requirement as they think reasonable.
    (9) In considering what continuation school a young person shall be required to attend a local education authority shall have regard, as far as practicable, to any preference which a young person may express.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, a), after the word "schools" ["the obligation to attend continuation schools"], to insert the words "in areas where the local education authority so decides."

    793
    The object of this Amendment is to give those local education authorities who are in a position to institute continuation classes, before the expiration of seven years, for young people between sixteen and eighteen, the power to do so. The House will remember that the concession which the President made to what is called the Lancashire opposition included the abolition of compulsory attendance at continuation schools for children between the ages of sixteen and eighteen for a period of seven years from the appointed day. The right hon. Gentleman well remembers that that decision was deplored in many quarters of the House, and an appeal was made to him at the Committee stage to at least allow the option to local education authorities in this matter. Unless this Amendment is accepted, no education authority, however progressive, however much the people it represents wishes it to act, will be able to institute compulsory continuation classes for any young person over the age of sixteen for a period of seven years. In announcing this change in the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman stated that it was not so great a change as it looked, because local education authorities would not be ready with their schools and with their teachers for a period of at least seven years. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there are many parts of the country where opinion is ripe for this change, and where the local education authority will be in a position to provide the necessary teachers and the necessary schools. It would be a distinctive educational loss if in those areas, where progressive authorities had made all arrangements and are provided with teachers, where a strong public sentiment exists in favour of their policy, I say it would be a great educational loss if, under the concession granted to the Lancashire opposition, these progressive authorities are to be prevented for seven years from the appointed day from instituting any continuation classes. I therefore hope that the House will be in favour of at least giving the option to those areas for local education authorities to begin these continuation classes.
    Mr. KING: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I and my Friends just now dissociated ourselves from my hon. Friend. With all the more cordiality do I whole-heartedly support him on this occasion. I think
    794
    that really here we have an Amendment which we can confidently expect the President of the Board of Education to accept. I know he has the idea that we are all ready to support him in any difficulty, but do not let him presume upon his own success and our confidence. But there are limits. Take this question on its merits. Let the House notice this. These continuation schools are going to come into operation seven years after the appointed day. But when is the appointed day? The appointed day may be at any remote period. Ten years, and there is no reason it should not be 100 years! There is no reason why any of us, or any of our children, or grandchildren, should live to see the appointed day in any place, for any part of education for any scholar in this country. The indefiniteness of this Act coming into force cannot be exaggerated, and I really think that he might give a concession on this point so that, where there is a local authority that can put into force this provision earlier than seven years after the appointed day, it ought to be possible for it to put the continuation school education into real operation. I am sure when he considers that it is going to be conditional only on the real will and desire of the local authority, which will have to carry this through, he will understand the needs and possibilities of the case and give it sympathetic consideration.
    Mr. FISHER: While I sympathise with the educational zeal of the hon. Members who have respectively moved and seconded this Amendment, and with their desire to bring into operation at the earliest possible date a scheme for continuation education, I feel that it would be impossible for me to accept this Amendment without laying myself open to the charge of a great breach of faith. I gave to the House a pledge that compulsory continuation education would not be provided to young persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen for a period of seven years after the appointed day, and I regret that I cannot accept the hon Member's Amendment.
    Mr. ROWNTREE: I regret very much that my right hon. Friend has not been able to accept the suggestion made by the two hon. Members. I think it could hardly be stated that my right hon. Friend would be charged with a breach of faith, because, after all, this is only a

    795
    power to enable authorities that desire to give such extended education, and my right hon. Friend, when he spoke on this question before, was addressing himself specially to Lancashire, and Lancashire authorities would not take advantage of this. From the educational standpoint, I did think that there would be very great advantages indeed in accepting the Amendment of my two hon. Friends. I believe that it would help the President in the desires that he has that some authorities should really get this scheme of extended education to work. I think it is known that there were some authorities that had carefully worked out the possibility of giving this education up to the age of eighteen, and, though they saw difficulties. I think they felt that those difficulties should be overcome. I rather expected my right hon. Friend to have raised objection to the Amendment on the ground of administrative difficulty. If he had done that I was going to remind him that in the measure he introduced a specific Clause would have enabled authorities to have extended the hours of the education that was given. I thought that a very valuable Clause indeed, and I regretted that it should have been withdrawn. My right hon. Friend knows as well as I do that his withdrawal of the Clause has caused disappointment to many of his educational friends, and remembering what he stated in that speech of his, when he warned the House of the serious results, or the serious handicap to a nation which had only educated people up to sixteen, as compared with the nation that educated its children up to the age of eighteen. I do wish that my right hon. Friend could have given a more sysmpathetic reply to this Amendment. I believe it is immensely important to try and encourage the local authorities to advance on the lines of educational experiment. There is a danger of our getting to one dead level, and I believe that nothing is more important in educational matters than tryong to encourage local authorities to step out and to experiment, and go as far as ever they can. I believe that the further educational authorities go the greater will be the success of their efforts, and the greater the desire of other parts of the country to follow their example.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made:
    In Sub-section (1, a) leave out the word "such" ["after such period"], and insert instead thereof the word "that."—[Mr. Fisher.]
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (b).
    This is the paragraph which carries out a further part of the concession which the President announced to the Lancashire opposition. The paragraph that I propose to leave out gives local education authorities powers to reduce the number of hours at which attendance at continuation classes may be required from 312 to 280 each year—that is, a little more than three-quarters of an hour daily. The original proposal of the Bill was moderate enough. It is deplorable that that number of hours should be reduced, and I would like to point out that the change which the President has made will have this undesirable result. We shall have some education areas which impose the full number of hours allowed under the Bill; we shall have other education authorities which impose attendance for only 280 hours annually. Some areas will be worse off educationally than other areas. We shall not have a uniform system. I move this Amendment, however, chiefly because the original proposals of the Bill were not over-liberal and none too adequate. The concession weakens the Bill in a place where it cannot stand weakening. May I suggest as a compromise to the President that if he cannot accept the Amendment which I am now moving, at least he will make it clear from his speech that in the view of the Board it would be deplorable, in the interests of the children, if advantage were taken generally of this Section?
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do not think that the President will be breaking any pledge if he goes back to 320 hours instead of 280 hours. I must own that the amount of instruction that can be provided in the smaller limited number of hours in the Bill as it now stands does seem to me very inadequate. I did not quite realise, and I do not think that anyone did, the reasons which induced the President to lessen the number of hours as suggested in the original Bill. I think that it would be a very great advantage if the number of hours could now be increased, and for administrative purposes

    797
    I feel certain that this would be regarded by local education authorities as a great improvement.
    Mr. FISHER: I need hardly assure the House that were it possible I should be very glad to accept this Amendment. I feel, indeed, with my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment that 320 hours a year is not in itself an excessive amount to demand for the instruction of young persons, and if 320 hours a year is not excessive, 280 is still less so; but I think that I should expose myself to a charge of breach of faith if I were to depart from the undertaking that I gave to the House in this respect. I think that there would be very good reason for objecting on the part of hon. Members who had withdrawn their opposition to the Bill upon the series of concessions which I made when the Lancashire Amendment was being discussed. Apart from that, I would like to explain once more to the House the reasons which led me to make this particular suggestion. I have, of course, been exploring very carefully the practical difficulties in the way of carrying out continuation school proposals, and it has been found that there are certain industries—mining is a case in point—in which it is undesirable from the educational point of view, and it is extremely difficult, to arrange for two or three periods of education in the week. In these industries it appeared to be almost a necessity that the instructions should be confined to a single day, and in view of the fact that some of the young persons who will have to take advantage of that instruction will have a considerable walk from school it seemed to me that there was a case for allowing the local education authorities to adopt a scheme under which it would be possible for a young person to have seven hours a week instead of eight hours a week. If there were to be eight hours in a single day that would be rather a long period of schooling for a young person who has to walk a considerable distance to and from school. For those reasons we thought that it would be desirable to give a local education authority the option which is given by this Sub-section.
    Captain Sir C. BATHURST: I am greatly relieved that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accept this Amendment, because I am quite certain that, for at any rate some time to come, the alternative proposal would not be
    798
    workable in the country districts. Already in this House I have put forward, on behalf of the Wiltshire Education Committee, the difficulties which we should feel in the matter of the provision of the necessary teachers and buildings if 320 hours were insisted upon as the period for the continuation instruction in the course of the year. It is going to be difficult enough to persuade your rural classes of the advantages of this educational progress as applied to themselves, but it is going to be more than difficult, it is going to be extremely unpopular, and it may be accompanied by considerable hostility in putting the Act into operation in rural districts, and if we had so large a number of hours we should create a considerable amount of prejudice against education generally at a time when it is more than ever necessary in agricultural districts that the advantages of education should be recognised in order to obtain a larger home production of food. I am quite sure if the right hon. Getleman had accepted this Amendment there would have been considerable dissatisfaction in the rural areas.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has not accepted this Amendment. If he had done so he would have laid himself open to a charge of failing to observe the voluntary understanding which had been arrived at. While the miners in Lancashire, Yorkshire, and other districts are not backward in supporting educational proposals, yet the convenience of the people must be considered to some extent, and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is resisting this Amendment will put education authorities in the mining area in a position to meet the requirements not only of the colliery proprietors, but also of the parents of the children.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. CATOR: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after paragraph (ii), to insert,
    "(iii) who is above the age of fifteen years and has attended a continuation school in a rural area provided under Section three of this Act for not less than six hundred hours, or."
    This Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), is to meet the wishes of education authorities in rural areas, who feel in many cases that a certain amount of elasticity might be given to the Bill, that the case of a county area is entirely different from that of an urban area, and that the

    799
    local education authority should be in a position to deal with it accordingly. They urge that it would be better to have the option of giving six hundred hours' instruction in a continuation school during the winter months than to have a young person attending a continuation school as provided in the Bill. The object of this Amendment is to give effect to this view, so that, where desired, it may be possible to give a child of fifteen full-time education during the five months of the winter at thirty hours a week rather than compel that child to attend a continuation school for the longer period provided in the Bill.
    Mr. PETO: I rise to second this Amendment, because I wish to make a last appeal to the President of the Board of Education not to close his mind to what is the most suitable way, at any rate in the view of the education authorities in some of our rural areas, of dealing with this question of continuation education for young persons who will probably pursue agriculture as their vocation in life. There is no doubt that the proposal to give continuation education as part-time education, spread over a very long period, in its totality covering a period of four years, causes a great deal of apprehension in the minds of education authorities in rural areas, and in the minds of farmers themselves as to what would be the effect as to the possibility of employment and the amount of education which children will get in sparsely populated districts. In the Committee stage I reminded the right hon. Gentleman that some of the finest agriculturists that we have in this country, and, indeed, some of the finest that are to be found anywhere in the world, are north of the Tweed, and they are not by any means people who are deficient in ambitions for a full and complete education. Yet they have been brought up under the old system, which I believe is called the parochial system, under which there is a winter session which enables the children to be taught in a more or less concentrated manner at a time when their work is least needed on the land, while they do practical work during the summer months on the farm, and do not lose touch with their interests in rural life, do not lose touch with their interest in livestock, animals, and the things with which they will have to deal, and yet get a great deal of good education. I want it to be provided that an education authority, where it can see its way, may be at liberty
    800
    to provide a really suitable form of continuation class, concentrated into the twenty winter weeks with thirty hours' instruction a week. That seems to me to be a reasonable provision. The attendance of 600 hours should be, at any rate, a reason not why the child should not have any further continuation education, but why he should be exempted from the obligations under this Bill to attend continuation schools under this Act. This does not bind the education authority to provide these facilities, but, if the President would accept this Amendment, that where those facilities exist and where the child attends during a single year 600 hours—and I hope that the education will be more or less of a practical character and at any rate have some bearing on agriculture—he should be free for whole-time employment in agriculture after that.
    I know that this has been sneered at in the Committee stage constantly as vocational education, and so on; but, as far as vocational education is concerned, that will not terminate at the age of fifteen even under my Amendment, because there is an immense amount connected with agriculture which can only be learned practically on the farm, and there is nothing to prevent education authorities from seeing that something of that kind applies when the system is in force, so that these children, after they leave their direct control, should have some sort of opportunity, at any rate, if not compulsion, to attend instruction of a practical character in all the various branches of agriculture. There is no question that agricultural science will advance enormously after the War. There will be an enormous increase in the number of people taking part, and the opportunities for people to take part, not a subordinate part as labourers, but a primary part as landholders in cultivating small or fairly small areas of land. Therefore, it seems to me most important that after the War, now that we have had the countryside denuded of all its labour for two years and of a great part of its labour for four years, we should give the education in the most concentrated form we can, and give to the largest possible number of these children, many of whom will be the children of the men who have been fighting for their country, the earliest possible opportunity of assisting their parents in forming the great army, which we hope to have, of skilful agriculturists throughout the

    801
    country who are farming, even if it is in a small way, on their own. I believe that the scheme outlined briefly in this Amendment is infinitely more workable and more suitable to country conditions than a system of children attending seven hours a week for forty weeks in the year. I believe that that would make employment on farms extremely difficult. I believe that it will involve the waste of a very large part of the total which will be subtracted from the practical work on the farm, whereas if we can concentrate the education of 600 hours in a single year we shall get a much better education, and the country will get much better value for the money which they spend upon it.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. FISHER: My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, and the hon. Member for Devizes who seconded it, are anxious that instruction under the continuation classes scheme should be concentrated in the winter months for those children or young persons who are destined for an agricultural career. There is nothing in the Bill as it stands to prevent that object from being achieved. It is perfectly open to the local education authority to concentrate the classes in the winter months, and I hope that in many cases they will see their way to do so. Where I join issue with the hon. Members is that they desire to concentrate the education of young persons engaged in agriculture in a single year, and they apparently think that it is in the best interests of agricultural science. I think that if you wish to spread practical ideas and practical knowledge of the science of agriculture among our rural population, it is very much better that that they should receive a certain amount of education during the whole of their school period, for instance, you want a young person engaged in agriculture to have a knowledge of plant life, of animal life, how to measure quantities, and some knowledge of agricultural machinery, and that could not be obtained if you concentrated the whole of the teaching between fourteen and fifteen into 600 hours; they could not acquire the knowledge which it is really necessary and desirable they should have. I submit that if you had a smaller amount of education in the winter months, over a larger number of years, it would be much more valuable to him than the plan put forward by the hon. Members. For that reason I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Colonel YATE: I am glad to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent this instruction being carried out in the winter months, and I think that is a very valuable assurance. In Norway the children attend the schools in the winter months, and in the summer devote their whole time to agricultural pursuits. Norway is a democratic country, and the children there are very highly educated, and the system of giving instruction during the winter months, and not during the summer months, has been attended with results as good as they could wish them to be. I note with satisfaction that this can be done in country areas of this country, and that children may be limited for instruction to the winter months and be able to devote the summer months to proper agricultural work.
    Sir C. BATHURST: I find myself very much in agreement with the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes as to the agricultural policy of the Government, but I find myself equally opposed to him when he comes to criticise the policy of the Board of Education in relation to the same community. His proposal means that there should be half-time education for one extra year, instead of for a period of two years, and the right hon. Gentleman suggests that the instruction may be concentrated in the winter months. I object to the first proposal, because if you were to stop the education of the country child at the age of fifteen you would be doing him a very serious injustice by comparison with the children of the rest of the community. Everyone knows that it is not necessary that a child in agricultural employment should remain for the whole of his life in such employment, and, that being so, it is only fair that he should have equal opportunities with other children, from an intellectual or educational point of view, to compete in other walks of life. If you look at what other countries are doing in this regard, you find that in no civilised country of Western Europe is there so small a measure of education meted out to the rural child as in this country, during the most teachable years of his life. I should be very sorry indeed if, at the age of fifteen, any child in a rural district it should be considered that his education is over, at that age, for the rest of his life.
    The right hon. Gentleman says, and I think it is quite true, that the child engaged in agriculture should have knowledge

    803
    of various agricultural processes, including the handling of stock, and other light work, but the child cannot turn to handling stock and do it with success and become a successful stockman, horse-keeper, or shepherd, though there is no reason whatever why the child should not have plenty of time to handle stock and concurrently devote some portion of the day or week to more scientific training, to enable him to utilise on the practical side what he has learned on a scientific basis. A further reason against the Amendment is that the local authorities would find it very difficult, I am sure, to provide buildings and staff, if you are going to concentrate the whole of that education during the extension period into the winter months. I am convinced that if you want to make agricultural education scientific, effective, and of a national character; it is very much better to carry on the practical work concurrently with scientific instruction. I hope the House will not accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that the whole of this instruction should be concentrated into one year, and that the education of the rural child should cease at fifteen; and I hope, also, that neither will they accept the view of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education that such instruction should be given in the winter months.
    Amendment negatived.
    Further Amendments made: In Subsection (4), after the word "Wales" ["University or in Wales"], insert the words "or Monmouthshire."
    Leave out the words "be entitled to such exemption as he would be entitled to under this Section," and insert instead thereof the words "for the purposes of this Section be treated as."
    In Sub-section (9), after the word "person" ["a young person may express"], insert the words "or the parent of a young person under the age of sixteen."—[Mr. Fisher.]
    Sir M. SYKES: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (9), to insert the words,
    "and if a young person or the parent of a young person under the age of sixteen represents in writing to the local education authority that he objects to any part of the instruction given in the continuation school which the young person is required to attend, on the ground that it is contrary or offensive to his religious belief, the obligation under this Act to attend that school for the purpose of such
    804
    instruction shall not apply to him, and the local education authority shall, if practicable, arrange for him to attend some other instruction in lieu thereof or some other school."
    This Amendment is based on the hypothesis that in future education will get more and more advanced, and, that being so, history, philosophy, and other subjects will probably come within the scope of general education, in a more advanced way. Again, one has to remember that although one's religious views generally do not alter very much, yet, in regard to philosophies, there are some kinds which some people would regard as odious, and they would seek to protect themselves and their children against them. There is no doubt that in future education certain biological subjects will have to be taken into consideration. Eugenics will come within the scope of education sooner or later, and that is a point where materialists and people who hold opinions contrary to those of materialists will come to a very definite divergence of views; and the object of this Amendment is to give people the opportunity of avoiding not only having their feelings hurt, but their whole scheme of life challenged in the instruction given to their children.
    Captain Viscount WOLMER: it seems to be a reasonable proposition that no one should be forced to attend school where his religious beliefs would be outraged. This Amendment, in my view, does not go beyond a mere conscience Clause, and I hope the President of the Board of Education will accept it.
    Sir W. ESSEX: I would have been glad to have given full support to my Friend in the object of his Amendment, with which I am in the heartiest sympathy, if I could have felt that it did not lay us open to the principle of certain persons desiring to avail themselves of it to take themselves away from these continuation schools on the trumpery plea of religious or philosophic reason. The final words in this Amendment say that supplementary education may be given if a convenient place is found therefor. I think something should be done to make it perfectly clear and certain that no child is being withdrawn with, so to speak, the tongue in the cheek. The last two lines say "if practicable." I would like to make it stronger than that, because I have found already with regard to conscience Clauses that they are often used as a subterfuge to

    805
    mask disinclination for education and a desire to withdraw children from it for other purposes. I hope my Friend will not misunderstand me, as I am as anxious as he is to preserve religious feeling.
    Mr. FISHER: I have great pleasure, on behalf of the Government, in accepting this Amendment. I feel that if the State imposes any compulsory form of education upon young people, it must take care to see that religious conscience is not violated in any form. It is perfectly true that the instruction contemplated in these continuation schools is instruction of a secular nature, but it still might remain possible for some part of instruction to be given in such a manner and in such a spirit as to offend the religious traditions and conscience of the pupils concerned. Consequently, I feel it is only right that pupils who are in compulsory attendance at these schools should have the protection afforded by this Clause. I think it would be very difficult to go further than the Clause suggests. Obviously the local education authority cannot exceed the bounds of practicability in making alternative arrangements. This is an injunction upon local education authorities to make arrangements for alternative instruction wherever practicable. I do not think we could improve upon the phraseology of that.
    Colonel GRETTON: I entirely agree with the intention and spirit of this proposed Amendment. There is one objection which strikes me. Why should a young person under sixteen, without the sanction of parent or guardian, be allowed to lodge his own objection? A young person between the ages of fourteen and sixteen is probably not a person well endowed with judgment and is, at any rate for other matters, under the control of parents and guardians. I suggest that there is something to be said for parents' authority and by those who are responsible for these young persons in other matters, and that they should act and raise an objection of this kind.
    Sir C. BATHURST: I was going to raise the very point which the hon. and gallant Member for Rutland (Colonel Gretton) has put to the House. I welcome the suggestion that there should be a conscience Clause in this Education Bill applying to continuation instruction. But it appears to me that this Amendment is so worded that it may be really carried
    806
    further than he intends to go. I would rather suggest that before the Bill reaches another place there should be some consideration as to whether it could not be expressed in such a way as to make it more watertight than it is at present. As the hon. and gallant Member has just pointed out, as at present expressed it is quite possible for any young person at the ago of fifteen, or less than fifteen, to obtain entire exemption from a school by merely representing to the local authorities that he objects to any part of the instruction which in his opinion is contrary to his religious belief.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Not in all schools, but for one school.
    Sir C. BATHURST: If it is impossible in many cases, as it is in rural districts, for the local education authorities to find any school to send him to, his education will cease altogether.
    Mr. FISHER: No; there is an alternative instruction.
    Sir C. BATHURST: Let us take it at that. He can claim to have alternative instruction, but how can you prevent this being subject to abuse? Here is a boy of fourteen who, whether he has a conscience or not, whether he does or does not conscientiously believe that a particular subject is offensive to his religious beliefs, has only to say that and he may call upon the local education authority to provide him with alternative instruction or alternative schools. The hon. and gallant Member referred to a subject in which I am particularly interested. He referred to the possibility of instruction in some questions dealing with biological evolution. That is a very important branch of evolution which affects the whole of our practical agriculture at the present time—Mendelism. I think as worded this may be carried too far, and I suggest that before it reaches another place some more convincing words may be adopted.
    Mr. KING: I was rather surprised at the course this discussion has taken. I am rather surprised at the action of the Treasury Bench. We are discussing conscientious objectors. If there is a conscientious objector who objects to killing another man anybody who stands up for him is called a traitor, but if a certain child objects to a doctrine being taught he is a hero. I cannot understand the inconsistency of certain Members. I have always stood up for the conscientious

    807
    objectors. But let us fully understand one thing. I am going to support it, first of all, in, its integrity. I believe that a child of fifteen is very often more intelligent, more conscientious, and more able to form a judgment than many a man or woman of fifty, and therefore I am going to say that young children, if they have a conscientious objection to any form of education, have as much right as an older person to state it, and that it must not be only what their parents allow them to object to. I stand for the independence and integrity and conscientious objection of the young person, and I hope there will be no whittling away of the Amendment, and that the President will accept no modification to make it more watertight. The whole object of this thing is that this Clause shall not be watertight, and that it shall let independence run out. There is another aspect of this question which has not been raised. We had a discussion a little time ago on military training in these schools, and over twenty Members, I think, voted against any form of military training being given in these continuation schools. If you get twenty Members objecting to it here you will get 200,000 objecting to it in the country, and you are very likely going to have a great number of conscientious objectors to military training in these continuation schools. I therefore heartily welcome the opportunity it gives to these conscientious objectors of getting away from some of the Prussianism that is invading British civilisation and liberty to-day. It is therefore with very great pleasure that I support the Amendment, and congratulate the Government on accepting it so readily, and I hope they will not, either here or in another place, allow it to be whittled away.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I should be sorry for this Amendment to be accepted without my saying a word of thanks to the Government for accepting it and offering very respectfully my humble congratulations. I have tried in this House when it was a less popular thing than it is at this evening's sitting, to champion the cause of conscience, and therefore it is especially gratifying to find that the Government, though somewhat late in the day, have now become a convert to the same principle. I cannot help pointing out that there is certainly an anomaly in the present situation. A conscientious objector
    808
    who has reached the mature age of eighteen is disfranchised under the recent legislation of this House, but if he has attained the age of fourteen only, the conscientious objector is given special facilities in the Bill and is allowed to write himself out even of a form of secular or religious instruction to which he objects. I wholly support the Government in giving this right to the conscientious objector, but I think the House should note the triumph of a great principle, especially as I have the privilege of speaking in the presence of the learned Attorney-General. The cynical historian of the future will call attention, I have no doubt, in writing the story of this Parliament, to the discrepancies and anomalies in its legislation, and if that historian should happen to be the Attorney-General—I am sure he would not then be cynical—I am sure he will be quite capable of proving that behind and beneath these apparent contradictions and anomalies there is a deep spiritual unity.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Enforcement of Attendance at Continuation Schools.)
    (1) If a young person fails, except by reason of sickness or other unavoidable cause, to comply with any requirement imposed upon him under this Act for attendance at a continuation school, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five shillings, or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding one pound.
    (2) If a parent of a young person has conduced to or connived at the failure on the part of the young person to attend a continuation school as required under this Act, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two pounds, or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, whether relating to the same or another person, to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
    Sir W. ESSEX: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "he," and to insert instead thereof the words "his parent."
    My Amendment is twofold, and I do not know whether I shall be in order, but I think I ought to deal with the development of the first Amendment by an explanatory reference to what consequentially follows. If that be accepted, I propose, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "if the parent declares that the young person against whom a complaint is made of failing to attend a continuation school is beyond his control, the young person shall himself be liable to the penalty provided in this case."

    809
    I referred to this matter in Committee when we were dealing with it in the middle of June, and I asked the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education to the matter. He was good enough to express himself as sympathetic with the objects I had in view, which are neither less nor more than to stiffen and strengthen parental control and responsibility. All through the Bill there has been a lessening of the old respectable doctrine of parental responsibility. The last Amendment we passed, a very wise and useful Amendment, of itself had that same effect, because while I should have liked an Amendment to give the parent the opportunity of withdrawing a child put into that Clause, it was referred to only as the act of the young person.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Oh, no, of the parents also!
    Sir W. ESSEX: I thank my hon. Friend. I should have expected that, conscious as I am of the extreme sagacity of the two right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench who are in charge of the Bill. I would refer the House to occasions wherein there has been such action, placing upon the child too much control of his or her own actions under this Bill, but I do not want to lengthen out the arguments in favour of what I have proposed. I think such an action is a backward action, and that it has an undesirable tendency, and I want the House to insist that the first appeal or complaint shall be made as against the parent, that his authority over the young person shall be recognised as the primary one, but that if he is able or if he likes to come up and state—and, of course, "a parent" there is understood as being "or guardian"—that the young person is beyond his control, and in all probability it might be found to include that the young person is beyond his control because beyond his immediate neighbourhood, having gone to a distance and made his own establishment, being employed in work that keeps him at a distance—if the parent is able to urge that, he should be relieved of the responsibility, and it would at once fall on the young person, who would naturally have justified the conviction in the minds of everybody that he, having taken his own life under his own control, might therewith not only take the control of his liberties, but also of his responsibilities. I understand there is to be some concession,
    810
    and if it is in the hands of my right hon. and learned Friend it will be a very considerable concession, indeed.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg, formally, to second the Amendment.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith): My hon. Friend has stated his general objects very clearly, and the Government is not altogether out of sympathy with what I conceive to be his main object. My hon. Friend is desirous of establishing that the first lability shall be upon the parent, and the second liability shall be upon the child. Surely the answer must be that the question on whom the primary liability should rest depends very largely on the age of the young person. That has been the guiding principle in our minds, and anyone who gives attention to it must, I think, concede that that is the only sound principle. If the young person is sixteen years of age, or is living away from home, it seems to me it would be extremely unreasonable that the parents should be responsible for his failure to attend the continuation school. On the other hand, it is reasonable that a parent should see that a child of fourteen or fifteen should go to a continuation school. That, I think, is the true distinction. My hon. Friend's point is met, I think, under the existing law. The House may recollect the effect of Section 99 of the Children Act, 1908. That Section provides that, where a child or young person is charged with an offence the Court shall, if the offender is a child or a young person, order that the penalties shall be paid by the parent instead of by the child or young person,
    "unless the Court is satisfied that the parent or guardian cannot be found, or that he has not conduced to the commission of the offence by neglecting to exercise due care of the child or young person."
    I propose, if I am not out of order, and if it meet my hon. Friend's view, to move an Amendment to Sub-section (2), which will have the effect of expressly calling the attention of the Court which deals with the matter to Section 99 of the Children Act, 1908, by inserting the words
    "unless an Order has been made against him in respect of such failure under Section 99 of the Children Act, 1908."
    The effect of that will be that, if any young person under sixteen does not attend the continuation school, the authority may proceed either against the

    811
    young person or parent. If they do proceed against the young person, the Court shall order the penalty to be paid by the parent if not convinced that the parent exercised due care; or, on the other hand, they may proceed direct against the parent, who is then liable to the penalties I have mentioned under the Act. Finally, if the young person is over sixteen, he is not a young person for the purposes of the Children Act, and the Court cannot impose a fine on the parent. I am sure the hon. Gentleman and the House will agree that this is reasonable, because it will be only in very exceptional cases that the failures of a young person over sixteen to attend the continuation school will be due to the negligence of the parent. In a case so exceptional, the authority can still get at the parent by proceeding against him under Subsection (2).
    Sir W. ESSEX: I am very much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving so much consideration to this Amendment. I had that in view, and when it was pointed out to me that it might be covered by the Act referred to, my objection was not altogether removed, on the ground that the child still had to be brought before the Court and enter an appearance there as a responsible person. That I considered an evasion of parental responsibility. But if this is as much as I can get, I must accept what has been given, I, therefore, ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir F. SMITH: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "shall" ["he shall be liable"], to insert the words "unless an Order has been made against him in respect of such failure under Section 99 of the Children Act, 1908."
    Mr. WHITE HOUSE: It is very difficult to give consideration to this matter on a manuscript Amendment dealing with a highly technical subject. The point I wish to put to the Attorney-General is this: Sub-section (2), which he is now proposing to amend, provides that a parent of a young person may be proceeded against if it is the parents' fault that the young person has not carried out his obligation. As I heard the Amendment read, the Attorney-General is going to remove the power to prosecute the parent in the cases he has read out. There is something,
    812
    I think, contradictory in the Amendment coming in that place. I may be quite wrong, but that is owing to the difficulty of following a highly technical point from an Amendment which is not on the Paper. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will tell me if he has considered that point?
    Sir F. SMITH: I have. It is not so. The only effect of the Amendment I now propose is that in the Sub-section there is an express reference to Section 99 of the Children Act, 1908. The only effect of that is that the Court which considers the Section as drafted now has its attention directly addressed to the matter.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: I think this is a very desirable Amendment to make. I was responsible for the insertion in the Children Act, 1908, of the Clause referred to, and the object of putting it in was to adopt every means of enforcing that parental responsibility by which my hon. Friend (Sir W. Essex) sets such just store. It is desirable to insert the reference the Attorney-General proposes, not only, I venture to submit, in order to draw the attention of the Court to the fact that they have that power under the Children Act, but also in order to make it quite clear that that power is preserved, and not in any way limited by the words of this Sub-section, because it might be held that this Act, having been passed ten years after the Children Act, the parent would only be liable in regard to these particular functions to a penalty where it was proved that he had conduced to, or connived at, failure on the part of the young person. It would be conceivably hard to prove that. Of course, if a young person is considerably older, and when this Act has its full scope and operation, it is quite reasonable, I think, that the penalty should be made to fall directly upon the young person himself, or herself, as the case might be.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Amendment of 3 Edw. 7, c. 45 & 1 Edw. 7, c. 10.)
    (1) The Employment of Children Act, 1903, so far as it relates to England and Wales, shall be amended as follows:—
    (i) For Sub-section (1) of Section three the following Sub-section shall be substituted:—
    A child under the age of twelve shall not be employed; and a child of the age of twelve or upwards shall not be employed on any day on which he is required to attend school before the

    813
    close of school hours on that day, nor on any day before six o'clock in the morning or after eight o'clock in the evening:
    (ii) In Sub-section (2) of Section three, which prohibits the employment of a child under the age of eleven years in street trading, the words "under the age of eleven years" shall be repealed:
    (iv) For the definition of the expression "local authority" there shall be substituted the following definition:—
    Except as regards the City of London, the expression "local authority" means the local education authority for the purposes of Part III of the Education Act, 1902.
    (2) The Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904, so far as it relates to England and Wales, shall be amended as follows:—
    (iii) In Section three, which relates to licences for the employment of children exceeding ten years of age, the age of twelve years shall be substituted for the age of ten years:
    (iv) References to the Employment of Children Act, 1903, shall be construed as references to that Act as amended by this Act.
    Colonel GRETTON: On a point of Order. I desire to ask your ruling as to whether this Clause is within the scope of the Bill? The Bill is a Bill "to make further provision with respect to education in England and Wales, and for purposes connected therewith." The first Sub-section of Clause 13 proposes to amend the Employment of Children Act so far as it affects England and Wales, and the second Sub-section proposes to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904, so far as it relates to England and Wales. The Amendments to the Employment of Children Act, 1903, were two of importance. Paragraph (1) of the Subsection deals with the employment of the child on any day in which he is required to attend school, and limits that employment, and the second Subsection proposes to deal with street trading of all children under a certain age. The second proposal clearly deals with the employment of children on days when there is no school training, such as the time of the summer holidays, for instance, as well as on the holidays given from time to time. The Clause proposes to amend the Employment of Children Act in various specified ways, and goes on to make certain Amendments relating to licences to appear on the stage, and the employment of children exceeding ten years, and suggests that the age of twelve years shall be substituted for the age of ten, and so forth.
    814
    All these objects may have some remote connection with education, but I would ask your ruling, Sir, as to whether an Education Act is the proper place to insert provisions dealing with the employment of children at a time when no education is given? The other Regulations regarding the employment on school days may be more arguable, but the two subjects are undoubtedly involved together, and I would submit for your decision that the proper course would be to introduce a Bill to amend the two Acts which it is desired to amend, and that these matters should be dealt with in that way. Apart from the forms of this House and technical considerations of the kind, I suggest that the practice of introducing Amendments dealing with extraneous matters into any Bill which happens to be passing in the House is very inconvenient for after interpretation, confuses the law, and makes it difficult to understand. I would suggest the advisability that the forms of the House in this and similar cases be upheld, and I would submit that the Clause dealing with the employment of children is outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. and gallant Gentleman was good enough to inform Mr. Speaker of his intention to raise this point, and Mr. Speaker has asked me to give his views on the matter. The point was raised on the Second Reading of the Bill by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. That was the right place and the right time to raise the matter. There is no change in the Clause now from that which appeared in the Bill at its Second Reading which would lead to a change of view on the part of Mr. Speaker. There is no suggestion by the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself that the Clause has been so extended in Committee as to make the Bill a different one from that which the House sent to Committee. Therefore, the hon. and gallant Gentleman's contention fails on that point. It might, however, be convenient if I said at ibis stage that Mr. Speaker also rules that the two Amendments on the Paper proposing to bring the question of Sunday employment into the Clause would be going beyond the scope of the Bill, and beyond the Clause, as sent to Committee. Therefore, in the view of Mr. Speaker, those proposals are not pertinent to this Bill.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have on the Order Paper an Amendment to prohibit the employment of school children on Sundays. The Government have assented to this Motion. Am I to understand from your ruling that this Amendment of mine, though agreed to by the Government, is out of order and cannot be moved? May I point out to you the fact—which I think is a pertinent fact in this connection—that Clause 13, on which you are now ruling, does interfere with the Sunday labour of children? Section (1) of Clause 13 practically enacts that there shall be no Sunday labour of children under the age of twelve. Before this Clause was drafted it was possible to employ children in certain circumstances on Sunday. The Bill does thus interfere with the Sunday labour of children up to twelve. The Amendment which I wish to move restricts the Sunday labour of children up to the age of fourteen, as against twelve, and that the Government have accepted. Therefore, if I am out of order in moving this Amendment, is the Government in order in interfering with the labour of children up to twelve? If the Government is in order in interfering with the labour of children on Sundays up to twelve, why am I not in order in proposing a further alteration which interferes up to the age of fourteen?
    Viscount WOLMER: May I support what the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has said, and may I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that not only does the Clause as it now stands interfere with Sunday labour of children under twelve years of age, but it also specifically interferes with the employment of children on holidays. Sunday is simply one holiday in the week, and I venture to ask you, if it is in order that other holidays, in the matter of the employment of children, should be restricted by this Clause, why should not there be the restriction on the Sundays too?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid hon. Members are mixing up two separate points which I endeavoured to keep apart. The first point is as to whether Clause 13 is within the scope of the Bill as it stands. I hope I clearly stated how that matter stands as dealt with by Mr. Speaker on the Second Reading of the Bill. The further question which arises now is the question as to whether it is competent for either the Government or an hon. Member
    816
    to propose Amendments considerably extending the scope of the Clause. It is on that second point that I gave Mr. Speaker's decisions separately from that of the earlier point. No argument can be derived from the fact of what was in the Clause when the Bill was in the Committee stage to sustain what the Government and hon. Members now propose on the Report stage.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I do not rise to argue the question or to dispute your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, or what you further said in explanation of Mr. Speaker's ruling. I wish, however, with great respect, to put this question: I understand the Government, having accepted this Amendment, on the Paper, that it is competent for the Government to make precisely the same Motion in another place, where the same Rules of Order do not apply. I rose to ask your permission to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will arrange for this Amendment, to which he has agreed, to be moved in another place?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid I cannot allow that question to be put to the President of the Board of Education, or for suggestions to be made as to how the matter shall be dealt with in another place.
    Viscount WOLMER: On a point of Order. Could you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, explain upon what principle Mr. Speaker has drawn the distinction between the prohibition on the employment of children under twelve on Sunday and the prohibition on the employment of children under thirteen on Sunday?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Noble Lord does not appreciate the distinction between the Second Reading stage and the Report stage. As to the explanation asked for, the point was raised on the Second Reading as to whether this Clause of the Bill was not outside the scope of the Bill. While there may be some doubt on the point, Mr. Speaker gave his ruling according to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 13th March, that that proposal in this Clause might be said to be relevant to the question of education. On the present occasion the proposal goes a good deal further. I am not dealing with the merits or arguments of the question, but simply stating how Mr. Speaker, after consideration, viewed the matter.
    Viscount WOLMER: That only extends it two more years.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: By Amendments of this kind it would be possible to go on amending the Employment of Children Act in a great many other respects not strictly relevant to education.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I understand your ruling, Mr. Chairman, is that the prohibition of the employment of children up to the age of twelve has to do with education, but the employment of children up to fourteen has nothing to do with education?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not read into it anything more than I have said. The first point was dealt with at the Second Reading stage. Now the proposal is, with regard to children up to the age of fourteen, to prohibit employment altogether on Sundays. Without referring again to what Mr. Speaker said in deciding this point on the Second Reading stage, we are dealing now solely with the proposed extension on the Report stage. With regard to the next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir John Spear), I suggest that he could raise his point more conveniently on the proviso standing in the name of the President
    Mr. PETO: But that Amendment raises the same point!
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Yes; but the words referring to Sundays will have to come out of the Amendment.
    Sir JOHN SPEAR: I have turned to the Amendment to which you refer, Mr. Whitley, but it is not quite clear to me that that applies to the whole Sub-section in the Bill. That Amendment clearly applies to children above twelve years of age, and my Amendment applies to those under twelve. I simply want the children to do a little light work for their parents and guardians during the summer evenings or during the holiday time, and as I read the Bill they would be unable in a country district to work in the fields, or even lend a hand in the hayfields or do a little weeding in the garden. In the case of the smallholder the wife and children do a good deal of work while he is earning wages.
    Mr. FISHER: Perhaps it would be convenient for me here to explain that my
    818
    Clause does apply to children under twelve as well as over. It was expressly framed to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Tavistock. The word "children" is used, and it covers children within the meaning of the Act.
    9.0 P.M.
    Sir J. SPEAR: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I thank him moist sincerely for meeting the case. I know many parents felt very grieved at the limitation the Bill provided, and, while I object to children being overworked, my Amend nent was very carefully drawn to see that the work they were dong had the approval of the local education authorities. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment meets the case entirely, and the subsequent Amendment I have on the Paper will not be necessary. I am sure this concession will give great satisfaction and will encourage parents to be more vigilant in sending their children to school.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (i), to leave out the word "before" ["before the close of school hours"], and to insert instead thereof the words "for more than two hours, such period of two hours being either wholly before the opening or wholly after."
    It will be remembered that this question of the employment of children for a limited period, either before or after school hours, was dealt with in Committee, and I shall take up very little time now, because I put the arguments at the time, which still appear to me reasonable, before the Committee. In a word, the Bill permits the employment of children on any day in which they are obliged to attend school for any hours after school up to the hour of eight o'clock in the evening. That means for four hours on any school day. That permits the sale of evening newspapers, hawking them in the street, as now, for quite long hours after school, but it entirely forbids any distribution of the morning papers by children before school hours. It also covers a great deal besides the mere distribution of newspapers, but that alone is, I think, a form of labour which is light, and frequently assists the household expenses, and it cannot be held to be at all a demoralising occupation or one which can be called a blind-alley employment. It really ought to have some consideration apart from

    819
    the fact that, after all, this is an Education Bill, and I think we are entitled to consider all the educational factors, and if we do we cannot leave out from our consideration the morning newspapers. If you make it extremely difficult or practically impossible to deliver those papers to their regular customers in the way they always have been delivered, you are not contributing to the facilities for the education of the nation.
    The President has had an opportunity between the Committee stage and the present stage of this Bill to think this matter over, and I hope he has come to the conclusion that it is more reasonable to prohibit the employment of children for more than two hours on any day, and leave that period to be either before or after or partly before or partly after school hours, and so deal something like even-handed justice between the proprietors of morning and evening newspapers and the public which those organs of the Press cater for. I think it will be a very unfortunate thing if, by a side wind, in an Education Bill we practically make it impossible to distribute our morning newspapers, and do nothing to curtail the distribution of the evening papers. Therefore, I hope that the President of the Board of Education will be able to tell us that, on thinking the matter over—and I know that he has given consideration to the question of Sunday employment, and employment on light agricultural work—his fears which led him to oppose this Amendment in Committee through children arriving tired at school have been eliminated, and that this very simple form of employment, not very exhausting or arduous, may be permitted so that a feature of our national life may continue as it has done in the past.
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I supported this Amendment in Committee, and I think there is great weight in the arguments used by my hon. Friend. I rise now to point out that a later Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education at any rate contemplates the employment of children by their parents if a local authority makes a by-law to that effect, providing any employment before nine o'clock in the morning is limited to one hour. It appears to
    820
    me, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers have to a large extent got over the difficulty that was present to their minds in Committee, and that they are now prepared to consider the possibility, and even the permissibility, of a child working, at any rate, for an hour in the morning on the day on which he or she afterwards attends school. If that be the case, it removes the greatest argument used in Committee against the proposal of my hon. Friend. I do not suppose that my hon. Friend is wedded to two hours as the irreducible minimum. I understand that he desires that it should be possible, by a by-law of the local authority or by a Section in this Act of Parliament, that children should be used, if they wish it and their parents wish it, for a reasonable time in the morning on some employment which is not fatiguing and objectionable. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to agree to that general proposition, whether or not he prefers some other form of words, or whether he thinks any additional safeguards are necessary I rise to support the principle of my hon. Friend's Amendment, and I hope, as my right hon. Friend has accepted the principle in his Amendment, that he may see his way to accept it in this place, with or without further restrictions, in order to enable children to do this light work before school in places and under such conditions as the local authority think proper.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down spoke of supporting the principle enshrined in this Amendment.
    Sir R. ADKINS: "Enshrined" was not my word.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman spoke supporting the principle en: bodied in the Amendment now under discussion. Let us consider what the Amendment is, and let us remember that we are dealing with school children between the ages of twelve and fourteen. The hon. Member's Amendment is that on days when these children have to attend school it shall be lawful to employ them for two continuous hours before they go to school. A child a day over twelve years of age may be sent to some form of labour at seven o'clock in the morning, or at six o'clock in the morning, and be employed on what may be very heavy work until eight o'clock, or later if the beginning hour is later than six.
    Mr. PETO Mr. PETO indicated dissent
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The hon. Member does not seem to realise his own Amendment, and the fact that these statements are made shows how necessary it is to examine the Amendment. It makes it lawful for children to be employed on days on which they are obliged to attend school for a period of two hours, and that period may be before the opening of school.
    Mr. PETO: The hon. Member said "very heavy work," and that is what I objected to.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I certainly said "very heavy work." The labour may be very heavy indeed. You must remember that you are dealing with school children of twelve years of age. Here is an Amendment which the hon. Gentleman has spoken of as embodying a principle which he desires to support, and it says that children of twelve years of age on days on which they must attend school may be employed for two continuous hours before attending school. After these two hours of continuous employment, it may be at very heavy labour, the child has to put in a full attendance at school during the remainder of the morning and afternoon. This is an Amendment of the most reactionary kind. It is contrary to all the proved experience of past years, and it is condemned by every authority that has looked into the matter. I am indeed surprised that this reactionary Amendment should be brought forward to-day, of all days, because to-day there has been published—it was laid upon the Table of the House a week ago—the Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Factories, which deals precisely with this question of employment before breakfast, and which shows in a most convincing way how harmful it has been. It cites certain examples where the system has been abolished in the case of adults, and not of children of twelve years of age. The great principle which the hon. Gentleman speaks of—
    Sir R. ADKINS: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is alluding to me, but the principle of which I was speaking was not necessarily that of two hours' work before breakfast. It was the principle embodied in the Amendment of the President of the Board of Education. Therefore the vials of wrath which he is pouring on me with such fervour may possibly be moderated.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am only too glad if my hon. Friend wishes to withdraw.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I am not withdrawing; I am explaining. My hon. Friend ought to know the difference.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to speak. I have given way to him perfectly courteously, in order that he may make his interruption. Perhaps he will allow me to reply. He is supporting an Amendment making it lawful to employ children two hours before they go to school. He said he desired to support the principle embodied in the Amendment. I should like to know in what way I have misquoted him. If I have misquoted him I shall be only too glad to withdraw, but, as it is, I have nothing whatever to withdraw. I was speaking of the Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Factories. It gives certain instances where work before breakfast has been abolished in the case of adults, not only with great beneficial results to their health, but with striking economic advantages. In face of this evidence, I am indeed surprised that such an Amendment should be moved. Let me point this out further. It is not only a question of two hours' continuous employment before going to school; there is the question of the breakfast time. The evidence that has been submitted to Committees of this House and to Royal Commissions that have examined this question has always been that the result of working children before breakfast is that they not only go to school tired out by this preliminary and improper labour, but that they go to school improperly fed. They have not had time to get their breakfasts, they have gone underfed to school, they have gone physically fatigued, and in many cases, as has been demonstrated again and again, they have gone to school wet through, owing to have to make a long journey before breakfast to the place of their employment and then back again to their home or to school. That is why I offer the very strongest opposition to this Amendment and, whether or not it enshrines a great principle, I shall vote against it.
    Mr. FISHER: I have, of course, very carefully considered all the complicated issues involved in this difficult Clause. As I pointed out when we were considering this Clause in Committee, all the educational authorities attach the greatest importance to the question of morning

    823
    labour on school days. That has been one of the great evils and one of the great obstacles to the friendly development of our educational system in this country. Consequently, if we were to admit any form of morning employment, it could only be with the strictest and most jealous safeguards against abuse. The Amendment which I have put down on the Paper, which does permit the morning employment of children, both under the age of twelve and over the age of twelve for one hour, is accompanied by two important safeguards, adequate, I think, to protect the educational interests of the country. The first is that the children shall be employed by their parents, and the second is that they shall be employed under bylaws which would have regard to the character and quality of the occupation and to the conditions necessary to safeguard the interests of the children. Further than that we are not prepared to go. To sanction the employment of children on school days for two hours before school would open the door to many abuses we are anxious to terminate as quickly as possible. The effect of the hon. Member's proposal would be that the two hours might be wholly before the opening or wholly after the closing of the school. That is a proposal which is very difficult, if not impossible, of actual administration. Therefore, on the grounds both of principle and of practice, I think it my duty to resist the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), at the end of paragraph (i) to add the words,
    "Provided that a local authority may make a by-law permitting, with respect to such occupations as may be specified, and subject to such conditions as may be necessary to safeguard the interests of the children, the employment of children by their parents, but so that any such employment on a school day before nine in the morning shall be limited to one hour."
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: On a point of Order. This is an Amendment which extends Sunday labour for these children and raises the question of Sunday labour. Are we to understand from your ruling you have given, that while we may not restrict Sunday labour we may discuss an Amendment extending Sunday labour?
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: On the point of Order. Did you not, Sir, in indicating Mr. Speaker's decision, say that it applied
    824
    not only to Amendments moved by private Members, but also to Amendments moved on behalf of the Government?
    Mr. DENMAN: May I point out that the Amendment has been moved with the omission of the words relating to Sunday labour?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is so. I had communicated with the right hon. Gentleman pointing out that the words which appear on the Paper, "the employment of children on Sundays and," would have to go out of the Amendment.
    Mr. FISHER: I did not mention those words in moving the Amendment.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I rise to oppose this Amendment, which is not only unnecessary, but still embodies those very reactionary features which marked the Amendment I attacked a few moments ago. I invite the House to notice one objectionable point in this Amendment, and I particularly want to ask the President whether he will modify the Amendment in this respect?
    Mr. PETO: On a point of Order. May I ask, Sir, whether you have protected my Amendment to the Amendment, which is to omit the words "by their parents" in order to insert instead thereof the words "on other days"? I heard you put the Amendment as a whole down to the last word.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment has to be put, but when the hon. Member catches my eye he can move an Amendment to the Amendment.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The Amendment the President has moved permits the employment of school children both under the age of twelve and above the age of twelve for one hour in the morning on days when the child is under a statutory obligation to attend school. The right hon. Gentleman, whose original Bill prohibited the employment of children before the hours of attending school, now weakens the Bill by allowing the employment of children even under twelve years of age and up to the age of fourteen for one hour before going to school. That is an Amendment of the most serious nature. I inquire what principle is safeguarded or accepted by this Amendment? All the objections that have been urged to child labour apply to

    825
    this Amendment. What will it mean in practice? That a child who may be under the age of twelve years may be sent to work before being sent to school. He may be sent to work, for instance, at the hour of six or seven in the morning.
    Mr. FISHER: By the parents.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Yes, in the employment of the parents. He may have to go a long journey to his work, and after working for an hour—
    Mr. PETO: Under by-laws.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: By-laws will not mitigate this. After working for an hour he will have to journey back to breakfast in all kinds of weather, and then he has to go to school for a full day's schooling. I am stating the case exactly and without any exaggeration. This is precisely that form of employment which everyone has condemned in the past and of which no one has pointed out the evils more eloquently than the President himself. It is one of those points with which the President dealt in the earlier stages of the Bill. It is a point he has dealt with in the country in speeches he has made both to popular audiences and to specialised audiences. He has claimed—and justly claimed—the utmost attention to the provision in the Bill which would abolish child labour before breakfast on the days when a child goes to school. The right hon. Gentleman interrupted me just now and said that the parents would be the employers. But that does not get us out of the difficulty at all, because this will cover heavy agricultural labour, and the fact that the child's father is a farmer will not make the work any less undesirable for the child of twelve to do before going to school. Consequently, the fact that the parents are the employers is not a sufficient safeguard. In previous legislation and in great social inquiries undertaken by Committees of this House attention has been drawn to the fact that one of the evils of child labour is that of the child being allowed to sell things in the street—not street trading in the ordinary acceptation of the term, but working for its parents, who may be costers. Technically, that is a different occupation to street trading, which is deemed to be trading by the child on its own account. The President's Amendment will allow children under twelve years of age to be employed on farm labour for one hour
    826
    before going to school, and that labour may be heavy for a child. You run the risk of the child being improperly fed and of going to school in wet clothes through having had to work in the open in the rain. Therefore, all the evils which the President has pointed out in the past are to be revived here, although, I agree, in a modified form, inasmuch as one hour is less than two hours. Still the fact remains that the evils which the President has exposed in the past, and on the strength of which he justified the earlier form of the Bill, are now to be reintroduced.
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. Member, in his observations on this Amendment, has complained of me for having reintroduced evils which might otherwise have been avoided. But he should remember the line to be drawn between kinds of occupation. If a child lays a tablecloth for his parent in a hut, it is employment; but if he lays it in his father's private house, it is not employment. It is an impossible thing to prohibit children from taking part in household avocations at the bidding of their parents, and no power on earth can prevent it. At the same time, you are forced into the position of having to sanction forms of employment scarcely to be distinguished from domestic avocation, but which, nevertheless, in the eye of the law do constitute employment proper. It is for that reason, and for that reason only, that this Amendment has been introduced. I think the hon. Member did not pay sufficient regard to the numerous safeguards which have been introduced into this Clause. First, it is necessary that the local education authority should make by-laws. But then, there is no compulsion on them to do that. Then, if a by-law is made, it must have regard to the character of the occupation and to the safeguarding of the interests of the children. Finally, the employment must be by the parents only, and it is limited to one hour. I submit it would be impossible to have any Amendment which more carefully safeguards the interests of the children.
    Sir C. BATHURST: I sympathise with a good deal of what has fallen from the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse), in his criticism of the Amendment. I have carefully studied the reports of the medical officer of health in relation to children in elementary schools

    827
    in my own county for several years, and I find that the physical defects of the children are largely due to under-feeding on the one hand and to occasionally sitting in wet clothes on the other. The intellectual progress of these children as compared with that of more fortunate children is slow, and is very often accounted for by the fatigue they have undergone before going to school. For these reasons, I should have preferred to have seen the Bill in its original form, excluding all work before school. That, I feel confident, would be in the best interests of the children, and I would have been glad to have seen it made watertight in that respect. But one has, unfortunately, in this world to compromise even on Education Bills, in order to obtain progress, and one has to accept some halfway house. Therefore, though reluctantly, I am prepared to accept my right hon. Friend's Amendment, in the hope that these by-laws will not be so very numerous, and that the local education authorities will realise, as, indeed, most do, that there are physical, mental, and intellectual objections to such a provision being carried through to an extreme point. I trust, therefore, they will see fit, with due regard to local circumstances, to be slow in acting on any such provision. I am rather troubled by the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that possibly a child may be required to make hay, even for its parents, in the early morning before going to school. I cannot help thinking that if a child engages in any such strenuous occupation, it will undergo such fatigue that its educational progress will be relatively slow. Still, I am afraid we must accept the Amendment. I do not altogether trust to the discretion of parents in these matters. It is the parent who makes the money out of the child, whether the parent employs a child itself or whether the child's parent, employed by another employer, delegates the work to the child as will most likely be the case. It does seem to me that the parent does not always study the best interests of the child. However, in the hope that the local education authorities will deal with this matter in a right spirit I reluctantly give my support to the Amendment.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I think the President said that this employment was limited to one hour; but, surely that is
    828
    not the language of the Amendment, and after school hours the child may be employed to an unlimited extent.
    Mr. FISHER: No.
    Mr. ROBERTS: At any rate, it may be employed a considerable number of hours in the afternoon. I think he actually said in his speech that the employment was to be limited to one hour, and if he could make the Amendment read that any such employment on a school day should be limited to one hour before nine in the morning, that would be a very much more satisfactory arrangement. I do not know if it is possible to do that, but it is rather larger than the actual words he used would lead us to expect. I quite agree that there must be some extension of the very stringent provision in the Bill, but I am rather inclined to think it is unduly extending the amount of work which may be expected of children after school hours, and if he could limit it to employment in the morning it would be far more satisfactory to the House.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I understand the position to be this. As it stands in the Bill children can be employed after school hours, not later than eight o'clock in the evening. If it be necessary, as I think it is, in view of the complicated situation, to allow children to work for their parents for an hour before school, surely in the by-law that time could be deducted from the number of hours allowed after school, and considering that the by-law has to be framed by the local education authority and then approved by the Board of Education, possibly it would meet my right hon. Friend's point and meet the view of the House if he were to give some intimation that by-laws were not likely to be sanctioned by the Board unless this user in the morning is combined with a corresponding restriction in the afternoon. I hope in view of this Amendment the hon. Member (Mr. Peto) will not move his further Amendments. It is one of those matters in which there may well be divergent opinions. Even my hon. Friend (Mr. Whitehouse) when he reflects upon it in his calmer moments may possibly imagine that there is room for difference of opinion, possibly when he has learned that the fretful repetition of his own opinion is not always equivalent to argument. However that may be, I hope the hon. Member (Mr. Peto) will support the Government Amendment as it

    829
    stands and not try to enlarge it. The feeling of the House is in favour of as much restriction of child labour as is practicable, and I hope we may agree, from different points of view, on the Government Amendment as it stands, hoping that the President will be able to intimate that by-laws will be looked at with a great deal of care and very great restriction of sympathy if they do not try to get some counterbalancing advantage for the child after school to make up for what many of us believe to be the inevitable use of the child for an hour before school hours, in some parts of the country and in some occupations, on behalf of the parents. I support the Government Amendment on that ground.
    Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: Has this bylaw to be approved by the Board of Education?
    Mr. FISHER: By the Home Office.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I appreciate very fully the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty in attempting to meet the criticism which has been made on this question of the employment of children by their parents. I feel, however, that he has drawn his Amendment much too widely, for, if I read it aright, the word "child" will be read to mean "children under twelve."
    Mr. FISHER: Or over.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: It means then, in practice, that any child of school age may be employed for an hour before going to school in the morning, and then after school in the afternoon may be employed up to 8 p.m. That means that a child of seven, eight, or nine may be employed for four hours per school day. Surely the President, after what he has said about the deleterious effects of the employment of children of school age, is not going to tolerate, even by parents, the employment of their children of tender years for four hours per school day.
    Mr. FISHER: The by-laws.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: By-laws will not cover it. By-laws are framed with the permission which the Legislature has given, and if by-laws are drawn within the powers of the Statute there is nothing to prevent a local authority empowering parents to employ their children for the length of time I have stated, and if the Board of Education attempts to interfere with the by-laws so framed the answer of
    830
    the local authorities will be complete. It will be: "On this point your Act is perfectly clear. We are entitled to sanction by-laws which will give four hours' employment per day to children provided they are employed by their parents." If the school closes at four, that allows four hours employment plus one in the morning, making five. On five school days, twenty-five hours of employment for children under the age of twelve as well as over! Surely that is an intolerable position to contemplate and submit to. It is much more drastic than that which is proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Peto).
    Mr. PETO: No; the hon. and gallant Gentleman must not misquote me like that. I have been working in Committee and in the House against the employment of children for four hours a day and have been begging the right hon. Gentleman to limit it to two.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: That is exactly what I said. The hon. Member has misunderstood me. I said the proposition of the President is more drastic than that of the hon. Member. I hope he will consider it. I hope he will have regard to what the hon. Member has been pleading for. It has been one satisfactory feature of our discussion that the spirit of the House in the main has been entirely against the hon. Member. Now we have the President going far beyond anything which has been moved from the bench opposite. I think he has not quite estimated the extent to which his own Amendment will carry him. I think the matter is of so much importance that he ought to reconsider it. Unless I mistake the temper of the House, practically the whole of the House at present, with one or two exceptions—possibly all, because I think the hon. Member is with us on this—is opposed to the President in allowing so much as five hours per day of employment by the parents of their children, who may be six, seven, eight, up to twelve and beyond. I appeal to him not to let this Amendment represent his last word on this question of the employment of children by their parents.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "by their parents," and to insert instead thereof the words "on other days."
    First let me apologise to the hon. Member (Mr. Goldstone). I misheard him.

    831
    I am so accustomed to his disagreeing with me on this question of the employment of children that I could hardly believe my ears when I heard him say I had been asking for a limitation, but I am delighted to hear that at last some Members of the House have come to the knowledge that that is what I have been doing on the Committee stage, and now on Report, while asking at the same time that such employment, which I place at a maximum of two hours a day, should be reasonably distributed either before or after the school day. I would ask the House to consider what is the object in relation to this question of the employment of children of giving a special facility for employment by their parents, actually or nominally, and whether to have one hour's employment before nine in the morning makes any material difference to the state of the child's health or its capacity for acquiring knowledge, whether that employment be by the parent or some other person. I would like to call the attention of the House, and particularly of the Member for Mid-Lanarkshire, to the terms of Section 1 of the Employment of Children Act, 1903. Under that Section local authorities can make by-laws prohibiting absolutely or subject to conditions the employment of children in any special occupation. Already for fifteen years local authorities have had great powers to prohibit any form of employment or work of a character which was likely to be injurious to the child. On this Amendment of the President's I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland. It is essential that there should be some limiting words such as, say, that the total number of hours to be worked by any child should not exceed two or three, or whatever number this House or another place may consider reasonable, in the case of any child who may be, as I understand it, from the age of five to fourteen. Even while I am anxious to limit it, I am also anxious, as I stated on my earlier Amendment, that you should not in this Education Act make one specific form of ordinary light work absolutely impossible in future. If this one hour is limited to employment by parents, and if that is really carried out and the employment not delegated by the parents to anyone else, it will mean that not one newsagent in the country in a thousand will be able to employ a child even for an hour before nine in the morning to deliver morning
    832
    newspapers. Therefore, I want to move to leave out the words "by their parents," and for this main reason, that if it is reasonable that the child should be employed not exceeding one hour before the school commences, it cannot make the slightest difference to a child's power of learning or health, or anything else, whether this one hour is worked for the parent of the child or for any other purpose. Although it would not meet the case I tried to put before the House, it would, at any rate, do something to make the Bill a little more elastic exactly where it will be a real grievance, if it is handicapped as it is, if it is coupled with a strict limitation of the hours to something reasonable—not five hours a day as in the Bill now. If the President's Amendment is carried, I think it would be a distinct improvement, both from the point of view of the community and of the children themselves. In moving to leave out the words "by their parents," I desire to make it quite clear that I should not have agreed to the Amendment, as far as I am concerned, unless it was limited here or in another place by words limiting the total number of hours the child is to be employed.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment not seconded.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: This Amendment is not free from perplexity, and I am not sure that the effect of it does not carry the President, in respect of a certain class of children, actually further than he intends to go. I refer to children under twelve. As I understand it, the present law with regard to children under twelve is that, subject to any by-laws by local authorities and excluding street trading, the only limitation is that a child under twelve is not to be employed before six in the morning or after nine in the evening. As the Bill stands it says, with regard to children under twelve, that they are hot to be employed at all by anyone at any time. My right hon. Friend's Amendment is to the effect that a by-law may be made by a local authority, and if it is sanctioned by the Home Office the parents may employ children under twelve. I do not think there is any limitation of any sort or kind except that if the child is employed before nine in the morning that employment is not to be longer than one hour. I do not think my right hon. Friend really means that. Of course, we have to bear in mind the case of children

    833
    employed in school holidays—hop-picking, for example—by their parents. A child under twelve may be one of a family going hop-picking, and he cannot be left at home. Being in the field, it is reasonable that he should be employed, and I see no very great injury to its health, but rather a very great advantage in that. In the summer time children may also help in gathering in hay, in leading horses, and other work of that kind, and this Amendment of my right hon. Friend will take into account all those cases. It removes the restriction altogether on parent's employment, and to some extent I think there is a great deal to be said for it. But if it also incidentally has the effect of allowing on school days employment not only for one hour before school but also for three or four hours after school For children who, but for this Amendment, would not be allowed to be employed at all, I suggest to my right hon. Friend it is really going rather further than he intends. I am quite sure that the Home Office, when it has to consider bylaws proposed by local authorities, will take these matters into account. A Government Department is obliged to be governed to some extent in a dispute with a local authority by what is understood to be the intention of Parliament. A Court of Law must interpret an Act of Parliament strictly according to its letter, but a Government Department has a discretion, and not infrequently it is called upon to be guided, even by a Debate in the House when a Bill was passing through, indicating what was the intention of the House of Commons or the House of Lords, as the case may be. Therefore, I think, unless to some extent this Amendment is limited, either here or in another place—if possible it is preferable to do it here—I think it should be made quite clear that this House attaches very great importance to the strictest possible limitation of the employment of children, particularly before school hours.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to add the words,
    "and that if a child is so employed before nine in the morning he shall not be employed more than one hour in the afternoon."
    I gather that there is a general consensus of opinion in the House that this Clause, as my right hon. Friend has said, carries us a little further than we should like to
    834
    go. I am with him so far as the general sense of the House has been expressed, and am prepared to add, if the House thinks fit, those words to my Amendment. I will confess to the House that I had contemplated, in the first instance, adding the words which I now suggest, and I omitted them for the reason that I thought that it would be very difficult to see that the provision was carried out, but perhaps it would be better to have the provision in the Bill, and accordingly I suggest this addition to my Amendment.
    Mr. PETO: I would ask the President now to consider, as he has limited the total employment in the day to two hours, whether there is any reason whatever why the one hour in the morning should be exclusively employment by the parent. If we have got rid of the four hours' employment contemplated by the Bill, and have one hour in the morning, surely that one hour might be worked for somebody else nominally as well as actually.
    Mr. FISHER: I am afraid that I cannot accede to that request
    Sir F. BANBURY: I was unaware that the Amendment of my hon. Friend was not going to be seconded, else I would have seconded it. I cannot see the difference between a child being employed by its parents and by somebody else. If it is good for the child to be employed by the parent at something useful or learning a trade, it would be good for him to be employed by somebody else at learning a trade. On the other hand, if he is not going to assist his parents, it is equally good for the parents that he should be employed by somebody else. I can see no possible objection to leaving in these words. The only result of what is being done is that there will be considerable attempts to evade the law by parents saying that they are employing the children themselves while the child would be doing work for someone else. We ought to have some explanation of the great importance which the right hon. Gentleman attaches to the words "by their parents," and I would be much obliged if he would tell us the reasons that have weighed with him.
    Mr. FISHER: I think that I have fully explained the reasons.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: If the Amendment is accepted and added to the original Motion, it still leaves it possible for children under the age of twelve, those

    835
    between six and twelve, to work for more than two hours on Sunday—to work for a number of hours on Sunday, because, though the reference to Sunday was taken out of his Amendment, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will see, if he refers to the Bill, that he does not take the day of Sunday out of the scope of the Clause, and therefore it will be possible for children of six years and upwards to be employed on Sunday as well as to be employed in this modified form including one hour before breakfast, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not so amend this Amendment as to prohibit the labour of children on Sunday below a certain age because in this sense he is weakening the Employment of Children Act, 1903.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: As I understand, a parent will still be able to employ any child under twelve for four hours a week. Sunday has been removed. But I do not think that that is really what the House desires. The Bill as it stands would prohibit any child being employed at all below the age of twelve, but there are certain conditions which have been made in the case of parents. I do not think that the House desires by law to permit children over twelve to be worked by their parents for four hours every school evening. That is not prevented by my hon. Friend's Amendment to his Amendment because it makes the Amendment only apply to cases in which children are employed for an hour before school. That class of child is safeguarded with regard to evening work. However, the matter is very complicated and the drafting will require careful consideration, so I throw out this suggestion. I understand that the Bill is to be recommitted in respect or one Clause. The right hon. Gentleman might consider whether it would not be desirable to recommit it in respect of this Clause also, in order to get the matter quite right, or alternatively an Amendment on this point might be accepted in another place.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In Subsection (1), paragraph (iv), leave out the words "except as regards the City of London."
    After the word "means," insert the words "in the case of the City of London, the mayor, aldermen, and commons of that city, in common council assembled, and elsewhere."—[Mr. Fisher.]
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the President of the Board of Education how far he is going to-night, as we have made very good progress?
    Mr. FISHER: I hope to get through.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), at the end of paragraph (iii), "years," to insert,
    "(iv) A licence under Section three to take part in any entertainment or series of entertainments instead of being granted, varied, added to, or rescinded as provided by that Section snail be granted by the local education authority for the purposes of Part III. of the Education Act, 1902, of the area in which the child resides subject to such restrictions and conditions as are prescribed by rules made by the Board of Education, and may be rescinded by the authority of any area in which it takes effect or is about to take effect if the restrictions and conditions of the licence are not observed, and subject as aforesaid may be varied or added to by that authority at the request of the holder of the licence;
    (v) The holder of a licence shall at least seven days before a child takes part in any entertainment, or series of entertainments, furnish the local education authority of the area in which the entertainment is to take place with particulars of the licence and such other information as the Board of Education may by rules prescribe, and if he fails to furnish such particulars and information as aforesaid he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding five pounds;
    (vi) Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section three shall cease to apply with respect to licences to take part in an entertainment or series of entertainments;
    (vii) If the applicant for a licence or a person to whom a licence has been granted feels aggrieved by any decision of a local education authority he may appeal to the Board of Education who may thereupon exercise any of the powers conferred on a local education authority by this Section;
    (viii) The provisions of this Sub-section shall not apply to any licence in force on the appointed day."
    The Amendment appears to be a long one, but it is really very simple in character. It provides for what I may term a universal form of licence, applicable to performances in theatres, which shall be approved by the Board of Education, and which, once it has been approved and granted by the local education authority in which the child resides, will then be current, so to speak, throughout the country, unless certain things happen. The conditions are at the end of Sub-section

    837
    (4), where it says "it may be rescinded by the authority of any area in which it takes effect, or is about to take effect, if the restrictions and conditions of the licence are not observed, and subject as aforesaid may be varied or added to by that authority at the request of the holder of the licence." The House will see that once the form of licence has been settled by the Board of Education, the licence granted by the local education authority in the area in which the child resides will have effect wherever the child may be going to perform on the stage. The effect of that, so far as the operations of the present law is concerned, is one of some importance, and very greatly in the interests of the children. Any local education authority may object to the children performing, and may make their own conditions, and the practical result, by the law as it stands, is that it involves usually a weekly attendance by the child at the local Police Court with the person who is responsible for the child.
    Mr. FISHER: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member, but I propose to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. PETO: I accept the hon. Gentleman's remark, but I thought it was desirable to explain the purport of this Amendment, which, though it may look formidable, is simple in its object, and one which it is desirable to adopt, while it is very important in regard to the education of the children for the stage profession.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), at the end of paragraph (iv), to insert the words, "Provided that Subsections (ii) and (iii) shall not apply in the case of licences granted in respect of children to perform on the stage."
    I greatly regret that I have again to occupy the time of the House owing to the unfortunate absence, through illness, of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson). This Amendment which I move is absolutely vital to the proper training of children for the theatrical profession. The Bill as it stands proposes to raise the age at which the training can commence from the age of ten to the age of twelve. Hon. Members have many of them received a copy of a document signed by Mr. H. B. Irving, President of the Actors' Association, who sets out the reasons in the clearest and most precise form why it is absolutely essential, if we are to give
    838
    to poor children with theatrical talent, wherever they may be found, the opportunity of being properly trained and brought out, and to make the best use of their training, it should commence at the age of ten. There are only two reasons I need allude to at all. One is that after the age of twelve, almost immediately, both boys and girls begin to change from the stage of first childhood. The boy's voice very soon after begins to break, and the children become self-conscious, and, as a rule, cease to be really little children. They are not, therefore, suitable to play the part of very little children, or, what is really much more important, they are not amenable to training in the same way as children of ten years of age.
    In our elementary schools we commence to teach the children at the age of five. The theatrical profession is certainly one of the most difficult, which requires the greatest amount of talent where it can be found, and the most specialised training; and surely it is not too much to ask that children who have not had the opportunities and advantages of richer children with special training under the special care of nurses and even of governesses and the like, should have the chance of developing, where they can be taken to special surroundings where their elocution, their language, their accents, and other matters can be specially attended to and where they can be trained so as to be equal to taking, when the time comes, important parts in the great drama which we hope will be performed on the stage in the future. The other argument is this: If we are to recognise that the theatre is one of the great educational factors in teaching the nation as a whole, if we are to make it possible to go back to the great traditions of the past, we must have an exhaustive training, not training in an ordinary elementary school in a class of forty other children, but under the special guidance and tuition of people competent to teach in small classes in no case exceeding twelve and very often limited to two or three, where the whole of the talent of the child is brought out in the most thorough manner possible. This is supposed to be an Education Bill, and if among its provisions it is to have one definite provision which makes it difficult to give adequate training to any child of humble parents for the theatrical profession, I think it will be doing a very bad turn to the cause of

    839
    education as a whole. We have not got as they have in Continental countries, such as France, great institutions, State-aided, for the development of the theatre and for the training of actors and actresses. At least I ask the President to make it possible to leave it to those actors who are still giving their attention to great performances, wherever they can get the public to take the slightest interest in them, and to the training of the youth of the present to be the actors and actresses of the future—at least I ask the President to give them a hearing and a chance to give a thorough education to those children who are worthy of selection for this great profession.
    Mr. DENNISS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) has enlarged upon the necessity for the dramatic training of young children of the ages of ten and eleven, and I take very little exception to anything which he has said upon that score. I think everybody agrees that every perfect system of education ought to contain artistic training. Increasing attention is being paid to the artistic and to the dramatic side of education, and there is nothing in this Bill which will in any way prevent the artistic and dramatic education of children specially gifted for the stage. But when the hon. Member goes on further, and says that unless you allow a child to go upon the stage at the tender age of ten or eleven you will cut off the stream of dramatic talent at its source, I cannot help reflecting upon the fact that a very distinguished actor who has circularised me upon this subject, a contemporary of my own, and a man of public school and Oxford education, has not found that the absence of an early performance has in any way dimmed the lustre of his dramatic talent. The question of dramatic training is one thing. I think we all agree that children of special dramatic talent should have opportunities for specialised training in addition to their general education, but it is one thing to provide for the specialised training, and it is another thing to ask or to permit children of this tender age to perform upon the stage, and it appears to me to be very difficult for the Government to say that the employment of children under the age of twelve is not beneficial, except it be
    840
    employment by parents, and at the same time and in the same Bill, and by a special exception, to legalise the employment of children of the age of ten and eleven on the stage. We are not legislating for the London theatre only. We are not legislating only for children who are going to play the plays of Shakespeare or are going to act the great masterpieces of English drama. We are legislating for screaming farce, for bloodthirsty and blood-curdling melodrama, we are legislating for the circus, the pantomime, the travelling company, and the music hall, and if we survey the whole field of public entertainment—because that is what we are invited to do—and if we ask ourselves, "Is it or is it not desirable that children of this tender age should be allowed to take part in these entertainments and to stay up to a late hour at night?" I say that the answer must inevitably be in the negative. But while I am unable, for these reasons, to accept this Amendment, I am quite prepared to accept the substance of the Amendment which stands next on the Paper.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has taken the view he has taken upon this subject. It seems to me it would not have passed the wit of the Board of Education to have devised some scheme under which it was unnecessary to confuse the higher interests of the drama with the lower interests of the circus. It does not seem to me to be necessary to confuse the issue, which is a very important one, where practically the whole of the heads of the theatrical profession in this country are prepared with elaborate schemes of education, and to put off the House of Commons with the suggestion that we are merely legislating for the whole entertainments throughout the country, good, bad, and indifferent. I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman, who holds liberal views upon the question of education, feels it so necessary to stereotype education and to keep out of all sorts of exceptions. At one moment he says that he wants to encourage all sorts of artistic development; at another moment he puts a heavy heel upon it. The fact of the matter is, a number of intelligent people, including gentlemen who have had the advantage of public school and university education, really do not come within the scope of the argument at all, for you are not merely dealing with people who have had those advantages, but people who have not.

    841
    When you refuse this to the poor children until such age as their actions become stereotyped, and it is perfectly impossible to train them for leading parts at all, they do not come in the same category as people who have had the advantage of public school and university education.
    I think we have a way of greatly underrating the talent and ability of people on the stage in this country. Take people like Sir Johnston Forbes-Robertson, Mr. Maurier, and Mr. Irving, who have a position on the stage of this country which would be unusually high in, any country of Europe. I do not think in any country of Europe the actors take such high position and command such universal respect in the matter of the education of the young as they do in this country. They are willing almost to take any scheme the Board of Education are prepared to put forward. I will not weary the President by giving cases now, because I know he has had them, but there are cases where boys and girls have derived the greatest advantage from stage training. The President talks about touring companies. He knows perfectly well in many cases that young children who get their living and help parents considerably, apart from laying up a considerable store for themselves, have been in the provinces accompanied by first-rate governesses, who have looked after them, educated them, and taken them round our great manufacturing towns, and have really been assisting in their education by their wanderings from one town to another.
    It is all a question of organisation and management, and it seems to me the Board of Education at this moment is simply shying from a thing which wants a little thinking out, and saying, as the President told us in Committee, that it would be difficult to make an exception in favour of theatrical children. It has been pointed out that the exception always has been made. It is made in practically every other country. In other countries they do recognise the stage in a way we have never recognised it, and yet in this country you have a stage, certainly in London—I do not say the War has very much improved it—struggling against very considerable adversities without any State support at all, doing extraordinarily creditable work. I do speak, and all who are taking this line speak, on behalf of all the leaders of the stage in this country, and all the best of the provincial managers, and the men
    842
    who have spent their whole lives upon the subject, and we have interviewed them—and I believe the Press has, too—and I pressed them strongly on the question, as to whether it really meant a great difference between ten and twelve, and I am convinced they do think it makes a very great difference. They say that children are more receptive at ten; after that their accents become more stereotyped. You cannot get away from that fault in this country, or in others, and although we cannot always follow the licences, there are very great difficulties in getting the poorer children the same advantages as the public schoolboy or the university candidate, even for the stage. It is not that these people look easily upon their own profession, but they are mixed up with it, and, having seen it, approach it as a new profession. Mr. Cyril Maude is a public schoolboy. What he and others, with no prejudice in the matter, say, is that if you are going to give any chance to the poor children you have to take them very young indeed. There is also this—Sir Johnston Forbes-Robertson, with others, have pointed it out, that, after twelve years of age, the children develop a condition of self-conscienceness which makes it extremely difficult for them to give really first-class work. Thus you have a number of cases where the rules that the Board of Education are now making are going to render the production of really popular plays of the kind indicated extremely difficult.
    There is the "Blue Bird." I do not know how many performances have been given of that, but one knows to a certain extent the history of the boy who played in it. There is "Peter Pan" and other famous plays of that character, and there is melodrama against which my right hon. Friend has raised a satirical eyebrow. There is the immortal case of "Little Willie" in the well-known melodrama, and there are many cases in which melodramatic plays have done no harm, but a great deal of good, and have delighted thousands of people in this country. You will make these perfectly impossible or ridiculous to be put on the stage. Of course, you can get some fat developed person to play a child's part. In pantomime it is sometimes done with the most comic effect, but such a proceeding would not be very good for the drama or helpful artistically. I do think, in these cases, the right hon. Gentleman

    843
    might consider how the children have really been affected in the past or how they are affected now. If the Board of Education really had taken this thing in hand these rules might have been more elastic. There are not very many children concerned. If the Board makes their rules stringent enough, will you keep the children out of undesirable entertainments? You will keep them out of the beautiful plays of Shakespeare and other like plays, which are a great education to them. In this case, I think, the President has been led away by the idea that if he gave way upon this he might have to give way upon matters which he has already surmounted on the Committee stage. This is a matter in which he might make the concession asked for, and let those who have given years and years to the study of children point out how it works. I quite appreciate that he is going to make some concession in giving two and a half years, I think, before the "appointed" day comes in. That only deals with the hard cases of the children who have already begun their education. Although that is better than nothing, it does not touch the point on which I am appealing. I do indeed urge upon Members of the House who feel strongly upon this matter and who realise that this concession might be made without the slightest harm, and that in doing so we might do something to redeem our artistic credit in this country—I do urge them to appeal to the President in this matter to give way to what I believe to be the real sense of the House and of the country and for once to make some concession to the artistic prejudices of the leaders of the theatrical profession.
    Captain CARR-GOMM: I desire to support what has just been said by the last speaker. The more you specialise in regard to the education you are going to give to the child the more interesting it becomes. Here you have under the arrangements made by all the authorities concerned for these very young children a system which has proved itself thoroughly interesting and engrossing to the child. If these children are not allowed to take part in this enlightening profession they will be devoting all their time to mere routine subjects. Here the child is taken very young and it finds itself associated with very interesting work. The London County Council have now found that the more they specialise in certain departments of
    844
    education the more successful it is. I would like to refer to one of the circulars sent round by Mr. Irving. The hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Hemmerde) urged the Board of Education to devise some scheme by which these few children could have education and at the same time continue the system under which they work under existing contracts. Mr. Irving said that the theatrical profession was prepared to place itself entirely under the Board of Education with regard to the licensing of children on the condition that they gave power to instruct them in elementary education. It would not invalidate the general principle on which this Bill is founded if we were to meet the demands of this profession, which has such an educating influence for these few children.
    Colonel GRETTON: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give this matter a little more consideration? It cannot be contended that an occasional entertainment in an elementary school can be considered to be dramatic training.
    Mr. FISHER: That is not my argument, which was that I saw nothing in the Bill to prevent specialised training. What I spoke of was performances for profit.
    Colonel GRETTON: The theatrical profession know what they are talking about, and they are convinced that public appearances on the stage are an essential part of training for the theatre, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman should override the universal experience of those whose business it is to deal with these matters on on the stage. I was very much struck by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman did not introduce any serious reasons why this dramatic training should not take place. He says that he does not object to the training but to the appearance, but on this point his argument falls to the ground. The stage has always been an exception in these cases, and the dramatic profession has made really handsome offers to the Government to undertake that the children engaged shall not suffer in the ordinary course of their education in any way. They are prepared to submit to any kind of restrictions and limitations regarding the ordinary education of the child that the Board of Education may wish to impose. I submit that this is a case where the right hon. Gentleman might have made a concession.

    845
    The profession have put their case before the House in the most moderate way, and they assure us that there is all the difference in the world between the age of ten and twelve. With regard to the appearance of the child in public, and the objection to a child appearing for profit, I would point out that the parents of a poor child cannot afford an expensive training, and, if the child can earn a little by appearing in public, it ensures the continuance of its dramatic training. Dramatic talent is not confined to those who attend the public schools or universities. It is to be found elsewhere, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not shut out from the stage the children of parents who cannot afford an expensive training. It is not a form of cheap labour. Actors and managers assure us that a child who is competent and who has had sane training is adequately paid, and, owing to the restrictions that are imposed with regard to education, to all the formalities, and to the governesses which have to be provided in the case of travelling companies, it is a very expensive form of labour. It cannot be called cheap or sweated labour. On these grounds, I submit that the arguments which have been addressed to the House by the right hon. Gentleman are not sound, and I would appeal to him not to persist in the attitude that he has taken up on this question.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has not quite made up his mind that he will not give any consideration to the Amendment before the House. I do not know that I am specially interested in theatricals, but I do say that if a boy or a girl wishes to go upon the stage the right hon. Gentleman has no right to stand in the way of that boy or girl making his or her way in the world. Last week-end I had a talk with one of the oldest theatrical managers in the country, and he suggested that if a boy or girl of eleven years of age could pass an examination in Standard VI. subjects, the Board of Education should not stand in the way of that child making its way in the world upon the stage. I suggest that he might make an educational test whether a boy or girl shall be allowed to appear upon the stage. Can he prevent a boy or girl appearing in private theatricals without any pay at all? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If he cannot, what is the difference?
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: There is a great deal of difference!
    Mr. WILSON: What is the difference between appearing in private theatricals and on the stage and being paid for it? If there is no difference, then the right hon. Gentleman ought to accept the Amendment. I am afraid that not only the right hon. Gentleman but other Members of this House are becoming obsessed with regard to educational questions. They are giving no consideration, shall I say, to the economic position of some of these children. If the right hon. Gentleman had made this a test question at an election, he would not have got hits Bill through; therefore, wherever he can make a concession without sacrificing the principle of the Bill he ought to do so. How many boys and girls are going to be affected by this concession? Very few indeed. I am not prejudiced in this matter, but I believe that if a boy or girl shows any special aptitude for any profession—I do not care what it is—the right hon. Gentleman ought to put a Clause in the Bill which will permit these boys and girls to develop their abilities. Suppose a boy or girl of eleven years of age saw a girl drowning at ten o'clock at night, and, if he or she could swim, is not that child to exercise what skill it possesses to rescue the drowning girl—it might be a baby—or has that child first to obtain the assent of the licensing authorities before it can go into the river or canal? For goodness' sake let us have a little common sense. We have not much common sense in connection with education at the present time. A concession of this kind ought to be made. There is no sacrifice of principle with regard to child labour in accepting it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman even now will recognise that he will not in any way damage the Bill, but will be meeting the views of some—they are not a great number—who are interested in the children receiving an education which will fit them to earn their living in after life.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: I have listened with close attention to the whole of this Debate, and I must admit that the arguments in favour of this Amendment have been advanced with great force, ingenuity, and skill, but, for my part, they leave me quite unconvinced. I thought that the speech of the President of the Board of Education was quite conclusive on the point. He either followed or forestalled all the arguments that could be advanced in favour of a special concession in this

    847
    case. The hon. Member for the Westhoughton Division (Mr. T. Wilson) said that in all these matters we should have regard to the economic position of the children.
    Mr. T. WILSON: Not always!
    Mr. SAMUEL: I quoted his words. He said that wherever a concession could be made it was advisable to make it.
    Mr. WILSON: I said that without in any way injuring the principle of the Bill the concession ought to be made.
    Mr. SAMUEL: But are you not injuring the central principle of the Bill? I understood my hon. Friend's position was that a child was a potential wage-earner, that it is a very good thing for his parents that he should be able to earn something, that the child is better off in the long run through earning money, and so forth. If we accept that principle, then all children ought to be allowed to earn money and improve their position.
    Mr. WILSON: I must protest against the right hon. Gentleman misrepresenting what I said. I said that if a child showed a special aptitude for any profession.
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is a qualification. I do not know how far that could be said to carry us.
    Mr. WILSON: I used the words "special aptitude."
    Mr. SAMUEL: I think the other portions of the hon. Member's speech had some other application. The last thing I wish to do is to put into my hon. Friend's mouth words which he would be the first to disavow. I quite accept the hon. Member's position as he states it. If the child has a special aptitude for a profession, let it get trained for that profession. We would all desire that, but do not let it be turned into wage-earning at the age of ten years. It is said by hon. Members there are very few children concerned, as though that is an argument in its favour. They assert the child will get great advantages in view of its future career by being allowed to perform on the stage in its tender years. Why do they adopt this apologetic attitude of saying there are very few such cases? Should they not rather express their sorrow there are so very few: should they not wish there were millions to whom this early training would be so advantageous? I rather think that argument vitiates their ease. If it be proposed to prevent children
    848
    going on the stage until they are sixteen years of age complaint might be made that it would not be possible to train their special aptitude for a theatrical career. But that is not proposed. The Bill does not even propose to exclude children from the stage at the age of thirteen or twelve. The sole point at issue is whether little children of the age of ten or eleven are to be allowed not merely to get theatrical training—not merely to be taught dancing, singing or voice production, but are to perform as members of a theatrical company for profit. It seems to me that the right place for such a child is school in the daytime and bed at night-time.
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman's argument leaves me quite cold. I had hoped he would have had stronger arguments to put forward, for although I am in favour of the Amendment, I see it is open to strong criticism. Both the right hon. Gentlemen (Mr. H. Samuel) and the President have omitted to bear in mind the fact that these children before they can perform must be licensed. The President, speaking on a previous Amendment, placed great reliance on the fact that by-laws were to be made by the local authorities, and I would venture to place equal reliance on the common sense of these licensing authorities, which are similar to the bodies deputed to make the by-laws related to the previous Amendments. These children are not to be invited day in and day out to perform any class of stage play and to make it their profession entirely. The Amendment merely ensures that under special circumstances, and certainly having regard to the class of play which the child is invited to appear in, the authorities may issue a licence to the child, and I believe it would be a great mistake in the interests of the drama, as well as of the child and its parents, if we were to make it impossible for the licensing authorities to say, in a special case, that until the child reaches the age of twelve it must not take any part in the profession. If we look back among the brightest stars in the theatrical firmament for generations, and even centuries past, we shall see that they imbibed their earliest training at a very tender age indeed. When in those rare cases you find genius, I should be sorry indeed to think it has been stamped out by a Section in any Education Act which received the approval of this House. I was very much struck by the words of

    849
    the hon. Member below the gangway. He has a right to speak on behalf of the labouring classes, and I am sure he would be the first to realise the cogency of the argument used by my hon. and learned Friend opposite as to the difficulty of finding children born of working-class parents who can hold their own with those who have had better education in the great competition of the stage. That is probably one of the most cogent arguments which have been used, because the first thing an actor or actress has to learn is to speak the English language as it is understood by well-educated ladies and gentlemen, and you can only give that opportunity to the sons and daughters of working-class parents by training them at a very tender age. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late stage, to reconsider his decision. The stage has always been treated differently from other professions, and always must be, and I feel that by refusing the principle of this Amendment—I do not think it is too happily worded—the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides is stamping upon the profession and rendering it impossible for young children to acquire that knowledge and that training in the profession in which they can seldom succeed unless that training and knowledge are acquired at a tender age.
    Mr. FISHER: We have been told that unless children are trained for the stage at the early age of ten there is no hope of their achieving success. A very little time ago, I was in an elementary school in a very poor district of London and a little girl about the age of eleven recited one of the favourite pieces of Shakespeare with an absolutely pure accent and with the greatest possible beauty of expression and gesture. At the same time I am prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Hemmerde), which will postpone for two years and six months the operation of this Clause and I am prepared to prolong that period to three years, during which period we shall have had some experience of the new system of licensing, but I am not prepared at this moment to concede the main principle which is embodied in the Amendment.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: Will you make it five years?
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: That does not seem to me and those who take the same view on the subject to meet the case we are now considering.
    Mr. FISHER: The offer is withdrawn.
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: I am very glad that it is withdrawn. I think the effect of its being withdrawn is that this House will decide that it is not going to be overridden in the manner the President of the Board of Education is taking up in these matters. One of the most remarkable things in connection with this Bill is that the party to which I belong has been constantly compelled to intervene to endeavour to preserve the liberties of classes with which they are not usually associated. We have endeavoured throughout this Bill to preserve the liberties of the poorer classes. We are not standing up in defence of the class to which most of us belong, and in these circumstances I do beg the House to consider this question very closely indeed. What we are trying to do is to preserve the rights of the children of the poorer classes, whom the experts of the theatrical profession—and it is those men we have to consider in this matter—claim will be lost to them for ever if we are not ready to pursue the policy these experts recommend. These experts are quite prepared to adopt any safeguards necessary to ensure the proper care and proper education of these children. That is a very fair offer, and to dismiss it, as the President of the Board of Education has done, is not a proper way of meeting it. No one doubts the great authority possessed by the President of the Board of Education as an educational authority, but he is not an authority upon questions connected with the stage, and on these great questions of artistic education, I think it is playing with this House to tell us that the artistic faculties of these children are going to be developed by the ordinary teacher of the elementary schools. To put up such a case against the opinion of the great leaders of the stage—to whom quite a deserved tribute has been paid this evening—is really asking us to be persuaded by the most childish argument. I put it to this House this evening, what we are asking it to do by this Amendment, is to give these children who have special artistic gifts, which are extremely rare, which are not possessed by the thousands of children to which my right hon. Friend opposite referred, what we are asking is that opportunity should be given to those children possessing those very rare and very special gifts the chance of developing them in the manner which the experts of the theatrical

    851
    profession believe to be the only way. That is a very simple issue. I do not desire that the education of these children should be neglected in the least, but we do ask that the President of the Board of Education should be persuaded in this matter by those who know best what they are talking about. If it goes to a Division, I shall support the Amendment most heartily.
    Sir J. SPEAR: In the first place, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to the attitude he has taken up. With due respect to the eloquent speeches that have been made to-night, if he makes a concession in favour of children on the stage he will cause great offence indeed to a large number of people in this country. It would be presumption for me to say much about the morality or what-not of the stage, but it is an awful place for a child of ten years to be. With great respect, I speak for a large number of Nonconformists. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] We are entitled to make our views heard, and I do say, with humility, yet with confidence, that if the right hon. Gentleman gives way on this point he will offend a very large number of people who are hearty supporters of his Bill.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I had not the advantage of hearing the earlier portion of the discussion, but I listened with great interest to the later stage. I gather that my right hon. Friend, in deference to the opinions which have been expressed outside and also in this House, did accept the long Amendment of the hon. Member which makes an exception for the children who are employed in theatres, and stated that he had no intention of withholding from such children the provisions which are provided for in that Amendment. In making that concession the right hon. Gentleman has put the stage children in a special position. But stage children are not the only children for whom a special case has been made out in the discussions in this House. A special case has been made out for children in rural areas, whose knowledge of rural life must be acquired as early as the capacity of acting on the stage. But in this matter of making special provision for stage children my right hon. Friend was prepared to go further and accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk postponing the operation of the Bill
    852
    practically for a period of two and a half years after the date of the passing of the Act. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would go further than that, and make it three years, and he hoped by that means to have given the country time to make a test of the licensing system. I have no doubt that the theatrical profession would accustom itself to the new conditions in that time. In making the concession of three years I do not think that my right hon. Friend is going too far, and I regret that he appeared to withdraw the concession which he had promised. If the period of three years were given we might come to a general agreement, and avoid any sign of that friction which happily has been absent from the whole of to-day's discussion.
    Mr. FISHER: I am quite willing to renew my promise to the hon. Member, and to make the period three years. I think really that the House has hardly done me justice in the matter. I have been at great pains to put myself in communication with the theatrical profession and to ascertain their views, and I have gone very carefully into the question of licensing, and I have come to the conclusion that I can grant the scheme of licences to which he referred, and I have also made a special arrangement as to exempting theatrical children over the age of twelve. The only point I have differed from my theatrical friends is in respect of the children under twelve, and here I am ready to go as far as I can in the direction of developing opportunities for dramatic training. The only point on which I have differed is as to the actual age in which they are to take part in theatrical performances
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: I have an Amendment on the Paper, providing that the operation of paragraphs (ii) and (iii) shall, as regards children employed on the stage, be postponed until after the expiration of two years and six months from the date of the passing of this Act. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes that it should be moved later.
    Mr. FISHER: I should be obliged if my hon. and learned Friend would move this a little later in the Bill, when we come to the "appointed day," and I suggest that the Amendment might be

    853
    moved in this form—"Shall not be earlier than three years after the passing of this Act." It would come more conveniently then, after the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: I see no objection to that, but I would suggest that it would make it a good deal easier if he could give it another year; otherwise I shall certainly move it later.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Penalties on Illegal Employment of Children and Young Per ions.)
    If any person—

    (a) employs a child in such a manner as to prevent the child from attending school according to the Education Acts and the by-laws in force in the district in which the child resides; or

    (b) having received notice of any prohibition or restriction as to the employment of a child issued by a local education authority under this Act, employs a child in such a manner as to contravene the prohibition or restriction; or

    (c) employs a young person in such a manner as to prevent the young person attending a continuation school which he is required to attend under this Act; or

    (d) employs a young person at any time when, in pursuance of any requirement under this Act issued by a local education authority, the employment of that young person must be suspended;

    he shall be deemed to have employed the child or young person in contravention of the Employment of Children Act, 1903, and Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section five and Section six and Section eight of that Act shall apply accordingly as if they were herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to young persons as well as to children.
    Amendment made: Leave out the words "young persons as well as to children," and insert instead thereof the words "children and young persons within the meaning of this Act, as well as to children within the meaning of that Act."—[Mr. Fisher.]

    CLAUSE 17.—(Power to Promote Social and Physical Training.)
    For the purpose of supplementing and reinforcing the instruction and social and physical training provided by the public system of education, and without prejudice to any other powers, a local education authority for the purposes of Part III, of the Education Act, 1902, as respects children attending public elementary schools, and a local education authority for the purposes of Part II. of that Act as respects other children and young persons or persons over the age of eighteen attending educational institutions, may, with the approval of the Board of Education, make arrangements to supply or maintain or aid the supply or maintenance of—
    854

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

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

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

    Amendment made: Leave out the word "or" ["or persons over the age"], and insert instead thereof the word "and."—[Mr. Fisher.]

    CLAUSE 19.—(Nursery Schools.)
    (1) The powers of local education authorities for the purposes of Part III. of the Education Act, 1902, shall include power to make arrangements for—

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

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

    (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of any Act of Parliament the Board of Education may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, pay Grants in aid of nursery schools, provided that such Grants shall not be paid in respect of any such school unless it is open to inspection by the local education authority and unless that authority are enabled to appoint representatives on the body of managers to the extent of at least one-third of the total number of managers, and before recognising any nursery school the Board shall consult the local education authority.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, after the word "schools" ["supply of nursery schools"], to insert the words "which expression shall include nursery classes."
    By means of this Amendment the point as to whether nursery schools are included is made quite clear fy the introduction of the words "nursery classes," and that meets the view which I have in view, and which the right hon. Gentleman has in view.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 23.—(Power to Aid Research.)
    With a view to promoting the efficiency of teaching and advanced study, a local education authority for the purposes of Part II. of the Education Act, 1902, may aid teachers and students to carry on any investigation for the advancement of learning or research in or in connection with an educational institution, and with that object may aid educational institutions.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, after the word "investigation," to insert the words "not being an investigation under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876.'"
    Sir H. HIBBERT: I have an Amendment earlier.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Where is it?
    Sir H. HIBBERT: I handed it in.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have no such Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The Clause gives power to the local education authority for any teachers and students to carry on any investigation for the advance of learning or research in or in connection with an educational institution, and with that object may aid educational institutions. These words are rather vague, and indistinct, and may be construed to include any kind of research, and, therefore, I desire to put in, after "investigation," these words, "not being an investigation under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876." I desire to nut those words in for this reason. I do not want here to enter into any discussion as to whether experiments prohibited under that Act were right or wrong, but I want to point out that there are a large number of people who hold that the experiments dealt with in that Act should not be conducted by moneys derived from the ratepayer or the taxpayer, as the case may be, and who strongly object to this expenditure. If private people choose to enter into experiments of that sort, always subject, of course, to the directions and limitations of that Act, that is another matter. On that I do not wish to raise any discussion to-night, but I do think that it is not right—I am glad the Leader of the House has come in to hear this—that people should be compelled to contribute their money to the support of education, and, at the same time, that moneys so provided should be taken to promote experiments, to which some of the people have strong objection, it is quite outside the scope of the Bill to enable local authorities to give money for the advancement of experiments in any research, and it is not really necessary for the education of young children, or even young persons, that that should be done. It may be a very good thing that certain people should carry on research in these matters, and it may be right for people who believe in it to
    856
    assist them to do so, but I believe it to be wrong to take public money which ratepayers are compelled to give in order to advance these experiments. I really hope that the President of the Board of Education will accept this Amendment. As I have already said, its acceptance will not in any way interfere with the cause of education, but it would be an act of justice, acceptable to a large number of people, that their money should not be used and that they should not be forced to subscribe their money to purposes to which they have an objection.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned." We have made very considerable progress, such progress as no one expected to make, and I think my right hon. Friend would make a great mistake at this time of night, to ask us to consider one or two very important Clauses which have yet to be reached.
    Mr. FISHER: I hope the House will allow, at any rate, Clause 25 to be reached.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I ask what business will be taken to-morrow, as so much progress has been made with the Bill to-night, and whether my right hon. Friend will continue the Education Bill to-morrow rather than go on with it to a late hour this evening? As far as we are concerned, we shall be prepared to reach Clause 25, but I think it will meet the general convenience of the House that we shall not go further.
    Mr. FISHER: I merely wish to get to Clause 25 formally.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In regard to business to-morrow, we shall continue the remaining stages of this Bill, and if time permit we shall also take the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill, Committee, and the War Loan Bill, Committee. On Wednesday, which was set aside for this Bill, we propose to take the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill and other small Bills.
    Motion, "That the Debate be now adjourned," by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir GEORGE GREENWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I myself moved an Amendment to this effect on the Committee stage, but I think I need not apologise for raising this question again, for two reasons. One is that

    857
    some of us feel very strongly upon the question, and the other is that the wording of the Clause has been materially altered in Committee. The Clause as it originally stood was,
    "With a view to promoting the efficiency of teaching and advanced study a local education Authority for the purposes of Part II. of the Education Act, 1902, may aid teachers and students to carry on research."
    That has been materially altered, because on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Larmor) words were put in, and the Clause now stands that the local education authority
    "may aid teachers and students to carry on any investigation for the advancement of learning or research in, or in connection with, an educational institution."
    I read that in this way: that "any investigation" applies to the word "research" just as much as it applies to the advancement of learning. So that, under the Clause as it stands, the local education authority could not give money to an educational institution for research simply, but only to aid teachers and students to carry on any investigation for the advancement of research, and that research, of course, might include research by means of experiments upon living animals. The President of the Board of Education said in Committee that "research" was a very innocent word, but my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge pointed out that it had "come to have a meaning which makes one rather creep." I think that was a mistake in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and that it was "which makes one's flesh rather creep," and it certainly is a word which does make my flesh rather creep. I know there is a certain section of the community which has fixed to the word "research" a special meaning, namely, that it is research by means of experiment upon living animals. We know there is a society for the defence of research. Research in this country needs no defence. We are all for research, but this particular society was simply for the advancement of research by experiment upon living animals. In the same way the Home Office, before granting a certificate under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, used to consult, and was guided by, an association for the advancement of medicine by research. That was simply research by experiments upon living animals. Under Section 16 of the National Insurance Act the Commissioners may
    858
    retain the whole or any part of moneys provided by Parliament for sanatorium benefit for the purposes of research. We had Amendments to that Clause, but they were never reached owing to the guillotine closure, and the result is now that a very large portion—upwards of £60,000—of moneys intended by Parliament primarily for sanatorium benefit may be applied, and is applied, for the purposes of research, namely, research by means of experiments upon living animals. We have, therefore, already, out of the taxpayers' money, State endowment for experiments on living animals. I am not now arguing as to whether what is commonly called vivisection is right or wrong, but we have felt it an enormous injustice that the cost of these experiments should be placed upon the taxpayers generally, because under that Clause we have had—I do not say whether rightly or wrongly—extremely painful experiments on animals. For instance, there was an experiment reported in the "Quarterly Journal of Experimental Physiology"—I am not going to delay the House over this matter, but only put it forward as an illustration of endowment out of public funds—on a large number, eighty dogs and cats. They had their thyroid glands and parathyroid glands cut out, and the sciatic nerve severed; the effect was watched to see how long it was before the animals died, or had to be destroyed. That is research! We desire to guard against the further extension of this sort of State endowment under the cover of education. I am not arguing the general question of vivisection, but confining myself to painful experiments upon living animals. I am one of those—I do not hesitate to say it!—who think that it is morally unjustifiable to experiment upon animals in this manner if you expose them to serious pain or torture. I myself have never heard the principle upon which it can be justified. I have heard it said that you can do anything for the sake of the acquisition of knowledge. That is to me a very curious basis of ethics upon which to argue. I do not think it will for a moment stand investigation. If you are justified in doing anything to acquire knowledge in this matter,
    "The proper study of mankind is man!"
    We are told that it is not allowable to vivisect men; therefore the principle that the acquisition of knowledge justifies everything goes at once by the board.
    Apart altogether from the question as to whether these experiments are right or

    859
    wrong, I do think that the House would assent to two propositions—first, to see that these experiments should not be put upon public funds; and, secondly, that these experiments should not form any part of the higher education of students or any part of the functions of the teachers. That this may be so under this Clause has been admitted by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University, who wants this particular form of research to be included in the Education Bill. Thereore it is a very real danger against which we are protesting. It is not an imaginary danger. Now that the Clause has been altered as it has been, so that money can only be given by the local education authority in the case of any special investigation for the advancement of learning or research, I do think that the President might accept this Amendment. I have handed to the right hon. Gentleman another Amendment simply to omit the words "or research." If he cannot accept the first, I do hope he will see his way to accept the second Amendment. It surely is enough in the Education Bill to say that the local authority may pay for the purpose of the higher education of students or teachers for any investigation for the advancement of learning, without bringing in this troublesome word "research," to which we have so much objection, and which, rightly or wrongly, does give an opening for things to be done which we think are morally unjustifiable.
    Mr. FISHER: Everyone will realise the very deep interest that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has in this subject of painful experiments on animals. I am afraid, however, that I cannot see my way to accepting his Amendment, and for this reason: if I were to do so, it would raise doubts whether a local education authority could aid a university, and if that were doubtful it would very seriously damage—
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Do not the last words of the Clause make that quite clear?
    Mr. FISHER: "And with that object may aid educational institutions." Universities possess medical departments, and in those medical departments these experiments are carried on under the safeguards provided by the department. Without going into the question, I think that a fatal objection to the right hon.
    860
    Gentleman's Amendment is that it involves in doubt the question whether an education authority can aid these universities.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: May I express my bitter disappointment at the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given. This Amendment is one which appeals to the deepest convictions of some of us. There is a large body of opinion outside this House which disbelieves entirely in the utility of this work and in its educational value. It is a matter upon which the medical profession itself is divided. It is therefore not at all a proper subject of education by a public authority at all, and to put your hands into the public purse in order to advance so-called knowledge whose value when acquired is very much disputed is to my mind a public outrage, and I very strongly protest against it. The right hon. Gentleman objects that it would make it doubtful whether the universities could be supported out of public funds. Surely the last words of this Clause make that perfectly clear. All we ask is that students should not have paid to them money to enable them to perform these particular experiments. Under the Cruelty to Animals Act experiments must not be performed at lectures for the purpose of teaching. Unless this Amendment is accepted students will be subsidised for the purposes of these experiments which are not allowed to be performed at the lectures which they are supposed to attend. There is another point. How many students at these continuation classes are likely to be selecting professions at that early age? Continuation education is only carried on up to the age of eighteen. I am bitterly disappointed at the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, and although I was not present during the previous Debate, I thought he would have looked with more favour on the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I can assure him that the refusal to rule out this despicable, cruel and immoral form of education is one that will create a very strong feeling.
    Sir W. COLLINS: This is not the occasion nor is the House in the humour to discuss the relative advantages or disadvantages of experiments on living animals for scientific purposes. I happen to have been a member of the Royal Commission which investigated this subject some years ago, and if the Government had paid more attention to the findings of that Commission it might have saved some of

    861
    the criticisms in which the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir G. Greenwood) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) from time to time indulge. As regards this particular matter the President of the Board of Education was hardly right in thinking that even if the Amendment were accepted it would deprive local authorities of the power of making Grants to universities in which experiments on living animals take place. The London County Council makes Grants to the University of London, and even to the physiological laboratory, and these institutions are licensed for experiments on living animals. I do not gather that there is anything in this Clause which will modify that power under Part 2 of the Education Act, 1902.
    The Clause has undergone considerable change, and we have introduced words putting in "for the advancement of learning" alongside the word research. I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Larmor) that the word "research" has fallen upon evil times and has lost a good deal of the reputation it once had, and I am not sure that if the words "or research in or" were entirely removed from the Clause that might not meet some of the objections which have been raised. If it were merely investigation for the advancement of learning without the alternative of "research," I think many of the objections would be met. In some universities they require candidates for the doctorate to produce a thesis in the nature of some research in which they had taken part in lieu of examination. That is the practice in some American Universities, and in this country, and I am afraid that some of the products under the name of research are not for the advancement of learning. A distinguished American professor once said that many of these theses were "superlatively middling, the quintessential extract of mediocrity." I am afraid that that obtains in regard to some of the theses produced in this country. If the words "for the advancement of learning" were left without modification, some of the objections would be met, and although I cannot support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to leave out the word "research."
    Sir F. BANBURY: If the right hon. Gentleman will consent to the suggestion just made I will withdraw my Amendment.
    Mr. FISHER: I find it impossible to accept the Amendment. We desire that the various local education authorities should encourage various forms of research—general and industrial research. Under this Amendment local authorities could not assist industrial research, and if you leave out the word "research" you cut out the whole sphere of scientific investigation.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That does not meet the case of the ratepayer, who objects to his money being taken compulsorily to be used for something else.
    Mr. T. WILSON: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the Amendment, could he not insert some other Amendment which would make it quite clear that experiments upon living animals shall not be conducted in educational institutions attended by persons under eighteen years of age? He might meet the House to that extent. We occasionally—not often—find boys of fifteen and sixteen being summoned at the Police Courts for cruelty to cats and dogs. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if we have experiments on living animals in our elementary or continuation schools that it would be a direct encouragement to such conduct?
    Mr. FISHER: There will not be experiments on living animals.
    Mr. WILSON: If the right hon. Gentleman makes it clear in the Bill that experiments on living animals will not be sanctioned by the Bill, he will meet the objections of the supporters of the Amendment. For the life of me I cannot see why he should not meet the House on the point. Surely he is not so wrapped up in the Clauses of the Bill that he will not accept any Amendment which bears upon its face the impress of common sense! He might give consideration to the views of people outside this House. I therefore appeal to him to give further consideration to the Amendment, and, if he cannot accept it here, let him give a promise to insert an Amendment in another place to meet the objections raised.
    Mr. D. MASON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will meet the view just

    863
    expressed. As the Clause reads it makes it very unlikely that there will be these experiments. It says
    "carry on any investigation for the advancement of learning or research in or in connection with an educational institution."
    I do not know that there are any educational institutions in which experiments on dogs are carried on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes; there are!"] It is very unlikely. As the right hon. Gentleman says there is no intention to carry on these experiments, why not put it in the Bill?
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: There is an intention to carry them on.
    Mr. MASON: I did not understand that.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: He is going to pay students to carry on this kind of thing.
    Mr. MASON: I certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman's interruption to mean that there is no such intention. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say definitely what is intended. There is

    Clause 25.—(Abolition of Fees in Public Elementary Schools.)
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out Clause 25.
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  GERMAN OFFENSIVE.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER'S STATEMENT.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): With your
    a decided objection to these experiments. It is surely not the intention of this House in an Education Bill—whatever views we may have on medical science is another matter—to have these experiments carried on in educational institutions! I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make clear what his intention is.
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree in the view that, as the Clause now stands, a local education authority may only aid teachers and students to carry on any particular definite investigation for the advancement of research? Those words govern the whole Clause. It is now reduced to this; that the money can only be given for the advancement of research by a particular definite investigation. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, if he does not mean investigation for research by experiments on living animals, he would not lose anything.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 8; Noes, 28.

    Division No. 64.]

    AYES.

    [11.57 P.m.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

    Robinson, Sidney

    King, Joseph

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir G. Greenwood end Sir F. Banbury.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    NOES.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Beck Arthur Cecil

    Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Bridgeman, William Clive

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

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lewis, Rt. Hen. John Herbert

    Winfrey, Sir R.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

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

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Pratt, John W.

    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned "—(Lord E. Talbot)—put, and agreed to.

    permission, Sir, perhaps I might take this opportunity of reading the last bulletin which we have received from the front. It reached us shortly before Eleven o'clock, and I may add that in addition to what I am going to read, the Prime Minister has been in telephonic communication with Headquarters, and the report given to him, as coming from General Foch, is that General Foch is well satisfied with the result of to-day's fighting. This is the wording of the communiqué:
    "Enemy attacked early this morning on a front of 90 kilometres, pretty evenly divided east and west of Rheims. The city itself was not attacked. West of Rheims the Germans have penetrated on a front of 36 kilometres to an average depth of 4 to 5 kilometres. South of the Marne, by a brilliant counter-attack,

    865
    American troops drove the enemy back and took 1,000 prisoners. East of Rheims the enemy have been very heavily repulsed, have suffered severe losses, and have received a complete check."
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am sure the House would wish to offer our congratulations not only to the French troops, but to the American troops who have so fully justified themselves, not for the first time, on this rather critical occasion.
    866
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at One minute before Twelve o'clock.

WAR.
  NAVY AND ARMY EXAMINATIONS.
  NAVY AND ARMY EXAMINATIONS.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
    HAGUE CONFERENCE (PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT).
    HAGUE CONFERENCE (PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT).
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  MONEY ALLOWANCE.
  MONEY ALLOWANCE.
  INSTRUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT (HOLLAND).
  INSTRUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT (HOLLAND).
  FOOD SUPPLIES.
    TEA.
    TEA.
  1914 STAR (HOSPITAL SHIP SERVICE).
  1914 STAR (HOSPITAL SHIP SERVICE).
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  ESPIONAGE (COURTS-MARTIAL).
  ESPIONAGE (COURTS-MARTIAL).
  VENEREAL DISEASE.
  VENEREAL DISEASE.
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE.
    APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE.
  ROYAL DEFENCE CORPS.
  ROYAL DEFENCE CORPS.
  VOLUNTEER OFFICERS RETIRED.
  VOLUNTEER OFFICERS RETIRED.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  SCOTLAND'S QUOTA.
  SCOTLAND'S QUOTA.
  RE-ENLISTED MEN (BOUNTY).
  RE-ENLISTED MEN (BOUNTY).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ALIENS.
    SOUTH COAST TOWNS.
    SOUTH COAST TOWNS.
  INTERNMENT CAMPS (VISITORS).
  INTERNMENT CAMPS (VISITORS).
  PRESS CENSORSHIP.
  PRESS CENSORSHIP.
  NEWSPAPERS (UNSOLD COPIES).
  NEWSPAPERS (UNSOLD COPIES).
  PASTURE-DRILLING.
  PASTURE-DRILLING.