Sitting of 16 July 1918

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
THEIR MAJESTIES' SILVER WEDDING.

  MESSAGE FROM HIS MAJESTY.
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN of the HOUSEHOLD (Lieut.-Commander Dudley Ward) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth:—
  I thank you heartily for your loyal and dutiful Address.
  It affords the Queen and Myself the sincerest gratification to receive your congratulations on the occasion of the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of our Wedding, and to be assured that in this time of crisis We are supported by the loyalty and affection which are testified by your Address, as well as by the many manifestations of feeling on the part of Our Peoples to which you refer.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Liverpool Gas Bill (by Order),
  Commercial Gas Bill (by Order),
  Gas Light and Coke Company Bill (by Order),
  Portsea Island Gas Light Bill (by Order),
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  South Metropolitan Gas Bill (by Order),
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  South Shields Gas Bill (by Order),
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 30th July.
  Alliance and Dublin Gas Bill (by Order),
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

  NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
  Copies presented of Two Orders in Council, dated the 5th July, 1918, made under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  AIR FORCE (CONSTITUTION) ACT, 1917.
  Copies presented of Two Provisional Orders in Council, dated 5th July, 1918, made under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) (RETURNS OF CRIME).
  Order [15th July] that the Paper relative thereto be printed, read, and discharged.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    "THE OPPRESSED ENGLISH."
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a book, "The Oppressed English," by Major Ian Hay Beith, published in New York, has been prohibited from export into the United Kingdom under the American War Precautions Act, but is circulated in British Colonies; whether, seeing that this book is written by an author doing work for the British Government, he will secure a copy to be placed in the Library of this House; and whether it is at the request of the British Government that this book is prevented from being sent to these shores?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): The answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the negative. As to the second, the hon. Member should make his suggestion to the authorities who control the Library.
    Mr. KING: Is it not usual for the Foreign Office to place important documents published abroad—not published here—in the Library, and will the Noble Lord reconsider this answer?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not think it is part of the duty of the Foreign Office to place in the Library every book published abroad.
    Mr. KING: As this is a matter affecting the general affairs of this House, may I ask whether, when a book is published abroad, it is not usual to ask the Foreign Office rather than the officials of the House, who are here in connection with publications in this country?

  KELLNER-PARTINGTON WOOD PULP COMPANY.

    SALE OF FACTORIES TO AUSTRIAN GOVERNMENT.
    Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that part of the assets of the Kellner-Partington Wood Pulp Company consist of large industrial works at Barrow, and that these works, together with the other assets of the company, are entirely under the control of foreigners who bought up all the shares in the company; and whether the negotiations for the sale of these works at Barrow, which were referred to in an answer given by him on 20th November, 1917, to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, have been completed and these works sold to an English company?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first part of the question is substantially in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the statement in the answer to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, to which my hon. and learned Friend refers, was made on the authority of one of the late British directors of the company, who was principally concerned in the sale of the shares. I have been in communication with this gentleman as to the position of the negotiations for the resale of the Barrow works, but cannot discover that much progress has been made. I am inquiring further, and I will endeavour, as far as lies in my power, to expedite the matter.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Was not one of the reasons why this House was asked not to interfere with the sale of the Engish company that the English works had been placed under the control of an English company?
    Lord R. CECIL: I think my hon. and learned Friend is perfectly right in that. In the statement I certainly—on the
    870
    authority I mentioned—did convey that impression to the House, and I earnestly hope it will be carried out.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he will obtain from the Kellner-Partington Company, or otherwise, information as to the disposal of the pulp produced by the Swedish works of that company during the past year, and will state to what country or countries such pulp, distinguishing the different kinds, has been sent; what steps have been taken to secure that no part of this pulp shall be sent to, or shall reach, Germany; whether any part of this pulp has, in fact, reached Germany; (2) whether he can state, approximately, what has been the output of pulp, distinguishing the different kinds, produced by the Swedish works of the Kellner-Partington Wood Pulp Company during the past year; and whether any part of such products has been sent to and has reached this country?
    Lord R. CECIL: The Kellner-Partington Company have been requested to furnish the information desired by my hon. and learned Friend. As regards the second part, I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the replies returned to numerous questions by himself and other hon. Members in the latter part of last year. As regards the third part, certain allegations to the effect that pulp has been exported to Germany since the date of the assurances obtained from the Norwegian purchasers of the Kellner-Partington Company shares are under investigation. My most recent information tends to show that the exports in question were to Switzerland, and not to Germany.
    Colonel W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, as stated on page 792 of the "Board of Trade Journal," the Kellner-Partington Wood Pulp Company have entered into a partnership with the Austrian Government for the working of the factories at Hallein and Hillach, and a company is to be formed, of which the Austrian Government will hold two-thirds and the Kellner-Partington Company one-third of the shares; whether negotiations for this purchase were under consideration in December last; whether the Kellner-Partington Company is still an English company, with registered offices

    871
    at Newmarket Lane, Manchester; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Lord R. CECIL: The statement of the Austrian newspaper quoted in the "Board of Trade Journal" is substantially correct. As regards the second part of the question, I have no reason to believe that the sale of the Austrian factories to the Austrian Government was contemplated in December. The answer to the third part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the fourth part, it was represented to His Majesty's Government in February last that the Austrian Government, who had requisitioned the factories at the beginning of the War, and were therefore already in possession of them, were threatened to sell them up. In these circumstances, we were asked and agreed to authorise the Norwegian interests in question to negotiate an arrangement for the sale of the factories upon the terms of payment by the Austrian Government of 9,250,000 crowns and 4,000,000 crowns worth of shares in a new Austrian company, payment to be made one year after the end of the War.

    RUSSIAN NEWS (CENSORSHIP).
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the Military Censor prevents information from being published in the Press of this country of action by British troops in Russia which is published in the Russian Press, and thereby accessible to the enemy?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Telegrams relating to military operations, wherever they take place, are dealt with in accordance with the advice of the military authorities. The Press Bureau cannot, of course, be responsible for statements contained in the Russian Press, some of which are believed to be of enemy origin.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the Press of this country be permitted to publish information that is published in the Russian Press?
    Sir G. CAVE: Of course, a telegram must be dealt with when it arrives. The Press Bureau then take the advice of the military authorities when the telegram relates to military matters.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is there any reason why information published in Russia should not be known in this country?
    Sir G. CAVE: Much of the information published in Russia is untrue.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    ARMY PAY DEPARTMENT, DUBLIN.
    Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Beggar's Bush Barracks, Dublin, is now occupied by the Army Pay Department; if so, will he ascertain how many of the clerks employed there are of military age; and is it intended to replace them by-discharged soldiers or older men?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The Regimental Pay Office, Dublin, is in Beggars' Bush Barracks. There are about 140 civilian clerks employed there who are within the new military age limit. In filling vacancies preference is given to suitable discharged soldiers.
    Major NEWMAN: Is it intended to keep these 140 men of military age in employment at these pay offices or to send them away?
    Mr. FORSTER: If you do send them away you have no power in Ireland to send them into the Army.
    Major NEWMAN: It would be setting a good example.

    CLASS W RESERVISTS.
    Sir GARROD THOMASasked the Minister of National Service whether, in case of a strike in any works in which they may be engaged, Class W men are, in virtue of their being in the Army, compelled to remain at work?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Class W Reservists employed in works are in the same position as other civilians. They are not subject to military law unless recalled to the Colours.

    ONE-MAN BUSINESSES.
    Mr. TREVELYA Nasked the Minister of National Service whether he is aware that complaints are made by men engaged in one-man businesses that the National Service representative brings a successful appeal against large numbers of the decisions of local tribunals before the appeal tribunals composed of strangers

    873
    to the locality where the business is situated; and whether, in order to mitigate the sense of hardship and injustice, he will give instructions to the National Service representative at least not to appeal where there is unanimity in the decision of the local tribunal?
    The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir A. Geddes): I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the reply given on the 19th of June by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool. As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough on 11th July, the arrangements which were made last autumn to secure fair and just treatment for the proprietors of one-man businesses remain in force, and are, I believe, being most carefully carried out. If the hon. Member knows of any case in which they have not been observed, and will communicate particulars to me, I shall have full inquiries made.

    MEDICAL GRADING.
    Mr. KILEY (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of National Service whether he is aware that the undertaking which he gave to the House of Commons last Monday to the effect that henceforth men graded 1, 2, or 3 should have attached to their certificates B1, B2, or B3 is not being carried out by the Dulwich (not Camberwell) Medical Board and other medical boards, and what action he proposes to take to see that the pledge which he gave should be carried into effect?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Copies of the agreement arrived at at the conferences with chairmen of tribunals were issued to all regions and to all areas on Monday, the 8th instant, directing them to carry into effect the undertakings given. I have not had a complete opportunity of inquiring into the causes of the delay which appears to have occurred in connection with their becoming operative at the London Medical Boards since I received notice of this question, but I can assure the hon. Member that the agreement will be strictly adhered to.
    As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool yesterday, provision has been made for the correction of the grade cards of all men of the new military age graded before the Instructions reached the boards concerned.

    SCOTTISH REGIMENTS, SALONIKA (LEAVE).
    Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of Scottish regiments have been in Salonika for two and three years without any home leave being granted, even to those men whose conduct has been such that no mark whatever stands against them; and whether he will take steps to secure the grant of some home leave to such soldiers in view of the facts that steamers are returning therefrom practically empty, and that the forces there are stationary in position?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I regret to say that the answer to the first part is in the affirmative. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to postpone a reply to the second part for a week or two, by which time I am hopeful that I may have something definite to say.

    EAST YORKSHIRE REGIMENT (DEATH OF PRIVATE).
    Sir FRANCIS BLAKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Private E. Redhead, E Company, East Yorks Regiment, who died in St. John's Military Hospital, Hull, on the 1st instant, after less than three weeks' service; whether the result of a post-mortem examination showed that death was caused by acute pneumonia and acute dilated heart; and whether, as it is alleged that the pneumonia was caused by this young soldier having to sleep on the bare earth without tent boards or waterproof sheets, he will inquire into these allegations with a view to the prevention of such dangerous methods and the grief and indignation which they cause?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am making inquiry, and will communicate with my hon. and learned Friend as soon as I am in a position to do so.

    WAR OFFICE REQUISITION OF LAND (CIPPENHAM).
    Colonel DUPREasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the gravel at Cippenham, Slough, can be

    875
    used to make ferro-concrete without treatment; and, if not, to what process is it subjected?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The gravel is suitable after being passed through a washing machine.
    Colonel DUPREasked whether it is intended to instal a separate electric generating station at Cippenham, Slough; and why, in view of a possible saving of public money, the local company who offered to quote for the supply of electricity were not invited to do so?
    Mr. MACPHERSON:The whole matter is at present under consideration.

    ENGLISH RECRUITS (IRELAND).
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the bad conditions prevailing in the camp for English recruits near Belfast; that the tents let in water, that the hospitals have been full, that deaths have resulted, that a man attempted suicide in misery, that food is insufficient, and that life is supported by purchases at a Young Men's Christian Association; and whether immediate steps will be taken to remove these grievances?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: There is no foundation in fact for any one of the suggestions in this question.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    RETIRED OFFICERS (PAY).
    Colonel YATEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a Regulation has been issued under which the value of an officer's pension or retired pay is to be set off against the salary of any post he may receive in a Government Department; and, if so, whether this is in accordance with the rules regulating the pensions for men?
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. and gallant Friend is presumably referring to the statutory rules made by the Treasury under Section 6 of the Superannuation Act of 1887 (Appendix II. of the Pay Warrant). These rules have been in force for thirty years, and require that officers drawing retired pay must have at least 10 per cent. deducted from their civil
    876
    emoluments, but no deduction is made which exceeds the amount of the retired pay, or reduces the total emoluments below the £400 a year. There is no corresponding rule for soldiers' pensions.
    Colonel YATE: Is it not time that the Warrant was altered? A man's pension once earned ought to be sacred, and why should a deduction be made?
    Mr. FORSTER: The pension is sacred. The pension is not touched. It is a question of whether or not a retired officer should draw retired pay as well as the full emoluments of the post to which he is appointed. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that in this War, where we have recalled to service officers who are drawing retired pay, they have drawn full military pay on their appointment. Disapproval of this practice has been expressed on several occasions in this House.

    OFFICE ACCOMMODATION.
    Colonel YATEasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in the late requisitioning of private houses, the only intimation was a letter written on Tuesday, the 18th of June, which reached the occupants on Thursday, the 20th, demanding possession by Monday, the 24th; and whether, considering the impossibility of anyone moving all their goods and effects in two days, he will give instructions that such action on the part of his Department is not to be repeated in future?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): If the hon. and gallant Member will furnish me with the details of the case to which he is referring, I will cause the matter to be inquired into.
    Colonel YATE: Is there no record of this in the office of the right hon. Gentleman?
    Sir A. MOND: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at his question he will see the impossibility of ascertaining to what ease he is referring.
    Colonel YATE: I will have great pleasure in sending the right hon. Gentleman the information.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS.

    CENSORSHIP (PAMPHLETS).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now inquired into the circumstances

    877
    under which the pamphlets by Viscount Grey of Falloden and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton were published without being submitted as required by Regulation 27 c; and, if so, with what result?
    Sir G. CAVE: In my opinion Lord Grey's pamphlet does not coma within the terms of the Regulation. I have communicated with the publishers of the pamphlet secondly referred to, but I have not yet received their reply.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether a pamphlet by R. C. Hawkin, entitled "Central Africa and the League of Nations," was submitted to the Censor in accordance with Regulation 27 c; and, if not, whether he will suitably warn the publishers, the Fabian Society, 25, Tothill Street, S.W. 1, that the Regulation 27C is observed by others?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer to both questions is in the negative.
    Mr. KING: Does it not really mean that those persons who are friends and supporters of the Government, and who get their pamphlets taken up by the War Aims Committee for distribution everywhere, are allowed to break the law, whereas poor persons, who are critics and opponents of the Government, are pursued with ferocity?
    Sir G. CAVE: It means nothing of the kind. It means that those who break the law are prosecuted, and those who do not are not
    Mr. KING: The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the pamphlet of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton which is being circulated by the War Aims Committee, and therefore must relate to the War, has not been submitted to the Censor, and he intends to do nothing? Is that so?
    Sir G. CAVE: If that had been circulated by the War Aims Committee that would not come within the Regulations. As a matter of fact, as I have told the hon. Member, I am making inquiries.
    Mr. KING: But was it not the case that it was a considerable time after it had been circulated by the hon. Member for Northampton himself, at some expense and risk, that it was taken up by the War Aims Committee, and in the period before it was taken up and disseminated by them was it not liable to this Regulation?
    Sir G. CAVE: All these facts will come out when I have received an answer to my inquiry.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer another question later on about the matter?

  HOLLOWAY PRISONERS.
  Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he has now reconsidered the case of M. L. and her treatment in Holloway Prison on 24th May; whether she was placed in the padded cell by medical orders or by the female warders without medical authority; at what hour in the night did the acute mania show itself, and at what hour was she first seen by the medical officer; where is this woman at present; what are the names or the doctors and magistrates who certified her; on what day was she taken to Goodmayes; and on what date was she legally certified as insane?
  Sir G. CAVE: The prisoner was Been by the medical officer on her reception in Holloway Prison on the 24th May. He found her in an agitated and restless condition, and sent her at once to the observation ward in the remand hospital. About 2.15 on the morning of the 25th she was moved by his directions to the padded cell, in order to prevent her doing herself an injury. On the 29th May she was brought before the justices, and by their order was handed over to the charge of the relieving officer and taken to the workhouse infirmary. She thus passed from the purview of my Department, but I understand she was afterwards certified under the Lunacy Act, 1890, in the usual way, and was taken to the asylum on 31st May.
  Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Theodolinda Paster, now in Holloway Prison, sent a petition three months ago for reconsideration of her case, but has received no reply; that on 3rd May she was visited by two Home Office officials; and that she has been promised either release or better conditions, neither of which have been accorded to her; whether he is aware that this young woman has now been interned three years on mere suspicion because she was returning to Greece from Germany, whither she had gone to obtain a legacy, and is devoted to sick nursing; and whether he will now allow her, under strict conditions of supervision, to take up nursing in some institution?
  Sir G. CAVE: The main request in this woman's petition, namely, that her case should be further inquired into, and that someone should be sent to see her, was complied with. She was visited by two officers of the Intelligence Department—not by two Home Office officials—and their report was duly considered. No promise of any sort was made to her. As regards the rest of the question, I would refer to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on the 3rd instant. For the reasons given in that reply, I am not prepared to release this woman.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is a very spirited young lady, that she is only too anxious to serve humanity, and will he not give her a chance of doing something for the country with which she is unfortunately at present bound to associate?
  Sir G. CAVE: All that may or may not be true, but she is also in close connection with Germany.
  Mr. KING: As she has been interned for three years, how can she possibly be in close connection with Germany?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now arguing.

  STAGE PLAYS ("PRIVATE" PERFORMANCES).
  Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the observations made by Mr. Justice Darling, on 4th June last, at the close of the case of Rex v. Billing, in which, after referring to the character of the play "Salome," and to the mode of its production, and to the scanty costumes worn by actresses in certain classes of plays, he pointed out that people who cannot get the leave of the Censor to produce plays in the ordinary way are able, apparently, as the law stands, to produce them in this sort of fashion privately by subscriptions or by some way in which, apparently, they cannot be stopped, and that in his opinion it ought to be made impossible for plays of this kind to be produced before any audience; and whether he will introduce legislation to remedy the evils indicated by the learned judge?
  Sir G. CAVE: My attention has been called to the learned judge's observations.
  880
  I cannot undertake at the present time to introduce legislation for the purpose of extending the system of licences to genuine private performances. But I think it undesirable that theatres which are licensed for public performances should be used for so-called "private" performances of the character described. As regards the patent theatres, which are under the control of the Lord Chamberlain, precautions have already been taken, and I am bringing the matter to the attention of the other licensing authorities.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Would it not be possible, without legislation, to ensure that the production of these indecent plays in theatres and public halls, which are let for hire, should be under the control of the Censor?
  Sir G. CAVE: That is a thing I am doing my best to effect.
  Mr. KING: Is it not the fact that the judge's observation on this occasion was such that the kindest thing possible is not to bring it up or remind people of it?
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Is not my hon. Friend aware that that is a very foolish question?

  ALIENS.

    CONVICTIONS.
    Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the number of alien enemies who have been exempted from internment and against whom charges have been brought for offences against the safety of the realm; in how many cases have convictions been obtained; and what is the aggregate length of imprisonment of the sentences imposed in all such cases?
    Sir G. CAVE: The precise figures asked for in this question are not available, and it would take some time to get them out. But I may say that the total number of alien enemies convicted and imprisoned for offences of all kinds was, in 1917, 128 (88 males, 40 females), and in 1918, to date, 75 (46 males, 29 females). These figures relate not only to persons exempted from internment or repatriation, but to all alien enemies, including persons arrested on arrival in this country, British-born women, and persons of friendly race. At the end of the sentences practically all the male offenders would be interned.
    Mr. WATT: Is it not the case that the Home Office are refusing to accept the police reports from prohibited areas where men have been deported?
    Sir G. CAVE: No; that is not so.

    EMPLOYMENT (GOVERNMENT OFFICES).
    Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Home Secretary (1) whether the Committee which is to consider the cases of persons of enemy origin in Government offices has been set up; if so, who are the persons constituting the Committee; and whether they have been furnished with an exact definition of the meaning of persons of enemy origin whose position the Committee will decide; (2) how many persons are to be added to the Advisory Committee on Internment of Aliens; whether appointments have been made; if so, what are the names and qualifications of the persons appointed; whether the cases of female aliens will be considered by the Committee strengthened by women members; whether there will be any appeal from the Committee's decision; (3) whether he has considered the exact meaning to be given to the expression "persons of enemy origin"; and whether a person one of whose grandparents was of enemy nationality, birth, or parentage, is of enemy origin?
    Sir G. CAVE: These Committees have not yet been fully constituted, but no time is being lost, and I hope to make an announcement on the subject within a few days. As I have already informed the House, the Committee dealing with employment in Government offices will consider the position of persons who are not the children of natural-born subjects of this country or of an Allied country. The expression "enemy origin" will not be used in their appointment.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Colonel ASHLEYasked the Pensions Minister whether he is now in a position to state whether a man who was partially disabled by wounds or injuries received in former wars will be put in a position corresponding to that of a man who was totally disabled in such wars and receive the scale of pensions as laid down for the present War?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen)I am not
  882
  yet able to announce a decision in this matter, which is still under consideration.

  REQUISITIONED LINERS (GOVERNMENT GRATUITY TO MASTERS).
  Mr. PETOasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether he can now state what, if any, steps have been taken to provide for continuing the payment of special annual Government bonuses to captains of hospital ships and merchant transports engaged in the Transport Department, in cases where the ships have been converted into what are termed requisitioned liners, and other such vessels which continue to carry on work of great national importance?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): I think my hon. Friend will find on a closer examination of the facts that his contention is substantially met. Masters of troop transports on full requisition receive the Government gratuity for the whole period of trooping service. In the case of vessels on liner requisition employed from time to time in carrying troops, masters are entitled to the Government gratuity for the period during which the vessel is so employed. A liner is regarded as on trooping service if the number of naval and military passengers exceeds 50 per cent. of the total number she can carry. I may add that only fully requisitioned vessels are employed as hospital ships.

  RAILWAY COMPANIES' VESSELS (OFFICERS' PAY).
  Mr. PETOasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists at the delay that has taken place in putting the rates of pay for officers in passenger and cargo vessels into operation in the case of vessels owned by railway companies and under the control of the Railway Executive; if he can say when these rates will be rendered operative in the case of these officrs; and if he can ensure that they shall operate retrospectively?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that, as I understand it, the Railway Executive

  883
  Committee have decided to adopt, in effect, the determination of the National Maritime Board with regard to the pay of navigating and engineer officers, and that they are preparing scales of pay which will give as a minimum the determination of the Board.
  Mr. PETO: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of my question, and, in asking him to give me an answer, may I ask him to assure me that these rates will operate retrospectively?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I understand the Railway Executive will apply their new scale of rates retrospectively to last October.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    POTATOES.
    Major WOODasked the President of the Board of Agriculture how many of the 2,235 parcels of land in Lancashire that were scheduled as infected with wart disease of potatoes were holdings of I acre or less?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): The Board have no exact figures as to the size of the 2,235 parcels of infected land, but without doubt holdings of 1 acre or less are in a majority.

    BEEF AND MUTTON.
    Colonel THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, as 302 quarters of beef were rejected by Messrs. Perfect's inspectors as unsuitable for the Army in April and 953 in May, he will state whether these were handed over to his Department; if so, under what conditions were they disposed of; and whether the public are compelled to pay maximum controlled prices for these goods?
    Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): I am informed that in April 98 quarters and in May 191 quarters of beef were transferred by the Board of Trade from Army stocks to the Ministry of Food. This meat was in sound condition, and its transfer was due to the fact that it was in excess of Army requirements. It was disposed of under the same conditions and through the same channels as all other meat dealt with by the Ministry of Food.
    Colonel THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the institution of a flat rate for wholesale meat sales has resulted in a reduction of beef, mutton, and lamb prices to the West End consumer and increased them in an almost exact proportion to the West Ham consumers; and that, at the worst of unregulated competition prices in June, 1917, there were large quantities of frozen forequarter meat obtained for the East End at about 9½d. per lb., and a certain quantity of frozen mutton at about 10d. per lb. and less, while a considerable amount of frozen cow beef at even less prices was available; and whether a small Committee can be appointed to investigate the economic effect of the various food Regulations as affecting the poorer districts of the town and cities?
    Mr. PARKER: A uniform scale of meat prices is an essential condition of any national rationing scheme. It has, no doubt, to some extent the effect indicated in the question, but, as against this, must be set the fact that the frozen forequarters and cow beef referred to are now divided equally between West Ham and the West End in the same manner as the best home-killed meat. It would not, therefore, appear necessary to act upon the suggestion made by the hon. Member in the third part of the question.

    FISH.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his Department has now come to any decision as regards the retail and wholesale prices of fish; if it is proposed to issue any revised prices for this article of food; and can he state when such new prices will be issued?
    Mr. PARKER: Revised prices for fish were issued in May last. It is not proposed to issue any further revised prices in the immediate future.

    NATIONAL KITCHENS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will state if his Department is responsible for the establishment of the national restaurant in New Bridge Street, E. C.; if any capital charges were paid by his Department; if so, how much; will he state if his Department is responsible for the maintenance expenses of this restaurant; and, in the case of any loss, will he state who will have to pay the same?
    Mr. PARKER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The estimated capital outlay of £2,500 is to be borne by the Department, who will be responsible if any loss is incurred. It is not anticipated that any loss will arise, and it is hoped that a profit will be made sufficient to repay the whole of the capital outlay within a reasonable time.

  GERMAN EAST AFRICA.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether steps are being taken to wind up German businesses in German East Africa similar to those taken in this country; and, in particular, what steps are taken to secure from the German planters the due payment of their taxes or instalments on their land or to sell this land to British soldiers?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins):My hon. and gallant Friend apparently does not realise the essential difference between enemy businesses in occupied territory and those in this country. Enemy businesses in German East Africa have been placed in the hands of receivers, but as German East Africa is at present only in military occupation it is not possible to adopt precisely the same measures as are taken here. I have no information as to the payment by German planters of taxes or instalments on their land. Land, buildings, goodwill, and other permanent assets are not sold without the consent of the owners.
  Sir E. CARSON: Will the machinery of these businesses be removed from German East Africa in the same way as the Germans have removed the machinery from Belgium?
  Mr. HEWINS: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will put a question down.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand from the answer of the hon. Gentleman that the Government regard German East Africa as a pawn?
  Mr. HEWINS: No, Sir; the hon. Gentleman is to understand exactly what I said.

  RECONSTRUCTION.
  Mr. WILSON-FOXasked the Minister of Reconstruction, if he will make a statement before the Adjournment in re-
  886
  lation to the work of his Department; and, in particular, if he will inform the House as to the inquiries which he has instituted as to the lines upon which they are proceeding and as to the conclusions at which he has arrived, in all cases where this information can be given without detriment to the public interest?
  The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): My hon. Friend is doubtless aware that, in accordance with the provisions of the Act under which the Ministry was set up, a report of the work of the Department will be laid before Parliament in the autumn. If it were desired that a statement should be made before the Adjournment, my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House, would doubtless consider whether such a desire could be met, having regard to the other demands upon the time available.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increased cost of living and the consequent reduction of the value of old age pensions, the Government will consider as to further increasing the amount of such pensions; and, if not, whether he will cancel the regulations that any Poor Law relief rendered necessary to any old age pensioner in consequence of the present value of the pension should not invalidate the receipt of an old age pension?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I am not satisfied that the increase in the cost of living since August, 1917, when the existing scheme for additional allowances of 2s. 6d. a week to old age pensioners came into force has been such as to justify an increase of these allowances; the Poor Law disqualification is not a matter of regulations, but a fundamental principle of the Old Age Pensions Acts, and I am not prepared to introduce legislation to abolish it.

  WAR AIMS (LORD DENBIGH'S LECTURES).
  Colonel YATEasked the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury how many lectures have been arranged for on the subject of the war aims of our enemies as exemplified by Lord Denbigh's map; and what measures are being taken to

  887
  bring home to the people of the country who do not read books and pamphlets on the subject the real aims of Germany against ourselves in this War?
  Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): The number of war aims meetings held and arranged up to 3rd July is 10,665, included in which is a large number of meetings specially designed on the lines referred to in the question. The subject of the real aims of Germany has been dealt with in a large number of the speeches already delivered, and speakers will, of course, continue to do so. The maps referred to have been printed in various sizes, and 1,251,826 have been distributed.
  Mr. HOLT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Denbigh publishes a pedigree showing himself to be of enemy origin, and will he warn people against looking at maps and reading books emanating from this tainted source?

  NATIONAL INSURANCE.
  Mr. GLYN-JONESasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, what amount of the annual Parliamentary Grant authorised by the National Insurance Act, 1913, Section 31. Sub-section (1), has been disbursed to insurance committees in each of the years 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, and 1917, respectively?
  Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): The National Insurance Act, 1913, came into operation on the 1st September, 1913, and the Grant in question only became payable from that date. The amounts disbursed by the Commissioners to the insurance committees in the United Kingdom are as follows:

  For the period from 1st September, 1913, to 31st

  December, 1914

  …

  £8,641

  15

  6

  For the year 1915

  …

  3,294

  13

  4

  For the year 1916

  …

  3,990

  0

  0

  For the year 1917

  …

  3,691

  0

  0

  Mr. GLYN-JONESasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether, before approving schemes under Section 31, Sub-section (1), of the National Insurance Act, 1913, as to
  888
  the payment to members of insurance committees of compensation for loss of remunerative time in attending meetings of insurance committees, the Insurance Commissioners require such schemes to contain a provision limiting such payments to cases where a member, by reason of attendance at meetings, necessarily suffers an actual loss of wages or salary; and, if so, upon what ground the Insurance Commissioners' requirement is based?
  Mr. PRATT: The Commissioners require such a provision as a condition of their approval as the only practicable means of securing the proper application of the Grant to the real objects for which it was provided.

  MUNITIONS.

    HOUSING ACCOMMODATION
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware of the dissatisfaction among a number of workpeople employed in munition works in a certain district, who, owing to shortage of housing accommodation, are compelled to travel from 10 to 15 miles to and from their work each day, at the increases they have to pay for their railway tickets; and whether, under these circumstances, he will make arrangements for these people to travel at the old rate?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): My hon. Friend's question is the first intimation I have received of the difficulty to which he refers. I am having inquiries made to ascertain if the numbers of workmen affected are sufficient to warrant application being made to the railway authorities for the issue of workmen's tickets, which are still issued at the old rate.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT.

    REGISTRATION OF SERVICE MEN.
    Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSONasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that a number of men serving with the forces have had their names, in spite of the care exercised by the registration officers, left off the new lists of voters; whether this is particularly the case with men serving in India and

    889
    the East; and whether he will consider the advisability of instructing registration officers to make supplemental lists of the names of these men in the autumn, which lists shall be attached to and considered part of the new register?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. S. Walsh): My right hon. Friend is not aware that the names of a number of men serving, as stated in the question, have been omitted from the new lists of voters. A claim can be made before the 25th instant on behalf of any man whose name is believed to have been incorrectly omitted.

  TIMBER SUPPLIES.
  Mr. T. WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the complaint made that the men employed by the Timber Supplies Department in felling timber at the Crosswoods estate, Cardiganshire, were not being paid rates of wages equal to those paid by private timber-felling firms; that the Department promised to make further inquiries into the matter; that the men concerned have now been dismissed; whether he can explain the reason for this action; and whether he will consider the reinstatement of these men and the payment to them of the proper wages?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): Inquiries are being made, but are not yet complete. I will acquaint my hon. Friend of the result at the earliest possible moment.

  PRISONERS OF WAR.

    MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICERS.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that a demand is being made by the Prisoners of War Department on officers of the mercantile marine who have been interned in Germany and have been repatriated for the sum of £9 10s. 10d. each for their fare from Holland to this country; and whether, in view of the fact that these men have been declared not to be entitled to their pay during their internment and are in many cases not fit at present to seek re-employment and have not the means to make the payment
    890
    demanded, he will give directions that those demands for payment should be withdrawn?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I am sure that the Government will not demand repayment in cases such as are defined in the question, and if my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any case of which he has knowledge I shall have inquiry made.

    HAGUE CONFERENCE.
    Major WOODasked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to the progress of negotiations in connection with the exchange of prisoners at The Hague?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The provisional Agreement has not yet been received, and until the Government have had an opportunity of examining it, it is impossible to make any statement on the subject.
    Major WOOD: Does my right hon. Friend expect to be able to make a statement before the Adjournment, and will he give an opportunity for discussing the statement?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It all depends upon when we get the agreement, and upon its nature.

  COST OF LIVING.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked whether the Committee on the Cost of Living has presented a Report, or, if not, when it will do so?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Committee are meeting regularly, but the scope of the Inquiry is a very wide one, and I fear that they will not be able to report before the autumn.

  SUBMARINE WARFARE.

    BRITISH SEAMEN (OFFICIAL INQUIRY).
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that after rescuing the crew of a derelict U-boat the commander of the patrol boat inquired of the U-boat commander if all were off the U-boat, as he intended to blow her up, that the commander replied in the affirmative, and that just before the charge was exploded tapping was heard and it was

    891
    discovered that four British seamen were on the boat tied up as prisoners; and, if this commander is in our hands, why has he not been shot for his inhumanity?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers which I gave yesterday to a, similar question.
    Major NEWMAN: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman will not give me any information?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, Sir. I said that we issued a statement at once when we saw that it was without authority, and we had no knowledge whatever about it. I further said that we are inquiring of the author of the statement as to the ground on which he made it. I cannot go further for the moment, and it is entirely without foundation as far as we know.
    Major NEWMAN: Surely in five days you can get an answer from him?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, we have been in communication with him, and we have asked him to tell us what he meant. We asked him who it was that said it.
    Major NEWMAN: Has the officer answered yet?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No; not wholly and completely. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we shall deal with this matter quite faithfully when we get the information.

  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS LICENSING BILL.
  Sir EDWARD CARSONasked when the Imports and Exports Licensing Bill will be proceeded with, and when the promised statement on economic policy will be made?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It would not now be possible to carry the Imports Bill before the Recess, but it is intended to take it immediately after the Adjournment. As regards the statement on economic policy which, in answer to a previous question I had informed my right hon. Friend would be made at an early date, some aspects of this question will be under discussion at the Imperial War Cabinet, and I fear, therefore, that it will not be possible to make the statement before the Adjournment.
  Sir E. CARSON: Am I to assume that the mater is being seriously pursued?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir; I can assure my right hon. Friend it is being as seriously pursued as anything can be.
  Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: With reference to the matter being considered by the Imperial War Cabinet, is it not a fact that so far as the Dominion representatives are concerned their minds are made up on the question?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, I think so; but it is a question no matter how much your mind is made up where you must examine the facts.
  Mr. HOLT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that no administrative steps will be taken until after a statement has been made and a Debate has taken place upon it in this House?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know what sort of an assurance is wanted, but this is a problem for after the War, and it is obvious that there will be no rush in connection with the matter.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that the denunciation of the treaties was made without examining the facts?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That would be a misapprehension.
  Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give equal consideration to the opinions of this House as he does to the opinions of the Prime Ministers of the Dominions?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend must know that any Government which depends upon the confidence of the House of Commons must attach even more importance to its opinion than it does to those of the Dominion Governments.

  WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any recent statistics showing what Scotland has subscribed in War Savings Certificates; will he say how it compares per head with the subscription of England and Wales; and can he give any reason why Scotland should compare unfavourably, seeing that a larger proportion of her population are receiving War wages, and that the people there have a disposition for saving?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am glad to say that it is not the case that the sales of War Savings Certificates in Scotland now compare unfavourably with sales in England and Wales. For the first six months of this year sales in Scotland, according to the best computation that can be made, averaged 27s. 3d. per head of population, compared with 27s. 6d. per head in England and Wales.

  TRANSPORT AND DELIVERY OF GOODS.
  Mr. WILSON-FOXasked whether, having regard to the Resolution which stands in the Order Book in the names of 237 Members of this House in favour of the appointment of a Select Committee of this House for the purpose of reviewing the methods, working, and equipment of the various agencies by which the transport and delivery of goods is effected in this country, of examining suggestions for improvement in the existing system, and of making recommendations, he will move for the appointment of such a Committee; and, if not, if he will name an early day for discussion of the Resolution?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: In view of the large number of Members who appear to favour an inquiry by Select Committee into certain matters relating to goods transport, I shall be prepared to move for the appointment of such a Committee. The reference proposed by my hon. Friend will, I think, need some amendment to make the inquiry satisfactory, and I would suggest that he should place himself in communication with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Reconstruction and the President of the Board of Trade with regard to this matter.

  GRANTS OF LAND (IRISH SOLDIERS).
  Sir E. CARSONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) whether, in cases where grants of land are made to Irish soldiers who have served during the present War in pursuance of the Proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, advances will be made for the stocking and equipment of such lands; if so, upon what terms; (2) to whom applications should be addressed for grants of land by Irish soldiers who have served in the present War, and who have been discharged from the Army?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. A. W. Samuels): I would ask the right hon. and learned Member to await the introduction of the Bill, which it is hoped will take place shortly.
  Sir E. CARSON: Am I right in assuming that these grants of land are one of the conditions on which men are asked to enlist, and could we have a date fixed at which the Bill will be brought in; will it be passed before the Adjournment or after the time for voluntary enlistment has expired?
  Mr. SAMUELS: That question should be addressed to the Leader of the House.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when voluntary enlistment is going to begin?
  Mr. SAMUELS: It has begun.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It has not !

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary whether he will cause immediate inquiry to be made into the hardship which the rise in the price of living is inflicting on the older class of pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary; is he aware that, owing to their past calling and loyalty, these men in many cases find it impossible to obtain local positions of trust which might otherwise be open to them; and will he see that every facility is given to them to obtain work in England when they apply for it?
  Mr. SAMUELS: There is no record of the number of constabulary pensioners at present unemployed, and to make the inquiry suggested would involve much expenditure of time and labour out of all proportion to its public utility. With regard to the remainder of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to that portion of his previous question on this subject on the 4th instant, in which it is stated that every effort is being made to facilitate pensioners obtaining suitable employment.
  Major NEWMAN: If I send the right hon. Gentleman cases of hardship, will he have them inquired into?
  Mr. SAMUELS: Certainly !

  FRENCH HARVEST (IRISH LABOUR).
  Mr. KINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that French representatives have recently visited Ireland to enlist Irish aid for the getting in of the French harvest; whether this movement has the support of the British and Irish Governments; and whether, in case Irish labourers proceed to France to give harvest aid, they can be assured that they will not be conscripted into the Army between going and returning to their homes?
  Mr. SAMUELS: A deputation from the French Government, consisting of M. Ricard, of the French Ministry of Agriculture, and Abbé Flynn, has visited Ireland. They were referred by the Irish Government to the Director of National Service, Ireland, who was requested to give them every possible assistance in their mission to obtain labourers for the French harvest. The Department of Agriculture, Ireland, also undertook to assist them in every way possible.
  Accompanied by a representative of the National Service Department, the deputation visited several parts of Ireland. They will report to the French Government, and it is expected that any arrangements which the French and British Governments may be able to arrive at in this matter will be communicated through the French Consul in Dublin.
  Mr. KING: Will the assurance asked for in the last part of the question be most specifically given that these men on proceeding to France will not be interfered with by way of being conscripted?
  Mr. SAMUELS: It is quite unnecessary to give that assurance. Of course, they will not be interfered with.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a year ago, or two years ago, men proceeding from Ireland to this country for the purpose of the harvest were interfered with?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.
  Major NEWMAN: Will the men who are wanted for harvest purposes be of military age?

  GAELIC LANGUAGE.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the teaching of the Gaelic (or Irish) language in national schools is encouraged or sup-
  896
  ported by the Government; and whether he will give an assurance that the prohibition against singing Gaelic songs and the Proclamation of the Gaelic League will not be followed by suppressing the teaching of Gaelic in the schools nor the printing of Gaelic books and newspapers?
  Mr. SAMUELS: The Commissioners of National Education make provision by means of special Grants for instruction in the Irish language in national schools in accordance with Regulations set forth in their code. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on the 11th instant.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that emissaries of the law, the police and others, are preventing meetings being held where Gaelic songs are announced to be sung, and what is the object of preventing Gaelic songs being sung when you teach Gaelic in the schools in Ireland?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing about Gaelic songs in the question.

  BILL PRESENTED.
    ASYLUMS OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL,
    —"to make further provision for the application of the Asylums Officers' Superannuation Act, 1909, to officers in certified institutions for defectives and to provide for the aggregation of service in asylums and in such institutions," presented by Mr. BRACE; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

  TRADE BOARDS BILL.
  Reported from Standing Committee B.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Sir DANIEL GODDARD reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from

  897
  Standing Committee B: Sir Montague Barlow, Colonel Boles, Mr. Bridgeman, Mr. Ernest Craig, Colonel McCalmont, Mr. Neville, Colonel Orde-Powlett, Mr. Pulley, Mr. Runciman, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. George Terrell, and Mr. Wright; and had appointed in substitution: The Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. William Boyle, Mr. Dawes, Mr. Grant, Captain Bennett-Goldney, Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare, Colonel Sir John Hope, Major Hunt, Colonel Jackson, Mr. Ernest Jardine, Major Lane-Fox, Sir Francis Lowe, Colonel Wheler, and Colonel Penry Williams.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Maidenhead Gas Bill,
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to:
  Land Drainage (Pinchbeck) Provisional Orders Bill,
  Land Drainage (Woodwalton) Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.
  Small Holding Colonies (Amendment) Bill,
  Londonderry Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Acts relating to Loans to Incumbents of Benefices by Queen Anne's Bounty." [Loans (Incumbents of Benefices) Amendment Bill [Lords.]
  And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Midwives Act, 1902." [Mid-wives Bill [Lords.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. KING: May I ask the Leader of the House a question arising out of the business on the Order Paper for to-day? I refer to the Motion standing in the name of the Home Secretary—(Criminal Law Amendment Bill [Lords] and Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]). May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he really seriously intends to proceed with this legislation initiated in another place, in view of the fact that it is most contentious, and that yesterday he announced that he could not even proceed with the Solicitors (Qualification of Women) Bill on the ground that it was contentious. Is he not aware that here we have a larger piece of legislation much more contentious, and that we spent many days upstairs last year and several days down here in the futile endeavour to pass this Bill, which was given up——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now making the speech which he ought to make on the Motion itself.
  Mr. KING: May I briefly and respectfully ask whether it is really intended to go on with the Motion?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the hon. Member may assume from the fact that the Motion is on the Paper that the answer to his question is in the affirmative.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Then the fact that the Bill is contentious makes no difference?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what orders it is intended to take to-day, and particularly whether it is intended to proceed with the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It has been represented to me since I came into the House that many hon. Members interested in that Bill think that too little time has been given. I have consulted my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and, although I am anxious to get on with the business, as the House will understand, we have decided to postpone it till Monday. We shall take to-day the remaining stages of the Education Bill, the War Loan Bill, and the two Motions
  902
  standing in the names of my hon. Friend (Lord E. Talbot)—(Emergency Legislation)—and of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Sir G. Cave)—(Criminal Law Amendment Bill [Lords] and Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]).

EDUCATION BILL
As amended, considered.
EDUCATION BILL

  CLAUSE 25.—(Abolition of Fees in Public Elementary Schools.)
  (1) No fees shall be charged or other charges of any kind made in any public elementary school, except as provided by the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 1906, and the Local Education Authorities (Medical Treatment) Act, 1909.
  (2) During a period of five years from the appointed day the Board of Education shall in each year, out of moneys provided by Parliament, pay to the managers of a school maintained but not provided by a local education authority in which fees were charged immediately before the appointed day, the average yearly sum paid to the managers under Section fourteen of the Education Act, 1902, during the five years immediately preceding the appointed day.
  (3) Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of Section nine of the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act, 1893, or of Section eight of the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899.
  Adjourned Debate resumed on Amendment [15 th July], to leave oat Clause, 25.—[Sir F. Banbury.]
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'school' ['public elementary school'], in Sub-section (1), stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend who moved my Amendment last night, as it enables me to offer a few remarks upon it now. I am not usually in favour of raising again upon the Report stage a Debate which has taken place fairly fully in Committee unless it be a subject upon which there is strong feeling, and upon which the sense of the House has not been adequately taken in Committee. These reasons apply to raising this question again now. I desire, therefore, to support the omission of Clause 25, which proposes the abolition of all fees in public elementary schools. In doing so, I do not in the least question the general excellence of my right hon. Friend's Bill. I am anxious to improve the system of education for all classes alike, and not for one class or

  903
  another in particular, and I support the Bill cordially because it attains that end. But, as regards this particular matter, there are very distinct objections, and in certain quarters of the Kingdom they are very decidedly felt. I am not speaking, nor did I speak on the Committee stage, with any object of raising the denominational question. It is not upon that ground that I am impugning the propriety of this Clause. There are three or four excellent reasons for the omission of the Clause, which, perhaps, I may again summarise, as they were to some extent dealt with on the Committee stage. In the first place, there is the broad question of national economy. I know that this Clause does not apply to very many schools. It applies to very few schools. We were told that it was something like 437 out of 20,000. That makes it all the more desirable that these 437 schools should be allowed to continue charging fees if in the opinion of the locality it is desirable, if the parents of the children themselves desire it; and if there is sufficient free education in the area. We are not asking for very much. If parents desire that their children should be educated in schools that charge fees, and are ready to pay them, why should not the public purse be relieved to that extent? It is a perfectly good argument It is a sound argument from the public point of view, and I cannot conceive why the President of the Board of Education should not give it full weight. I have never been in favour of cheeseparing in education. If we get an adequate return for our money, by all means let us spend it. Here is a case where you may get an adequate return for the public benefit, and where the parents are ready to pay; why should you take away their right to do so, for it is a right? There is one argument. Sometimes parents desire to remove their children from a particular school, because they find that the children in it are, I am sorry to say, dirty or use bad language, and that in general the surroundings are not all that they should be. That seems to me a case where the parent's wish might perfectly well be respected. I feel strongly that if I had a boy going to a school where I knew that bad language was prevalent and where the whole atmosphere was dirty and unsavoury, though I have no doubt that the President of the Board
  904
  of Education would do his best to get the school into better trim, I should still desire to remove my child, and I cannot see why, on that really convincing public ground, I should not be allowed to do so. There is a third reason which was pointed out very briefly in Committee. In the Scottish Education Bill, which is now before this House, there is a Clause which expressly makes the provision for which I am pleading for England. Let me read it once more to the House. I do not want to be accused of omitting anything, and therefore I will read it in full:
  "It shall be the duty of every local education authority within twelve months after the appointed day to prepare and submit for the approval of the Department (a) a scheme for the adequate provision throughout the education area of the authority of all forms of primary, intermediate, and secondary education in day schools without payment of fees, and, if the authority think fit, for the maintenance or support in addition, and without prejudice to such adequate provision as aforesaid, of a limited number of schools where fees are charged in some or all of the classes."
  That is exactly what we are asking for in moving the omission of this Clause. We do not want to do it where you cannot get free education sufficiently otherwise. We only ask for a limited number of schools, exactly as is proposed in Scotland, and only where the local authority think and have thought or may think in the future that it would be to the advantage of that district that such a school should exist. I cannot see why, if the Government are going to allow that Clause to pass in the Scottish Bill, which they themselves have brought in, we should not be allowed to have similar schools for England and Wales as well, if we should wish it. My right hon. Friend, in resisting the omission of this Clause in Committee, put forward the argument that there were various administrative difficulties. He told us that it was the opinion of the inspectors of the Board that the existence of fee-paying schools militates against the proper organisation of higher education; that it might be difficult to organise them; and that it was very difficult for the Board of Education to make a demand upon the local education authority to sanction the existence of fee-paying schools. Why? There is no adequate reason whatever. I would remind my right hon. Friend that we have heard that kind of argument before. I recall the Debates that used to take place on the question of the Income Tax in 1907–8–9 onwards. I recollect perfectly well that

  905
  many authorities, including the Treasury, which was the Civil Service Department concerned, used to argue that it was quite impossible to graduate the Income Tax, that you could not differentiate, that it would lead to endless administrative difficulties, and that really the thing was not practicable. I confess that I was at that time—I do not mind admitting it—rather inclined to agree. I thought there might be a great many administrative difficulties, and that the thing might not be practicable. But we have lived and learned, and we all know now—I daresay some of us much to our cost—that the Income Tax is graduated, and graduated severely, and that the whole thing is administered without any serious difficulty or friction. Does my right hon. Friend really mean to say that, if he does put his hand to it, and if the Board of Education started with a will, they would not find a way? Of course, they would. It is all very well for the inspectors of schools to generalise and offer opinions of this character. It is just as feasible for Members of this House, for the right hon. Gentleman himself, for myself, and for hon. Members around me to form an opinion equally well. For myself, I entirely disagree with these inspectors of the Board of Education, and, if I were President, I should tell them to find another opinion, or else go about their business.
  Another argument used by my right hon. Friend, whose charm of manner and persuasive eloquence always impress me, was that if you take away the more cleanly children from among their playmates in the school who are less cleanly, you are losing one of the more important levers for social improvement. That may be quite true. But let me suggest to him that I could argue exactly the contrary. If you leave these cleanly children there, the net result may be that, instead of exercising a good influence on their dirtier playmates, they themselves become dirtier in turn, and you are really establishing a lever for social deterioration. If the one argument is a speculative one, so is the other. There is really no very strong argument why this suggestion we are making, which is a very modest request, that this Clause should be omitted, should not take effect. I have always felt, rightly or wrongly, that the existence of these higher grade fee-paying schools, where the parents desire it and where there is room for free
  906
  education otherwise, has a tendency to level up the standard of education in the district. They are necessarily good schools. Those concerned in their welfare and in supporting them and who are proud of them, are determined to keep them up to a high and excellent standard. Their very existence has the general effect of levelling up, rather than levelling down. If they are to be abolished, I believe the general effect will be a levelling down rather than a levelling up. That is another reason why this Clause should be omitted. I would not have raised this question again on the Report stage, were it not that in many districts of the country, and among many people who are interested in the welfare of these schools and the general success of our educational system there does exist a very strong feeling on the matter. As it has very little effect on the broad system of national education, and in view of the limited number of the schools to which it is applicable, I would ask my right hon. Friend whether, if he cannot see his way to accede to my request, he would not, at any rate, refrain from putting on the Government Tellers in the Division, and let us see what is the real mind of the House on the question.
  Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Old prejudices die hard. This subject was discussed fully in Committee, and the Committee then gave a very decisive vote. This is the last struggle of an antiquated and out-of-date system. The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aston Manor (Mr. E. Cecil), will not stand very much looking into. He put forward, as his primary argument, the question of national economy. The amount of money which would be saved to the ratepayers by the collection of fees is infinitesimal. It would not bring any adequate relief to the ratepayers and would not affect the total amount provided by the Board of Education to any marked extent. As for the question of dirty children, the right hon. Gentleman seriously put forward the argument that fee-paying schools should obtain because some children in a dirty condition attended the schools provided by the local authorities. If he had had any serious knowledge of educational work, he would have known that all the good education authorities do not allow children to attend schools in a dirty condition.
  Mr. CECIL: They are not all good.
  Mr. HARRIS: If they do their duty they do prevent children attending school in a dirty or verminous condition, and they make arrangements for their proper cleansing, so that that objection is removed. If we have the whole of the children using the public schools, it will raise the general standard, and an example will be set to the people of the poorer classes of which they will be quick to avail themselves. I have a very intimate knowledge of education in London. I find that if a few children attend with collars, clean faces, and well-brushed hair, such is the force of example that the others very quickly conform and will not be behindhand in the standard of cleanliness and appearance. Nor need I pursue the question of Scotland. Scotland is quite able to look after herself. The Scottish system is different in many respects. To commence with, private schools are largely conspicuous by their absence. They have not the same percentage of private schools, and fee-paying schools have largely taken the place of grammar schools. In London this problem was thrashed out in 1904. Before then, there was a very large number of fee-paying schools. The London County Council took its courage in both hands and decided to abolish fees. There was a tremendous outcry, and great opposition was organised against the so-called tyrannical action of the council in depriving the parents of the right to pay for their children's education. The council was firm, and I do not believe a single voice would be raised for a return to the old system. On the contrary, the abolition of fees has been a complete success. We want the rest of the country to toe the line and follow the example of London. We do not want London to be in a privileged position. We want the people throughout the country to have the advantages which have proved such a great success in London. The great thing we have to aim at, if we are going to prevent any revolutionary movement in this country, is the discouragement of class consciousness—the feeling that the nation is divided into sections.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: Hear, hear !
  Mr. HARRIS: I am glad I have the approval of the hon. Member. I know he aims at the same purpose. Nothing causes more class feeling than the idea that certain schools are confined to people who claim to belong to a superior class,
  908
  and that poorer people are prevented by the charging of fees from sending their children to those schools. The children grow up with the feeling that they belong to a separate section of the community, and that they are different from their black-coated brothers. The brotherhood of the trenches that the nation has learned in the last four years has helped to destroy that feeling. Do not let us revive it in the next generation by retaining these privileged fee-paying schools, which still exist in isolated districts in various parts of the country. This problem has been thrashed out in America. One of the great reasons why education in America has made such great progress during the last fifty years has been the common school, where the children of all classes assemble and work together, rich and poor, working class and middle class, learn to understand each other and see that they belong to the same people and the same nation, and that there is no real difference in the temperament, the instincts, and the ideals of all classes, and that they are all American people. We want to have the same feeling in this country, and until we have common schools, where parents feel that they can send their children irrespective of any barriers, so long can we not expect to have a real democracy in fact as well as in theory. Of course, in the Colonies the idea of special schools for people who can afford to pay fees is quite unknown. The consequence is that there is a true democratic spirit. So I hope the right hon. Gentleman will stick to his guns. This Bill aims at setting up a national system of education, and a national system of education is one which must apply to all classes irrespective of wealth or position. It is most important to retain this Clause an integral part of the Act of Parliament which will soon be on the Statute Book.
  Mr. BIGLAND: The President of the Board of Education spoke as to his zeal for the progress of education. I recognise that, but our zeal for education is as great, even if we oppose this Clause, as that of those who stand for it. The arguments which were mentioned in Committee were based on the fact that in 1901 there were 610,000 children being educated in schools where a fee was charged of 10s. or upwards. Where the shoe pinches and where a feeling of injustice has been aroused is on the ground

  909
  that the buildings in which those 610,000 children were educated were practically, under the agreement of the Education Act of 1902, handed over for public use without any charge for rent, and I should like to ask the hon. Member (Mr. Harris) whether in the London County Council action due regard was taken to those schools where there are still ground rents to be paid and where liabilities as to structural changes still remain on the manager's hands. Can he tell me whether the London County Council took over those liabilities when they abolished the fees? He does not reply. As far as I can see the point of this Clause is that the Government recognises that there is an act of justice to be done with regard to those schools. If the places for 610,000 children had to be found it would have cost the ratepayers £6,000,000 to buy land and erect and equip buildings. £10 a head is a very small estimate, in fact, I think it has gone up to nearly double that now. There are charges on some of these schools for ground rent and for the upkeep of the building, and this is where I claim that the generosity of the managers of the non-provided schools is not recognised. Whereas they presented to the country property which would be worth £300,000 a year on a 5 per cent. basis, the recognition was that not any rent should be paid, but simply the cost of the upkeep of the buildings.
  In the Amendment which was moved in Committee these were the actual words which were asked to be inserted, that the local authorities should repay to the managers such portion of the fees as might be necessary to cover the cost of the upkeep of the buildings and other expenses of maintenance which had hitherto been borne by them. They do not ask to make money out of these fees, but they ask that this part of the understanding of 1902 shall be maintained. On the debit side was the use of all these buildings free of charge. On the other side there were three items. There was this right to charge fees and hand them over to the local education authorities on the understanding that it met the reasonable demand of the managers for the portion of the fees which they could show cause why they should receive. The managers were to be allowed to have three-quarters of an hour each day in which they organised the religious teaching of the schools and they were to have the use of the buildings on Sundays. If the Bill
  910
  breaks one of these two points what groundwork of understanding or promise is there that the other two will not be broken, which are perhaps very much more important than the one with regard to fees. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to my Amendment, used these words:
  "I admit that if you could satisfy me on this point,"
  that is, that you were tearing up a solemn treaty contracted in 1902,
  "I should be the last person to press this Clause."
  4.0 P.M.
  My right hon. Friend pointed out that under the 1902 Act the local education authority had the right to abolish these fees, and, therefore, that this Clause was not a breach of the 1902 agreement. If I may point out to my right hon. Friend this is just what we want; we want the 1902 Act to remain where it is with regard to this matter. The fact is that the local education authority had the power to abolish them and the London County Council did it in practice. We desire it should still be in their power to do so. The managers know that if they appeal to a body of gentlemen elected to sit on a public body and if their claim is a fair one, it will be recognised. Therefore we say, Leave the Act of 1902 where it is, and the local education authority where circumstances in their judgment arise to justify it will abolish these fees. Leave the power in the hands of those who have been administering it for so long. This Clause takes the power out of their hands, it says that the local authority, recognising that reconsideration is due, will for the next five years, pay the same fees as the managers have received for the last five years. That, to my mind, is not quite what we expect in an Act of Parliament. May I refer to the expression which has been used with regard to the zeal for education. It seems to me I might quote an adaptation of the words used by one of old, which ran:
  "The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up."
  This zeal of the President of the Board of Education is eating up the non-provided schools. They are dying gradually. Why cause their sudden death in the way proposed in this Bill? Why provoke this criticism and agitation? Why not let the matter stand as it does now? My right hon. Friend believes that in time these schools will assimilate with the other schools; that they will fall in with the advanced education that is to be given to

  911
  all children in all our great towns, and that when these matters have been assimilated then these schools may die a natural death. The demand among our constituencies is that we shall press this matter, and demand the deletion of Clause 25 of the Bill as it now stands.
  Sir J. YOXALL: Reference has been made to a balance-sheet. I do not see where it comes in. The local authorities must maintain the fabric of these schools and must keep the buildings in good repair, inside and out, at the public cost. There is also the ground rent or some small charge of the kind which may exist on the freehold. The quid pro quo for that from the point of view of the managers is that they still have a right to continue at the public cost this school as the school of a certain denomination officered and manned and taught by persons belonging to that particular denomination. Therefore, I suggest it is quite fair to regard the present proposal as a breaking of the covenant, or, rather, a breach of a balance sheet which presented a fair balance to each side. But I do not want to go into that, neither do I desire to go into the question of the democratic demand for this change. Indeed, I doubt if there be any such democratic demand. I would be content to leave things as they are, but if it be held, as I conceive it is, not only by the Board of Education, but by the local authorities, that administratively this is a most inconvenient arrangement, then it is fair to inquire whether this change can be made without injustice on the one hand, and on the other hand without educational injury. I beg hon. Members to endeavour to argue this matter according to the actual facts. I heard, with great regret, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aston Manor (Mr. Evelyn Cecil) make statements with regard to certain schools in the country, and being bound to know recent facts as, perhaps, other hon. Members are not bound to know them, I must say I heard those statements, as I heard similar statements by other hon. Members when this matter was being discussed in Committee, with, shall I say some indignation, because of the aspersions cast on the average elementary school in this country?
  What are the schools which we are talking about now? They are schools
  912
  which fifty or sixty years ago were voluntary schools. We had at that date particularly able schoolmasters, ambitious men who pushed ahead in the ordinary work of the school which was restricted by the regulations of the Education Department. In so pushing ahead they formed special classes, students attending which paid an extra 3d. per week. The persons who were educated in those schools remember with gratitude the teaching they got there and their feeling of loyalty has prompted in them an anxiety that their own children shall enjoy similar advantages. All along this class of school has been a good school. In the interval the other schools in the country have been improving in the same way, and, as far as I know, the average council school—the ordinary elementary school—is now quite as good a school as the ones we are talking about, and give quite as good an education. We were told that the reason why parents desire to send their children to these schools is to prevent their being brought into contact with dirty, verminous, foul-mouthed children. I venture to say that there is not an elementary school in this country in which such children are allowed. Go into the schools as they exist to-day. Go into the city or the country school; go into the non-provided school, and what do you find? You find cleanliness, you find order, you do not hear foul language. It is looked upon as one of the worst things to use such language. The "Spectator" and other publications have of late contained much discussion with regard to the conditions in this respect which obtain in some public schools in this country. I do not want to cast any aspersion on any school, but I think it likely you will find that in the ordinary elementary school of this country there is a comparative absence of strong, not to say bad, language There is a comparative absence of something which it has been suggested has made parents unwilling to send their children to the ordinary elementary schools. Let hon. Members who speak with a knowledge of educational matters as they existed twenty or thirty years ago, believe me when I say, speaking with more recent and necessarily with more perpetual knowledge, that the arguments which may have been used twenty or twenty-five years ago now cease to apply. The best argument for this kind of school is that you have in them the grandchildren of the people who

  913
  attended them fifty years ago, and who are sent there out of a feeling of loyalty. It is the only claim which this kind of school possesses. I hope the House will not decide this question on grounds which would exalt these schools into a special position in regard to cleanliness and the use of objectionable language.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: I am sure the House will admit that this question has been presented to its consideration this afternoon with studious moderation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aston Manor (Mr. Evelyn Cecil), and that the whole Debate has been conducted on similar lines by both sides. In regard to what has fallen from the last speaker—one who must be recognised as one of the primary authorities on elementary education in this country, I would like to be allowed to say a few words. The right hon. Gentleman has deprecated the discussion of this question, as if it were a question of clean and dirty children and clean and dirty schools. I have not the slightest desire to enter upon that controversy, but I would like the House to consider this question. If there is nothing to be said for these fee-charging schools, why, in the name of fortune, are parents so anxious to retain them. My hon. Friend near me says they are not anxious, but he must know that there is not one of these schools which is not to-day full, and that very few of them have not a waiting list, children are so anxious to go into them, and guardians and parents are so anxious to be allowed to pay the few pence weekly which is charged. We have not heard from anyone in this House any explanation other than the one we have put forward of the anxiety of parents to retain the schools that are in existence. The House must remember that it is not a question of establishing these schools. All we ask is that they shall not be abolished by the Clause inserted in this Bill. Clearly, I submit, the onus for justifying the abolition of these schools rests upon those who have inserted this Clause in the Bill, and not upon us.
  I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Leicestershire is no longer in his place, because I want to say one word in regard to the argument he advanced. He said that these fee-paying schools stand in the way of the establishment of a really national system of education. On the one hand, we are told that these schools
  914
  are perfectly insignificant in regard both to finance and numbers, and on the other hand we are told by the hon. Member opposite that these survivals stand in the way of a national system of education. The point I want to put to any who are inclined to adopt his argument is how far are you going to carry it. The hon. Member spoke strongly in favour of the American system of the public schools, which is not what we understand in this country by public schools—the common schools. He said that we want all people of all classes brought into a common system of education. Is he prepared to propose that for the children of the rich, and why does he draw this distinction with a particular class of the poor? From the first moment that I brought this matter before the House in the course of these Debates I have put it on the ground that you are attempting to deprive a certain class of poor parents of a privilege they highly regard and value.
  There was another point made by my hon. Friend. He said there was a real hardship involved in some cases on account of the distances which parents have to send their children. As a matter of fact, where there is any such difficulty or hardship involved provision is made, as is known by every Member of this House I suppose, in the fee-charging schools for the admission of these children without any fee whatever. Where, then, does this hardship exist? It is an imaginary hardship in the mind of the hon. Member for Leicestershire; I submit it does not really exist. On the contrary, I have evidence here to show that as a fact parents are prepared to send their children considerable distances in order to procure for them admission to this particular type of school. I have in my hand here a letter from the head mistress of one of these schools in the South of England, and I would remind the hon. Member for North Somerset that he has himself provided us, in the Return for which he moved some three or four years ago, with exhaustive evidence as to the permeating character of these schools, indicating that they are really spread throughout great parts of England. Here, for instance, is a letter from the headmistress in the South of England:
  "My experience is that there is a class of parents who are not only willing but anxious to pay some fee for their children's education, but who cannot afford the fees of a good private or public school, and must therefore send their children to the small and cheap private schools

  915
  if no fee-paying elementary school is available…. Many pupils come from long distances, several by train from the villages around and from (a neighbouring town), simply because their parents wish to pay for them."
  That, I think, really disposes of the hardship of the distances to which my hon. Friend complained. Then there is the argument which was used by the President of the Board of Education himself when we were discussing this matter in Committee. He used an argument to which I desire to draw his attention now as well as the attention of the House, because it sums up a great deal that I would wish to say, but will not say at greater length. The President said:
  "Where education is compulsory it should be given without charge to the parent, but where it is voluntary—where the parent has the option whether or not to send his child to a particular type of school—there the parent shall be at liberty to pay fees."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 2nd July, 1918, col. 1593, Vol. 107.]
  The whole argument I and my friends have been desiring to put before the House is really put for us in that sentence by the President of the Board of Education—that is our whole point, that where education is compulsory and where there is no alternative, then we do not desire to press for the continued existence of these schools, but where, as the President said, it is voluntary, where there is an option open to them, then we do press that he should allow this option to be exercised by the parents of poor children. There is one other point put by the President of the Board of Education himself, which has been dealt with most fully and adequately by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead. The President told us that if we could convince him that the proposed abolition of these schools meant the tearing up of a solemn treaty—I think those were his words—contracted in the year 1902, then he would give us, I understood him to say, what we want. I ask the House whether the hon. Member for Birkenhead has not convinced the President, or at any rate everybody in the House except the President, that this is the tearing up of a solemn compact concluded in 1902. If the President was not convinced by the words of my hon. Friend. I do not believe the Angel Gabriel himself would be able to convince him.
  With regard to the point of my hon. Friend on the financial aspect of the
  916
  question I would like to say that I have never laid any stress upon that, and I do not wish to do so at this stage, but, as a fact, the relief which is in certain towns granted to ratepayers by the continued existence of these fee-paying schools, although it is small, is not wholly negligible. For example, in Oxford, they receive £1,100 a year; in Blackburn, £1,144 a year; in Derby, £1,677 a year; in Birkenhead, over £2,000; in Manchester and Salford, over £6,000; and in Liverpool, over £12,000. These figures, in relation to the total, are small, but in certain of the smallest towns they are not negligible. But it is not on that point I would wish to rest the case for the retention of these schools. I rest it mainly on two others, which I will merely state without argument. The first is on the ground of the paramount necessity of maintaining some educational variety. The President of the Board of Education himself deprecated in the strongest possible manner over and over again, in the course of the discussion, any desire for mechanical uniformity. Of course, we know that with his zeal for education he has disavowed it with the completest sincerity. We are entirely at one with him on that point. We also disavow and deplore the idea of any mechanical uniformity, and it is because these schools do present a certain variety that I, for one, am very anxious to retain them. But, above all, I am anxious to retain for the children of the poor that which is open to the children of the rich—some opportunity in the choice of their schools.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The right hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment and opened the Debate was under no necessity, I am sure, to make any defence of his having raised this question upon the Report stage. It is an important question, and one in which a number of Members of the House take a considerable interest, and the hon. Member for Birkenhead may rest assured that we desire to make no reflection of any kind upon his zeal for education, or, indeed, upon the zeal of any of the hon. Members who are opposed to this Clause. But I should like, without going over the whole ground that was traversed by the former Debate, and which was very adequately covered by my right hon.

  917
  Friend, who made a full presentment of the case for the Clause, to refer to one or two of the questions which have been raised in the course of the Debate. Some of them have already been dealt with, and, I think, adequately dealt with, by the hon. Member for Market Harborough and the hon. Member for West Nottingham. The hon. Member for Birkenhead spoke in the course of the Debate of the agreement arrived at between the Government and the managers of these fee-charging schools in the year 1902, and he suggested that the terms of that agreement are now being broken. What occurred in 1902 was that the schools in which fees were allowed to be charged would continue to charge fees upon certain terms, but that the local education authority might at any time put an end to their power and take away entirely their distinctive character as fee-paying schools, and that is what has actually taken place in relation to four-fifths of the fee-charging schools which existed in 1902. The number of these schools has declined rapidly and continuously, and we are now dealing only with a small remnant of them, which chiefly exist in certain districts of Lancashire and Cheshire, and, as I am reminded, in certain other parts of the country.
  These schools have no vested interest of any kind whatever. If the local education authorities may take away their fee-charging powers at any time, surely it is within the competence of Parliament to do so if Parliament in its wisdom decides to take that course! May I remind the districts interested in the maintenance of fee-paying schools that since the year 1902 the Grants to the local education authorities have increased enormously? What is known as the Supplementary Grant of last year provides large additional resources which enable these localities to bear the cost of education. So much with regard to the interests of the local education authorities. I ask, further, is it really a financial grievance to the managers? It certainly is not, because at the time of the Act of 1891 managers were under an obligation, not only to provide school buildings, but also to provide a considerable share of the cost of maintenance as well. The Act of 1902 relieved them from the burden of maintaining the voluntary schools, and, at the same time, placed it in the power of the local education authorities to abolish in these schools the right of charging fees.
  918
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford referred to the statement by the Member for Market Harborough that the existence of these schools stands in the way of the establishment of a national system of education. I have one or two comments to offer upon that. One of the objects of this Bill is to establish a complete system of national education. I would like to ask whether the existence of these fee-paying select schools is likely to contribute to that end? The best advice that we have been able to obtain in the matter is that the policy of retaining schools of that character is inimical to sound educational organisation. Children drift into these schools at varying ages and stay there for varying periods, in some cases far too short a time to obtain any real educational benefit at all. The authorities concerned, if they wished to do so, might lay down rules for admission to those fee-paying schools. For example, they might lay down a rule to the effect that children must not be allowed to attend a school until the age of eleven, and must be prepared to stay there for a three years' course. But it is practically impossible to enforce rules of that kind when parents pay fees, and if it depended on an examination for admission, if the examination wore a strict one, the number of fee-paying scholars might be so reduced that the school would be only half filled.
  Admission of children, based on ability to pay, must—it is absolutely inevitable—result in the inclusion of some children who are not of the proper standard of ability for admission to a course of advanced work, just as it must exclude some children who are. Schools of this character do not come fully into a specified place in the general scheme of education in the area to which they belong. They are a compromise. They are just ordinary public elementary schools which are made select by the imposition of a fee and on to which are tacked frills in the way of science and French in the upper classes. Children come to these schools from the age of eight to fourteen, and it is quite impossible in those circumstances to arrange a definite course in French or science. There are some parents who have a kind of superstition about sending their children to a particular school to be finished, as it is called, and some of them only send their children for this purpose to a school for a single term. These children are constantly drifting in and drifting out of the

  919
  schools. In circumstances of that kind proper organisation within the school, or of the school itself within the system, is practically impossible, and my hon. Friend the Member for Market Harborough had some justification for saying that the existence of these fee-paying schools does stand in the way of a really national system of education.
  But there is another objection which has been voiced to-day, not for the first time, by the hon. Member for Oxford. He says that it is the desire for a practically uniform system which impels us to change the character of these schools. I can assure him that nothing could be further from the intention or the principle of this Bill and the policy of the Board of Education. I have been brought constantly into contact with this problem in recent years, and I can assure the House that the Board has done all in its power to promote variety in the educational organisation of the country and to promote experiments in the schools. The very last thing which the Board of Education would desire to have would be a mechanical, dull, dead level of uniformity. Teachers are encouraged in every way to strike out a line for themselves. The individuality of the teacher and the individuality of the scholar is one of the prime objects of the Board of Education, and on behalf of the Board of Education I must repudiate absolutely any idea of making our system of education one of cast-iron uniformity. The policy of the Board during the last few years has been to emancipate education as far as possible from the trammels of a hide-bound system which repressed originality and initiative. We have been asked why parents should not be allowed to send children to these schools, and we have been told that there is a considerable demand for places in these schools. Probably one reason for that is the kind of traditional feeling which induces parents to send children to the same school as that which they had attended themselves. I am not arguing whether that is a good or a bad thing, but I would venture to say that a very large number of these schools will have established a certain aristocratic tradition, and that parents will continue to send their children to these schools very largely as they have hitherto done.
  I would also remind the House that in the secondary schools of this country at the present time there is ample room for
  920
  those who wish to pay, and that fees in many cases are very low indeed. Parents can send their children to these schools at the age of eleven, and obtain for them a perfectly admirable education. That is in addition to the free places in these schools. But I would venture to urge upon the House that so long as from 90 per cent. to 95 per cent. of the cost of the schools is paid out of Government Grants and out of the rates, there is really nothing to be said for the proposition that there should be one set of elementary schools for the children of well-to-do parents and another for the children of poor parents. It is open, after all, to those parents who desire to send their children to select schools to pay for it. But they do not pay for it by paying the fees at a public elementary school. They pay only a small fraction of the cost of education. Where fees have been abolished, I am not aware that any ill results have followed. The hon. Member has said, in the course of the Committee stage, that the effect would be that these schools would be altogether prohibited within five years, but the fact is that although thousands of these fee-charging schools, containing hundreds of thousands of children, have ceased to be fee-paying schools, I am not aware that a single one of them has been closed on that account. Of course, changes of this kind will inevitably involve a certain amount of friction at the time, but in the course of time the new order establishes itself. We believe that the new order will be to the advantage of educational organisation. We have come deliberately to the conclusion that the charging of fees is never for the educational benefit of a district, and I hope that the House will support the Board of Education in the decision they have come to.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I feel that I cannot give a silent vote on the Amendment that is now before the House, and if I had intended to give a silent vote, I think that I should have been precluded from doing so by the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. I think that the House will readily admit that when it is proposed by Act of Parliament to abolish a section of the schools of this country which have long existed in this country, some very strong arguments should be used before such a policy is carried into effect. But no one who has listened to the apologia of the Parlia-

  921
  mentary Secretary can say that any such strong arguments has been used to justify the Clause which now stands in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman commenced by saying that under the Act of 1902 local education authorities had conferred upon them the power of abolishing these schools if they thought it advisable to do so. The present Bill proposes, among other arbitrary enactments, to take away from the local education authorities that power which it previously possessed. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that during the last few years local education authorities have exercised that power, and that numbers of these schools have ceased to exist. Is there any reason, therefore, for passing a Clause in an Act of Parliament which will make it obligatory to do what the country appears to have been doing to a very large extent voluntarily, and which, at the same time, the local education authority has the power to enforce? I am quite certain that the House will realise from the speeches which have been made on this particular Clause that this question is a very contentious one, and I would appeal, therefore, to the President of the Board of Education that in this great Bill for educational reform, which all of us who are interested in education has been so glad to support, he will not allow such a blot as the existence of this particular Clause, which, as he knows, is strongly opposed by large numbers of Members in this House, and also by large numbers of people in the country, and which cannot be regarded as anything else but a very contentious proposal. I, therefore, earnestly submit to him the desirability, if he can, of accepting the Amendment which has been proposed.
  My right hon. Friend, in the course of his speech, made a great deal of the importance of organisation. I must own that I do not attach that great importance to the word "organisation" which the Parliamentary Secretary seems to attach to it. I know of no country in the world in which organisation has been carried into effect so thoroughly as in Prussia, and I am sure we should not regard the Prussian system of education as a model which we should endeavour to imitate. What we want to do is to avoid as far as possible organisation where it is not absolutely necessary to the improvement of education in this country, and where it is found to interfere largely with the liberty of the subject. It is that sort of organisation to which I object strongly.
  922
  When the right hon. Gentleman tells us that he does not think that these schools can find a specified place in the scheme of organisation that is being proposed under this Bill, I reply that I am not anxious that they should find a specified place. I want these schools to have a place of their own, doing their own good work in their own good way, and because he cannot find one particular place which they should occupy in his scheme, that surely is no reason why those schools should no longer exist ! My right hon. Friend does not seem to see the force of the argument that we are using in favour of the continued existence of these schools. He further went on to say that you could hot ensure that there should be a definite course of instruction in these schools. But that also we want to avoid. We want to do what, he says, the Board of Education are striving to do—that is to allow a considerable amount of initiative and experiment to be carried out in these schools, and when you are prescribing a definite course to which schools must adhere, then you are taking away the possibility of initiative and experiment, which is one of the best features in the existing system of education.
  It is for these reasons that I feel it is very desirable that these schools should remain. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke in considerable praise of the speech delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Market Harborough (Mr. P. A. Harris), and said he thought there was great force in the argument that these schools stood in the way of the existence of our national system of education. The right hon. Gentleman remarked on the smallness of their number, and the small place they take in the whole system of education. But that is certainly not a sufficient reason that we should be deprived of those schools. I must own, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford pointed out, that the whole argument of the hon. Member for Market Harborough fell to the ground when he said that these schools create class distinctions. Surely the President of the Board of Education, and everybody else, will admit that class distinctions exist throughout the whole system of education ! The rich people are able to send their children to one class of school where the fees are high, while other parents select schools for their children where the fees are cheaper. If you allow a distinction to be drawn among persons of a certain limit of wealth or possessions,

  923
  why should you deny the same distinction to those who are below that limit? Instead of being an argument in favour of the abolition of class distinction, I should say it is one which supports class distinction, because certan parents are allowed to pay fees for their children as against those who are not allowed to pay fees. For myself, I should be very loath to take away that amount of liberty which permits of a parent, if he so desire, to pay fees for the education of his children. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that the whole cost of this education is not defrayed by the parent. For the matter of that, the education which most of us have received has not been defrayed by our parents, and it has been the result of endowments left by pious founders years ago. We only paid for a part of the education we received, and, in that respect, there is no difference whatever in the case of parents who send their children to fee-paying schools.
  I feel that this Clause certainly ought not to remain in the Bill, and I sincerely hope that the President of the Board of Education will find some way of withdrawing it. I attach no importance whatever to the arguments that parents do not care for their children to consort with other children in the free schools. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham that the condition of these schools is so perfect that every parent might really send his children to them without any fear of contamination; but we have not arrived at that stage of, if you like, democratic progress that parents are all willing to send their children to schools which are free. That state of things does not at present exist, and so long as it does not exist I am very desirous indeed that the same freedom that is given to the richer children should also be accorded to the poorer parents. It is mainly with the view of establishing this liberty of the subject and of further emphasising the importance of diversity and variety in our educational system that I support this Amendment. My right hon. Friend said, why not allow these children to go to the secondary-school, where the fees are very low, but only yesterday the President of the Board of Education advised the maintaining of the higher elementary schools, where children could continue their education up to the age of sixteen or seventeen years. That would again be to throw a disability upon the children of the poor that you are not
  924
  willing to cast upon those who are better off. I myself see no reason whatever for the retention of this Clause. If I thought that it made in the least for the progress of education I would be one of the first to support it. I understand that even now the local educational authority has power to enter a school and to require—by an Amendment introduced only yesterday by the President of the Board of Education—that a register of attendance shall be kept; and, if these schools are found to be ineffective, if they are not giving an education up to the required standard, then by all means abolish them. But so long as they are giving an efficient education, I say, in the name of the liberty of the subject and also for the sake of giving the same advantages for the children of the poor as for the children of the rich, that this Clause ought not to remain in the Bill.
  Mr. KING: I have listened to this Debate with some feeling of impatience, for I do not think that the facts have been fully or fairly stated. It has been repeatedly asserted in the course of this discussion that these fee-paying schools are scattered all over the country. I cannot imagine anybody who is not grossly ignorant of the fact making that assertion. As a matter of fact, those schools are in distant places, and are confined to two areas, or two classes of places. First of all, more than a quarter of them are found in Liverpool, Manchester, and Salford, and more than half of them are found in the cathedral cities of this country. If you add the cathedral cities to Salford and Birkenhead, you find more than half of these schools in those places. But I would point out that there are immense districts of England in which there are practically no fee-paying schools. In the whole of Wales there are only two fee-paying schools, both in Monmouthshire, and both very high-class elementary schools, where fees are paid for certain special and peculiar reasons.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: Hear, hear !
  Mr. KING: Yes, only two in Wales; but if you take that proportion there would be only five in England. There are a few of these schools in Cornwall, and not one in Devonshire, except in the cathedral city of Exeter, which, of course, is not under the county authority. There is not one under the county authority of Dorset, there is not one under the county authority

  925
  of Somerset, and there is not one under the county authority of Hampshire, nor of East Suffolk, nor of West Suffolk, and, coming round the coast, not one in Kent, not one in the North or East Biding, nor the West Riding, or the county of Durham. So you may go on. As a matter of fact, fee-paying schools are confined to very few districts or cathedral cities. Why is that? I will tell the House. It is because in those places and those districts, what are called reactionary educational influences, have had sway, and you have found supporters of what is called the non-provided schools—I prefer to call them voluntary schools—schools which, finding it impossible to get out of their voluntary subscriptions the amount of money that they want to carry on, not only charge high fees, but take the whole of the Government Grant, which was given in 1891, because all schools at that time were supposed to be given up, and this Grant was given in order to make up for their abolition. These schools, however, continue to charge fees and to take the Government Grant. I call that a distinctly discreditable proceeding, and it is one of those things which makes one grieve to think that in cathedral cities, where one expects light and intelligence and Christian and brotherly love and charity, one gets in its worst form and to the greatest extent this iniquity. Why is it that they have not abolished fees? Let it be remembered that any local education authority can abolish fees in its area by a stroke of the pen—that is, by resolution—but only in one or two cathedral cities, where they have been abolished, it has been by the chance or temporary success of a progressive or radical educational authority.
  You are faced by this fact, that fees are being gradually abolished everywhere, and, therefore, they are not a great danger in many cases, and now we have this Clause, which is going to give the coup de grace very quickly to fee-paying schools, which for five years are to have an amount paid to them equivalent to the annual amount of the school fees. Yet you have these cormorants of education, who have charged these high fees, and have taken the whole of the Parliamentary Grant without any hesitation, complaining about the abolition of fees, though for five years ahead they are guaranteed those fees. There never was a more hollow debate, or a more specious or unfair claim, or a more discreditable
  926
  manœuvre than this. That is why I am extremely pleased, and I say it candidly, that we have the representative of the Board of Trade putting down his foot firmly. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on that bench have not been very firm or very decided always, but they have on this occasion shown their firmness, and I venture to say that whatever may be done in another place, we shall see this Bill carried into law with this Clause contained in it as it is to-day.
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: The hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) has not contributed to a satisfactory settlement of the question in dispute by using strong language, and by imputing discreditable motives to those who support his Amendment. The question as to the number of schools or the manner in which they are distributed over the country is one of no great consequence. It is a question of principle which we are discussing here—an important principle. I do not care for the financial aspect of the subject at all, for what we are now discussing is a question of importance as affecting the education of the country. I submit that we ought to make our system of education to suit the various social conditions which obtain throughout the country, and follow the wishes of the parents. I was much struck by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman omitted one argument which had been adduced, and that was the argument from the action of his own Government in connection with another Bill. We have a Bill in regard to the education of Scotland where not only are these fee-paying schools admitted, but they are expressly enjoined as part of the system of education to be provided. They say it is to be the duty of every local education authority to submit a scheme for giving primary, intermediate, and secondary education without payment of fees and also of a limited number of schools where fees are charged in some or all the classes. Surely in a question like education we cannot have the principle varying by topographical considerations ! If the Government have a certain view in regard to this question, why do they hold it in one Bill and abandon it in another? The question is not a new one in Scotland. Scotland is not a reactionary or undemocratic country. I notice that the hon. Member for Market Harborough when he spoke last spoke of the evil example of Scotland in this

  927
  matter, and that it was probably due to a reactionary influence, but I think I may safely say that my own country is impervious to the charge of being reactionary. More than twenty years ago we had this question of fee-paying schools fought out. Extremists at that time wanted all the fee-paying schools abolished, but democratic feeling in Scotland refused to have that uniformity of free schools, and since then the view which the extremists put forward has gradually died out. There is no jealousy against and no wish to abolish all these fee-paying schools now, and I think I may adduce as a sure proof of what I say the fact that the same Government to which the President of the Board of Education belongs has, in the Bill which it is now putting forward for Scotland, proposed by express enactment to continue these fee-paying schools in that country. I think the right hon. Gentleman, in his speech in defence of this Clause, might have taken some note of the discrepancy between the two Bills.
  Colonel GREIG: I should not have intervened if it had not been for the remarks of the last speaker, a repetition of arguments which he adduced on the Committee stage of this Bill. Again I have to point out, as I ventured to point out then, that the hon. Member has not been quite fair in representing to the House what actually is the position in Scotland and what the present Bill does. Section 7 of the Scottish Bill, which has been referred to before in this Debate, says:
  "It shall be the duty of every local education authority…. to prepare and submit for the approval of the Department…. a scheme for the adequate provision throughout the education area of the authority of all forms of primary, intermediate, and secondary education in day schools without payment of fees.…"
  That is the primary and overriding obligation which the education authority has to perform. It has to provide enough of these schools of all grades without payment of fees. The Clause then goes on:
  "and if the authority think fit for the maintenance or support (in addition and without prejudice to such adequate provision as aforesaid) of a limited number of schools where fees are charged in some or all of the classes."
  Hon. Members may be under the impression that that deals with voluntary schools, but it does not, because here is what is done in the Scottish Bill with regard to voluntary and denominational schools. Clause 17 says:
  928
  "It shall be lawful at any time after the first election of local education authorities under this Act for the person or persons vested with the title of any school which at the passing of this Act is a voluntary school within the meaning of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1897, with the consent of the trustees…. to transfer the school, together with the site thereof… by sale, lease, or otherwise to the local education authority,"
  and then there is a provision that any school so transferred shall be "held, maintained, and managed as a public school"; and then there is a Sub-section which says:
  "After the expiry of two years from the passing of this Act no Grant from the Education (Scotland) Fund shall be made in respect of any school to which this Section applies unless the school shall have been transferred to the local education authorities, and as from the expiry of that period the Education (Scotland) Act, 1897, shall cease to have effect."
  It is quite true that there are provisions protecting certain denominational religious beliefs in the school. All teachers are to be appointed by the local education authority, but they are to be approved as regards their religious belief and character by representatives of the denominational body. Those are the proposals of the Scottish Bill, dealing entirely differently with the denominational schools and applying to them certain conditions. But let me turn for a moment to what is the actual position in Scotland as to fee-paying schools. I am sure the right hon. Member for Glasgow University (Sir H. Craik) will confirm me in what I am about to state.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I did not treat the subject as one between denominational schools and others. I have no interest in that question at all. I advanced the argument that on educational grounds a certain number of these schools are admitted.
  Colonel GREIG: All I am attempting to do is to clear up the exact position in regard to Scotland, because it has been used in the Debate to the disadvantage of the English Bill, and we do not want our system in Scotland used as a stick with which to beat those who are supporting the President of the English Education Board in his efforts to carry what we consider to be a very good Bill for England. In Scotland, as regards fee-paying schools, a Grant in relief of school fees is distributed at the rate of 12s. per child in average attendance, subject to the conditions

  929
  laid down in Articles 133 and 134 of the Day School Code. Those Articles are as follows:
  "Article 133.—The following conditions shall be observed by the managers of all State-aided schools sharing in the Grant in respect of such schools, and by the school boards in respect of the school provision in the public schools of their district:—No fees shall be exacted from scholars who are between three and fifteen years of age."
  Article 134 is as follows:
  "A school board, with the sanction of the Scottish Education Department, and after supplying a sufficient number of schools in which relief from the payment of fees shall be given in accordance with Article 133, may maintain a certain number of schools in which fees are charged to infants in all or any of the classes."
  Nearly all schools receive this Grant, and, therefore, charge no fees in respect of children between the ages of three and fifteen. There are, however, a few schools in which fees are charged, and those are given in a return which is available to anybody who likes to get it—namely, the Education (Scotland) Return of 1915. It gives a list of sixty-three fee-paying schools, out of which number forty-seven are public and sanctioned under Section 134 of the Code, and on looking at that list I find that they are all higher grade schools with the exception of a very few. There are schools like the Campbeltown Grammar School, the Ardrossan Academy, the Kilmarnock Academy, the Alloa (Town) Academy, the Glasgow (Kent Road) Higher Grade School, the Govan (Bellahouston) Academy, and so on. There is one which may be an elementary school, and probably the right hon. Member for Glasgow University may know. It is the Callander, McLaren High (Elementary) School. I imagine those are largely what we would call, in England, old grammar schools which have been permitted to exist. What happens with regard to these schools? It is to be noted that even in the schools where fees are charged the average fee is not more than about 25s. per head per annum. Although these schools do not receive the fee Grant they receive other Grants from the Department, and it is a condition of these Grants that
  "the ordinary payments in respect of the instruction, from each child, must not exceed 9d. a week on the average number on the books, or such other sum as may be approved by the Department."
  I think it is quite clear that it is a very small matter indeed in Scotland, that it is a mere discretion to the local education
  930
  authority in addition to the primary obligation, and matter of fact the amount of school fees paid by the scholars in these forty-seven public schools is altogether about £17,000. The number of scholars is 14,000, and, in addition, there are a number of free scholars. There are also sixteen elementary schools which get no fee grant at all. They are the Roman Catholic and Episcopalian schools, and they get from fees about £2,000, so that the whole amount of school fees in Scot-land is about £20,000.
  Mr. L. HARDY: We have had a very interesting dissertation on Scottish education, but I confess it seems to me rather like the smoke clouds that lead us into battle now in order to conceal something which is rather more important than the attack itself. We really want to know about the principle which is involved in this question, and we do not want to know what are the special needs of Scottish education. We have the actual fact that in one Bill you have the abolition of fees and in another Bill you have a distinct encouragement of fees, as affecting elementary education. I do not think the Government have given us an answer in any way upon this question, which has been raised again and again. There has been no explanation given to the House as to why the two countries should differ in this respect, and I think we are justified in pressing upon the Government that they should give us some explanation as to why one condition should prevail half a mile on one side of the border and another condition half a mile on the other side of the border. An explanation is necessary in order that we may deal with the question of principle, as I understand they put it forward as a matter of principle, and in order that we should get into our minds the reason why there are different principles affecting different lands on exactly the same point.
  Mr. IAN MALCOLM: Although I am one of those whom my right hon. Friend claims as a supporter of the Education Bill, I give notice that I shall have to vote for the Amendment. I cannot do otherwise. I happen to be one of those who fought through the 1902 Bill in this House and in the country and supported it. It was only tolerable on account of the compromise which we then obtained. I fought as hard as I could in the country against the lamentable Bill of 1906. How can I, who fought for the one and against the

  931
  other, be now asked to support a Clause which tears up all that was best in the compromise of 1902 and perpetuates all that was worst in the Bill of 1906? I cannot help thinking that there is a great deal of sham fight here this afternoon with regard to the Clause. It would be very different if people understood that we are fighting for such as remain of the denominational schools of the country. I see no reason for hiding that either from the House or from the public. I am sure my right hon. Friend knows very well that, excepting for these abnormal times, he would not have a House as empty as this House is this afternoon in order to take away from the denominational schools of this country that which was sealed and delivered by the Government in 1902.
  It is no good saying that you can get rid of a religious controversy simply by not talking about it. That religious controversy exists, and those of us who feel as we do about the denominational schools of this country say that the fewer there are of them left the more we must go on fighting for those that remain. I for one make no secret about that. I agree with those who say that it is a misfortune there should be so much uniformity about the education of the present day, but that is a side point in the discussion of this Clause. The hon. Member for Market Harborough invited the whole country to toe the line with London, and yet the hon. Member (Mr. Lewis) says that there never was such a variety of education as there is at the present time, and his greatest supporter whom he quoted as if he were a voice from heaven told us to toe the line with London. I suggest that we should toe the line with Scotland, which is not an undemocratic country. He will find a great deal of support if he will toe the line with Scotland and leave our denominational schools alone, leave the compromise alone which allows local authorities if they so choose to withdraw this right, and not to go to what I think is the illegitimate and dishonest extent of using the whole force of the Government to tear up the compromise which has existed for the last sixteen years.
  Sir F. BLAKE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will stick to his guns. I have had some experience of educational work in one of the Northern counties, and I would point out that within six months of the Act of 1902 coming into operation we
  932
  had abolished fees in the county of Northumberland, just as the London County Council had done with regard to the London schools. We have never regretted the action which we then took. My purpose in intervening is to give the House the reason that actuated us in coming to the conclusion that we ought to abolish fees in our schools. We came to the deliberate conclusion that the existence of these fee-paying schools meant, and must mean, a certain amount of compulsory payment on the part of some, at all events, of the parents who send their children to these schools. The class of parents who send their children to elementary schools move from place to place. A parent moves out of a district in which he has been sending his children to school without the payment of fees and comes into a district with a school near by where fees are charged.
  It is quite true, as has been said, that no local education authorities and no managers can compel parents to pay fees for their children, and if the parent says that he desires to send his child to the school as a free scholar he must be taken in as such. That is quite true; but what is the position of the child when he is in the school? It is that if he does not conform to the usages of the school he is pointed at by the other children and is in a class by himself. The great bulk of the children are paying fees, and if the parent has the courage to stand out and sends the child to a school without paying fees a distinction is drawn to the great detriment of the child. The consequence is, almost in every case, that although the parent does not need to do it, rather than have his child singled out as being something exceptional and out of the ordinary he pays the fee. That is very often done by parents who can ill afford to pay them, and it was the principle reason that induced us to abolish fees in the North. I do not think that point has been made today, and it is my reason for rising. With regard to some of the arguments used by the right hon. Member for Aston Manor that some parents desire to send their children to schools where bad language is not used and where there is greater cleanliness than in the elementary schools, I would mention that no one who has read a rather well-known book dealing with school life in our public schools is likely to come to the conclusion that the payment of fees abolishes bad language in those schools. My experience of going into a

  933
  large number of schools is that it is not always from the largest and most pretentious houses that the cleanest children come. Some of the cleanest, neatest, and best cared for children come from the humblest homes, and therefore there is no necessity to make any further reference to that point. My purpose in rising was to point out the distinction that is made and the compulsion which is enforced upon parents, the reason which, among others, will induce me to support the Government if the Mover of the Amendment goes to a Division.
  Sir MONTAGUE BARLOW: I am sorry the hon. Member for North Somerset thought fit to use unnecessarily strong language in dealing with this matter. We have always tried in the course of this Debate to avoid language of that kind, and it certainly does not assist matters suddenly at this late stage to alter the atmosphere of the House with regard to this Bill. If I may say so, he defended a weak case by extraordinarily strong language. He referred to the case of the county areas, and said it was very significant that in the county areas fees were not charged, and he tried to attach some odium to the cathedral towns in connection with that. But the explanation is quite simple to anyone who knows anything about education so far as the counties are concerned, namely, that in the counties you have, generally speaking, single-school areas, and it is quite obvious that within those areas it would not be a reasonable thing to charge fees. The justification for charging fees is where there is a right in the parent to choose, and that is a justification which has not been fairly met in the course of this Debate by anyone. Take, for instance, the case of Scotland. It surely is beside the point to try and ride off on an issue as between one sort of school and another sort of school ! The issue we have now to discuss is simply whether it is undemocratic—by which I take it is meant whether it is unfair—to say that in some schools where there is a choice the parent shall be allowed to pay the fee if he likes to. Surely, if it is reasonable to give th parent the choice in the towns of Scotland, whether in a provided or non-provided school, he should have a choice in England ! Or is it a good moral lesson for the Scottish to encourage them to spend a little money and not a good lesson for the English! That occurs to me as the only possible suggestion which I can
  934
  venture on for this discrimination. Surely if it is reasonable in Scotland to allow this choice it is reasonable in England.
  We are told it is so unfair if a child goes to a fee-paying school whose parent cannot afford to pay, and that there is some sort of snobbish distinction made against that child. A great deal is talked about this word snobbery. I would put it another way. There is an old motto of one of the greatest educationists this country has ever known, the great educationist who founded that school tucked away in a valley in the South Coast, William of Wyckham, whose motto was, "Manners maketh man." Parents who seek a school of rather better type and pay a small fee say to themselves, "It is worth while to secure that advantage of manners and other things which we believe we will get if a few of us join together and get rather a better type of school." The suggestion was made by one hon. Member that abnormally bad language and bad influences occur even in the richest schools. No one denies that; but that is not the point. The point is whether by aiming at a certain type of school for admission to which the parents are willing to pay their fee they are doing good for their children; and, if so, what right have we got to pre vent them? But it is said that we are dealing with the matter in entirely the wrong way, that the parents do not want it, that they are not willing to pay the fees, and that we have no business to ask them to. All I can say, after considerable experience of various problems in regard to the denominational schools for a great many years, is that I can give hundreds of instances of parents who are willing to pay a small fee if by so doing they can secure for their children society with children of a similar kind and secure what they consider a better type of education as a result. If such parents are so convinced and are prepared to pay to secure for a child that kind of school, what right have you to take away from the poor parent the right to make that choice and secure that advantage of a better type of school for his child if he so pleases and thinks it worth while making the sacrifice and effort?
  Mr. BOOTH: I think we ought to be grateful to the hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm) for being candid with the House, because I do think these speeches, coming from high denominational quarters, and referring to a higher type of school, are misleading the House. Hon.

  935
  Members who are very familiar with these questions get into a certain form of speech, and take certain things for granted, but I am bound to say the hon. Member for Salford (Sir M. Barlow), who has made a very adroit speech now, uses very different language in his own constituency. The hon. Member would not hold his seat for Salford unless he spoke in a very unmistakable way with a denominational accent. If there was a school board in the whole of this country which was fought on denominational lines it was the school board for Salford. Still, if hon. Members will take the point of view of the hon. Member for Croydon, I have rather some sympathy with them. I do not want to see all the schools become of the London type. I quite agree in many ways London has done a very great work, but I do not think it necessary in every village and every small town there should be a kind of London standard of school set up, and I do not think it is at all to be regretted that there are some different types of school in existence. The truth, of course, is that when the Conservative party swung round and followed the lead of the late right hon. Gentleman for West Birmingham, all that has followed since has been inevitable. It is just a march of the schools from the auspices of the cleric and priest to the State auspices. You cannot help it now. This is a very small stage. I always think the real decision was taken then, and that when the Conservative party made up its mind that further money should be given from the State to denominational schools there could be only one end.
  What hon. Members think they will get by the prolongation of these voluntary schools with their fees now, I have not been able to make out. I do not think they are a real strength, as worked at present, by any denomination. It has never seemed to me that when it comes under the code, and under State auspices, your elementary school is much strengthened by denominationalism. I understand, for instance, the position of the Wesleyans. They established their elementary schools as a defence against their children being driven into church schools and becoming more and more ritualistic, though I take it now they would be prepared to meet the views of the State. But there is still this remnant. The reason we have the problem
  936
  here and they have not the problem in Scotland is purely on the religious issue. Why have they not the problem in Scotland? Simply because they are a Presbyterian people, and you cannot get up an agitation in Scotland as to whether a child shall go into one Presbyterian school or another. But here it is very different. The denominations have come into very close conflict. I am not one who welcomes the introduction of this discussion. I venture to submit to hon. Members who are dealing with it that they are twenty years, or even thirty years, too late. All this was pointed out in the "Anti-Jacobin" by Mr. Frederick Greenwood. I am probably in a unique position in this House. I am not a strong partisan one way or the other, having been educated in a Lancashire voluntary school, and I should like to see these schools preserved. But to conduct them almost entirely with State money, and with very little of their own subscriptions, that being the position, I think the President of the Board of Education has made even a generous offer in guaranteeing them the fees for five years.
  Captain Viscount WOLMER: It is all very well for the Government to tell us that they are not in favour of dead level uniformity, and that they desire to encourage as much variety in our national education as possible, but directly they get the opportunity they try to stifle variety and to foster uniformity. I listened with astonishment to a large part of the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. His speech was the speech of a bureaucrat. His objection to these fee-paying schools was that they were different in complexion to the other schools with which the Board of Education had to deal, and he explained what a nuisance and a bother they were. Those are the arguments of a bureaucrat, and it is that we are up against. Where these fee-paying schools are unpopular under the present law they automatically disappear. The local authority can put an end to them whenever they desire to do so. Here you have schools to which the parents want to send their children, which the local education authority, the elected representatives of the people of the locality, desire to continue, or, at any rate, are going to continue. Then the Government comes down and asks the House to suppress them. I must say that, before we agree to their suppression, a very much

  937
  stronger case for their suppression has got to be made out than the Government has succeeded in making out, and I would like to say this to my right hon. Friend, that he has got to avoid not only injustice to those who care about denominational education and variety in education, but he has also got to avoid the appearance of injustice. He is occupying at the present moment a unique position in the history of education in this country. During the progress of the greatest war history has over known, when the whole interests of the country are absorbed in the prosecution of the War, he has been entrusted with the passing of a Bill dealing with one of the thorniest, most contentious and difficult problems that have tormented British politics for the last fifty years, and he has done it—[An HON. MEMBER: "Jolly well !"]—as my hon. Friend says, jolly well, and he has done it jolly well because up to now he has had the confidence of all those who care about denominational education either one way or the other that he was not going to be unfair or unjust. But that confidence has been shaken in the last few weeks. There is an impression abroad in the country that the Government are—I will not use the word "attempting," because it implies an intention, which would be unjust—but there is an impression that the effect of what the Government are doing will be very prejudicial to the interests of distinctive religious education in after years, and there is a feeling that the right hon. Gentleman in this Bill has—I will not say taken advantage of the situation—but that the conditions of the situation have enabled him to do unchallenged and unchecked what in calmer times would have received more careful scrutiny than it has been possible to give during the last few months.
  Therefore, I do appeal to my right hon. Friend, even at this last moment, to reconsider this matter. He is, if I may say so, walking through a powder magazine with a lighted torch. One false step on his part will cause a terrible explosion. We always looked to him to build up a great educational structure that was going to be a settlement of the problems with which we are now faced, and a starting point for further progress in education, but you will never get a settlement of that sort if you leave behind this Bill, suppressed and hidden under the excitement of this War, a rankling feeling of injustice that opportunity has been taken
  938
  to do what no Government would have been able to do unchallenged in times of peace. Therefore, it is because I ask my right hon. Friend to aveid even the suspicion of unfairness to those who care for a distinctive type in education, both in denominational education and in other departments of education, that I ask him to allow to continue to exist those schools to which, ex hypothesi, parents want to send their children, which local authorities desire to continue, which are not a source of any local friction or of any local difficulty, but are continuing their peaceful existence without causing and disturbance. I venture to say that if he now insists on attacking them, it will be a bad piece of work for the success of his whole educational measure
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): I am very sorry that a measure which up till now has met with a very large degree of acceptance from all quarters of the House should appear to raise in some minds an acutely controversial question. I regret that even a note of interrogation should be raised with reference to the justice and equity of any part of the measure which the Government is presenting to the country. I can assure my hon. Friend who spoke last that I myself have approached this problem, which I do not think deserves the importance which he attaches to it, not from any partisan point of view. Indeed, as I informed the House on the Committee stage of the Bill, my inclination was first, and my first instructions to the draftsmen were, to provide for the preservation of fees wherever it could be shown that fees were educationally beneficial. It was only after I myself had looked into the question carefully, after I had informed myself as fully and as impartially as I could of the facts of the situation, that I came to the conclusion that it was impossible for the Board of Education to go on sanctioning the imposition of fees in respect of assumed educational advantages which were reported to me on all sides by those most competent to judge to be advantages which upon examination vanished.
  As I pointed out in Committee, this question was really forced upon my notice by the consolidation of our elementary school Grants, a proposal of the highest possible value, one which had long been advocated by those acquainted with the

  939
  existing complexities of our elementary school finance, and the value of which nobody in this House has challenged. As I pointed out to the Committee, this involved the abolition of the fee grant, and as the fee grant is a factor which enables the Board of Education to regulate the fees charged in elementary schools, consequently it was necessary for the Board and for the Minister of Education to consider the whole question of fees. You could not leave the question of fees where it was. Once, then, you begin to consider the question of fees, you had to ask yourself one question, On what principle could fees be justified? There are two principles. First of all—it may be asserted—fees are justified because they obtain certain educational advantages for particular types of schools which those schools would be otherwise unable to obtain. That is the argument which is most generally advanced on behalf of fees, but is that argument sound? Is it fair to have two classes of elementary schools, one class providing additional educational advantages to those who can pay for them, and another class providing a lower type of education for the poorer members of the community? That is the first justification. The second justification is one that has been urged from many quarters of the House during these discussions. It is that the parent pays fees to obtain a better social atmosphere for his child. I do not deny that there is force in that argument. But is the Board of Education, is the Government, to recognise that principle as a universal principle running all though the general organisation of our elementary schools? Think of where this would lead you? It would lead you to the recognition of two classes of schools in all parts of the country, one class for the higher type of artisan and another type for the poorer class of artisan. It would mean the stereotyping of a policy of social segregation. I do not consider that that is wise statesmanship.
  Viscount WOLMER: Does that arise in Scotland?
  Mr. FISHER: I am not concerned about Scotland. I have enough to do with England and Wales. I maintain that this would be bad statesmanship. I am also confronted with another policy. Since I began to examine the education problem, I saw that one great lacuna,
  940
  one of the great wants in our English system of education was the lack of what might be called higher grade education in our schools. On all sides I had complaints that boys and girls were marking time in the upper standards of our schools, and that the education provided was lamentably insufficient, that it was inconsistent with intellectual progress, and that something must be done to fortify and reform it. All I can say is that one of the great tasks of the Minister for Education in the next ten years will be to develop, upon sound lines, what may be called higher grade elementary education. How is that to be done? Obviously, this higher grade elementary education must be provided for children who can benefit by it. If, on the other hand, you find, from various reasons, fee-paying schools chiefly confined to children not selected on the grounds of policy, but selected because their parents can afford to pay the fee, then to that extent the ground is cumbered and obstructed, because it is only human nature for the local education authority to select the fee-paying school as the higher grade school of its area. That we find all over England. Consequently, if you want to develop higher grade education in this country, the first step you have to take is to stop the payment of fees in elementary schools.
  The right hon. Gentleman pointed out to the House one very important fact in respect of recent educational developments in this country, a fact which has not been sufficiently appreciated by hon. Members who have contributed speeches to this Debate. It is the development of a cheap secondary education in this country. There are a thousand schools receiving Grants from the Board of Education, a thousand schools charging low fees, with many free places, and 67 per cent. of the boys and girls of those secondary schools come from the public elementary schools, many of them paying fees. Therefore, the parent who desires to pay a fee and who desires that his child should enjoy higher educational advantages, or higher social advantages, has the secondary school open to him. The child can go in at the age of eleven and receive a good secondary school education at a very low rate or with a free place. When I am told that this measure is inimical to variety, I ask myself whether the critics who have advanced that argument have any know-

  941
  ledge of the elements of education. If you want to have variety in your schools you require to have some amount of personality, both in teachers and in taught. It is a matter of personality. It is a matter of contact between the willing mind and the stimulating teacher. I want to get life into our elementary school system. If we want this we must have a system under which talent can be selected, segregated, brought on quite irrespective of the economic considerations which lie at the basis of the fee-charging system. At any rate, whether I am right or wrong—and I have always had in mind Oliver Cromwell's adjuration, that it is possible to make a mistake—that is the angle from which I have approached the subject. I
  hope I have succeeded in persuading hon. Members of this House that I am not approaching this subject from the anti-denominational or denominational point of view. I am quite unaffected by the old controversies. I have played no part in them myself. I took practically very little interest in them at the time. I am quite unaffected by them. I have applied to the best of my ability, a fresh mind to this problem, and, at any rate, that is the advice which I give to the House.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'school' ['public elementary school'], stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 52.

  Division No. 65.]

  AYES.

  [5.58 p.m.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Anderson, William C.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roch, Walter F.

  Anstruther-Gray, Lt.-Col. Wm.

  Hudson, Walter

  Rowlands, James

  Baker, Col. Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

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

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir Charles (Mansfield)

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

  Smallwood, Edward

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Rushcliffe)

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

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

  Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

  Snowden, Philip

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Jones, Wm. S. Glyn. (Stepney)

  Somervell, William Henry

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Jowett, Frederick William

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

  Bryce, John Annan

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Keswick, Henry

  Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth, S.)

  Collins, Sir William (Derby)

  King, Joseph

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

  Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

  Tickler, Thomas George

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

  Tootill, Robert

  Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Davies, Timothy (Louth)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Walker, Col. W. H.

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

  Lonsdale, James R

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir James B.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Wardle, George J.

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

  Mallalieu, F. W.

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

  Fisher. Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Watson, John B. (Stockton)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Martin, Joseph

  Wedgwood, Lt.-Commander Josiah C.

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  White, James Dundas (Tradeston)

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Mason, Robert (Wansbeck)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

  Millar, James Duncan

  Whiteley, Sir H. J. (Droitwich)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas p.

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Partington, Hon. Oswald

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

  Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness)

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, South)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Haslam, Lewis

  Pratt, John W.

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

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Hibbert, Sir Henry

  Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

  Higham, John Sharp

  Randall, Atheistan

  Edmund Talbot and Capt. Guest.

  Hinds, John

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Beach, William F. H.

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

  Barnett, Capt. Richard W.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Butcher, Sir J. G.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Bird, Alfred

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Cator, John

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

  Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

  Colvin, Col.

  Larmor, Sir Joseph

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Stewart, Gershom

  Fletcher, John S.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Gretton, John

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

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

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

  Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

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

  Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence (Ashford)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Yate, Col. Charles Edward

  Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

  Nield, Sir Herebrt

  Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. E. Cecil and Mr. Marriott.

  Horne, Edgar

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Hunter, Maj. Sir Chas. Rodk.

  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King), to insert in Subjection (1) the word "secondary," is out of order, because it would impose a charge. The Amendment to Clause 28, to insert in Sub-section (1), after the word "teachers," the words "in secondary schools and of all teachers," is out of order at that point, and it should come up as a Clause by itself.

  CLAUSE 29.—(Provisions as to Closing of Schools.)
  (1) The managers of a public elementary school not provided by the local education authority, if they wish to close the school, shall give at least eighteen months' notice to the local education authority of their intention to close the school, and a notice under this provision shall not be withdrawn except with the consent of the local education authority.
  Sir M. BARLOW: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "at least."
  These words seem quite unnecessary, and appear to suggest something more than eighteen months, and I think that period ought to be sufficient. I do not think there is any difficulty in the matter.
  Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. FISHER: I am willing to accept it.
  Amendment agreed to
  Sir M. BARLOW: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words "or the Board of Education."
  This Clause deals entirely with non-provided schools, and, unfortunately, there are cases where non-provided schools have sometimes to be closed. In such cases notice has to be given to the local education authority, because it has to make provision for an equivalent number of school places, and that provision is made by erecting a new school, which may either be another non-provided school or one pro-
  944
  vided by the local authority. The local authority has to see to it that when the school is closed another school is provided to take its place. I think it is perfectly reasonable that eighteen months' notice should be given. It sometimes happens that when notice has been given for one reason or another the authorities of that particular school, in spite of the fears which they had that they could not carry on the school or make the necessary alterations in the school buildings, find that they can satisfy the demands of the local authority or the Board of Education, or, in other words, they would like to withdraw the notice they had given that they cannot carry on the school.
  When trustees or managers of a non-provided school have given this notice they must mot, at any rate if the local authority have made provision or in any way incurred expense, be allowed to withdraw their notice. Cases have come to my knowledge where a notice of this kind has been given of the intention to close the school and the local authority has done nothing in the matter, and afterwards the local managers have found themselves in a position eventually to comply with the requirements of the local authority or the Board of Education and carry on the school themselves. They have gone to the local authority and said, "It is true we were not going to carry on the school, but we now find that we can do so. You have not scheduled any land for a new school under your provisional order, and you have not done anything to burden the rates. Therefore, we would like you to allow us to withdraw our notice." The Clause as it stands says that the local authority shall have complete power to decide whether such a notice can be withdrawn or not. In the matter we shall be content to leave ourselves in the hands of the Board or the local authority, and if either of those authorities give their consent it should be within the power of the trustees and managers to resume their

  945
  schools if they find they can do so. I do not think this involves any question of principle, and it is a case where the Board might reasonably make provision for preventing an injustice or unreasonable conduct on the part of the local authority, and I hope the President will see his way to accept my proposal.
  Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. FISHER: This is a very small matter. It is of very little concern to the Board except in so far as it might bring them into conflict with the local authority itself with what is, after all, a minor matter of administration, and eminently one for their discretion I submit that the local authority ought to decide whether the managers should be allowed to withdraw a notice or not, and it is somewhat cumbersome to bring the Board of Education in to decide so small a point. For these reasons I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 30.—(Grouping of Non-Provided Schools of the Same Denominational Character.)
  Where there are two or more public elementary schools not provided by the local education authority of the same denominational character in the same locality, the local education authority, if they consider that it is expedient for the purpose of educational efficiency and economy, may, with the approval of the Board of Education, give directions for the distribution of the children in those schools according to age, sex, or attainments, and otherwise with respect to the organisation of the schools; and for the grouping of the schools under one body of managers constituted in the manner provided by Sub-section (2) of Section twelve of the Education Act, 1902.
  Provided that, if the constitution of the body of managers falls to be determined by the Board of Education under that Section, the Board shall observe the principles and proportions prescribed by Sections six and eleven of that Act; and that, if the managers of a school affected by any directions given under this Section request a public inquiry, the Board shall hold a public inquiry before approving those directions.
  Sir M. BARLOW: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
  "Provided that the powers of distribution of children and grouping of schools hereby given shall not be so exercised as to reduce the number of scholars in average attendance in any school to less than thirty."
  This Clause, again, deals entirely with non-provided schools, and there is a great deal to be said for it. I should like, in many cases, to see non-provided schools grouped together and strengthened by so
  946
  doing. There is a similar provision in the Act of 1902, and when I was bringing out an edition of that Act in the form of a textbook I devised a scheme whereby those schools could be utilised to a considerable extent. We are now dealing with this question of grouping, and we have to be careful that we do not do any injustice in order to secure administrative efficiency. I do not think we ought to put it into the power of the local authority to do this. The local authority is given the right of distributing the children and reorganising the schools, and we ought to safeguard the school and not give the local authority absolute power in the process of distributing their children amongst the non-provided schools, for they might distribute them in such a way as to destroy a particular school.
  Cases of friction have arisen, especially in regard to one local school whose name is familiar to all of us, in the administration of the law with regard to non-provided schools. Cases may arise where this power of organising the non-provided schools and distributing the children about, moving all classes from one school to another might be so used as to practically be an act of tyranny. My Amendment says that no local authority shall move children from one non-provided school to another to such an extent as to reduce the number of children in average attendance at the particular school in question to below thirty. Under the Act of 1902, Section 9, dealing with what schools are necessary and unnecessary, that Act says that no school shall be considered unnecessary provided certain things happen and provided the number of children in average attendance does not fall below thirty. I know there are cases where the Board still allows schools to go on with a number below an average of thirty, but if they are reduced below thirty by definite and, I assume, tyrannical action on the part of the local authority there might be a strong case for the Board of Education to say that the number is below thirty, and under Section 9 of the Act of 1902 the presumption is that the school is no longer necessary, and they might say, "Please close the school." I hope the President will see his way, if not by my Amendment, in some other way to give us some safeguard that the power of the local authority shall not be used for the suppression of the school, a suppression which might occasionally be desirable from

  947
  the administrative point of view, but which I submit would be very hard upon the managers or trustees of a school and which might be very much abused and used tyrannically against a school, under circumstances which nobody in this House would defend. I therefore venture to urge that these words should be added to the Clause in the interest of what we all desire, namely, the honest, decent, and fair administration of the Bill.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  As I understand it, the whole structure of the Bill is that nothing should be done to injure non-provided schools in any way. That is the intention of the Bill and of the Board of Education. We have had one or two things which some of us think may seriously injure non-provided schools. That may or may not be right but this particular Amendment does show a way in which serious injury might be done to non-provided schools, and for that reason I support it. It cannot injure the framework of the Bill, and there cannot possibly be any harm in putting in the proviso, because I am sure there is no intention in the President's mind of causing any injury to non-provided schools. If the non-provided schools fear injury, surely the right hon. Gentleman will go as far as he can to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. FISHER: My hon. Friend who has moved the Amendment is quite right in saying that it would be unfortunate if, as the result of grouping, which it is the object of this Clause to facilitate, certain schools should be closed and their existence terminated. I have already expressly told the House that is not the object of the Clause. The object of the Clause is not the closing of schools but the regrouping of pupils in schools of the same denomination, and the hon. Member may rest assured that the Board of Education will use its influence to prevent this Clause being used as a pretext for the closing of schools. I think, however, that the Amendment which is proposed would work rather unfortunately. I take it that the regrouping will be most useful among the small schools. It will be often much the most convenient plan to have a little body of pupils, perhaps less than thirty, in one particular school, and I feel that it would rather injure the prac-
  948
  tical value of the Clause if this Amendment were persisted in. For that reason I am unable to accept it.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 31.—(Provisions Relating to Central Schools and Classes)
  (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section six of the Education Act, 1902, or, in the case of London, Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Education (London) Act, 1903, as to the appointment of managers, any public elementary school which in the opinion of the Board is organised for the sole purpose of giving advanced instruction to older children may be managed in such manner as may be approved by the local education authority, and, in the case of a school not provided by that authority, also by the managers of the school.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (1).
  This is a very difficult provision to understand. We come here to the provisions relating to central schools and classes. I believe that a number of people do not know what central schools are. It is very important that those persons who want to understand this Bill and the objects of the President of the Board of Education should understand that central schools are an essential part of his plan. We are, therefore, no doubt going to have a great development of the central schools. That is entirely to the good, and everybody who is interested in educational progress wants it. This Sub-section provides that when you have a public elementary school which, in the opinion of the Board, is organised for the sole purpose of being a central school giving higher or advanced instruction, then the Board may step in and do away with the old managers. The local education authority will appoint a brand new set of managers. There are some of our higher elementary schools where there is a concentrated population which take an advanced or superior position, and which value greatly their traditions and their managers and their individuality. Those schools naturally are afraid. This Clause is up against the difficulty between provided and non-provided schools. You have, say, an area where there are five or six schools for a small concentrated population, and you want to make one a central superior school. If all the schools were either voluntary of one special domination, or were council schools, it would not be very difficult to adjust the differences and the claims between them, but when you have some of the schools

  949
  voluntary and some provided or council schools, you are going to have jealousy and suspicion between the two. If you take a voluntary school and make it a superior school for advanced instruction, you are going to have the parents of the children in the other schools up in revolt, or suspicious or jealous. If, on the other hand, you take a council school and make it the superior school, you are going to have the voluntary school people suspicious, jealous, or disappointed. This is a real administrative difficulty, and it is a case in which it is quite obvious that the dual system is hampering and making it more difficult for us to have educational advance. I have only just received a telegram from a well-known educationist—I will not mention his name, because some Members might consider it more authoritative than others, but at any rate he is a very great educationist—asking me by all means to get some statement from the President of the Board of Education how he is going to work this Sub-section. You are taking power to abolish the managers, and the school is to be managed in such manner as may be approved by the local education authority. I take it that means that there will still be some managers, and that the school cannot be managed, say, by the education committee itself.
  Mr. FISHER Mr. FISHER indicated assent.
  Mr. KING: At any rate, it is in my legal opinion that managers are essential in the case of all voluntary schools. Supposing you have a provided school that is the central school, are you going to say that voluntary children are to attend there, and are you going to take away its undenominational character to suit the denominational children? On the other hand, if you make a voluntary school the central school, how are you going to manage? Are you going to leave the managers, if they do not consent, as they have the power not to consent, to their own modification or alteration, or how are you going to meet the difficulties as regards the managers? I think that I have stated the real difficulties which arise, and I hope that I shall get an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to his intentions.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. FISHER: I trust that the hon. Member will not persist in his Amendment. The Board felt that if central
  950
  schools were to be adequately encouraged, it was necessary to give the local education authority a perfectly free hand in arranging for the management of those schools. After all, as my hon. Friend has said, it is a matter of some difficulty to arrange the managing body for a central school that draws its pupils from eleven or twelve different elementary schools. It is not a problem which you can expect the Board of Education to solve in every instance, and we felt that it would be the wiser course to leave this power to the local education authority, and to ask the local education authority to use its discretion. We have every confidence that discretion will be wisely exercised.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 33.—(Acquisition of Land by Local Education Authority.)
  (1) A local education authority may be authorised to purchase land compulsorily for the purpose of any of their powers or duties under the Education Acts by means of an Order submitted to the Board of Education and confirmed by the Board in accordance with the provisions contained in paragraphs (1) to (13) of the First Schedule to the Housing, Town Planning, Etc., Act, 1909, with the substitution of the Board of Education for the Local Government Board, of the local education authority for the local authority, and of references to the Education Acts for references to "this Act":
  Provided that—

  (a) the Board of Education shall not confirm any such Order even when unopposed if they are of opinion that the land is un-suited for the purpose for which it is proposed to be acquired:

  (b) an Order for the compulsory purchase of land in the administrative county of London shall be subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section two of the Education (London) Act, 1903;

  (c) an Order for the compulsory purchase of land of the nature which by Section forty-five of the Housing, Town Planning, Etc., Act, 1909, is exempt from compulsory acquisition for the purposes of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, shall be provisional only and shall not have effect unless and until it is confirmed by Parliament.

  (2) The powers given by this Section in relation to the compulsory purchase of land by the local education authority shall be in substitution for any other powers existing for that purpose.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
  This is a Clause upon which there will possibly be some concession made by the Government. It is a very drastic Clause. It gives power to the local education authority, with the consent of the Board of Education, to take land compulsorily

  951
  anywhere without coming before Parliament at all. At the present time you have to get a Provisional Order, and that naturally comes before Parliament. Under the Bill the local education authority, with the consent of the Board of Education, may take land anywhere without coming before Parliament. There are two people who will be affected. There is, first, the ordinary landowner, and there is, secondly, the premises which are already used as a school, and which may be thought by the local education authority to be more or less in opposition to the schools which they are setting up. The only remedy which the landowner or the schoolowner has is that he may demand a local inquiry, which will be held by a gentleman sent down by the Board of Education. The Board of Education before doing that may require him to deposit money by way of security for the costs, and if the gentleman who holds the inquiry thinks right he may require the landowner to pay the costs of the inquiry. Therefore, the protection to the landowner is very small indeed, and I feel that it is a matter which ought to be brought before the House. It is quite outside the realms of education, and it goes much further than the present Act. Supposing compulsory power has been obtained in that way, and an Order has been made by the Board of Education, and has been carried into effect, the landowner or the schoolowner, of course, has the right of compensation. It does not come under the Land Clauses Act. He is told to apply under the same system as that contained in the First Schedule of the Housing and Town Planning Act. The House will remember how hard the Clauses of that Act were fought and discussed, but there was one Clause which was brought up in Committee, and in regard to which I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would do something. Supposing a landowner has his land taken compulsorily, he has no right, under this Schedule, to be represented by counsel or by expert witnesses. It sounds a very popular thing in one sense to say that counsel should not appear, but since that Section was put in the Act of 1909 we know that in practice it is not so popular as it appears to be. It may be an act of grave injustice to people who own land who may not be able to present their case themselves as they wish it to be put before the Court. It is a question of prin-
  952
  ciple that a litigant—it is not a question of getting costs out of the other side—in an inquiry connected with land should be entitled to have his case presented by any person whom he chooses to retain. I am aware that I am laying myself open to the charge of being in favour of my own profession. I agree that to that extent I am prejudiced, but, apart from that, it is necessary, as a matter of essential justice, because the House will see that the Clause may be worked with injustice to the landowner. I had hoped that the President would have put down some Amendment on the Report stage to meet one of these points. The Clause hits not only the landowner, who ought to be protected in these cases, but the compulsory power may be used against schools which exist at the present time. I hope sincerely that there will not be friction in the educational world in the future. There has been friction in the past, and it is possible that competition may engender friction in a particular case. If the Government cannot see their way to assist me by withdrawing the Clause and redrafting it, as I had the audacity to ask them to do in Committee, I would ask them to put in words which would prevent the Clause applying to the compulsory purchase of land or houses used for educational purposes, and also providing that where a school exists the local authority should not have the power of acquiring it compulsorily against the wish of the owners or management. I hope also that the Government will put in an Amendment eliminating that part of the Schedule of the Act of 1909 which prevents a landowner being represented by counsel if he chooses to employ one.
  Mr. HOHLER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith): My hon. and learned Friend, whom I used to know well in the days when we hunted in couples, is very pertinacious on my trail. He has to-night addressed to the House again the arguments he so forcibly put before us on the Committee stage, yet I cannot help thinking that the answer I made him when we discussed this matter with great fulness in Committee was an adequate answer. What I tried to explain then was that the policy of the Board of Education imperatively required that there should come into existence powers for acquiring land. The plots of land in most cases that have to be

  953
  acquired are quite inconsiderable, but it is absolutely impossible, so I am told by those who understand these things, that the efficient development of educational work in this country, which everybody professes to desire, and I believe honestly desires, can be attained without them. There is a postulate. Some means has to be devised of obtaining land compulsorily. Many alternatives present themselves for doing that. There are many ways in which a public Department can take land compulsorily. There are the Lands Clauses and the Lands Clauses Acts. I do not believe that the Lands Clauses Acts have any friends in this House but the lawyers—I am certain of it. I speak as one who can say, without any exaggeration, that I made thousands of pounds out of the Lands Clauses Acts. I have not the slightest doubt that, if Parliament is foolish enough to tolerate an unexpurgated survival, I shall make thousands of pounds more. Certainly as long as I discharge a public duty I shall not recommend any public Department that has to acquire land to secure that land by the machinery of the Lands Clauses Acts. I do not know that in saying that I shall command the assent of my hon. and learned Friend, who is so adroit an advocate in these matters.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: May I point lout to my right hon. and learned Friend that you cannot acquire land compulsorily under the Lands Clauses Acts? You have to get an order of the Court, and even the Government itself has to get a Provisional Order.
  Sir F. SMITH: Does my hon. and learned Friend really imagine that it is more difficult to obtain an Order than it is to obtain statutory powers in the shape in which I am seeking to obtain them now? There is no difficulty in obtaining an Order if Parliament assents to the principle that we must compulsorily obtain land and decides in favour of that particular method of acquiring it which we call the Lands Clauses Acts. Let us dismiss that. As we dismiss that, the question arises, how are we to give the Board of Education the powers which everybody agrees they should possess, or rather to which the House by a large majority has agreed to give them? We have followed the method of incorporating by reference the provisions of the Housing and Town Planning Act. We heard on the Committee stage long and eloquent invectives against the practice of legislating by reference. I am
  954
  not one of those who is content with legislation by reference, which renders the matter really unintelligible. But when that is conceded, do not let us go too far in that direction. There is just as much nonsense talked against legislation by reference as is talked on the other side. If you were to incorporate in a Bill twenty or thirty provisions that have been quite clearly stated in an earlier Act, and which, by simple reference, can be clearly understood, no draftsman who has not lost his senses, especially in these days of the shortage of paper, is going to repeat the whole of those twenty or thirty Clauses in the Bill. There are cases in which legislation by reference does not add in any way to confusion of thought. I do not describe this Clause as belonging to one class or the other. There is no Member of this House so unacquainted with the steps which are necessary in order to ascertain the language of an Act of Parliament. He can, by taking this volume in his hand, understand what is meant.
  Let me answer what my hon. and learned Friend says in regard to the employment of counsel. It is quite true, as he has said, that in cases where property of any importance or magnitude is being dealt with, in the view of the Government, and I am certain that would be the view of the House as a whole, it is undoubtedly desirable that those appearing as parties in such matters should, if they desire it, have the advantage of retaining counsel. I must point out to my hon. and learned Friend and to the House that at the time the Housing and Town Planning Bill became an Act—in the discussion of which Bill both my hon. and learned Friend and I took part—the whole matter was gone into with the greatest care by the House of Commons. I may add that in the case of that Act you were dealing with the acquisition of very large pieces of land in the main. Here we are dealing in the main with the acquisition of very small pieces of land. Take the case of a piece of land worth about £50 or £60. My hon. and learned Friend knows perfectly well—he is far too candid a Member of this House not to concede it—that if one party has counsel appearing for him in dealing with a small piece of land like this, those who appear on the other side immediately say, so great is still the influence of the prestige in the mind of the litigant on the other side, that the immediate reply on the other side is, "They are having counsel;

  955
  we must have counsel too." It is just the same if a leading counsel is employed on one side. Immediately the other side says, "We must have a leader too." Wherever these pieces of land are acquired it is very likely that counsel would be employed. When I was first asked the question I was under the impression that under the terms of this Bill we were reducing the occasions upon which counsel could be employed. The fact is that we are allowing the employment of counsel in exactly the same circumstances as they can be employed under the Housing and Town Planning Act. My hon. and learned Friend said that I had given some sort of assurance on the Committee stage. There is no one more anxious than I that anything I undertake to do should be carried out not only in the letter, but in the spirit. Here is exactly what I said:
  "I should have risen if I had had an opportunity earlier to say that it is not our intention, if it is the desire of the Committee, that they should be prevented from having the use of counsel and of solicitors. That shall be very carefully considered, with the advantage to the Government of knowing what certain hon. Members have said, between now and the Report stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1918, col. 1649, Vol. 107.]
  I have given very careful consideration TO this matter, and those with whom I act, and who on such a point it is my duty to advise, have come to the following conclusion—I hope it will satisfy what my hon. and learned Friend has in mind: We do not think, after the most careful consideration, that it would be in the public interest, or, on a long view, in the private interest of the litigant himself, that in some of these cases, which will be meticulously small, they should have the right to engage counsel. But my hon. and learned Friend will observe that paragraph (8) of the First Schedule of the Housing and Town Planning Act contains the following provision:
  "The person holding the inquiry or arbitration shall hear, by themselves or their agents, any authorities or parties authorised to appear, and shall hear witnesses, but shall not, except in such cases as the Board otherwise direct, hear counsel or expert witnesses."
  The House will observe that the Board, which, under the terms of legislation by reference, means in this case the Board of Education,
  "can otherwise direct."
  That is to say, in every case the Board of Education can give direction that counsel
  956
  shall be heard. Let me state to my hon. and learned Friend, as I do with the full authority and acquiescence of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education, what I think he will regard as a satisfactory assurance. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that, while it is not the policy of the Board that counsel should be employed in small cases, it is the intention of my right hon. Friend, and I so declare the policy of the Board of Education, that in all cases which can fairly be described as serious cases—my hon. and learned Friend knows perfectly well what I mean—cases of reasonable magnitude, it is and will be the policy of the Board to direct that the parties, if so advised, may have the assistance of counsel. I hope that will satisfy my hon. and learned Friend. If it is generously construed, he will be the first to admit that it gives him all he desires. On the main point of the Motion, which is to leave out the Clause, may I ask my hon. and learned Friend and the House to remember that on the Committee stage this Clause was passed after very full discussion. Everybody who desires to see achieved the objects which the supporters of this Bill have declared to be its objects in the various stages of its Parliamentary progress must recognise the immediate necessity, the moment the War is over, of securing these pieces of land. If my hon. and learned Friend is not satisfied with the method of acquiring the land which is proposed, and which represents the latest Parliamentary method considered best for the purpose, he must discuss some other method. We are of opinion that, on the whole, this is the best method. If it is administered, as I am sure it will be, with wisdom and common-sense, there will be the minimum of friction and the maximum of public service.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the point of giving power for the first time to a Department to take land without coming to Parliament?
  Sir F. SMITH: Even if I assumed that my hon. and learned Friend's postulate is well founded, it would not in any way follow that we are doing an unreasonable thing. If the Legislature has authorised various private individuals, under certain circumstances and with certain safeguards, to acquire land, how can it be pretended that it is unreasonable that a public Department, with all the safeguards that we have given here, and the Public

  957
  Department that it responsible for education, should not be allowed without coming to Parliament in each individual case to take general powers?
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I want to support all that the Attorney-General has said in regard to this Clause. I am Chairman of a Committee appointed by the Prime Minister a year ago, comprising Members of this House and a number of distinguished gentlemen not in this House, to advise on the whole question of the acquisition of land for public purposes. We have published a Report, and the evidence that we have had is conclusive as to the extremely dilatory and expensive character of the machinery now available to the Board of Education for the acquisition of land for educational purposes. The evidence as to delay is stronger than I thought possible. If I remember rightly, the average length of time it takes to acquire a school site and to get the school going under existing circumstances is over three years from the decision that a school is wanted in the district. The case is absolutely clear that some simplification of procedure is necessary. The Committee regards this proposed procedure as as good and simple as any other. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) asked whether there was a precedent in any legislation for any Government Department having power, without application to Parliament, to get an Order for the compulsory acquisition of land. There is, in a measure which was passed in one year, then repealed and re-enacted in an extended form in the next year, the Small Holdings Act of 1908, under which county councils can acquire land on the Order of the Board of Agriculture without any appeal to Parliament at all. I think that procedure has hitherto worked well. This is as good a form of procedure as any hitherto known to legislation in this country. I would not support a proposal to put into such a Bill as this an entirely novel method of procedure. I should very much prefer to adopt a method which has already been in use for a considerable number of years and been found to work well in practice. From my own point of view as chairman of the Committee, I want to say that I hope we may be able to advise a simplification of procedure, not only in regard to the acquisition of powers which we have already done in the Report we have issued, but also in regard to the machinery for the assessment of compensation and, so to
  958
  speak, the taking possession of the land in respect of which acquisition powers have been obtained, and when that simplified procedure is considered and, as I hope, at some time a Bill presented by the Government, I hope a general system, equally simple, for all purposes may be adopted in connection with the acquisition of land. By supporting the particular proposal in this Bill I must not be understood as in any way saying I regard it as necessarily the best for all purposes, when the general question comes to be discussed of the acquisition of land for public purposes. But subject to that one qualification as to the future, which may be regarded by those who are opposed to this proposal as a loophole of escape, in that they will hereafter, as I hope, have an opportunity of reconsidering the whole question on its merits, I very strongly support what the Attorney-General has said, and I hope the House will see its way to pass this proposal as a really effective and simple procedure.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think the House will be extremely glad and somewhat surprised to have heard the statement of the Attorney-General. I and my friends look with extreme pleasure upon his denunciation of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845, under which more robbery of the public has been committed than probably under any other Act of Parliament. But I do not think I can join in the great praise of the right hon. Gentleman on the ground of his altruism as a lawyer. He knows perfectly well that the Lands Clauses Act is a bad Act, and he has nobly got up and said it shall not be incorporated in this Bill. But no one knows better than he, or the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Scott), that, whatever we may say, when the Bill comes back from another place it will contain a reference to the Lands Clauses Act. Regularly it is put back into Bills and accepted in silence by a disappearing House, and the principle is again established that, whatever party may rule in this country, the House of Lords has the last word as to what is in any Bill concerned with land. Therefore the little protests made by the Attorney-General to the request made by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Rawlinson) are all in vain and are all quite useless. This proposal will, we know, become the law in spite of any demonstration or camouflaged efforts in Liberalism on the part of the Front

  959
  Bench. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Scott) told us what his Committee were going to advise about facilitating the purchase and acquisition of land. Neither I nor any of my Friends are represented on the Committee, but we have very strong views on the methods of the acquisition of land by Government Departments.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 35.—(Amendment with Respect to the Allocation of Expenses to Particular Areas.)
  It shall not be obligatory on a county council to charge on or raise within particular areas any portion of such expenses as are mentioned in paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section eighteen of the Education Act, 1902, and accordingly each of those paragraphs shall have effect as if for the word "shall" there was substituted the word "may" and as if the words "less than one half or" were omitted therefrom; and, whore before the passing of this Act any portion of such expenses has been charged on or allocated to any area, the county council may cancel or vary the charge or allocation.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Haggerston affect the incidence of the rates, and would not be in order.
  Mr. L. SCOTT: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words:
  "Before charging any expenses under Section eighteen (1) (a) of the Education Act, 1902, on any area situate within a borough or urban district the council of which is an authority for the purpose of Part III. of the Education Act, 1902, a county council shall consult the council of the borough or urban district concerned."
  This is a small Amendment which, I think, will promote the easy working of the educational machinery, particularly in regard to the overlapping that exists under the Act of 1902 between the county authority, the Part II. authority, and the small urban district or borough authority as the Part III. authority, within the area of the county authority. Under the Act of 1902, for the purposes of higher education, the county authority may raise either a general rate throughout the county or a special rate in the parish or parishes in the particular district where the school or college happens to be in respect of which they want to raise money, and that they may do, as the law stands, within the area of the small Part III. authority without consulting that authority. Under the 1902 Act there was a limit to the amount that they were
  960
  entitled so to raise without the consent of the Board of Education. Under the Bill that limit is removed, and so their powers to raise money for the purposes of higher education within the area of another authority will be increased. For that reason it is highly desirable that before the larger authority desires to raise money within the area of the smaller authority, it should at least have the politeness to consult with that authority before taking such action.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: On a point of Order. I understood you, Sir, to rule my Amendments out on the ground that they affected the incidence of rating. Does not this Amendment also affect it in exactly the same way?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It says the education authority shall consult the council of the borough. There is no harm in consultation.
  Sir M. BARLOW: I beg to second the Amendment. It is part of the general policy of co-ordination and co-operation as between the various authorities, and it seems very desirable.
  Sir R. ADKINS: I wish to say, on behalf of the county councils, that they have no objection whatever to this Amendment. The idea was that we should give notice to the minor local authorities in whose area we were proposing to levy a rate obviously in the public interest, and have the frankest conference and consultation on the matter. In our judgment that would be an advantage.
  Mr. FISHER: I shall be very glad to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 47.—(Definitions.)
  (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
  The expression "practical instruction" means instruction in cookery, laundrywork, houswifery, dairy work, handicrafts, and gardening, and such other subjects as the Board declare to be subjects of practical instruction;
  Other expressions have the same meaning as in the Education Acts.
  Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, after the word "instruction" ["to be subjects of practical instruction"], to insert the words,
  "The expression 'sea service' has the same meaning as in the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1916, and includes sea-fishing service."

  961
  7.0 P.M.
  The Amendment in Sub-section (2) of Clause 10, which contains a reference to sea service, makes it necessary to define the term "sea service." It is clear that what is meant is the mercantile marine, and the Merchant Shipping Act is the statutory authority for determining what constitutes the mercantile marine.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 51.—(Short Title, Construction Extent, and Commencement.)
  (1) This Act may be cited as the Education Act, 1918, and shall be read as one with the Education Acts, 1870 to 1916, and those Acts and this Act may be cited together as the Education Acts, 1870 to 1918, and are in this Act referred to as "the Education Acts."
  (2) This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland.
  (3) This Act shall come into operation on the appointed day, and the appointed day shall be such day as the Board of Education may appoint, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and for different provisions of this Act, for different areas or parts of areas, and for different persons or classes of persons.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "day" ["shall be such day"], to insert the words
  "not later than two years after the passing of this Act or one year after the termination of the present War, whichever date shall be the later."
  I called attention yesterday, in the course of the discussion, to the fact that there is no reason why this Act should ever come into force at all. There is no reason whatever. It is to come into force after the appointed day, and the appointed day may be any day that the Board of Education likes. It may be a different day for any part of the country, and a different day for any educational section of any particular local authority. It may be one day for higher education in Yorkshire or London, and another day, and quite a different day, for elementary education or for continuation schools in Yorkshire or London as the case may be. Now I want our labours to bear some fruit in our lifetime. I actually want to see the result of my labours on this Bill, and I also want the President of the Board of Education to live to see the result of his really admirable work in this direction. Why cannot he therefore fix a definite date in this Act and say that "thus far shall we delay and no farther; when we reach that point, the Act must come into force." If, of course, the War is prolonged beyond the expectation and imagination of us all,
  962
  or if such a state of collapses, revolution, confusion, exhaustion, or financial bankruptcy should be brought about, why then, of course, Parliament must legislate for the emergency, and it will do so. But I see no reason whatever why this Amendment should not be adopted. Some of the Amendments I have brought forward to this Bill have had the purpose of improving the objects of this legislation. Some have been moved in order to restrict certain tendencies. Others to enlarge the proposals, but this proposal can evoke nothing but sympathy from the Board of Education, and from everybody who has supported this Bill. We must all desire to see the result of our labours as soon as possible. We can utter a prayer to that effect, and we have an opportunity of giving effect to our own pious prayer, which very few human beings have it in their power to do. On this point we are omnipotent, and I invite the House to give effect to its prayer.
  Mr. RENDALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. FISHER: It is not with any lack of sympathy with the spirit and language of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) that I rise to speak to this Amendment. But I believe its acceptance to be undesirable for very obvious reasons. In the first place, we hope that a very large portion of the Bill will be brought into operation at once. In the second place, with respect to other portions of the Bill, we are still in a state of uncertainty as to the duration of the War. I think, perhaps, the most convenient course I can take at this juncture will be to fulfil the pledge I gave to the hon. Member for Salford (Sir M. Barlow) in the course of the Committee stage, and communicate to the House a rough preliminary idea which must not be taken to bind us, of the times and seasons at which we expect and hope to bring into force the Clauses of this Bill. If we take Clauses 1 to 6, regard must be had to the depletion of the staffs of the Board of Education, and of the local education authorities, and we must allow time for the local education authorities to frame their schemes and discuss them with the Board. Subject to this we hope Clauses 1 to 6 can be brought into operation at an early date. Clause 7 (Provision as to Amount of Expenditure for Education), will, I hope, be brought into operation at once. Clause 8, Sections 1 and 2, which regulate the leaving age at elementary schools, will not come into force until the

  963
  end of the War. Clause 8, Section 3, raising the commencing age for compulsory attendance at elementary schools, may be deferred. Clause 8, Sections 4, 5, and 6 (Attendance at Special Subject Centres), will come into operation at once. Clause 9 will come into operation at an early date or at once. Clauses 10 to 14 will not come into operation until the end of the War. Clause 15, at once. Clause 16, Sections (a) and (b), at once. Clause 17, at once. Clause 18, at once. Clause 19, at once. Clause 20, at the end of the War and, in the case of residential schools in counties, seven years later. Clause 21, at once. Clause 22, at once. Clauses 23 and 24, at once. Clause 25, probably the 1st April, 1919. Clause 26, at once. Clause 27, as soon as convenient. Clauses 28 to 40, at once. Clause 42, at once. Clause 43, the 1st April, 1919. Clauses 44 to 49, at once. Clause 51, at once.
  Sir M. BARLOW: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for carrying out his pledge in so satisfactory a manner. We understand the difficulties in the way of giving more than a general indication. May I venture to make one suggestion? When this Act comes into operation it is going to produce an enormous revolution in education throughout the country. It will not be possible for us to set to work to have illustrated issues of the Act printed in these times, but would it not be possible for the Board to have printed the gist of this Act with the Clauses of the earlier Act which remain in force, and to issue it in the form of a 1s. handbook? I believe it would be of immense assistance to the authorities throughout the country, and I am sure they would be very glad to avail themselves of it, while the Board might even make a little money out of it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words:
  "Provided that the appointed day for the purposes of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section eight shall not be earlier than the termination of the present War, and for the purposes of paragraph (3) of Sub-section (2) of Section thirteen shall not be earlier than three years after the passing of this Act."
  This carries out a promise given by my right hon. Friend, and I understand he accepts it.
  Mr. FISHER: Yes.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir HENRY HIBBERT: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words:
  "Provided that for a period of seven years from the appointed day the duty of the council of a county (other than the London County Council) shall not include a duty to establish certified schools for boarding and lodging physically defective and epileptic children."
  I may say at once that the County Councils Association strongly support Clause 20, which deals with the education of physically defective and epileptic children. But we realise, and I think the House will realise, that time must be given for bringing this Clause into operation, especially in county areas where the difficulties will be greater even than in boroughs. It might indeed be easy to carry out the proposal in boroughs, but in the counties the schools for dealing with these children will have to be necessarily in almost every case residential institutions. That has been hinted at many times in the course of the Debate, and time will have to be given before schools can possibly be built. I have only one other word to say. I do not know whether I am in order in saying it, but I should like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the County Councils of England and Wales, of thanking the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education and also his staff for the extreme courtesy and consideration we have received at their hands on many different occasions. I am perfectly certain that to that accuracy and consideration is due much of the favourable reception which has been accorded to this measure.
  Sir R. ADKINS: I beg to second the Amendment for the reasons which have already been given by my hon. Friend. Undoubtedly the county authorities will find the matter extremely difficult of arrangement and will need time in consequence.
  Mr. FISHER: I am very glad to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. KING: I am very sorry for this whittling away of one of the best provisions of the Bill—one of the most beneficent objects that could be undertaken in the Bill—and I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman has so readily accepted the proposal. We are just leaving this Bill; this is the last Amendment upon it. I think it might have left a better taste in our mouths if a somewhat more generous action had been taken by the President on this occasion. What is the position? The

  965
  Bill contains a most excellent provision, by which elementary school children whose home conditions are unfortunate for various reasons may be turned out at the public expense, and have their elementary education given to them as well as their board. That is a most admirable provision, and if worked well it will solve a large number of difficulties. It will solve the difficulty of scattered population in places where there are half a dozen children, perhaps five or six miles from any school. It will solve the difficulty of certain slum cases, it will solve the difficulty to some extent of the influx of population where there is not sufficient school accommodation for children who have to be educated. The case has often arisen in the War and it might frequently arise in the period of reconstruction after.
  But, for some reason or other, we are not to have these advantages for seven years after the end of the War, and I can quite understand the spirit in which able and public-spirited administrators, like my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley, and my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton, saying, "Oh, don't tie us down now. Give us time." That I quite understand. But when the President of the Board of Education, with surprising readiness, concedes this Amendment put forward on behalf of a large county council, without giving any valid reason for accepting it, it certainly does not fill one with admiration or confidence. I do think we ought to have some assurance from another representative of the Education Board whom I see on the Treasury Bench that an item of this Bill, which is inconvenient to powerful authorities, will not be "chucked" overboard at once—that is what it looks like, and that the readiness to concede to powerful interests of which we have had too many instances will not be a constant feature of the administration of this Act.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Ordered, "That the Bill be recommitted in respect of an Amendment to be moved by the Government to Clause 2."—[Mr. Herbert Fisher.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
  [Sir D. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  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
  966
  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 ago 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.

  Amendment made: In paragraph (a, ii), after the word "fourteen" ["the age of fourteen"] insert "(b) To make adequate and suitable arrangements under the provisions of paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, for attending to the health and physical condition of children educated in public elementary schools; and."—[Mr. Fisher.]
  Bill, as amended on recommittal, considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I rise to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill in a purely formal spirit. It is obvious that the Bill has been accepted by the House, but I think I may be permitted, before that is imposed on the country, to recapitulate the objections which I have previously expressed to the passing of this measure. It becomes ever more obvious that this House of Commons is not qualified to deal with any revolutionary legislation. We are utterly out of touch with the electorate. Even the Members who have been elected during the War to join us in the House have not stood contests into which practical domestic politics entered, and there is not a single Member sitting in this House who has ever either put in his own election address or seen in the election address of any of his political opponents one word authorising the Government to pass this

  967
  legislation. The Press is naturally unable at such a time as this to voice our Debates or the opposition expressed to this measure. My first objection is that we are quite unfitted to deal with such a revolutionary proposal as this. My second point is that we are using a time when party strife is at an end to pass legislation which is essentially controversial.
  My third objection is, and I think that hon. Members must share with me the feeling, the almost disagreeable feeling, that here we are, as usual, legislating for other people's children, imposing a burden on other people and entirely leaving their opinions out of account. We are inflicting a burden on all the parents in this country, depriving them of the right to employ their children, enforcing enducation upon people, who very often do not want it, without their consent and not applying that same rule to our own children. I must say I always am very loath to act as a deus ex machina and impose legislation upon other people. I think we ought to be more careful of doing that sort of thing now we are all out of touch with the electorate, and without any sort of mandate for the legislation we are imposing. Those are the general reasons why this House ought not to pass this measure. I come down now to the practical objections that I, as a Radical, have to the measure itself, and should have whenever it was brought in, even under the most authorised circumstances. My objection to it is largely that the agitation behind the measure has been an agitation engineered by big businesses in this country by firms like Tootall Broadhurst Company, who have taken pages for advertisements in the "New Statesman." These people have in view the production of a working-class proletariat, who shall be drilled, disciplined, and efficient tools for the purpose of production. There is no doubt that that is at the back of the advertisements which have been paid for so largely by these different financial concerns. That is at the back of the agitation in the Press throughout the country—the desire, cloaked under a patriotic guise of producing a proletariat which will be able to beat the German proletariat on the German proletariats' own lines. Well, I, for one, do not wish the production of a proletariat which will beat the German proletariat on their own lines. I want the production of a race which may be
  968
  as unlike the German as possible. Therefore, when I see legislation brought forward by the Government, urged upon the Government by people who wish to compete in business by having a proletariat as efficient tools as are the German proletariat, I am particularly suspicious of any such legislation. But I am bound to say that the more I listen to the Debates in this House, and the more one sees of the revolution in this country on so many questions, the more I am inclined to believe that these people may be selecting a weapon likely to recoil upon themselves. I am not so convinced as I was that they will get very efficient tools. I think it is quite possible they will get efficient rebels instead. They may get people who will be self-disciplined instead of State-disciplined. This more or less describes my fear of what this Bill was meant to do.
  I think, however, it will not be as bad as it was expected, partly because the administration of the Education Office is a good deal more liberal than it was. But this desire for efficient tools is not the only objection that I have to this Education Bill. I have also a profound objection to increasing the range of compulsion throughout the State. Compulsion is always bad for every citizen. Compulsion wants justifying very strongly before we impose it on any citizens. In case of compulsory military service we did all we could to work by voluntary methods first. In the case of compulsory insurance we tried for years on voluntary lines before we came to compulsion. It is only in a case of education where you are dealing with the children of the working classes you say, "We will straight away adopt the compulsory system." Now, one of the reasons why I think we ought to look very carefully at any extension of the compulsory system, particularly in education, is that what we want to give by education, as a great many people have urged, is a better disciplined proletariat. I want to have discipline, but not discipline in the Army sense. I want them to be self-disciplined. We ought to enable them, by the education they get in our schools, to acquire the desire to choose the right and eschew, the wrong. You can only teach that form of self-discipline by giving people the option of doing right and wrong. Directly you take from people that option you deprive them of one opportunity of self-discipline, of training themselves, so that in the battle of life they may

  969
  have the opportunity of choosing between right and wrong. That is the main reason why we ought always, in every case of compulsory legislation, whether it be imposed upon ourselves or on the working classes, to take care that the justification for it is sufficient to overrule our instinctive objection to anything that deprives the citizen of the right of deciding for himself instead of having it imposed upon him by a Government Department.
  In his case I do not think that a case has been made out for compulsion. I do not think that the alternative has been even considered for one moment by the Government Department concerned. It is so natural when you have a Government Department which has been built up on the compulsory system, which depends on the compulsory system, which has, as it were, vested interest in the compulsory system, for it to find it difficult to look the fundamental facts in the face. They have got an instinctive objection to considering the possibility of a system which would scrap their job. Throughout the whole of the country, not only in the Board of Education, but in every one of our working-class towns, you have got a system built up on compulsion which makes it almost impossible for officials to look at the other side of the question. I think that that is what has prevented us from considering the alternative. Yet we have only got to go into the country to see the alternative working very well, to see continuation schools, and places like Cadbury's and other places all working admirably. As I pointed out on the Committee stage, we have the pleasant Sunday afternoons which are on a voluntary basis admirably attended. In some cases the genuine unselfishness of the employer, and the affection of the people for their employer, have a great deal to do with it. In other cases there is the incentive of the prize at the end of the session. Those things have developed a voluntary system, and though you have not got everybody in, yet those who have taken the trouble to get this education are better citizens, because they have made some sacrifice to get that better education.
  We all know that when a workman manages to send his son to a secondary school, both the son who goes to the school and the father who makes the sacrifice to send him there are more improved by making that sacrifice than they are as the result of the education itself. The boy
  970
  works hard and the father is proud of him, and he is proud of the self-sacrifice which he has made. Those are facts of human nature which have made Scottish education so good as it is. You have got the sacrifice of the parent and the instinctive struggle of the youth to show that, sacrifices having been made for him, lie will do his best to justify the sacrifices of the parent. Wherever you can get the voluntary system the product must be infinitely better than the product of a compulsory system. That is so far as the scholar himself is concerned. But it must be obvious that if you could by any means get a voluntary system you would also be bound to have much better teaching, because the teachers who know that their classes will be there whether they teach well or badly, who know that there will be just the same children there, or that if they are not there the school board attendance officer will be visiting the home and bringing them there, have no incentive except the casual inspection by the Board of Education inspectors, to give the beat teaching. The promotion goes on steadily year by year, whether the teachers are good or bad. But once you introduce the voluntary system the bad teacher will show up at once. The bad teacher's class will go down and the good teacher's class will go up. The sanitary, decent schools will go up, and the in-sanitary schools, where the accommodation, lighting, and heating are bad, will go down. The natural result of voluntaryism is competition among the teachers to give the best article, and competition among the scholars to make the best use of the opportunities which are offered.
  All these things are commonplaces. Everybody knows that they are true. The difficulty is that this possibility has not been considered by the Board of Education before the Bill was introduced. I think that it would be interesting as an experiment, and well worth while because of the possibilities of the result, to attempt at any rate to have these secondary schools in some particular selected district, say Birmingham, as they are at present, worked upon a voluntary basis; or this might be done in selected parts of the Potteries, where the better-class working people take a keen interest in the education of their children. These schools could be taken as samples to see whether it might not be possible to get the schools going on a voluntary basis, and still keep them sufficiently full to make it worth

  971
  while to carry them on. I believe that we might get half, or that it might be possible to get three-fourths of the children to attend these schools under a voluntary system, and you would get an example of what could be done in this way. Even under your compulsory system it is notorious that you cannot enforce attendance. When you pass your law you have got to take the child before the Police Court to enforce attendance at school. It is really only a brutum fulmen. It is not meant to punish these children but to hold over them as a warning against failure to obey the law. Instead of doing that you might get the voluntary system going in certain selected areas. I do not say that the rest of the Bill, having been passed, you should interfere with the restrictions on young persons' labour and other restrictions. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because those are of a general character, and you could not impose them in one area and not in another. But you could easily, even in a working-class area like Stoke-on-Trent, have your schools on a voluntary basis and see whether they would be full or not.
  I am quite aware that teachers would be against such a system. It is natural that teachers should like to have their classes provided for them. They do not want the competition of attendance to come in at all, but I am quite certain that if you could by this means get better results the teaching profession itself would before long know that it gave a chance for merit to show itself and not a chance merely for incompetence to climb up the ordinary ladder of promotion. That is what I wish to urge on the Government. They have got compulsion. It is going to be enforced upon the people of this country against their will. Could you not make a start and get it on really sound, liberal lines by dropping, in certain areas, this compulsory principle as applied to boys and girls between the ages of fourteen and eighteen? The Bill will not be in force for several years. I do not suppose that it will be in force for four or five years after the War, because all the teachers have got to be trained, schools have to be built, and schemes approved. That is a very long job and will take many years before it can come into force, and I do think that the Board of Education might appoint a Committee, if it cannot decide the matter itself, to see whether it might not be practicable in certain areas to graft on to
  972
  the compulsory scheme a voluntary system which might, if successful, absorb the whole thing and provide us with an infinitely better system of education, and with that free system which we as Englishmen would like to see established.
  Hon. Members know that the degree of freedom which you can allow to a people or a country consistently with ordinary Government and State efficiency is an accurate measure of the stage of civilisation to which they have developed, and the more freedom you can give people without their injuring each other, the higher those people are developed in civilisation. The child wants looking after and carefully restricting to prevent it from doing things which it should not do. As children grow up into young men or women they want less restriction, and they become more and more able to control themselves and their relations with other people without the need of restrictive legislation or interference by the parent. As the young men or women grow up so gradually you can release the swaddling clothes and the restrictions, so that they can expand themselves and develop. We want to see a new State where everybody is orderly and people require no legislation, no police interference, no parental control to make them good, decent citizens of the country, but merely are such because they have learned that it is possible to carry on and respect other people's feelings and interests without self being trampled under foot or suffering from the interference of other people. That is the ideal development of civilisation—gradually to do away with compulsion in order to achieve the results of compulsion by the free will of the individual. Here, during the War, we are piling up compulsion. All I ask for is a loophole which, in the future at least, will allow the relaxation of some of this compulsion and the possibility of the blooming forth of citizens who will do what is right and eschew what is wrong, not because of reward, but because their conscience and their own knowledge that the ethical, moral, and physical results of your conduct will react upon yourself. Anybody who believes in the perfectibility of human nature knows, we hope, that as their powers develop people may be able to act towards each other in accordance with the principles of the New Testament, but you do not give them a chance when you try to prevent them by law from doing wrong. You can only give them a

  973
  chance when the laws are gradually enacted and when people are strong enough in self-discipline to follow their own conscience in spite of the absence of some law to force them to do so.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think that the House wishes to part with this Bill——
  Mr. KING: On a point of Order. Did not the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme move the rejection of the Bill, and do you call upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland to support or to second the rejection?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I did not hear the rejection moved.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I moved it at first.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman thought better of it.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I said that I formally moved it.
  Amendment moved, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—[Colonel Wedgwood.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Gentleman second it?
  Mr. KING: Yes; I beg to second it. I consider that the Motion which has been made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to be considered, even though I do not agree with everything that he says. I have brought forward a number of Motions on this Bill which I do not expect will be carried, and I do not expect that the Third Reading will be refused by the House, but there are many points of view from which I think this Bill has been insufficiently discussed and insufficiently understood. But I do not know whether I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down in saying that this Bill is being carried against the wishes of the people. I think that if the people were asked to vote upon it they would feel that they were mystified and uncertain, and I agree with him that the great majority of people, had this matter been brought before them, probably would not have understood it. It is so, however, with many things that we pass in this House. It was certainly so with the great question of Conscription, which was suddenly brought before this House and carried quickly—I do not say carried against the wishes and will of the people, though I do
  974
  not think it was carried with the wish and will of the people; I think they had very little feeling or strong conviction one way or another. I think that is especially the case in regard to questions connected with our education that have formed so prominent a feature of our former discussions and appeared so largely in election contests. Many of these questions are entirely omitted from this Bill. For instance, the tests of teachers and the rights of parents to choose the religious education of their children are topics which have been discussed ad nauseam, to the exclusion of really much more important questions. The addresses of hundreds of candidates were filled with these questions, and dozens of hours, at least, were wasted in this Chamber in their discussion. This religious question was one on which public opinion had been excited, and it is altogether omitted from this Bill. No one is more glad that it is so than I am. I do not attach great importance to it and it does not fill me with tremendous enthusiasm to think that some children are being educated on special religious lines which happen to suit me. I do not care whether they do or not. I want the children of the country to be made fine men and women, and I do not care whether their orthodoxy agrees with my orthodoxy or not. I value my own opinion, and hold to that opinion, but I do not want other people to conform to my particular orthodoxy, nor do I care if they think that I am not orthodox. That does not come into my educational ideas at all. Education is quite apart from orthodoxy. But you cannot settle the education question while you leave the religious question as it is to-day——
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing about the religious question in this Bill, and the hon. Member must confine himself to what is to be found in the measure; otherwise, I must point out to him that he has got precedence to speak under false pretences. The hon. Gentleman should show to me that he opposes the Bill, and, having seconded the rejection of it, I want to know what his reasons are for taking that course.
  Mr. KING: With great respect, I was trying to show that this Bill does not solve the education question, and that a great Bill such as this should make some attempt to do so. That is my line of argument, and I have very good reasons for seconding the rejection of the Bill. Looking at its defects, I see many to which I wish to call

  975
  attention, and I will proceed to do so. The great defect of the Bill, in my opinion, is that it is a bureaucratic measure from first to last. It is leaving an indefinite and an extraordinarily large amount to be decided at the special will or decision of the Board of Education. That is entirely contrary to the spirit of previous legislation on the subject of education. Parliament in its wisdom has always said there shall be definite educational rights, and that duties or obligations shall be placed upon the authorities. In this Bill we find something very different. We find at the beginning, for instance, that each education authority is to form a scheme, and, according as that scheme is made, so the law is to be carried out. The scheme must be made by the education authority, it then must be approved by the Board of Education, and, as soon as it is approved, it becomes the law for the particular area for which it is made. What is the result? You will have one scheme for one part of the country and a totally different scheme for another part. I admit that may have its advantages; it may enable the Board of Education to suit particular local demands, but it is a totally different principle from anything we have ever had before. Whereas before, every parent knew that there were certain schools provided to which in the first instance they would send their children—and to which later on they were compelled to send their children in default of other education—you leave practically everything, including the provision of schools and other important matters, the kind of teaching, and so on, to be decided practically by the ipse dixit of the Board of Education. We are discussing a system of bureaucracy for education such as we have never had before in this land. The only land I know that has a similar system of education is Prussia. The name of Prussia is synonymous with efficiency, and I hope you will get efficiency out of the Bill; but Prussia is also synonymous with the surpression of liberty, and I think that is a thing to be guarded against in all the attempts to carry out this Bill. Let me point out that the previous history of the Board of Education is not satisfactory from the bureaucratic point of view. There has been a time in the history of the Board of Education when it was under a weak Minister, who had other interests, and possibly no very great energy and knowledge, but when the real motive
  976
  power of the Department was exercised by a dominant official. For instance, Sir Robert Morrant——
  Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the Third Reading of this Bill. The hon. Member must confine himself in the Debate on the Third Reading to the contents of the Bill, and not proceed to discussions which are apart from them.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. KING: I want to warn the President of the Board of Education against any officialism or bureaucracy. He has got enormous powers, and so long as he is in his position he will have a great deal of sympathy and support which other Ministers do not hope to get; but this officialism is a real danger and difficulty which I foresee in the working of a Bill so bound up with the official or bureaucratic administration of the law. There are several other things which I find in the Bill which are rather serious defects. One is the Clause relating to parish charges. That Clause deals with a very grave injustice in a most inadequate way. It might have been framed in such a way as to secure equalisation of rates between poor and rich districts in the same county. You have already introduced that principle in the education rate for the whole of London; in other counties there is no equalisation of the education rate. The result is that whereas in London you have the same rate paid in St. George's, Hanover Square, as you have in Poplar, making the rich parish pay for the much greater requirements of the poor parish, you do not do that in other counties. If you had the rate in London on the same basis as you have the rate in Yorkshire. Lancashire, or Somerset, you would have St. George's, Hanover Square, paying one-tenth of a penny in the pound, while, on the other hand, you would have Poplar paying many shillings in the pound. I made some attempt in Committee to get equalisation of rates, and I appealed to the President of the Board of Education to endeavour to get this gross injustice modified. He recognises the injustice and he knows the obstacle that it is to efficiency. But what was his answer? Why would he not deal with it? He did not deal with it simply because of the county council. The county council did not approve. The President of the Board of Education must have more courage in administering the Act that he has shown in dealing with some of the Clauses in the Bill There is another question which I

  977
  would point out, and it has connection with the financial Clauses for assisting building. They are very inadequate. I have tried to have them enlarged, but unfortunately in vain. If Amendments are contemplated in another place, there is grave reason for saying that suitable facilities should be provided for the erection of buildings, for they are absolutely essential to the carrying out of this measure. That is a point which must be considered. Another thing is that the provisions in the Bill for the training and maintaining of teachers are inadequate, and the Bill as it is does nothing to provide, though it makes possible, the solution of these two questions. In conclusion, let me thank the President of the Board of Education for the very patient and courteous way in which he has met us over some points and for the really adequate way in which some of our proposals have been met. I gratefully acknowledge that the Bill has been made better by one or two Amendments which he has accepted from myself, and in this connection I would like also to recognise, what has been stated by the hon. Member for Chorley (Sir H. Hibbert), that we have been allowed and privileged to be in touch with the permanent officials of the Board of Education. There are some Departments of the State which do not allow us ever to come into touch with any of their permanent officials, and I appreciate all the more strongly the fact that those of us who have taken an intimate interest in this Bill have been allowed to have conferences with the permanent officials of the Board, and in that way I think it has been to our mutual assistance.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I think the House would hardly wish to part from this Bill without expressing to the President of the Board of Education its very cordial congratulations on its passage. He is an educationist of old standing, but a Minister of very new standing. Nevertheless he has piloted this great measure through the shoals and quicksands of the House of Commons with a patience, a tact, and a skill which, if I may be allowed to say so, would distinguish the oldest Parliamentary hand. It is a great Bill, and he is fortunate in having had to sacrifice very little of importance to secure its passage. The whole House has helped him in his task, and it has been possible, I believe, because public opinion outside cordially approves of the general
  978
  principles and scope of this measure. Our people are more and more recognising that it is only an educated nation that can hold a great place in the world and that can really be termed civilised. I greatly regret that there should have been found even two Members of the House to move the rejection of the Bill on its Third Reading. When I listened to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) it appeared to me that almost the whole of his speech could have been directed against the Education Bill of 1870, and it would almost have appeared that a ghost from those days had come to ours to repeat the arguments which were addressed in this House against the passage of that most beneficent measure. My hon. and gallant Friend said we were forcing education on a great many people who did not want it. Someone has very well put it that in matters of education the greater the objection, the greater the need. He asserted also that we were imposing education on other people's children while imposing nothing upon our own. He would have stated the case more truly if he had said that we were assisting other people's children to secure the advantages which our own have long enjoyed. Education is not a burden; education is a key that unlocks the door of knowledge, and through it much of the happiness of life. I believe that this Bill is taking a long step forward towards a complete system of national education.
  Everything, however, depends upon the supply of a sufficient number of well-qualified teachers, and the whole of my right hon. Friend's proposals depend for their success upon that. This, however, is not a matter of legislation, but of administration, and I have no doubt that his efforts, with those of the local education authorities, will be directed energetically to that end. I disagree also entirely with my hon. and gallant Friend with respect to the passage of a measure of this kind through the present Parliament in existing circumstances. On the contrary, it is, to my mind, a great advantage that we should dispose of this urgently necessary measure now before the War is over and before the problems of reconstruction come crowding upon us in numbers with which it will be hard indeed to cope. This Bill and the Representation of the People Bill are great achievements especially to have passed through Parliament in time of war, and I believe firmly

  979
  that the action of this House of Commons in the stress and anxieties of a time such as that in which we are living in passing into law great measures of this kind will win the approval and the praise of the country.
  Sir J. D. REES: I am not at all sure that the strong objections to this Bill are expressed by those who are present and take an active part in the Debates upon it. My objection to it is that it is 'undemocratic and that it is untimely. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) seemed to think it would be a fair and democratic achievement to push through as many Bills as possible when those most concerned have no opportunity of voting upon them. My democracy is of a purer brand, and I think we should wait until those most concerned have an opportunity to vote upon the measures before the House. It is a commonplace and useless to waste time in referring to the age of this Parliament and to its having exhausted its mandate, but it is an argument, and I merely repeat it without saying any more. I think, however, that while the soldiers, whose votes should count more than anyone's, will have a difficulty in making their opinions known, and while it has been admitted that this Bill will produce something like a revolution in working-class homes, it does not seem, at any rate to me, to be right that it should be pushed through the House of Commons when those two classes have not an opportunity of passing any opinion upon it. I do not know who asked for it. I must assume that there is a strong public opinion somewhere, and of course I cannot deny that that is so, but I do not know where it is, nor can I see the hurry. The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Sir J. Yoxall), who is really an authority on education, said in this House that he never knew any time in his life when children attending the elementary schools were so well dressed, well fed, and well done altogether as at present. Then where is the great hurry, if those who are receiving education are in a proper state physically and otherwise to receive it, and the education is being given?
  Where is the great hurry for pushing this measure through? I cannot myself see it, and if I was not sincerely desirous not to take up time I should quote others, like Professor Wallace, Professor of Agriculture in Edinburgh University, who would go much further than I have in his
  980
  objections to the character of the Bill, as developing a purely literary style of education. Nor does it, so far as I can see, deal in itself with the one necessary measure, and that is, with the pay of the teachers. I am aware that that will be dealt with by administrative order, but it is the case that the most pressing aspect of education at present is such that the Bill cannot and does not deal with it. As to the financial aspect of the Bill, my right hon. Friend the President gave us an estimate at one stage of the proceedings which I think came roughly to £10,000,000, but I think it will be much more, in view of the departure he has made in regard to medical attendance. But why has he wantonly thrown away the fees? For the life of me I cannot understand it. I only came in when he was dealing with that point, and I cannot understand why any Government should have at a time like this, when we are so short of money, wantonly thrown away any financial resources. Nor can I approve his change of front—doubtless, as he thinks, expressing the opinion of the House, although I would urge that it is a section of the House committed to certain views on education—as regards the making compulsory of the provision of medical treatment for elementary school children. I do not know what it will cost, and I have not succeeded in getting an estimate, but, whatever its cost, I think this is not a time for increasing the cost of education, and I should have been glad myself if the President had seen his way to point out that all increases of expenditure of this sort must lead to an increase in the cost of living, and must react unfavourably on those whose interests they are primarily intended to serve.
  I also think that the measure is not conceived in a thoroughly friendly spirit to our public schools. In fact, so far as the Bill goes, no one would know that there were any public schools in existence. Is it really the case that our great public schools are a small factor in the public life of this country? I believe them to be one of the very greatest factors. The atmosphere of these schools, I think, is priceless. The boys who are educated there have provided the Army with officers, who have proved to be in the most friendly relations with their men, and I think the results of the War have been a triumphant vindication of the education given in our public schools. The atmosphere of these schools is positively priceless. The tradi-

  981
  tion which they enshrine gives every boy a standard to which to live up, and from which, I believe, he would most regretfully depart, and which accounts, I think, in large measure for the class of public men in civil, military, and private life who are turned out by our public schools.
  Where else in the world can you walk through the cloisters of a public school and find the description of a boy who died over 250 years ago, in which it is stated that he was killed by a thrown stone, and as he was the first boy in the college of Winchester it is to be hoped that he is not the last boy in the kingdom of Heaven to which he has proceeded. It seems exceedingly beautiful, so much so that I would like to have the words on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the House. If I am not out of order, I would like to quote them:
  Hoc sub marmore sepultus est Tho. Welsted, quem calculi ictu mors prostravit, in hac schola primus erat, nec, ut speramus, in Cælo ultimus est, quod pro oxonio adiit, 130 die Januarii, Anno Domini 1676, anno ætatis suæ 180.
  This may seem not immediately relevant, but it seems to me to be most relevant. This Bill, to my mind, being throughout a bureaucratic measure, it seems that, instead of fostering our existing system, with all its surpassing merits, the traditions of our public school education, which are of the utmost practical utility, and have been proved to be so in the struggle of our lives in which we are now engaged, we are launching a horrible iron Prussian system which is to grind our boys' bones down to a pale unanimity. My right hon. Friend disclaims that intention. It may not be his intention. It is my duty to say with respect that it is the effect of his measure. I will pass on from that, not being anxious to occupy the time of the House, to another matter to which I must refer. I think the Bill is harsh in its application to children, and for that reason much harsher to poor parents' children. I cannot understand why, at a time like this, my right hon. Friend could not accept the new Clause which I had the honour to bring before the House, and designed to save the cinema industry of this country. After all, the saving of trade is a proper consideration for an education or any other conceivable Bill. If our education is not going to preserve our trades and make our boys better tradesmen, away with our education! Why could not my right
  982
  hon. Friend accept the Amendment I put forward, endowing local education bodies with power to grant exemption to children to sit for the production of cinema films? You must, if you are going to be amused anywhere, whether at the pantomime, the cinema, or elsewhere, introduce young people. It is a very large industry. I do not know whether hon. Members know that many millions of pounds are invested in it in this country, and if children cannot sit for the production of these films, away goes that industry to the wiser United States of America. I wish to record my regret that my right hon. Friend has not been able to accept the Clause I put forward. I was advised it was of no use to endeavour to get any aid from the theatre people, because, with a short-sighted view, they did not wish to be associated with the cinema industry—a piece of pride which, I think, will come before the downfall. The cinemas are infinitely more powerful. They count by millions, those who see them; their educational power is immeasurably greater than that of the theatre; and I hope that, even at the eleventh hour, when he comes to recommit the Bill, as regards the compulsory provision, which I wholly deprecate, with regard to medical inspection, my right hon. Friend will consider the modest new Clause which I ventured to lay before him. There is only one more remark I want to make. It was stated also by the President of the Local Government Board that the new Education Bill afforded opportunities of instructing boys and girls in certain physical matters which would tend to redeem England from the curse of a certain class of disease. I hope that will not be done. I recognise the good intention. The late head master of Eton wrote and circulated among his boys a letter on this subject which I thought deplorably ill-advised, and a most unfortunate production. I sincerely hope that no effort will be made to deal with the subject, which may, unfortunately, be obtruded on the attention of people as they go on in life, and which, in my opinion, should not be intermingled with school instruction. I am obliged to the House for listening to what I have had to say. I am not joining my hon. Friend in voting for the rejection of this Bill, because I admit others may be wiser than I am, and I am unwilling at the present time to oppose any Government measure.
  Sir J. YOXALL: My hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) has expressed to us conflicting views. He inquired what was the value of education, and, immediately before that, expressed regret that this Bill was not a Bill to carry on the magnificent system and traditions of the public schools. It seems to me at first sight impracticable to combine those two. I think that the ultimate result of this Bill will be to provide for the children of this country something of the spirit, the inspiration, the tradition and the feeling of the public schools, and also to make them better tradesmen and better craftsmen, not because of technical instruction alone. I look forward to the effect of this Bill as being more influential and more beneficial on the future of this country than any Education Act of the past. The Act of 1870 was a great constructive measure. It set up for the first time in this country schools publicly provided and publicly managed. I do not desire in the least to underrate the immense importance of that Act or to belittle the value of its effects upon the life of England and Wales. The next great Education Act was that of 1902, which I am proud to remember as having supported in this House. That was not an Act of construction in the same sense and degree as the Act of 1870. It was an Act which co-ordinated and brought under one and the same local authority all forms of elementary education, technical education, and so forth.
  At the present moment we are engaged in the last stage in this House of a Bill which, I think, will be reckoned in the future by the social historians of this country as even greater in its effect than either of the former Acts. May I have the pleasure of expressing to the President of the Board of Education and to the Parliamentary Secretary the very warm congratulations which they deserve, first of all, for the ability, tact, temper, and wisdom, and the Parliamentary skill with which they have piloted this great measure through this House, and, secondly on the fact that their names will be associated in future with a Bill, which, I believe, is more promising, and will be regarded in the future as a greater Bill than either of the other two? I have listened to many speeches upon the various topics which are enclosed in the four corners of this measure, and what has struck me more particularly, and with
  984
  a certain amount of regret, has been that many Members of the House who have supported this Bill and the proposals in the Bill, and particularly some who have opposed them, have not been conscious, or only aware to a very small degree indeed, of the immense progress made in this country in our public elementary schools. I have heard this question discussed in Committee as if nothing like a nursery school existed. Accusations have been make against ordinary public elementary schools, and as to the language and general effect of some of the scholars upon decent well-bred children. May I say, without any assumption of authority or special knowledge, that all that has passed away? It has passed away for years. If you find a child using language of a bargee order, or a child of the tramp class who brings into a school a verminous condition of body, and perhaps disease, those are the occasional accidents. But I will challenge any Member of this House to go into the ordinary school, anywhere in city, town, or village, and discover, if he can, these great defects which have been raised in these Debates as being characteristic of and inseparable from the public elementary schools. Then there have been accusations as to the mechanical and wooden nature of the teaching in these schools. That has ceased to be true since the date—not so long ago, I am sorry to say—when the Education Department ceased to insist that the teaching should be of a mechanical order. I venture to say that for fifteen years past that has ceased to be the rule, and is now the exception.
  In my belief this Bill has been laid upon a splendid foundation, and again I congratulate those who drew the Bill, drafted it, framed it, and piloted it, and watched over it very carefully in the Board of Education and this House, and have brought it to such a success. It has been suggested to-night, and even in the past, that this Bill is opposed to the wishes and the views of many outside, particularly our gallant sons who are fighting at the front. On the contrary, the public have shown good-will towards this measure. The Government would fall short of their duty in the reconstruction for the future if they did not prepare while they could for the future development which the whole country demands and desires, but, so far from the soldiers in the trenches being opposed to this measure, let me relate the experience of

  985
  two very distinguished men, who, in the last few months, in response to a request, went to lecture to the soldiers in the rest camps, canteens, and so forth at the front, taking with them a large variety of subjects. Again and again, the one desire of the men was, "Let us know about this Education Bill—what it is going to do for our children; what it is going to do for the future of our land?" I can assure my hon. Friend he is wrong when he thinks the men at the front will look with any regret upon what we are doing in the House to-night. Again, I thank the President and the Parliamentary Secretary for all they have done for education in this Bill.
  Mr. FISHER: I do not rise for a controversial purpose, or to deal with the objections against the main principles and against many of the details of the Bill to which the House has recently listened. I rise, in the first place, to express my heartfelt acknowledgment of the very kind and indulgent words which were used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel), and also to express my thanks to the House for the help which has been given me at every stage of this Bill. Before the Bill passes to another place, I should like to acknowledge in all sincerity the gratitude which I owe for the forbearance and the fruitful suggestions from hon. Members in all quarters of this House, and not least from those who sit on the Front Opposition Bench. A Bill so large and complex as the Bill which we have recently been considering, touching national life at so many points, and comprising within its scope not only great educational developments, but also a code of administrative provisions, and a complete and much-needed revolution in elementary school finance, is a measure which could not possibly have reached the stage which has been reached by our Bill unless it had been received with cordial goodwill, and with the general sympathy of the House. I confess that it was not an easy Bill to draft, but, thanks to the forbearance of the House, it has been a very pleasant and an easy Bill to conduct. A Minister for Education treads upon ground seamed with the scars of ancient controversies. These Debates will be memorable in the history of English education. There have been very little signs of any desire to reopen old wounds, or to aggravate long-
  986
  established differences of principle upon educational matters. The House, with a single mind, has dedicated itself to the great purpose of enlarging the intelligence and knowledge of the children of the nation.
  Sir HERBERT NIELD: After the speech to which we have just listened, it would seem a work of supererogation to say any word of commendation of the Bill to which we are at present giving a Third Reading. But a somewhat long experience of this House has convinced me that if a Member desires to make his views known he stands no chance unless he is prepared to take La belligerent interest in a measure in Committee, or if he cannot on the Second Reading get his opportunity, to wait and get the only opportunity he then can, which is upon the Third Reading of the Bill. That is why I have remained here to this somewhat late hour, in order that I may express my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman, or rather to give expression to views which have already been conveyed to him at his having got this measure up to this advanced stage. It is not every talker in this House who knows what he is talking about. That is another thing I have found out in my somewhat long experience. There are Members who are experts in various directions, and to whom it is a pleasure to listen. There are also a great number of members who are prepared to talk upon every subject. Often it is those who do not know, but who do not want to make an undue parade of the knowledge they possess, that consequently are pushed into the background for the time being. I venture, however, to say this: that I think I know enough of matters relating to primary and secondary education to welcome this Bill with both hands. I am quite convinced that it is a step which could possibly only have been taken at a moment when we are all at one in the prosecution of the War, and in everything else, perhaps, that makes for the betterment of the nation, and the better state of things that we hope to see created afterwards. The way in which this Bill has been accepted in the country as a whole is an indication of two things. The one is a general desire that the rising generation may get a more extended knowledge of what really is comprised in education. The other is a firm conviction, by close study of our present enemy, of the necessity for making this country

  987
  "wake up," so as to get the mind of the young into a condition of receiving and retaining the valuable information which may materially aid them in their daily task.
  Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may remember that I sent him a copy of a document which three or four years ago was drawn up, and which bore a very substantial resemblance to the measure now before the House. It is, to my mind, in the highest degree important that we should realise that education does not consist entirely—and I think this Bill does that—of the elements which are called instruction, and which are given in the schools which are the subject of this Bill. What we want is to develop—which I hope may be the result of these somewhat vague schemes which are indicated in the early Clauses of this Bill—and I hope that the Education Department will not narrow the curriculum which is to be included in these schemes. I am perfectly sure that experience will teach us that if we handle this matter in the spirit in which it should be handled—and I include the Education Board—that we shall create a demand for still further knowledge. I believe, the stone wall offered by trade unions and trade organisations to anything like the teaching of elementary trade work in the schools will disappear, because I believe that there is a vista before us of such an advance of education of the technical and trade type that we shall get back again ultimately—and I sincerely hope we shall—to something like the perfection which characterised our trades which were protected by the trade guilds in the Middle Ages. This will be accompanied by the greatest possible advantage not only to the individual trades to the country as a whole. I believe that will be the practical result of the great advance which is in this Bill. I sincerely hope it will be. I trust I may live to see the co-ordination and connecting up of the various systems of education, whether it be of the higher university type or the higher technical trade education; whether it be the preparation of our leather for book-binding, or whether it means scientific engineering and matters of that sort. I hope that we shall ultimately have all these co-ordinated so that a child may pass easily through the various systems from the time that he or she first enters the infant school until the time when he passes out either to the university, if
  988
  qualified, or to the great trade training institutions, so that the brain, which is, after all, a national asset, may be developed by the nation for the great benefit of the nation.
  Mr. BOOTH: I do not rise to discuss the Bill, but just to draw the attention of the Government to that part of the Bill which deals with economic questions. I very much regret that under the guise of this Bill we have interfered so largely with the employment of children and with the rights of parents in any regard, without making some provision for the maintenance of the home which is in jeopardy from the loss of the wages involved. I feel quite certain that if all were known, the state of things in the country would be very different to that outlined by the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken. Do hon. Members realise that the working people of this country have not the faintest idea of what is in store for them under this Bill? If it had not been for the War the by-elections would, without a doubt, have turned upon this Bill. Very great modifications must of necessity have been introduced into the Bill in passing through this House had it not been for the War. One by-election at Reading turned upon the question of compulsory vaccination. Similarly by-elections would have turned upon this Bill which involves a question much more important than vaccination. One great reason why the country have accepted this Bill somewhat quietly is that people would not believe we were passing it: they could not bring their minds to bear upon the subject. If the hon. and learned Gentleman goes down amongst the people and attempts to discuss the points of this Bill, I think he will find that the people will say, "Surely you are not spending your time with such a measure; we thought you were getting on with the War." I really rose, however, to warn the Government that if they want education to be popular, if they want it to succeed, they will have to bring in an amending Bill to deal with the economic question, which is left by this Bill in a deplorable condition. I hope in putting this Bill into operation it will be gradual and proceed by steps, because any attempt to put it into force hurriedly will lead to the downfall of the Government of the day should they attempt to bring it into force at once. No Government could live over a General Election if it put all the Clauses of this

  989
  Bill into force at once. We find right hon. Gentlemen who have been in office for years and have brought in Education Bills and they have never attempted anything of this kind in regard to half-timers, and yet they keep getting up here to press the Government to go still further in this direction. Several Clauses in this Bill I am sure will lead to a great detachment of popular support when they become known. This Bill will cause very large numbers of people to become antagonistic to the sacred cause of education. Therefore I plead for tact and consideration to be used during the next six or seven years, and I ask that this great measure shall be brought into operation gradually.
  With regard to the constructive provisions, I wish them God speed. I have never been opposed on the question of education to anything of a constructive character. What I object to is forbidding people to do this and that and making them change their daily habits, and all this must lead in the future to a great deal of friction. On this last stage, before the Bill leaves this House, I believe the Government will, on reconsideration, find that they will have to bring in an amending Bill, for it is quite inconceivable that they can leave things in the condition in which they are at the present time. The President of the Board of Education will probably say that those are problems that you cannot expect the Board of Education to solve, but this Bill raises them, and if he will only persuade his colleagues to consider these matters he will be doing a good thing for the cause of education. I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education for their unfailing courtesy and for the efforts they have made to get the feeling and wishes of this House, and if possible to put them into practice and incorporate them in the Bill.
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  WAR LOAN BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DONALD MACLEAN, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]

  WAR LOAN BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Issue of New War Loan.)
    (1) Any money required for the raising of any supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending the thirty-first day of March
    990
    nineteen hundred and nineteen, and, in audition, of a sum not exceeding two hundred and fifty million pounds, or for the raising of any sum required for cancelling securities or Treasury bills under the powers of this Act, may be raised in such manner as the Treasury think fit, and for that purpose they may create and issue any securities by means of which any public loan has been raised or may be raised, or such other securities bearing such rate of interest and subject to such conditions as to repayment, redemption, or otherwise, as they think fit.
    (2) For the purpose of making the statutory provisions applicable to former War Loans applicable to the War Loan under this Act, Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section one of the War Loan Act, 1914, and Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section fourteen of the Finance Act, 1914 (Session 2), shall apply to any sums or loan raised or any securities issued under this Act as they apply to sums or loans raised or stock issued under the War Loan Act, 1914; and Subsections (3), (4), and (5) of Section one of the War Loan Act, 1915, shall apply with respect to the issue of securities under this Act and to securities issued under this Act as they apply with respect to the issue of securities under that Act and to securities issued under that Act, and in those Sub-sections as so applied any reference to War Stock, War Bonus, or Securities issued under the War Loan Act, 1914, shall be deemed to include a reference to securities issued under the War Loan Act, 1915, Section fifty-eight of the Finance Act, 1916, the War Loan Act, 1916, and the War Loan Act, 1917.
    (3) There shall be paid to the Banks of England and Ireland respectively out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof, for the management in every financial year of any securities issued under this Act, such sums as may be agreed upon between the Treasury and those banks respectively.
    (4) Any expenses incurred in connection with the redemption of any securities issued under this Act shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. KING: I think we ought to have some explanation as to what is the purpose of this Clause. It is headed at the side, "Issue of New War Loan." I thought the Government were going on with the War Bonds, which seemed to have taken the place of the old War Loan in public popularity. Is there now to be a new type of War Loan? Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will explain.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I am glad to give that explanation. The side title is copied from previous Bills of the same kind. This is a duplicate of the Bills we have had, and a Bill of this kind is necessary for the present system of borrowing just as much as if you were issuing a loan

    991
    such as was issued last year. We have no power to raise money for a longer period than five years, except when it is given by a special Act of Parliament. I am glad to say that I see no reason to anticipate that there will be any necessity to depart from the system of raising money which has been so sucessful for the last nine months. Since this subject has been raised, I would like to say that its success has not been achieved without a good deal of work, a great deal of which the House is not aware. A great deal of good work has been done by the war savings associations all over the country.
    During the last three months meetings have been held all over the country for the express purpose of pushing these bonds in all the big centres of population throughout the Kingdom, and they have been attended in almost every case by the mayors of the towns in question, and the result we have seen in the amounts which have come in. I think it only right to say that the gentleman who has assisted us at the Treasury in the campaign has rendered really invaluable service by advertising and by the resourcefulness which he has shown, all of which has had great effect in securing the result which the Government has achieved.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. D. MASON: I also should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the success recently of his War Loan savings campaign. I understand that this measure asks for powers to facilitate the issue of more Treasury Bills, and I wish to make a few observations upon this particular Clause which gives that authority. It is very difficult to offer any remarks as to what is or what is not the best method of borrowing. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he believes in this continuous system of War Bonds. Until the last week there was undoubtedly a falling off, and there might come a time when we shall have to issue a long-term loan as against a comparatively short-term loan. I would like to emphasise that desirability. Of course, one cannot tell what the duration of the War will be, but if it should come to an end in the autumn, what would be the position of this country and the other belligerents? We know that even to-day we are faced in this country—most of the other belligerents must be in the same position—with a mass
    992
    of short-term obligations. The amount of Treasury Bills outstanding to-day is something like £1,300,000,000. There are, of course, other obligations, such as the War Savings Certificates and these War Bonds, which the right hon. Gentleman will agree are not by any means long-term engagements. They mature within three, five, and seven years, and must therefore be met either by another loan or some refunding when they fall due. I respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should turn a deaf ear to any pressure by bankers or others for increasing these short term obligations. Of course, from the banker's point of view they are a very desirable form of investment, because they are certain to get their capital back intact, and they pay a fairly good rate of interest. We are not here, however, to represent bankers or any other individual interests, but to do the best in the interests of the State; and it must surely be in the interests of the State to reduce as much as possible these short term obligations. We may reasonable conclude that at the end of the War there will be a considerable demand for capital, and if these short term engagements are suddenly presented to the Treasury for repayment a position of embarrassment may possibly arise. I wish, therefore, to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the very important necessity of considering the desirability, should we be approaching peace, of issuing a long term loan. Possibly a great many of the holders of these short-dated Treasury Bills and other bonds might be induced to convert into such a long term security, either Consols or some other security, thus lessening the strain on the Treasury, and putting off to a more distant date the necessity for repayment. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to turn a deaf ear to any pressure for increasing these short term obligations, in spite of all that he has said as to the advantages of the War Bonds, which he will admit are not very long in their duration, and to consider the advisability, should the military situation assume a more favourable aspect, and should we be brought within a reasonable period of the end of the War, of issuing a long term loan and the supreme advantage of funding a great mass of these short term obligations.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment of War Loan (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1915.)
  (1) Regulations made under Section one or Section five of the War Loan (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1915 (in this Section referred to as "the said Act"), may contain a provision directing that all or any of the provisions Of the Regulations shall, with such modifications as appear necessary or expedient, apply and be deemed always to have applied as respects stock or securities issued or money raised, as the case may be, before the date on which the Regulations come into force, as they apply to stock or securities issued or money raised after that date.
  (2) Section one of the said Act shall have effect, and shall be deemed always to have had effect, subject to the following modifications:—

  (a) The following shall be substituted for Subsection (1) thereof:

  "(1) The Treasury may provide for the establishment of a Post Office register (in this Act referred to as the 'register') and may direct that any stock or securities issued in connection with any loan raised for the purposes of present War, and not inscribed or not registered in the names of individual holders in the books of the Bank of England or the Bank of Ireland, shall be inscribed or registered in the register";

  (b) There shall be inserted after the word "stock" wherever it occurs the words "or securities";

  (c) There shall be inserted after the word "inscribed" wherever it occurs the words "or registered."

  (3) Sections two and four of the said Act shall have effect, and shall be deemed always to have had effect, as though there were inserted therein after the word "inscribed" the words "or any securities registered" and after the word "stock," where that word secondly occurs in each Section, the words "or securities."
  (4) Section five of the said Act shall have effect, and shall be deemed auways to have had effect, as though there were inserted therein after the words "under the War Loan Act, 1915," the words "or under any subsequent Act authorising the raising of any money for the purpose of the present War," and as though for the words "relating to deposits in savings banks" there were substituted the words "relating to the Post Office, to savings banks, to the Post Office register, or to any other matter under the administration of the Postmaster-General, or of any Regulations made under any such Act."
  (5) The said Act as amended by this Act shall extend to the Channel Islands and to the Isle of Man, and the Royal Courts of the Channel Islands shall register the same.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. BOOTH: I wish to ask a question with reference to Sub-section (5), which deals with the position of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, a subject which I have often raised here. I cannot ask my usual question, though it seems beyond the wit of any man on that bench
  994
  to say what is our real concern with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I will confine my inquiry to the subject of this Bill. I would like to know what response those islands have made to the appeal of the Home Office or if they are to be pressed in connection with the issue of these War Bonds and War Savings Certificates. Take the island of Guernsey, with which I am more familiar. They have helped tremendously with their manpower. An appeal has been issued to them by the Home Office asking them to contribute both in men and money to the resources of this country, but I venture to submit that a poor agricultural community which is at present raising food is using its money in the most profitable way, and I hope that there will be no pressure put upon the islands to transfer money, which they can legitimately and properly use in the growing of fruit and vegetables, and invest it in War Loan. After all, what they can do is very small in proportion. One would like them to do something, and if the appeal is confined to investing their surplus money or their savings there can be no exception taken; but they are keenly patriotic, and unless wisdom is exercised they may be led to strain their resources, thinking that £20,000 or £50,000 will really be of some use to us, whereas we know that it can only be a mere drop in the ocean. Therefore, if the Treasury should support the appeal of the Home Office, I hope that the islands will not be pressed to go beyond what is fair and just and that they will be only asked to invest in War Stock such money as they can spare from fruit growing. It is quite right for the Government to appeal to them to put any money that they have to invest in War Loan but I hope that there will be no pressure put upon them to realise in any way in order to keep up their reputation for patriotism. They are tenacious of their connection with the British flag, and an appeal to them on patriotic grounds comes very strongly indeed. It might lead them to make a financial effort which really would not be of very much help to us, but which might cripple them in growing fruit and vegetables for this country. I should like an assurance from the Treasury with regard to the Channel Islands
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member has pointed out what is a new feature, in this Bill. The Channel Islands are almost the only part which is not mentioned in any previous Bill of the same kind. They are included because we have found it

  995
  possible to extend the sale of Saving Certificates to those islands. Although I cannot give the figures, I am glad to say there has been a reasonable response to the appeal. I do not think that the hon. Member need be alarmed about our asking more from them than they can spare, because the effort is entirely voluntary, and I am quite sure that those who are contributing to it would feel that they are giving to a good cause.
  Clause 3 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  EMERGENCY LEGISLATION (SELECT COMMITTEE).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to take into consideration the Report of Mr. Justice Atkin's Committee, and matters connected therewith, and to report what provision should be made by Parliament for defining the meaning of the phrase "end of the War" and other similar phrases occurring in the War Emergency Statutes and for extending in whole or in part or shortening the period of operation of the several emergency statutes and the several Regulations made thereunder."—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move to leave out the words "Select Committee," and to insert instead thereof the words "Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."
  In the first place, I do not think this Committee is necessary, and I shall be glad if the Government will keep their promise to the House, and that the Minister in charge will give some explanation of the Motion. In the second place, if there is to be a Committee, I very much prefer a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons. As to the appointment of the Committee, there has been Mr. Justice Atkin's Committee, which has gone into the matter from a legal standpoint, and which has presented an unusually clear Report with regard to the legal aspect of the matter. Therefore it does not seem necessary that a Committee of this House should go over that ground again. Yet that is what they are asked to do. They are—
  "to report what provision should be made by Parliament for defining the meaning of the phrase 'end of the War' and other similar phrases."
  996
  I would submit that a Select Committee is not the best Committee to deal with this matter. It cannot sit when the House has adjourned, and, if it does its work at all, so as to receive the slightest notice from the Government or the House, it must spend a great deal of time, in addition to which it cannot conclude its labours before this Parliament terminates. The Titles of the measures they will have to deal with cover five and a half pages of this large issue. They cover almost every important department of life. Hon. Members would have difficulty in guessing any given subject or any class of persons which is not included in the emergency legislation we have passed. I refer more particularly to the principal series of Acts called the Defence of the Realm Acts and to the Regulations issued thereunder. I say nothing about that hideous monstrosity, Regulation 40D, which will have to be reviewed by this Committee. But what about all those Regulations which have led to so much controversy, which infringe upon personal liberty? This is not peculiarly a question for this House as differing from the other. There are Members of the other House of great legal experience, who have given considerable attention to this subject, and who have had a good influence upon the Government and upon public opinion. If this Motion means business at all, we must carry the other House with us and a Joint Committee would save time, and would be more impressive both on the public and on the Government of the day. I really cannot conceive the Government setting up this Committee except to pass the time. When one considers the names of the proposed Committee, it is a selection of good, average, competent Members of this House. I am not going to challenge the names. It is a good serviceable Committee, fairly representative of the Members who come here and of the diligent portion of them. But I cannot imagine the Government leaving it to these people to settle the issues upon which it will fight the next election, and on which, if parties do emerge, the fight will take place. We shall not be having the next election upon Queen Anne, or the Napoleonic Wars, but upon this War, the measures passed during this War, and the outcome of the War. This Committee will be dealing with topics which only the leaders of the parties and the leading statesmen of the country will be expected to discuss. Take the Defence

  997
  of the Realm Act. Are the Government going to be guided by a Committee of twelve Members of this House? I imagine that the Law Officers of the Crown will want a say. So will the Lord Chancellor, the Prime Minister, and so on, for these are questions which are of daily concern to them, and I cannot imagine them going to any Committee of this House, because a decision will involve their own fate and they will have their own views. I go to two other important questions, in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman in giving an answer to me, was evidently under a wrong impression. The right hon. Gentleman said that this matter did not refer to Home Rule. I think he is mistaken. I had examined the copy of the Suspensory Act relating to Home Rule, and it uses the phrase
  "term of the War"
  That must have escaped my right hon. Friend's attention. It is quite true that when the main Act giving Home Rule to Ireland went through this House there was no war, but in the Suspensory Act these very words are used with regard to its coming into force. Therefore, I cannot see that the answer given me by the Government is a correct one, in fact, if the Government are to consider and act up to this reference, the words themselves will show that I am right. It is a Committee to consider
  "for extending in whole or in part or shortening the period of operation of the several emergency Statutes and the several Regulations made thereunder."
  The Suspensory Act with regard to Home Rule was an emergency Statute passed after the War began to meet a situation created by the War. The same thing applies to Welsh Disestablishment, and the whole effect of the War upon that. Probably the right hon. Gentleman will wish to correct his answer. If the Committee is gone on with it would simplify matters very much to have a Joint Committee with the House of Lords. I do not think it would conflict with what my right hon. Friend has in view, but I should like to make a suggestion to him. I should be quite willing to take the view of the Committee. If these twelve gentlemen, when they begin to go into these questions, think they would like to meet with a Committee from the other House, on which such eminent legal gentlemen as Lord Buckmaster, who are not now in office, would be prepared to give the benefit of
  998
  their experience, and help Members of this House, then the other House might be invited to set up this Joint Committee with us. If they prefer to go on alone, I would bow to the decision of my colleagues, but I should like them to be in a position to say they think good service would be rendered by this Joint Committee. I suppose there are about 200 Acts which they will have to deal with, including the Courts Emergency Powers Act. I take it that it is quite clear that that measure, particularly as it affects industrial insurance companies, will be reviewed by the Committee, which, if it sees fit, will take evidence. The Act has almost crippled the industrial insurance companies. I am not pleading for the shareholders so much as for the policy holders and the staffs. Owing to the operation of that measure bonuses have been passed to the policy holders, and they are not in a position, as an independent Committee has reported, to give bonuses to their staffs.
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present——
  Mr. BOOTH (resuming): The industrial insurance companies should be entitled to put their case before this Committee by evidence. I do not want the Committee to be misled or to be prevented from making a thorough investigation. My appeal is rather that it should go thoroughly into it. These companies have been honouring policies in connection with the War for which they are not legally liable, and companies which have seen fit to act in that patriotic way are entitled to simple justice. There are some cases where money has been remitted from abroad and from the Colonies to persons in this country in order to keep up their premiums—that has been going on for years—but a person in this country, knowing that the Courts Emergency Powers Act has been passed——
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir D. Maclean): I cannot see how it is possible for the hon. Member to discuss the details of the measures.
  Mr. BOOTH: This is one of the measures which is causing the Committee to be set up, and I am wanting an assurance from the Government that it is included in the scope of the Committee, because, if not, I shall certainly have to

  999
  put an Amendment down. I wish to show the importance of the point, so that in case the Government says the Act cannot be considered they may agree to an Amendment enlarging the scope of the Committee.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not possible to discuss that, because the Motion is limited to Mr. Justice Atkin's Committee.
  Mr. BOOTH: It is not limited to Mr. Justice Atkin's Committee. You may not be aware that when this Motion was first put on the, Paper it contained no reference whatever to Mr. Justice Atkin's Committee, and if I had not stopped it it would have gone through without containing that reference. It was on the Paper for two or three weeks, and there was no mention of that Committee. I therefore consider it right to draw attention to the words "and other similar phrases occurring in the War emergency statutes, and for extending in whole or in part, or shortening the period of operation of the several emergency statutes and the several regulations made thereunder." I want an assurance from the Government that they had this particular statute in their minds. I take it that the Committee will be able to take evidence from these patriotically-minded capitalists. I take it the object of the Select Committee is to receive evidence. There is one other point I wish to raise. Does my right hon. Friend intend the Committee also to consider the emergency statutes now before this House? There are some which are very important. Take, for instance, the Juries Bill. A number of these Bills are very controversial. I do not want, after the Committee has teen set up, that they should find themselves able to deal only with emergency statutes passed before the 16th July, and then afterwards some important statutes to be passed by this House which will not come within their terms of reference. That could only mean either an extension of the terms of reference or the setting up of a second Committee to deal with these matters. I should have thought it would have been more convenient to defer the appointment of this Committee until nearer the end of the War, which is a considerable way off yet. I do not like this policy of working by instalments. It
  1000
  has a tendency to divert the attention of the Members of the House from subjects which they ought to inquire into.
  Mr. KING: I beg to second the Amendment, the object of which is that instead of a Select Committee of this House there should be a joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. That, in my opinion, is a very reasonable suggestion, and in view of the names of hon. Members who it is proposed shall constitute this Committee I think the point is a very important one. One can gather from the; names that the Government intend to propose that the Committee shall consist of gentlemen very capable in many ways, but not particularly strong to deal with the difficult legal and constitutional problems which will be submitted to them. I have read through the names, and I thought I should have been able to say who would be the Chairman of the Committee. It is proposed to nominate two right hon. Gentlemen, but I cannot tell which of the two the Government intend for the post.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We have not arrived at that part of the Motion yet. The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the first part. What he is now referring to is a separate question.
  Mr. KING: I think we should strengthen the Committee which it is proposed to set up by including members of the other House. There you have no fewer than four ex-Lord Chancellors drawing large salaries; they are men of approved public standing, let alone their legal acumen and very marked ability. They are just the men who should be put upon this Committee. There are other men in that House with administrative colonial and public experience eminently suited to deal with the problems which the Committee will have to face. The Resolution of the Government is really very curiously worded, and that, no doubt, is due to the fact that it has been on the Paper for a very long time and has been added to from time to time. Since it first appeared on the Paper the Government have decided to throw in Mr. Justice Atkin's Report, and thus its labours are being extended. The question whether it will deal with future legislation as well as existing legislation is very important, and seeing that these difficulties occur at the outset to a mere layman like myself I venture to suggest-that what is wanted is a very strong Com-

  1001
  mittee to deal with these legal problems. In order to strengthen the Committee it would be as well to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend and make it a Committee of Lords and Commons.
  The MINISTER for RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): The Motion of my hon. Friend, I take it, is not generally inimical to the purposes of the Committee. He has asked a number of questions with regard to the Bills which the Committee will have to deal with, and I think the list which will be supplied will prove that those Bills will certainly be included among those the Committee will be empowered to review. The terms of reference will also bring under review emergency Statutes which may be passed after the setting up of the Committee, and the list of Bills will, I feel confident, convince the House of the importance and difficulty of the question which the Government are asking the Select Committee to deal with. It was considered that, as many of them were concerned with the business and procedure of this House, it would be much better to ask for a Select Committee of the House itself to advise on the matter, and the method of dealing with them, whether in groups or in other special ways, is eminently one which affects the proceedings of the House. There is good reason, therefore, for making a Select Committee of this House. I think that it will immediately arise that when the Committee gets to work with these measures, some of them can be dealt with probably in groups. Therefore it is very proper that there should be a Committee of this House to advise up upon the matter. Another sufficient reason for not proposing that the Committee should be a joint one. There are two or three points which the hon. Member raised as to the other matters the Committee would review. I think they are set out quite clearly in the Report of Mr. Justice Atkin's Committee, and I am sure it would be in the end much more acceptable to the House that this very technical and complicated subject—because it is quite clear that many of these matters will have to be dealt with quite rapidly—should be considered by a Committee of the House itself rather than that the House some day or other should be confronted with a cut and dried proposal from the Government. It is for that reason that we thought that a Select Committee is specially desirable.
  1002
  I should like also to emphasise what my hon. Friend says as to the high value of these Reports to which he has referred. It is not necessary or appropriate on the appointment of this Committee to go into details of the measures which are referred to, but I think we have seldom been presented with a more comprehensive, closely-reasoned, and able report on any important public subject. I hope, in view of the information I have given, that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Main question again proposed.
  Mr. KING: May I move at this stage, or at a later stage if it were more appropriate, that the Debate be now adjourned? I do so on the ground that this matter has been on the Paper for a good many weeks. There cannot be any urgency. The Irish Members are returning to this House next week, and I think it unfortunate, to say the least, that, just when their return is announced, and when they might take part, it is proposed to proceed with this Committee.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I see no reason to accept the Motion.
  Mr. Anderson, Mr. Brunner, Sir Arthur Fell, Colonel Greig, and Mr. Laurence Hardy nominated members of the Select Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Ronald McNeil be a member of the Committee."
  Mr. KING: On that point, Sir——
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have not lost sight of the fact that the hon. Member has a Motion on the Paper. It will properly come at the end of the names.
  Mr. BOOTH: I think that on this name we can first of all raise the point as to Ireland I am sure that none of us would challenge the name of the hon. Member for St. Augustine's as suitable for the Committee, but it is well known he is taken as representing the views of Ulster, although he is not an Irish Member. Therefore, why is there no Nationalist Irish Member upon the Committee?
  Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): This Committee was set up in the usual way. I communicated with the Nationalist party.

  1003
  They are quite aware of the fact that they are entitled to two members on this Committee, and I told them that any two names they submitted would be added whenever they sent them in.
  Mr. BOOTH: I may take it if they come next week, and I suggested two names, then they would be accepted?
  Lord E. TALBOT: Certainly.
  Mr. BOOTH: That answers the point I raised.
  Mr. Neville, Mr. Charles Roberts, Mr. Walter Roch, Captain Albert Smith, Mr. George Terrell, and Mr. George Thorne also nominated members of the Select Committee.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, "That Mr. McKean be another member of the Select Committee."
  The hon. Member for South Monaghan is the only Irish Nationalist or only Home Rule Member who attends the House at the present time, and he is willing to serve. I think, therefore, that a man who is willing to do his duty ought to be allowed to do his duty, and I believe that even the Government would allow this amount of latitude to the sense of the House and permit the hon. Member for South Monaghan to be added to the Committee.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to second the Motion. I would not put this name forward if we had any assurance that the Nationalist Members next week will send two names, but I presume they have taken no notice of it. If there was any certainty that they would come next week and that when they do come they would submit two names, one might wait. I think there is something, however, due to a Member who attends, and, at any rate, I think he is competent and quite capable of putting the views of his native land with force and persistence. One might say that if he is added to the Committee he will count as equal to any two average Irish Members. Of course, we must be guided largely by the Secretary to the Treasury, but I think that in the present extraordinary state of things, when any Irish Member shows himself as willing to serve, it would be a very serious thing if he were discarded by the House.
  Lord E. TALBOT: I am very sorry I must oppose this Motion. I need hardly say I do not do so on any personal grounds, but I am bound to stand by the custom of this House and act in the usual way. With regard to the appointment of this Committee, I communicated—before the Committee was set up—with the officials of the Nationalist party, and they are quite aware that they are entitled to submit two names, which would be put on the Paper immediately, but, until I hear from them, I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment proposad.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That three be the quorum of the Committee."
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move to leave out the word "three," and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
  Three is too small a number. If two additional members are nominated by the Nationalist party, the quorum would be three out of fourteen members. This is not the usual quorum of a Select Committee, and, in view of the enormous responsibility which the Committee will have in dealing with matters involving the welfare of Parliament, the Defence of the Realm Act, and regulations made under it, I would appeal to the Noble Lord to agree to five being fixed as the quorum.
  Mr. KING: I beg to second the Amendment.
  This Committee only number twelve, whereas the recognised number for a Select Committee is fifteen. I should be glad to see the number sooner or later brought up to fifteen. I think that the legal standing of the Committee might be strengthened and some eminent lawyer might be added, and, if that were done, it would be an additional reason for increasing the quorum to five.
  Lord E. TALBOT: I cannot accept the suggestion which has been made. Three is a suitable number, and is the usual number.
  Amendment negatived.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL [Lords] AND SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL [Lords].
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Message (7th May), 'That it is desirable that the Criminal Law Amendment Bill [Lords] and the Sexual Offences Bill [Lords] be committed to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament,' be now considered."—[Sir G. Cave.]
  Mr. KING: I would ask your ruling as to whether the Amendment of which I have given notice is in order. In its effect it is an ordinary negative, but I would prefer to move it as an Amendment if I am in order.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think that it would be in order for the hon. Member to move the Amendment which stands on the Paper in his name.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof the words
  "it is undesirable at this stage of the Session to enter on consideration of a subject which will be better undertaken after women have exercised the franchise at a General Election."
  The Motion on the Paper is a very remarkable one in many ways. The House of Lords message came to us on the 7th of May, and I am surprised that the Homo Secretary did not give us some explanation in moving it as to why, after more than two months' delay, we are now taking up the suggestion of the House of Lords. If a Select Committee examination of the two Bills was necessary, why have two months been wasted? Perhaps the reason is this? It has been the repeated policy of the Government to avoid contentious legislation, and only yesterday the Leader of the House refused to proceed with the Bill which would have enabled women to act as solicitors—a very good thing in these days—on the ground that it was contentious, though it was a small Bill, which at the most would have taken only three or four hours of our time. Yet to-day they put down a Motion, which means that we are to embark on the consideration of two Bills on a most contentious subject which was dealt with in a Bill which was before the House last Session, and which, after a long Debate, was sent upstairs to a Grand Committee on which the Govern-
  1006
  ment were repeatedly defeated, and which, when the Bill came down in a totally different form again to this House on Report, there were two long days of discussion, and the Government dropped it. They did not get half-way through the Amendments on the Report stage. That is the sort of matter which is to be taken up by the Select Committee at this time of the Session. If the Select Committee reported, presumably the Bill would have to come back here to be passed by this House and the other House.
  The action of the Government on this matter is perfectly bewildering. I think, however, I can suggest the key to this mystery. The War Cabinet has found itself in difficulties. I do not want in any way to dwell upon the distress and difficulties incidental to this time, but one set of difficulties is pretty obvious, and it was endeavoured to get out of them by recalling the Home Secretary from The Hague before his work was over there—work which we are glad to think has been successfully achieved, owing to his great services and the foundations which he laid. They recalled him from The Hague to put him at the head of a special Home Cabinet to deal with home affairs. That was only last week. We have now the first proof in this Bill, which could not be proceeded with last year, and which the Government has been for two months and more unable to take up in either House, and the right hon. Gentleman, as the head of the new Home Cabinet, has said that this legislation must be passed. I honour him for it. He has faith in his own ideas, and he will persist, in spite of his own Leader, and in spite of the evident feeling that still exists, and the opposition of this House, and still more in the country. I say that I respect and honour the man who in that position can say, "I will proceed with this legislation." We honour him for taking this line, we honour him for putting new work and increased labours on the House as soon as he becomse the head of the Home Cabinet. But what is the prospect of this legislation really being successfully carried through I believe none at all. I believe that if these two Bills are sent to a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons, the proceeding will never result in legislation this year, and it will not result in legislation next year, or it ought not, for the reason that we are in the last stage of this Parliament. We all hope that a new Parliament will be elected

  1007
  before long, a Parliament more vigorous and of a different complexion altogether. If so, what is going to be one of the great features in it? Women are going to vote for it, and I am quite sure that any legislation like this with which this Committee is to deal ought not to proceed, especially when we have a very close prospect of a new Parliament elected largely by the votes of women. I say, therefore, without hesitation, that the work of this Committee, if it be set up, is not likely to produce legislation this Session, and is not likely to produce it next Session.
  10.0 P.M.
  Why, therefore, waste time over questions which are very contentious, for I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the matters connected with this legislation are most contentious. I will just indicate a few of the difficulties which arise in connection with this subject. We are going to embark on the consideration of Bills which have not been before this House at all. They are both long Bills, each having eleven Clauses, and therefore cannot be considered small Bills in the ordinary acceptance of that word. They deal with a very difficult subject—I think I may say a painful subject, and one which has recently had a great deal of public attention and discussion, more especially owing to Regulation 40D, in regard to which a large number of questions have been put in the House. A large number of public meetings have been held against that Regulation, and a large number of resolutions of protest have been sent up by the women's organisations all over the country. I receive almost every day communications on the subject from women's organisations. Owing to this 40D Regulation, the question has become one of acute controversy. It certainly has excited violent feeling, and an hon. Friend of mine has intimated that if there is going to be legislation of this kind brought forward, he did not mind if he had no Recess at all; he would try to prolong the proceedings to any extent, so that he could prevent this proposed legislation going through. The Home Secretary, I am afraid, does not recognise the intensity of the feeling that there is upon this subject. He does not realise that some hon. Members of this House would really strain their powers of opposition, and even of obstruction, in a way that has not been
  1008
  done for years past in resistance to such a measure. I therefore ask the Government most seriously to reconsider this matter, and to wait before they proceed upon a course which I believe will do no good, while there may be a great deal of feeling over it, and much controversy and discussion. I attended a meeting at which Regulation 40D was discussed. It was a meeting outside this House, and I addressed it, but I am not anxious to protract or ascerbate the controversy at the present time, because I think protest has been sufficiently made. I believe the matter is receiving the anxious attention not only of the Home Office and the War Office, but of the War Cabinet too. I therefore submit that this matter is much better left as it is, than to proceed with the idea of this legislation being passed into law this Session or proceeded with in such a way as to get it into order to be passed in the next Session. It is a futile policy, and I wish to utter my strong protest against it.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to second the Amendment, and in so doing I would like to point out that the Government's policy on this Resolution is exactly contrary to that on the last Resolution. I suggested on the previous Resolution, which will deal with these topics, because it will deal with the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and they include Regulation 40D, that there should be a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons. The Government could not accept that, but now, on the very next Resolution, dealing with the same subject, they want a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons. The paradox of the English Education Bill contradicting the Scottish Bill in so many points is almost outdone by the Notice Paper to-day, because the Government have never ventured to put both those Bills on the Notice Paper, but here they are actually taking up a directly opposite line of conduct in these two Resolutions. The Minister for Reconstruction, who led upon the first Resolution, has gone away and deprived the House of the privilege of his presence upon this Resolution. He could not very well have stayed and heard his colleague argue the very opposite of what he had been arguing. On the merits of the question, I suggest that the Government must know they are only wasting time. This is a very thorny subject, upon which people

  1009
  are prepared to sink a great deal of their own preference for ease and to sink their aversion to taking part in a political struggle rather than to be beaten on this question. It is one of those questions upon which I would leave any party or any leader rather than be committed to some of this legislation. The Government know very well that unless they rush these Bills through this House in this Session they will have no earthly chance after the women have got votes. All kinds of women, whether rich or poor, have no uncertain views on this question of legislation which is always against them, and the women of the country will not stand it. I suggest that any Members who serve on this Committee must know when they go that they are wasting their time, and I do not think any Government will have the courage to try and legislate on their Report. I appeal to the Government that we have had enough of domestic legislation to satisfy anybody. Why should we prolong this disagreeable controversy when there is not the faintest possibility of anything maturing from it?
  Sir G. CAVE: I hope this Amendment will not be pressed, or, if pressed, will not be accepted by the House. The hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) inquired why there had been the delay in moving the Resolution, and he expressed the opinion that the delay was connected with the Committee on Home Affairs. He is mistaken in that. But for my absence, this Resolution would have been on the Paper weeks ago, and it is only because I was called away elsewhere that it has not been proposed before to-day.
  Mr. KING: May I point out that it was on the 7th of May that the Lords made this proposal?
  Sir G. CAVE: It would have been pro posed here early in June if I had not been called away. The question is
  whether we shall now accept the invitation of the Lords to take part in a Joint Committee. A Bill was proposed by Earl Beauchamp in another place, dealing with this matter, and that Bill was referred to a Committee. It was thought well that at the same time the same Committee should have before it the Bill, which was passed by a Committee of this House last year. That Bill was therefore also introduced and the two together referred to a Committee. The Lords expressed a wish to look into the matter and take evidence, and to form their own opinion upon points which are of great importance, and they have invited this House to take part in those deliberations and to appoint Members to consider the matter with them. I hope this House will agree, and I think it would be most unusual to refuse to take part in a consideration of that kind. I will not go into the merits of the case, but I know, having received a deputation on the subject, that very many women closely engaged in social work desire these matters to be taken in hand at once, and that they do not desire the matter to be delayed. It is complained that Regulation 40D applies to one sex only and is only for the benefit of soldiers. The Bill applies the same regulation to both sexes and to all classes, and surely that is a matter which might be considered today? I really hope that no opposition will be raised to this. It simply means careful consideration, and if there is a general agreement on the part of the Committee as to what measures shall be taken, legislation will at once proceed in another place, and we shall then be free to take what course we think fit in this House.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 2.

  Division No. 66.]

  AYES.

  [10.14 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

  Haslam, Lewis

  Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Barnett, Capt. R. W.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Higham, John Sharp

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Hill, Sir James (Bradford, C.)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

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

  Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Boyton, Sir James

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Brassey, H. L. C.

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Greig, Col. J. W.

  Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Cave. Rt. Hon. Sir George

  Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

  Kenyon, Barnet

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

  Pratt, J. W.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

  Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.

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

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Rattan, Peter Wilson

  Tootill, Robert

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arton)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Watt, Henry A.

  Maden, Sir John Henry

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Whiteley, Sir H. J.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Mason, Robert (Wansbeck)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Wilson, Col. Leslie C. (Reading)

  Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

  Samuels, Arthur W. (Dublin U.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

  Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

  Parkes, Sir Edward E.

  Somervell, William Henry

  Parrott, Sir Edward

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  NOES.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. King and Mr. Booth.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Resolved, That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

  GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS.
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of Moneys provided by Parliament, and, if those Moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums as may be required for giving effect to obligations incurred for the purpose of the present War, or in connection therewith, by or on behalf of His
  Majesty's Government, and for other purposes in relation thereto—(King's Recommendation to be signified)—Tomorrow.—[Lord E. Talbot.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one minutes after Ten o'clock.

WAR.
  RULES OF WAR (ENEMY BREACHES).
  RULES OF WAR (ENEMY BREACHES).
  WAR SERVICE DISTINCTIONS (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
  WAR SERVICE DISTINCTIONS (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
  PRISONERS OF WAR (ALLOWANCES).
  PRISONERS OF WAR (ALLOWANCES).
  RAILWAY RESTRICTIONS, DOWDESWELL STATION.
  RAILWAY RESTRICTIONS, DOWDESWELL STATION.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  MEDICAL GRADING.
  MEDICAL GRADING.
  Opium.
  Opium.
LONDONDERRY CORPORATION BILL.
Bill read 3a with the Amendments and passed, and returned to the Commons.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
    MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

MIDWIVES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 12:
Repeal of section nine of the principal Act.
12. Section nine of the principal Act (which enables county councils to delegate their powers and duties to district councils) shall be repealed.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, there is a small Amendment on the Paper which I would ask the leave of your Lordships to move. It is to add at the end of Clause 12 the words "unless on the representation of the county council concerned the Local Government Board otherwise direct." I have put down this Amendment to meet an undertaking that I gave to the noble Earl, Lord Lichfield, in order to make assurance doubly sure that in cases where delegation is still permitted under this Bill there shall be no fear that that delegation shall be stereotyped.
Amendment moved—
Clause 12, page 4, line 36, at end insert ("unless on the representation of the county council concerned the Local Government Board otherwise direct").—(Viscount Peel.)
>THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for having looked into the matter and for putting down these words, which will make ambiguity impossible in the future.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

FLAX COMPANIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, an increase in the production of flax throughout the Empire and particularly in the United Kingdom is a subject that I feel sure will appeal to your Lordships' House. Within the past twelve months a very remarkable increase has been made in the acreage under flax in England and Scotland, and assistance has also been given for the production of flax in British East Africa and in Canada. If your Lordships will agree to the passing of this Bill it is hoped still further to stimulate the production of flax in the United Kingdom, and particularly in Ireland.
Arrangements have been made for a very considerable extension of the acreage under flax in Ireland, and the necessary money will be advanced by banks, part of it being guaranteed by the linen companies, and part of it (with the consent of the Treasury) by the War Department. It was found that several of the trading companies concerned who wished to advance money for this purpose had not powers to do so under their memorandum and articles of association. The companies, of course, could have made individual application under the Companies Acts to have an alteration made in their articles and memorandum. It was felt to be simpler and perhaps quicker that the matter should be put right by Statute, following the precedent of munition powers, by which companies were allowed, despite what was contained in their memorandum, to engage in munition work in the early part of the war.
This Bill enables any company, association, or body of persons in the United Kingdom who desire to come to the assistance of the State in increasing the production of flax, subject to the consent of the Board of Trade, to take shares, become guarantors, or to lend money for that purpose. The interests of the shareholders are, of course, protected by its being necessary to pass a resolution at a general meeting of the company. The Bill imposes no obligation on anybody; it merely removes an obstacle in the path of those who desire to help the country by promoting the production of one of the vital commodities required for the war. In view

855
of the ever-increasing demands of the Air Service for linen fabric, and of the large demands of the Admiralty and War Office, and in view also of the elimination of Russia and Belgium as sources of supply, I hope that your Lordships will give a not less favourable consideration to this Bill than it has received already in another place. The Bill is a very short one consisting of but one clause, and I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will be prepared to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Clinton.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord opposite—I understand that the Lord Privy Seal is not in his place, and that therefore we cannot expect a detailed examination of the Bill—to give us some information as to its general provisions. For even the most general outline we shall be grateful.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, this is a Bill which I understand to be entirely of a legal and technical character. Its object is to remove in two instances difficulties that have arisen in the administration of the Summary Jurisdiction Code in Ireland. Does the noble Marquess want further particulars?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Well, if we could have a few more.
LORD CLINTON: A good deal of inconvenience is caused in County Dublin owing to the fact that cases arising in that part of the county which is outside the Dublin metropolitan district are not recognised by the county justices, but have to be treated before a Dublin police magistrate. This entails a good deal of inconvenience and expense to the police and public at large, and a memorial has been received from the county justices asking that the matter should be set right by legislation. This is clone by Clause 1. This measure has
856
passed through the other House and there has been no discussion and no objection raised to it.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I think your Lordships would wish to congratulate the noble Lord who has just sat down on having clearly read a brief, which he had not looked at before he rose to his feet to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill. This is not a proper way of treating your Lordships' House. It is a very clear want of respect. The Lord Privy Seal, who put down the Notice on the Paper, neither attended in his place to explain the Bill nor asked any other noble Lord to do it on his behalf. It is quite true that we are living in difficult times, but that is no reason why for the first time, I think, your Lordships should be treated with such scant respect as on this occasion. I hope your Lordships, if you do give a Second Reading to the Bill, will make it quite clear that you will not tolerate such treatment on any subsequent occasion, and that, if Bills are moved, they should be moved by the noble Lord who is in charge of them, or by some other noble Lord who has had an opportunity of getting up the question beforehand.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILICOSIS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, this is, in effect, a development of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which provides compensation for workers contracting industrial diseases. It provides for compensation in the case of those killed or disabled by an industrial disease known as fibroid phthisis which arises from siliceous dust that is to be found, for example, in mining or quarrying of what is known as Bannister rock, a very hard rock, and also in the making of silica brick.
It was considered long ago whether this idea could not be incorporated in the Workmen's Compensation Act, but owing to the slow development of the disease and insufficient knowledge it was decided not to recommend that course. Now, owing to

857
the advance of science, to deeper medical research, and to improved diagnosis, the change is recommended, and is considered necessary. It is intended by the Bill to empower the Secretary of State to make schemes for different industries, and by the schemes to establish in each industry a compensation fund from which all claims are to be paid. The burden will be distributed among the whole trade, and therefore no question of apportioning the liability among the different employers will arise.
The scheme has two aims—one precautionary, the other compensation. The process of the disease is extremely slow, and the Bill provides for the suspension from employment of those for whom this particular trade has become dangerous. In such cases, if the Committee to be set up find that the workman's capacity for work is impaired by the disease as the result of following the occupation, compensation will be given. For the purpose of this compensation joint committees will be set up of employers and workmen, and there will be an independent chairman. Among the provisions of the Bill is one for the appointment and remuneration of medical officers and advisory medical bodies who will have to do with this particular disease and with these workmen. The outlines of this scheme have already been worked out, and, while I cannot say that agreement is absolute, there is a very large measure of assent. The Bill is the result of continuous conference and lengthy negotiations by which many outstanding difficulties have been overcome. I hope I have said enough to show the useful and beneficent nature of this measure, and I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. (Viscount Sandhurst.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, your Lordships will be anxious to give favourable consideration to this measure, which is obviously designed in the interests of workmen in a difficult and dangerous occupation. I rise only for the purpose of asking the noble Viscount whether he can give me a little information on one or two points which occur to me on cursorily glancing through the measure Is it assumed that this particular disease at the present moment is outside the scope of the existing Workmen's Compensation Act; and, if so, why? It seems that the disease
858
obviously arises out of and in the course of occupation, and I do not for the moment understand why the Workmen's Compensation Act is not capable of dealing with it. I could have understood it better if this Bill had provided for a more extended and liberal scheme of compensation, but it appears by subsection (2) of Clause 1 that the scheme of compensation is that prescribed by the Workmen's Compensation Act. Obviously there must be something at the back of it which has caused the advisers of the Government to think that this Bill is necessary. I should like to know what it is, because, if the workmen have, in fact, at the present moment rights under the Workmen's Compensation Act, I should not like to see those rights in any way weakened or impaired by the passage of another measure.
The second question that I wish to ask is, if the object of this Bill is to provide a fund out of which compensation is to be paid and to relegate to workmen the rights against that fund and against that fund alone, what provision is there in the Bill to secure workmen if the fund happens to be insufficient? There is a general fund which is to be compensated by subscriptions, and out of that fund the expenses are to be met and the compensation is to be paid. But suppose the fund is inadequate when any workmen takes proceedings to recover compensation, what is his remedy then?
The noble Viscount, I am sure, will understand that I am asking these questions with a genuine desire for information, and with particular anxiety that no existing right should in any way be weakened by a Bill passed on the hypothesis that the right is, in fact, unsound or untrustworthy.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: In regard to the second question of my noble and learned friend, I believe the intention is that these workmen shall, by being taken in time, be prevented from becoming seriously ill from this particular disease. At present I understand that there are a large number of these workmen who are seriously ill, but after the improved medical inspection, and so on, we hope that that severe condition will be avoided. In reply to the noble and learned Lord's first question, I should like to inform myself a little better and I will make communication at the next stage of the Bill, as this particular disease is not

859
confined to gannister quarries only but also exists in certain Cornish mines which are very difficult to work, and affects Sheffield grinders and certain pottery workers. Whether the actual conditions of the existing Workmen's Compensation Act would be sufficient I am unable to say, but I will in from myself and tell the noble and learned Lord at the next stage.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, I think I can answer the question of my noble and learned friend below me, because I am somewhat interested in this particular kind of production which of late has become specially important. If you want to make munitions you must have steel, and if you want steel you must have furnaces, and those furnaces must be lined with a certain kind of brick, and those bricks must be made of this particular kind of clay called gannister. The noble and learned Lord may remember that when the Workmen's Compensation Act was passed it dealt solely—I think I am right in saying—with accidents, but there was a clause which said that it might he extended, and it was a very important extension, beyond accidents to disease by a certain process. The process provided in the Act was that it might be extended by Order in Council made on the advice of the Home Secretary. Here we have an industry in which it is said that a certain disease arises from the processes in which the workers are engaged—the mining processes and the brick-making processes. No doubt the Secretary of State could exercise his power of extending the Act to that industry by a mere Order in Council, by executive action; but it was felt, in view of the extraordinary importance of this production, that it would not be fair for any individual employer to bear alone the whole of the very serious financial liability which might be laid upon him; therefore it was necessary to set up—what this Bill really sets up—a compulsory insurance scheme for the whole trade. In my opinion it is a fair scheme; and not only is it a fair scheme, but it gives the workman a stronger fund against which to proceed. The noble and learned Lord asked, supposing the compensation fund became insolvent, what would be the workman's position? The answer is that, even supposing you make that extreme supposition, he would be in a better position than under any other Act which left his recourse against the assets of an individual employer. I
860
think I have answered the questions of my noble and learned friend.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SMALL HOLDING COLONIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a,—(Lard Clinton.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, before the Bill is read a third time I should like, very briefly, to say something which I had not the opportunity of saying on the Second Reading—namely, to support with all the emphasis in my power the plea of those who represent the County Councils Association that the embargo now laid by the Treasury on the operations of the county councils in respect of the provision of small holdings should be removed. It is a subject that has been raised before in this House, but I doubt whether the Treasury realise its importance. I know, of course, that the whole difficulty is financial; but has the Treasury considered whether the difficulty could not be met in any way by making it a condition that the money borrowed by a county council for the purchase of an estate should be invested in National War Bonds and the purchase price paid in that coin, if I may use the phrase? I throw that out as a suggestion.
Here you have this cruel dilemma. Everybody admits that at the end of the war a great responsibility will be put on the county councils to assist in meeting the demands for small holdings, not only from returned soldiers and sailors but from others; and all this time opportunities are going by when the county councils could buy suitable estates on the market instead of hereafter taking them by compulsion. It seems to me an absurd thing that you should want to do by friction and by compulsion hereafter, and, perhaps, at greater expense, what can be done now with universal good will. Therefore the refusal of the Treasury to remove the embargo must be protested against on every possible opportunity.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I, and everybody who is interested in the provision of small holdings, will sympathise

861
very much with the noble Earl in the statement he has just made. It is in the last degree unfortunate that these funds are not available at the present moment. I understand that the whole system of loans out of the Public Loan Fund is under consideration now, and the case of one applicant, the county councils here, cannot be considered fully until the whole of the rest has been under the consideration of the Government; but I have no doubt that the remarks of the noble Earl will be noted, and I am sure that they will have sympathy.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 1:
Increase in area of land which may he acquired for purposes of a. 1 of 6 & 7 Geo. 5, c. 38.
1. Subject to the provisions of this section, subsection (3) of section one of the Small Holding Colonies Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act"), which limits the area of the land which may be acquired by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for the purposes of that section, shall have effect as if forty-five thousand acres were therein substituted for four thousand five hundred acres, twenty thousand acres for two thousand acres, and sixty thousand acres for six thousand acres, provided that for the purposes of the acquisition, equipment, and settlement of the area hereby authorised to be acquired by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Board may, with the consent of the county councils, employ the county councils as their agents, and vest in them all the powers hereby or by the principal Act conferred upon them, in addition to those vested in such councils by virtue of the Small Holdings Act, 1908, and paragraph (c) of section eleven of the principal Act, which limits the area of the land which may be acquired by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for the purposes of the said section one, shall have effect as if twenty thousand acres were therein substituted for two thousand acres:
Provided that where land which is to be acquired for the purposes of the said section one could not, if this Act had not been passed, have been acquired for that purpose without making the total area of the land for the time being so acquired exceed the amount authorised to be so acquired, the land shall not be acquired otherwise than by taking the same on lease or by taking the same in feu:
Provided also that no portion of the additional land authorised by this Act to be acquired by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries shall be so acquired except after consultation with the chairman of the council of the county in which the land proposed to be acquired is situate, or with a committee of that council.
LORD CLINTON: The first Amendment standing in my name to Clause 1 is merely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 15 and 16, leave out ("with the consent of the county councils, employ the county councils") and insert ("as respects any county with the consent of the council of that county employ that council").—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLINTON: The next Amendment is consequent on the foregoing one.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, leave out ("councils") and insert ("council").—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE THE MARQUESS OF CREWE moved to omit the first proviso, from "Provided that where land" down to "taking the same in feu." The noble Marquess said: Your Lordships will, I am sure, remember what occurred at an earlier stage of the Bill with regard to this proviso. My noble friend Lord Galway, who is not able to be in his place to-day, moved the omission of certain words which at that time appeared in the Bill, with the result that the proviso read thus—
"Provided that where land which is to be acquired for the purposes of the said section one could not, if this Act had not been passed, be acquired for that purpose without making the total area of the land for the time being so acquired exceed the amount authorised and so acquired,—"
that is to say the amount which was authorised by the original Act, 6,000 acres—
"the land shall not be acquired otherwise than by taking the same on lease";
as my noble friend Lord Galway had moved that the subsequent words should be left out—those subsequent words being, "or by purchasing it on the terms that payment shall be made therefor by way of rent charge or other annual payment." Afterwards, Lord Saltoun moved to leave out the words "or by taking the same in feu," but that noble Lord was not successful in obtaining the omission of these words. The net result is, therefore, certainly not satisfactory.
It is true that my noble friend Lord Galway succeeded in his object of elimi nating the provision which only allowed payment to be made by way of rent charge, instead of by payment in cash; but he left the clause in this position, that the only method open to the Board of Agriculture of obtaining land at all was by

863
lease. I think your Lordships will all feel that this is not a very satisfactory outcome of the whole discussion, and my noble friend Lord Galway asked me to state that he would prefer that my Amendment—namely, to omit the whole proviso—should be carried rather than that the clause should be left in the position in which his Amendment placed it.
The noble Lord in charge of the Bill proposes to restore the words struck out on the last occasion, and I wish to put it to him and to your Lordships whether in all the circumstances it would not be more reasonable to do what I propose—namely, to leave out the proviso altogether. What is the proviso required for? As the Bill would stand without it, it would be open to the Board of Agriculture to obtain land for the purpose of these colonies in any one of various ways; either by purchase, or on rentcharge terms, or on a lease, or by feuing in those parts of the kingdom where feuing is the practice. But what is important to remember is this, that they cannot buy the land outright and pay cash for it unless the money is forthcoming, and there is nothing in this Bill, if passed without the proviso, which will produce that money; it is, therefore, I think a somewhat unnecessary excess of caution on the part of the Treasury, directed against one of the Departments of their own Government and directed in some degree against the House of Commons, because I can quite imagine a case—undoubtedly a rare one—in which a particularly desirable area of land could not possibly be obtained except by paying for it, at any rate in part, in cash or in Government securities by the issue of Stock. Those cases might not be frequent, but it is possible that a serious misfortune might happen in the Department losing the chance of acquiring a peculiarly desirable site owing to the impossibility of the owner being content with a rent charge. In that case it would be for the Department to go to the Treasury and to obtain authorisation to add a certain sum to the Estimates of the year in respect of that particular purchase, but unless the money were voted by the House of Commons no such purchase could take place.
It does seem to me, I confess, rather a preposterous act on the part of the Treasury, which I will not qualify in the terms that I might if I were perfectly candid, to set up this barrier and make it
864
impossible at any time for any amount to be paid down for the purchase of any of these colonies without the whole process of a fresh Act of Parliament being gone through. It seems to me an assumption on the part, of a particular Department, even though it is by way of guarding the national purse, which is I think quite unprecedented—I cannot recall a parallel—and one which your Lordships ought not to admit. It is not as though any kind of burden or obligation were being thrown upon the Department or upon anybody to expend money at a time when, as we all agree, it is undesirable that either particular Departments or public authorities should throw a burden upon the national credit by expending sums of money for any objects however desirable in themselves. But there is no question here of anything of the kind. All that the omission of the proviso would do is to leave the whole position absolutely open, no doubt leaving it in practice for the next year or two quite certain that money will not be forthcoming for purchase, and that if landlords are not prepared either to lease or to accept a rentcharge, no special arrangement is likely to be come to with them. But the time may come—circumstances may change—when it is desirable that at any rate some portion of the purchase money should be paid in cash, and we desire, therefore, to leave that possibility open.
I confess I feel so strongly on this point that I am bound to press my Amendment, and resist the restoration of the words which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill desires to replace. No suggestion has ever been made that payment for these purchases might be made after the fashion in which Irish landlords have received their payments—namely, in inconvertible security. Possibly some such suggestion, if the possibility of converting was withheld for a certain number of years, might produce a not unacceptable form of purchase in some cases, but no such suggestion has been made, and it is because I feel that the possibilities of obtaining desirable land may be seriously limited by this particular restriction that I feel bound to press my Amendment on the noble Lord and the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 24, leave out from ("acres") to ("provided") in line 4, page 2.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
LORD CLINTON: The noble Marquess has detailed to the House the happenings

865
when this Amendment, or rather when the words connected with this Amendment, were moved out by your Lordships' House on the last occasion when we discussed the matter. My recollection is that the sense of the House was not taken upon Lord Galway's Amendment. He moved it, and through my own inadvertence, mistaking the method—no doubt the perfectly correct method—in which the Question was put, I did not challenge it, and the Amendment was passed before the error was discovered. I did object to the Amendment in speaking to it at the time. It seemed to me that these are words which ought to be allowed to remain in the Bill, because they show owners quite plainly the methods, and the only methods, which the Board of Agriculture could adopt in obtaining land for this particular class of small holdings. The noble Marquess is perfectly correct in saying that this is a proviso, taken as a whole, which affects the Treasury alone. It is made quite clear that the Treasury is not in a position, or does not propose, to advance any money in cash for this purpose. With reference to a conversation which passed in this House a few moments ago, when the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, brought up the question of purchasing for small holding purposes, I think it would be probably incorrect in this measure, which is for somewhat similar purposes, to admit the possibility or probability of actually purchasing land for cash, when that probability or possibility is not admitted for county councils.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: There is no Act of Parliament which forbids the advancement of money to county councils. It is the act of the Treasury in suspending these advances, and I take it that precisely the same thing will occur in this instance.
LORD CLINTON: There is, of course, no Act of Parliament, but the Treasury is unlikely or unable to advance cash. It is quite true that it would be exactly the same under this measure. The Treasury is of opinion that this ought to go into the Bill to make it clear that they are not prepared to adopt that measure—to make it clear to owners who are voluntarily giving up land for this purpose that they are not in a position to claim cash from the Treasury itself. It is of importance in that respect. It does away with demands which would constantly
866
be made on the Treasury if they were empowered to purchase land in this way. I think the noble Marquess said there is no mention of convertible security. It is not mentioned in those very terms, but I think the rentcharge with the Government guarantee is obviously a convertible security, and probably convertible, for its face value at all events, as easily as land.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am afraid I did not express myself quite clearly. I meant to say that there is no provision in the Bill for payment in security which was not convertible, like the Irish Land Stock. I suppose that money might be borrowed privately on a Government rentcharge, although I do not know exactly at what rate of interest, but, it would be inconvertible security which was in my mind.
LORD CLINTON: My point was that this rentcharge world probably be saleable at its face value. The noble Marquess has told us also that in any case he is not prepared to support the Amendment for putting the words back into the proviso. The proviso as it stands, the noble Marquess will admit, is a very peculiar proviso for an Act of Parliament, and while I am very anxious indeed that the proviso should remain, at the request of the Treasury I shall have to ask your Lordships also to put back the words which were moved out at the last sitting of the House.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I understand that the defence advanced by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for this proviso is that be wants words in the Bill which shall negative any idea of the creation of ownership, and this contention he bases mainly on the ground of precedent. I do not think that the Act of 1908—the Small Holdings Act which passed in 1907, and was in charge of my noble friend Viscount Harcourt, at that time Minister for Agriculture—negatived entirely the idea of ownership to county councils. It is true that its clauses were so framed as to encourage tenancy rather than ownership, but the noble Lord's position is really not reconcilable with the attitude he takes up with regard to the next Amendment which we shall have to deal with, because he expressly proposes to replace the words "or upon grant of rentcharge," then the ownership will practically have passed, subject only to the payment of a rent-

867
charge. The party who is liable to the payment of a rentcharge is the owner in fee who can pass on that ownership to a tenant or a small holder or any other person to whom, subject to his responsibility to the ratepayers, he thinks it best to pass it on. I do not know really what the origin or genesis of this proviso is. I can conceive it may have been imagined that it would place the Treasury in a better position for negotiation. I submit to your Lordships that it will have exactly the opposite effect. I remember that one of the best men of business I knew said that in all negotiations you should always allow the opposite party to think that he is not left with absolutely nothing. In any case here, where you want to bring in the landowner on a voluntary arrangement, you start by negativing all idea of paying cash. It is probably right from the point of view of our present financial position that you should not raise large capital sums where you can avoid it. Surely it is better to leave the negotiations as free as possible, because, as the noble Marquess says, you should be free to pay cash should there be a
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The "Contents" are 40, and the "Not-Contents" also 40. The Motion was to leave out part
868
particularly valuable piece of land which, for the purposes of the new legislation, you want to acquire.
LORD CLINTON: With the leave of the House I should like to say that I think the noble Lord misunderstood my words entirely. I never raised any argument against ownership. Apart from that, the noble Lord's views really express mine. Under this scheme of rentcharge obviously you may obtain virtual ownership for tenants, but I made no arguments against the principle of ownership.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Marquess move the Amendment down to the word "lease"?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Yes.
On Question, whether the words in the proviso down to the word "lease" shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Knollys, V.

Faringdon, L.

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

Peel, V.

Harris, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hylton, L.

Kenyon, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Annesley, L.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Grey, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Howe, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Lichfield, E.

Cawley, L.

Pontypridd, L.

Selborne, E.

Clinton, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Stanhope, E.

Colchester, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Strafford, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Cottesloe, L.

Sudeley, L.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Digby, L.

Terrington, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Elphinstone, L.

Wittenham, L.

Goschen, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Chaplin, V.

Hindlip, L.

Rutland, D.

Churchill, V.

Joicey, L.

Harcourt, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Crewe, M. [Teller.]

Iveagh, V.

Lambourne, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Phillimore, L.

Ancaster, E.

Anslow, L.

Redesdale, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Rotherham, L.

Eldon, E.

Avebury, L.

Sandys, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Powis, E.

Blyth, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Brodriek, L. (V. Midleton.)

Southwark, L.

Yarborough, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Strachie, L.

Allendale, V.

Burnham, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L. [Teller.]

Bryce, V.

Farrer, L.

of the clause, and in these circumstances I submit to the House that the words do stand part.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved, after "taking the same on lease," in the first proviso, to insert "or by purchasing it in consideration of the grant of a rent charge or other annual payment." The noble Lord said: I move the re-instatement of words substantially the same as those which were omitted on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Galway on a previous occasion. I think the House is familiar with the argument. The Bill itself negatives the payment of cash, and by retaining this proviso we have retained that prohibition, unfortunately as we think. It is clearly desirable—I speak as a landowner in a fiduciary capacity myself, one of the largest in the kingdom—that I should have all possible alternatives in negotiations, and all possible methods of compensation for the loss of my territory.
Amendment moved:
Page 2, line 2, after ("lease") insert ("or by purchasing it in consideration of the grant of a rnt charge or other annual payment").—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
LORD CLINTON: A similar Amendment is also down in my name, and I wish to support the noble Lord. I have already told your Lordships that the provision was left out through a misapprehension on the last stage in Committee, and I am glad to support the Amendment now.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title:
An Act to authorise an increase in the Amount of Land which may be acquired for the purposes of the Small Holding Colonies Act, 1916.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, a doubt has arisen whether some alterations made by your Lordships in Committee, giving powers to county councils to act under this Bill, do not necessitate an Amendment of the title of the Bill, and whether the title should not have added the words "and otherwise amend that Act." The noble Lord, Lord Clinton, informs me that he has no objection and that the Government approve of this alteration. I therefore move the addition of those words.
Amendment moved
In the Title, after ("1916") insert ("and otherwise amend that Act").—(Lord Strachie.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

PARLIAMENT AND LOCAL ELECTIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I regret that my noble friend the Leader of the House is so much indisposed as to be unable to move the Second Reading of this Bill himself. I therefore submit the Second Reading of the measure to your Lordships. The Bill is in a form which is, I think, now familiar to everybody. It consists of two clauses. The first prolongs the life of the present Parliament; the second postpones for a year specified local elections.
As regards the first clause of the Bill, the present Parliament met early in 1911, and was subject to the Septennial Act. That was amended in the summer, and Parliament then sat upon a quinquennial basis. When the life of this Parliament was about to reach its conclusion in 1916, an extension of the Parliament and Registration Act was passed. This was repeated in the latter part of 1916, and twice during the year 1917. This, therefore, is the fifth extension of the Parliament elected in 1911. The first extenion was for eight months, the second and the third for seven months respectively, and the fourth for eight months, and the extension proposed under the present Bill is for six months. As the present Parliament expires in a fortnight, a further extension of its life seems imperative.
The second part of the Bill deals with local elections. I understand that the general view of municipalities is that there should be a postponement, and for a variety of reasons. Municipal and local government elections involve an immense amount of work; they would divert energies from administrative into electioneering channels, and as there are no essential municipal or local government problems at issue—for instance, none of the normal questions about expenditure of the ratepayers' money upon public improvements—there is really nothing material upon which municipal elections could or should be fought. Meanwhile an immense amount of valuable administrative work is being carried out by these local bodies through war committees of every description, and, above all, a new obligation has recently been placed upon local authorities—namely, the management of local food con-

871
trol work. I submit, therefore, to your Lordships that the case for the Bill is a good one, and I commend its Second Reading to the favourable consideration of the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I think that nothing marks in so extraordinary a degree the change which has come over Parliamentary affairs than the fact that a Bill of this magnitude can be moved by the noble Earl in so few words, and that your Lordships should show every sign of being likely to accept it after very brief debate. During certain periods when the noble Earl was serving his country elsewhere he was not present when very considerable exception was taken to the previous prolongations of Parliament. I believe that the calmness with which the present proposal has been received by many people is largely due to an expectation held out in another place that this would be the last extension that would be asked for. We cannot, of course, tie His Majesty's Government to that or to any other proposal in the present state of public business. But there is one point that I should like to make, and in it I believe that I shall have the sympathy of very many of your Lordships and of the public outside.
This prolongation—quite abnormal, and from many points of view to be regretted—is really given by Parliament solely in order to carry on, and if possible to complete, the business of the war, and I think that your Lordships will feel that it ought not to be made the machinery for bringing forward further and drastic changes of the Constitution, and for entertaining any more of those important proposals of change which have been showered upon us during the last two or three years, during the period after that at which the normal activities of Parliament should have come to an end. I am sure that the Government must realise that the most salutary provision in our Constitution is now passing from it. If the Government fail in any proposal, or in any measure, during the war, it is not to be desired that they should suffer for it in the ordinary way; at the same time, when no appeal is possible to the country, and when for an indefinite period the Government may expect power, they ought not to bring forward any of those great changes. I hope that before this debate
872
closes we may have an assurance from the noble Earl that the idea of the truce has not altogether evaporated. The fact that for one reason or another every subject of dominant importance to domestic politics has been put forward in the last two or three years ought not to be made the reason for further subjects, involving important organic changes and enormous demands on the public purse for purposes which are not connected with the war, being introduced in the period of the extention of Parliament which is now asked for.
In view of the two debates which have taken place in your Lordships' House I would especially ask also that the Government shall give us an assurance that no new Ministries will be created. The number of Ministries created has become—I do not wish to use the word "scandal"—a great incubus, and will become a great incubus to Parliament. If further Ministries are created, that will also cause an amount of heart-burning and trouble, and of difficult work, discussion, and legislation in order to bring back within normal limits the great bureaucracy which has grown up during the war. I do not think that this country is in the least aware that the number of members of the Government has been practically doubled during the war, and that the number of persons employed in clerical work by the Government has gone up to nearly 100,000.
If the Government, on the plea of the war, ask for a further extension, they ought to abstain from pressing Parliament, which is really in a moribund condition, further to add to the Ministries by yielding to the pressure which is put upon them from all directions. These are two very simple matters upon which I desire an assurance. Considering that we are now at a period when Parliament is accustomed to wind up its business and adjourn, we ought to be assured that we are only to be kept sitting in October and November because of the abnormal circumstances of the times, and that the Government will not use those abnormal sittings for adding further to what many of us regard as the great burdens which they have already put upon us.
LORD ARMAGHDALE: My Lords, I do not desire to criticise or oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but I think it is right that I should inform the House that it is

873
my intention to move one or two small technical Amendments affecting Ireland in the Committee stage. It is not a matter which I can discuss on Second Reading, and I will therefore reserve what I have to say until the Bill is in Committee, which I presume will not be for a few days.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I rise merely to support what fell from my noble friend just now when he made an appeal to the noble Lord opposite to state on behalf of the Government that no further Ministries would be created, at all events without full opportunities for discussion by Parliament. I do not know whether the House realises the effect of the answer given to me by the noble Lord the other day when I asked for information as to the present cost of the Ministry of Food. So far as I have been able to gather from a further examination of the figures—and I say this in order to draw the attention, if I can, both of Parliament and of the public to what is going on at present in one particular Ministry—what it comes to is this. I do not know in the least what return you expect to get—we were not favoured with any information upon that point—but at the present moment the outgoings for which they are responsible in the last six months, according to the information I received in reply to my Question, are at the rate of something not much short of £400,000,000 per annum. One item alone that was given me by the noble Lord was £185,000,000—that was for the purchase of food. I know perfectly well that we were told—it has been stated in Parliament, I believe in both Houses of Parliament—that it was the hope, and that that hope was to be taken as something more than the expression of a pious wish, that the cost of that administration would be very largely met by margins arising from the sale of commodities. That may or may not be.
There is another very remarkable feature in connection with this Department—namely, that they have in their employ, as far as I can make out, something like 12,000 officials at the present time. If money is being spent at the rate of something approaching £400,000,000 a year, and we have no information about the returns coming back from those margins in the shape of commodities, I do not think anybody can be surprised that my noble friend should have expressed the opinion that no more Ministries ought to
874
be created at the present time, and the strong hope that he would receive some assurance to that effect from the noble Earl on behalf of the Government. I do not know whether the noble Earl is able to give any assurance of that kind at the present moment. If he is, I am quite sure that both Parliament and the public will be very glad to have it; but in any case, if he does not, he cannot be surprised if this question is raised again on a future occasion.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I would remind your Lordships that had it not been for the repeal of the Septennial Act this would have been the first extension of the Parliament elected in 1911. The fact that five extensions have been necessary is, therefore, attributable to causes which varied the Statute dating back for many, many generations.
I have been asked for three assurances. The first was that the idea of the truce has not been abandoned. I do not know whether Lord Midleton cares to have my views upon that question, but I will state them. So far as I am concerned I believe the truce continues. So long as the Coalition Government continues with Labour, Liberal and Conservative members in it, I should have thought that the truce was in itself essential and inevitable. Lord Midleton asked that I should give an assurance that no further demands on the public purse apart from war outlays would be made during the ensuing six months. I can give no such assurance, and I observe with some interest that my noble friend Lord Midleton voted against the Government twenty minutes ago in an attempt to increase a charge upon the public purse. Lord Midleton asked that no new Ministries should be appointed. I cannot give any assurance to that effect. I hope, however, that your Lordships will bear that claim in mind when a Motion is submitted to this House, I think to-morrow, that a new Ministry shall be established. I cannot possibly give any pledge on that matter, and I do not think that under present war conditions it is conceivable that any responsible Minister would say that during the six months it may not become necessary to formulate some further engine of the Government machine to deal with some further emergency which for the moment we cannot foresee.
I regret, therefore, that I cannot give either of the pledges which were asked of

875
me. I should prefer to defer to another occasion, when probably a more suitable opportunity will occur for dealing with it, the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, about the recoupment of public moneys in the Ministry of Food. I have no figures by me at the present moment, and I should not like to commit my memory on that subject.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CORN PRODUCTION (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Amendment of 7 & 8 Geo. 5, c. 46, s. 11 (3).
1. For subsection (3) of section eleven of the Corn Production Act, 1917, the following subsection shall be substituted:—
"(3) This Part of this Act shall not, except as hereinafter provided, come into operation until the termination of the present war, and the powers under the Defence of the Realm Regulations exerciseable by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with a view to maintaining the food supply of the country with respect to matters dealt with in this Part of this Act shall continue to operate until that date:
"Provided that—

"(a) before any person is deprived of the occupation of his land in connection with the food supply of the country, he shall be served with a notice of the intention of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to take such possession; and i any person is served with such notice as aforesaid, or with a notice requiring that any land in his occupation shall be cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, or requiring any change in the mode of cultivating or in the use of land in his occupation, or otherwise dealing with the said land for the purposes of food production, the proviso to subsection (1) of section nine of this Act shall apply as if the notice had been served under the powers conferred by that section;

"(b) Where any notice is served order made, or possession of land taken under the said Regulations, the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the determination and recovery of compensation shall apply as if the notice had been served, the order made, or possession taken under the powers conferred by section nine of this Act."

LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to add a new proviso at the end of proviso (a). The noble Lord said: This is nothing more than a drafting Amendment, and your Lordships will note that it is Clause 2 of the Bill placed in a position a little higher up.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert:
"(b) Where any such notice is served on a tenant a copy of the notice shall at the same time be served on the landlord and the landlord shall have the same right as the tenant of requiring any question to be referred to arbitration; and."—(Lord Clinton.)
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: The noble Lord has told us that this is a drafting Amendment, but it is at the same time an excessively important one, and on it I should like to be permitted to ask a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, Can he assure the House that in his opinion and in the opinion of his advisers all risk and danger of the scarcity of cereals is happily at an end, and, if not, whether the scarcity of food can be met by the old peace time methods? If the noble Lord is able to give an affirmative answer to that question, as I hope he will be, it will not be necessary for me to say another word.
LORD CLINTON: I do not think that anybody, least of all the noble Marquess, can expect an affirmative answer to be given to the question whether all possibility of a scarcity is over. The scarcity of food remains, and, of course, must remain, as long as the war lasts. As long as the war is in existence there must be anxiety among all those who are in any way responsible for food production in this country. It is only, of course, by the very greatest efforts on the part of all concerned—individuals, the agricultural community, the food production authorities, and the Royal Navy—that something worse than scarcity has been averted; and it is impossible at the present time that we can afford in any degree to relax the efforts which we have made and which we are making now. It will remain our duty by every means in our power to increase production to the highest possible limit the land can attain.
Before the war we produced only one-fifth of the wheat we consumed, and, even with the whole of our present increased

877
production and with all our reduced consumption, we are still no doubt very far indeed from being self-supporting. It is rather difficult to imagine this country in the position of ever being entirely self-supporting. As we are not self-supporting we naturally have to rely upon importation from overseas, an importation which is still surrounded by dangers of a certain kind which I need not specify to your Lordships. But presuming that these risks and dangers were entirely eliminated to-day, we should still be in the position that we should have to avoid as far as possible any further importation as the tonnage is urgently required for other matters, and it is compulsory upon us to increase production in every way possible.
The answer, I am afraid, to the first part of the question must be that the scarcity of food still remains. Then the noble Marquess asks whether the scarcity can be met by ordinary peace time measures. Clearly it cannot be met by any such measures. They are admirable, no doubt, for peace time. Our methods of cultivation and method of tenure have grown up with us and are probably in every way suited to their purpose in peace time, but they are too slow for a time of war and they cannot then be relied upon. Efforts are being made to speed them up, and they have met no doubt with a very great deal of success, a success which it is certain our ordinary methods could not by any possibility have produced. If we desire to continue our present production, as we must do, it is obvious that we have to continue methods which hitherto we have looked upon as extraordinary ones.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his answer. It is not what I hoped, however, and I am bound to say that most people would consider it disquieting in the extreme. In the face of such an answer, how can the House venture to weaken the provisions of the Corn Production Act which was passed to increase the area of corn in this country and thereby to avoid the risk of great scarcity if not famine?
We have this Bill before us now, and we have the new Amendment of the Government before us also. I am afraid I must say that, in the opinion of a good many people, this Bill as amended is absolutely useless in the present food crisis; and the Government Amendment that has just, been moved makes it worse still. Your Lord-
878
ships will remember that an Amendment was moved by Lord Desborough and backed up by Lord Parmoor. The noble and learned Lord is not in his place, and I thought Lord Desborough was not, but I see that he is; it is rather more difficult to say what I was going to say in his presence than it would have been to say it in his absence. However, those two noble Lords are recognised—I think rightly recognised—in this House as the twin acknowledged leaders of what I hope I may be forgiven for calling the Patriarchial Agricultural Party, just as Lord Selborne is the recognised leader of the more progressive Unionist or Conservative Party. Lord Desborough and Lard Parmoor are a formidable combination. They are men who are highly respected in the counties in which they live. They live at home; they themselves farm; they are large landed proprietors, and when they speak they do so from practical knowledge, and not, as some other people do, from theory or hearsay; and not only in this House but also in the counties where they live they are rightly listened to with respect and attention.
But I would respectfully ask my noble friend whether he is quite certain that, when he is advocating all these what he calls "safeguards," he knows the danger, and, I hope he will forgive me if I add, the possible mischief, of what he is doing? In war drastic measures are, of course, absolutely necessary; everybody submits to them; but if those drastic measures are to be carried out everyone should be treated alike. I will take one instance. We are at war; the guns are thundering on a fifty-mile front at the present moment; the fate of the Empire is trembling in the balance; every man in England has to go out and fight, and rightly so; you take a shop keeper, for instance, you ruin his business, you put him in the ranks and send him out to France, where possibly he may lose his life, and he leaves a wife and children to be looked after, as of course they will be properly looked after, by the country.
But when it comes to dealing with a man who is fighting exactly as big a fight—the man who is fighting the battle of the harvest at, home—how do you treat him? It is a very different state of things altogether. There is a shortage and a dangerous shortage. Some time ago we thought there was going to be a famine, and the Government quite rightly said, "You must increase the food production of the country." They

879
sent to the different counties and said "You must produce so many acres more land under cereals." They appointed agricultural war committees with great powers. Many of us have served on those committees. The committees then went into the counties and said to the different people—take my own county; they took the greatest possible care, they got all the local knowledge, and they aaid to the farmers "We have to get 30,000 or 40,000 acres of grass land broken up. Plough up those ten acres of grass fields. You must do your share of the work and take the risks, and you must find the labour. You are fighting the battle of the harvest, so plough up those ten acres." Or else they say, "We have pledged ourselves, and it is the law of the land, that everybody who wants an allotment shall have it, so give up those fifty acres of land for allotments for people who want allotments."
What happens? The Bill as it was introduced by the noble Lord was a capital Bill, but as it now stands it allows the farmer or the owner to say, "You order me to plough up that field. I have got my safeguards. I demand and I can get not only notice given to myself as occupier or farmer, but I am going to have notice given to my landlord." The landlord may be fighting in Palestine and never get the notice at all. Also he can insist under this Bill upon arbitration. I am not going into that question now, but everybody knows what arbitration is, especially under this Bill. It means expert witnesses, and everybody knows what they are. It means lawyers, and we all know what lawyers are. It also means delay and dangerous delay, and I want to ask the House one question. What will the men who are waiting and determined to get these allotments—and there are thousands of them waiting at this moment, independently of the men out at the Front who when they return mean to get allotments out of the country which they intend to share—what will these men when they come back to their country say if they cannot get these allotments and if there are all these safeguards, difficulties, and arbitrations in the way and, worse still, if it becomes necessary to put the centres of population on bread rations, which God Almighty forbid!—what will they think of this procrastination and of all these agricultural safeguards?
I never speak for other people, but I believe I am perfectly justified in saying this, that every member of a war com-
880
mittee—and some of these men have done splendid work—every one of them will tell you that the effect of this Amendment of my noble friend will be inevitable and fatal delay and will certainly prevent the crop being got in. It will probably mean the loss of a year, and the whole of Mr. Prothero's great scheme, which we have been told is a preventative against famine, will be paralysed. Besides that, if this new legislation is brought into operation you will lose for an absolute certainty all the best men on your agricultural war committees. Two or three determined men with a few good seamen in a submarine are quite enough to wreck a Dreadnought, and the action of Lord Desborough and of Lord Parmoor I regret to say may, and I almost say will, wreck Mr. Prothero's efforts to try and feed the country and put the food supply on a proper basis. I have seen it said in the papers—I hope it is not true—that on Thursday he is going to meet the landlords' demands and that he is going to climb down. I hope this is not true. I hope that when this Bill goes down to the House of Commons it will be restored to its original shape and sent back to this House as it was moved by the noble Lord opposite. If not, I fear that these agricultural safeguards will rouse a feeling all over the country that agriculturists are a favoured class. That will be a feeling which every man in this House would deplore, and which it may be very difficult to explain and perhaps impossible entirely to remove.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I had no intention of trespassing upon your time, but as the noble Marquess has made a well considered and most polite attack upon myself I can hardly refrain from some attempt at explanation of the conduct which he thinks so very outrageous. What happened really is this, that neither I nor Lord Parmoor have attempted to introduce into this House any fresh legislation of any sort or kind. The legislation which was proposed was this—namely, that after we had agreed to four Parts of the Corn Production Act, when it came for the Government to carry out Part IV of the Act, they would not carry out their part of the bargain. I never suggested any legislation of any kind, but after full consideration of the Corn Production Act of last year the operation of Part IV was at the request of the Government, and to suit their convenience, postponed for one

881
year. When the year was nearly over the Government came forward and brought in a very small Act to do away with their part of the bargain. Therefore I think it is rather unfair of the noble Marquess to say that I am, or Lord Parmoor is, introducing fresh legislation to bring upon the country all the terrible catastrophes which he prophesies. We all know that the Empire is trembling in the balance, and I understand from the noble Marquess that shopkeepers are threatened with ruin, but that is no reason why you should ruin by legislation a tenant farmer who cannot go to the Front, who perhaps may be over age, but who is doing his best to increase the food production of the country.
The noble Marquess who has just sat down objected to both Amendments. He objected to the Amendment of the Government which gave an appeal when land was to be ploughed up—an appeal which was in Part IV of the Corn Production Act. Since then Mr. Prothero has said that owing to the depletion of man-power in the agricultural world and the shortage of fertilisers they are going to issue instructions that no more land should be ploughed up and, with regard to the Orders which have been issued, I understand there should be some sort of right of appeal. Therefore that Amendment is practically going to be carried into force.
I do not wish to repeat the arguments I have used, but with regard to the other Amendment which was carried in your Lordships' House it merely reintroduced another portion of Part IV which was agreed to last year. There is no fresh legislation about it, and I think it is very necessary. You may do a great deal of harm to food production if, by ill-considered, compulsory taking of land, you ruin farmers. It may very likely happen, and it has happened. In all these demands for allotments or small holdings the whole case ought to be very carefully gone into and considered.
My Amendment does not in the least prevent land being taken, but it merely says that both the owner and the occupier of the land should have the right to be heard before an independent referee. There is nothing very drastic in that. If you take a farm and a man wants a small holding, what part of the farm attracts him? Naturally, he wants the very "eye" of
882
the farm. He wants the best and not the worst of the farm. This has happened a number of times. If he gets people compulsorily to give him this bit of the farm, which may he well watered, surely the person who is farming land on a big scale—three or four or five hundred acres, and has buildings upon it and is paying the rates—miht be heard. If the case for taking the particular piece of land is a good one, the land will be obtained just the same. It is the same with allotments. Everybody wants to see allotments increased. They have increased and they will further increase. But surely if allotments are wanted, and the taking of land hinders the rest of the work on a farm, the appeal lies on that. The man does not appeal on whether the man should have an allotment or hot, but whether that particular piece of land is the best suited to be taken out of the farm, or whether some other piece should not be substituted, or whether it was really in the interests of agriculture to take the land at all.
The Government want to go on under the Defence of the Realm Act till the end of the war. Under that then is no appeal. That was the object of the repeal of Part IV of the Corn Production Act. The noble Marquess below me drew moving pictures of people who boldly ploughed, or refused to plough, ten acres of land. I can only says that people in South Bucks are not encouraged to plough up their land when they see the Government taking 600 acres of proved corn land. All the arguments which I have seen with regard to that are, I believe, absolutely wrong. You cannot expect people to plough up land after this. What is the good of ploughing up ten acres if the Government take 600 acres of good corn land? Grass land is problematical, but here you have 600 acres of land which has produced the best corn in the county of Bucks for years and years and years. One reason for taking this land, I understand, is that they were going to continue the canal, but the canal is given up. Therefore, that reason is gone. Another reason is that they wanted gravel. I read that the Under-Secretary of State for War said that they wanted gravel to hold up heavy lorries. The land is not gravel; it is deep loam. It will not hold heavy lorries. To destroy this land because it is gravel—when it is not gravel—and because it will hold up lorries—when it will not hold up lorries—is rather discouraging to the farmers in the neighboorhood.

883
There is a little bit of gravel, and that is under our only isolation hospital which serves nineteen parishes. A lot of money has just been spent upon it. I think the hospital is going to be moved, and they are going to take out the gravel to make ferroconcrete. It is known that that gravel is absolutely unsuitable for this purpose. If you want gravel you must go miles. I do not think there is any nearer than Staines. All this applies to the question of the right of appeal. When farmers see the Government doing these things, and when the Government appeal to their patriotism to plough up ten acres of good, useful pasture land while hospitals and people are asking to be supplied with milk, it does strengthen my hand when I say that Part IV of the Corn Production Act should be restored and a right of appeal given, not to a lot of lawyers but to a competent surveyor appointed, in default of agreement, by the President of the Surveyors Institution.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, if I may intervene for a moment it is to say a word in reply to the noble Marquess who rose at the same time as myself. He complained of the statement of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, and said that his reply would cause the utmost anxiety amongst most people in the country. He went on to add that the Amendment which the noble Lord had moved would make things still worse. I rise to ask this question of my noble friend opposite who is in charge of the Bill—What is the difference between his Amendment and Clause 2, which is now in the Bill? They seem to me to be almost precisely the same. I was going to ask him—perhaps he will kindly tell us after I sit clown—what the difference is between the Amendment which is going to create anxiety in the minds of most people in the country and the Bill as it now stands.
I do not know why the noble Marquess should claim to speak on behalf of "most people in the country." It is a very wide term. I should doubt if, when he said that, he spoke on behalf even of most people in this house or of most people connected with agriculture outside this House, but that is neither here nor there. He went on to speak of the old patriarchal methods of conducting agriculture, of which he disapproved altogether. I can only say that it was under the old patriarchal methods that agriculture in this country reached the very summit of its prosperity, and to a
884
degree which was never known in any other country in the world. What happened to it under the Progressive Party, of which the noble Marquess is such a keen and distinguished representative? We got into the terrible mess in which we found ourselves during this war; a mess, difficulty and trouble, due to the neglect of agriculture, and agricultural interests, by Parliament; and no one made this statement in more emphatic terms than the Present Prime Minister in the other House of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton, spoke of the necessity of increasing the production in this country by every possible means. There is no one in this House who agrees with him more firmly than I do. He knows that I am as anxious for this as he is, but he has also experience enough in politics to know that it is permitted to politicians holding the same views sometimes to have a difference of opinion as to the methods by which their views can best be obtained. That is the only difference between the noble Lord opposite and myself.
If I have been mistaken in opposing certain parts of that policy, and I am ever shown to have been mistaken, no one will regret it more than I shall. But I do not think I shall be shown to be mistaken, and the best proof of it is that even on the part of those who are responsible for this policy, the President of the Board of Agriculture—to whom the noble Marquess referred just now—told me himself that what he was going to say in the House of Commons next Thursday will not disabuse the mind of the noble Marquess as to the injury which this Bill has inflicted, and is going to inflict, in connection with the war. I think he will be surprised with some of the instructions which have already been issued by that Department, and other instructions which are likely to follow in the future. I am sorry to have intruded again so soon on your Lordships' attention this afternoon, but I thought some of the observations of the noble Marquess could not pass altogether unnoticed.
I sincerely hope that the advice given by the noble Marquess will not be listened to for a single moment in another place. This is not a moment to create friction that can be reasonably avoided, between the two Houses of Parliament; and I am surprised that a man of his long experience in politics should have thought this a suitable occasion to try to promote friction

885
between the two Houses. Those of us who have taken the line we have do so honestly believing it to be the best method of promoting the increased production which we all most urgently desire. I have worked in this cause for years; and fifteen years ago, although I could never get the least attention to my words, I did all I could to warn the country of what was coming and to prepare in time, before the moment came, the steps to be taken in connection with our food supply in time of war. Having given much thought and attention to this subject for a great number of years I am not prepared to take any instruction from the noble Marquess who spoke just now.
LORD CLINTON: I rise only for the purpose of pointing out that this interesting debate has hung on the question of moving a small number of words from one part of the Bill to another.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
Notices.
2. Where any notice is served on a tenant a notice shall at the same time be served on the land, who shall have the same rights under this Act as though the land were in his occupation.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to leave out Clause 2.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Short title.
3. This Act shall be cited as the Corn Production (Amendment) Act, 1918.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to add at the end of Clause 3 the words, "and shall be construed as one with the Corn Production Act, 1917, and shall come into operation on the twenty-first day of August, 1918." The noble Lord said: The twenty-first of August is the day on which the Defence of the Realm Regulation powers, under the Corn Production Act, expire.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 2, line 18, after "("1918") insert ("and shall be construed as one with the Corn Production Act, 1917, and shall come into operation on the twenty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and eighteen").—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

HERR VON KUHLMANN'S SPEECH.
LORD WIMBORNE LORD WIMBORNE rose to call attention to the speech of Herr von Kühlmann in the Reichstag on June 24 last; and to move a Resolution. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put this Motion on the Paper three weeks ago, but it has been postponed mainly at the instigation of the noble Earl who leads the House.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: He asked that it should not be moved.
LORD WIMBORNE: I do not understand the noble Earl. I put the Motion down, and I postponed it at the instigation of the noble Earl who leads the House. We are all aware of the manifold and weighty duties which on the noble Earl the Leader of the House, and we are always very willing, as far as possible, to meet his convenience. In this ease I do not seem to have been very lucky, because, for reasons which we all deplore, the noble Earl is unable to be in his place on this occasion. The effect of the postponement has necessarily been to throw the subject that I wish to raise into a different perspective. Since then Baron von Kühlmann has fallen, and the battle has been resumed in France. On the other hand, a most important statement has been made by Count Hertling in the Reichstag on the 11th of this month, and it has had the effect of re-opening and emphasising what otherwise would have been considered to be a closed question. Therefore I think I shall be right in saying that, whether the present battle develops into the decisive event, or whether it dies clown leaving both parties in more or less relatively the same position, the pronouncements made by enemy statesmen have an independent significance, the consideration and analysis of which impose upon us a constant obligation. The subject, therefore, to which I desire to draw your Lordships' attention are the two speeches delivered in the Reichstag by Baron von Kühlmann on June 24 and by Count Hertling on July 11.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Without notice?
LORD WIMBORNE: I gave notice.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No notice has been given that the noble Lord intended to refer to the speech of Count Hertling.
LORD WIMBORNE: I think that is a small point. The speech of Count Herding really emphasises, and perhaps carries a little further, the speech of Baron von Kühlmann on June 24. As to the former speech, as it is now somewhat remote I will quote from the summary in The Times which appeared at the time of its publication and reads as follows—
"He said in spite of brilliant German successes no clear desire for peace was recognisable among Germany's enemies. He went on to say Germany's war aims are (1) the boundaries drawn for us by history; (2) oversea possessions corresponding to our greatness; (3) freedom for carrying our trade on the free seas to all continents."
Then there was the well-remembered part when he said that "a purely military decision of the war can hardly be expected; against Germany's resources the Entente should realise that their hope of victory is an illusion." Then he said—
"The Imperial Government had not shut the door to an honourable peace and would listen to plain and unambiguous proposals. He hoped that in due course their opponents would approach them with efforts in correspondence with the situation and satisfactory to German vital needs."
That is what von Kühlmann said; but to this Count Herding added in the other speech—
"Belgium is only a pawn for negotiation; we have no intention of keeping Belgium in any form whatsoever."
I think that it will be agreed that those speeches are none the less remarkable from the fact that the strain of them is not entirely unfamiliar in our ears. Since they have been delivered there has been much speculation as to what import could be attached to them. Are they definite bids for peace on the part of Germany, or do they constitute a trap? Do they represent apprehension, if not repentance, on the part of the enemy, or are they merely what is called a peace offensive? I do not intend to invite your attention to the former aspect, or to involve you in a discussion as to what our peace terms should be or should not be. Whether, therefore, these speeches constitute a genuine bid for peace or not, I feel pretty confident that alternatively at any rate they constitute what has been called a peace offensive, and it is to that aspect of the question that I would invite your Lordships' attention.
There is a good deal to make us take this view, because it is clear now that Germany has been nerving herself for a great effort involving doubtless immense sacrifices, and
888
it is a noticeable fact that these military efforts are generally, if not always, preceded by peace talk. That is a coincidence which I think cannot be overlooked. On the assumption that these speeches are peace offensives, I would ask what is a peace offensive? A peace offensive has been defined in another place by the Foreign Secretary on more than one occasion. So late as June 20 he defined it as follows—
"A peace offensive is any effort, by speech or otherwise, under the disguise of asking for an honourable termination of the present unhappy war, to divide the Allies and to discourage the individual members of the Alliance."
I think that there will be general agreement with that definition as far as it goes. But does it go far enough? It seems to me to be incomplete; indeed, it appears to ignore the most essential part of the strategy of the peace offensive. The offensive is not mainly for its foreign effect, but for home consumption. It is not launched so much in the hope of dividing and discouraging the Allies as for stiffening and consolidating war-like sentiments in the Central Empires by throwing upon our shoulders the responsibility for the continuance of the war. For four years, my Lords, enemy diplomacy has failed to produce any external effect, and it is not in the vain hope of accomplishing that now but with the certainty of achieving the domestic result that these offensives are persevered in.
To prove this, let us examine for a moment the psychology of enemy public opinion. It is safe to say, I think, that there exists among them two attitudes towards war in general and to this war in particular. There are those who love war and profit, or hope to profit, by it, and there are those who bate war and suffer, and suffer grievously, from war. I think that these mental attitudes can and often do co-exist in the same individual, and, according to circumstances, alternate as the predominant frame of mind. Of the former attitude we have abundant and striking evidence in Prussian militarism. Of the latter attitude we naturally hear less, but even censorship cannot wholly hide the fact that there is periodic unrest and discontent in Germany, nor can it quite veil the significance of Parliamentary votes and Parliamentary discussion in Germany. I think that the Kühlmann incident fortifies that impression, for whatever else is

889
discernible in von Kühlmann's speech, it is clear that there is a great body of sane, even perhaps pacific, feeling in Germany to which Kühlmann obviously appeals in his speech, and which even the German General Staff cannot afford to ignore.
What has happened—the noble Earl brought me to task for this—in regard to the Kühlmann incident? The General Staff having put up the Foreign Secretary, as doubtless they did—it is generally agreed that they did—to placate the moderates, a fortnight is allowed to elapse before he is disavowed. No answer to his speech being forthcoming in the meantime from the Allies, it can plausibly be asserted that such peace hopes as he voiced are vain and fruitless. That, in fact, is what Count Hertling said when he spoke on the occasion to which I have alluded. The effect of this is that moderate opinion is discouraged or reconciled to the inevitable. Ludendorff triumphs. The "peace offensive" has succeeded. For confirmation of this view let us look at Count Hertling's speech. He asks for—
"that unity on our internal front which is so tremendously significant to our brothers in the field."
Surely we have here a frank admission, not only of the existence of moderate as opposed to military opinion in Germany, but also of the necessity of bringing the latter into line with that military opinion. If this is true, as I think a little consideration shows that it is, it seems to me that we have displayed some lack of penetration and dexterity. The Foreign Secretary has contented himself with exposing the superficial and rather obvious character of the peace offensive fraud, but he has shown less skill in parrying the concealed but more real danger, and has never got in his riposte, or succeeded in turning the incident to our advantage.
In our handling, or perhaps rather lack of handling, of these enemy peace offensives we have consistently played into the hands of the military party in Germany. Consider what our attitude has been. The Foreign Secretary, speaking in another place on February 13, declared that at the present moment diplomacy was entirely out of court. It was with reluctance that on May 16 he admitted that the Government would not decline to listen to conversations of belligerents. There are people who go so far as to advocate the shutting up of the Foreign Office during the
890
continuance of the war. I do not know that Mr. Balfour would go to those lengths, but our attitude has been—if the word is applicable to such a subtle dialectician—a little "stodgy." This is certainly the opinion of friendly and independent observers in neutral countries. Our diplomacy, they think, has failed to exhibit the imagination and insight which it should possess, and many opportunities for diplomatic triumphs have been lost.
But, it may be objected, Supposing this is true, what can we do? I certainly do not suggest that our Foreign Office should descend to the fraud and treachery of which they accuse German diplomatists. If that course were necessary I should not have brought forward this Motion. It is not necessary. To illustrate what I mean let me take a concrete example. I will take the negotiations of Brest-Litovsk, not because that example is peculiar, but because it is the simplest and gives the simplest illustration of what I mean. What happened at Brest-Litovsk at the start of those negotiations? Count Czernin spoke on that occasion for the two allied Governments, the Austro-Hungarian Government and the German Government. He said the Central Empires were prepared to negotiate a general peace on the basis of—
"no forcible acquisition of territory and without war indemnities, provided that within a suitable period, without exception and without any reserve, all the belligerent Powers bound themselves to such conditions. For "[he added]" it would not do for the Powers of the Quadruple Alliance, negotiating with Russia one-sidedly, to commit themselves to these conditions without a guarantee that Russia's Allies will recognise and will carry out these conditions honestly and without reserve also as regards the Quadruple Alliance."
I submit that that is a proposition which, without fraud or chicane on our part, we could at the time have accepted (subject perhaps to some minor adjustments) as constituting at its face value an admission of the main part of our case against Germany. For surely a Germany driven back within her pre-war frontiers without booty or prize of any kind—"all her glories, conquests, triumphs, spoils, shrunk to this little measure"—would have meant the defeat of militarism, and, I think, its permanent discomfiture.
But supposing we had consented to establish negotiations for a general peace on those terms, what would have happened? One of two things would have

891
happened. Perhaps the world would have stumbled into peace. But I am bound to say another result was more likely. Assuming that they are dominant, the Pan-Germans and the Junkers would have taken alarm at this unexpected and undesired turn of events. They would have repudiated their Ministerial spokesman. That would have broken off the negotiations. And with what result? If the jackboot had triumphed then the lust of conquest, cynicism, and brutality of its wearers would have been exposed, not to us who know it, but to the great mass of the German people in unmistakable and unforgettable fashion. The peace offensive would not only have utterly failed, but would have failed with disastrous consequences to its authors. Germany would have been rent in two. That would have been an achievement which would have been worth many victories in the field.
But what did we do? We said nothing, we returned no answer to these proposals, and it was on our silence that the military party were able to ride off to perpetrate the infamy for which the Brest-Litovsk Treaty will always be remembered. I say, therefore, that there have been occasions for rejoinder which we could honourably and profitably have grasped.
The question arises whether the speeches of Herr von Kühlmann and Count Hertling offered such another opportunity. I certainly do not wish to dogmatise, but there are expressions in them which recall the situation at Brest-Litovsk on December 28, and I think that if I have at all made myself clear I may claim that they should not have been left totally unanswered. Three weeks have elapsed since the first was delivered, and yet no reply of any kind has been forthcoming from any responsible Foreign Minister, or, indeed, from any statesman with regard to them. At a critical moment of the enemy's fortunes, both military and domestic, we have allowed the poison of their peace offensives to exert its powerful anodyne on German nerves and consciences. The advantages of countering these effects seem so obvious that one is forced to inquire what objections there are to the course which I suggest. Is it that we are so afraid that the mere mention of the word "negotiations" will spell irresolution among our own people that they could never survive the disappointment, if nothing were to come of it, after their hopes had been raised?
892
I sometimes think the Government is inclined to treat the country too much like children. Things are concealed which certainly would be no news to the enemy. The shipping losses, for instance, were concealed. Now they are published. Has their publication decreased or increased ship production? It has increased ship production. Is our attitude towards peace offensives governed by the same kind of old-fashioned precaution? Does that attitude of mind still linger in the Foreign Office? Or is it that our war objectives (which admittedly have undergone modification from time to time) are still somewhat indeterminate? Is there confusion in our minds between the end in view and the means? Who, for instance, who looks forward to a reign of peace in the world and brotherly love among mankind, can talk of the retention of conquered territory as a precautionary and defensive necessity? Is not that a contradiction of ideas? Is it not also a confusion to think of Balkanizing half Europe and a great part of Asia? The federation of the world and the Parliament of Man will not be reached as the result of the wholesale disintegration of existing units. It is through aggregation, not disintegration, that our ideals will develop and be realised. For instance, how could Mr. Balfour and M. Pichon logically talk of conferring independence on Bohemia? Surely federal autonomy for "dependent nations" (such as I suppose is intended for Ireland some day, and possibly for ourselves) provides a more permanent, progressive, and promising structure. And nothing stops you here. Germany has assented to that in principle—those are her own words—and she might be pinned down to the performance.
It would be no answer to my case to say that the Germans know our peace terms, and that they have often been authoritatively stated. I doubt whether one German in a million knows what our peace terms are. I wonder how many of your Lordships could write them down from memory? But, whether the German "man in the street" knows them or not, repetition is the quintessence of propaganda. Besides, that is not quite my point. What I assert is that, whether our terms are known or not, every war-weary German knows that on three separate occasions at least peace negotiations have been proposed by the Kaiser or his Ministers on terms which to him, a German, must seem accommodating to the verge of surrender, and that on each

893
occasion those proposals have been received in the Allied Chancelleries with a stony and acid silence, and he thinks, therefore, that the Allies wish for nothing short of the total destruction of Germany and that there is nothing for it but for him to fight it out. That is what the average German thinks.
In confirmation of this, let me call your Lordships' attention to this very speech of Count Hertling, and this is what is believed in Germany. Count Hertling says—
"Mr. Wilson wants war until we are destroyed, and what Mr. Balfour has said must really drive a flush of anger to the cheeks of every German."
And, alluding to that, he says further—
"Behind these insults is a desire for our destruction. As long as a desire for our destruction exists, we must endure together with our faithful nation."
And so on, much in the same strain.
Now, as is known to your Lordships, there is a type of simple and somewhat impatient patriot whose perpetual and monotonous refrain consists of, "Stop talking, and get on with the war." Yes, certainly get on with the war, but get on with the objects of the war, too. However much we can prove in the field—as we all believe we shall prove—that militarism does not pay, we shall not have got appreciably nearer to that blessed sense of security which is embodied in the idea of the League of Nations as long as it is possible for the German authorities to assert, as they do assert, and for the German people to believe, as I fear they believe, that we, the Allies, are animated by the same material, commercial, industrial, and Imperialistic designs as they themselves profess. Beaten or unbeaten, Germany will continue a perpetual menace to us and to our children.
This is no pacifist Motion. The war must be won. But this is not an ordinary war. We are fighting not only to overcome Germany in the ordinary sense, but to convert her also. For this you need two weapons—force and argument. They do not conflict; you cannot neglect either. You must din your argument into German heads as much as you may have to plant your bayonets into German breasts. This is what General Smuts told us in a speech, which has not received sufficient attention, delivered at Glasgow on May 17—
"This war is much more than a military war, and we shall have to use our diplomacy and all the other forces at our disposal in order to bring it to a victorious end. Without private and in-
894
formal comparison of nudes how are you going to know what your enemy is prepared to concede? The highest objects of peace will be secured not only by the gallantry of our Armies but by the weapons of our diploma y when the time is ripe for obtaining a satisfactory peace for the Allies."
Yes, but if diplomacy is to play its part its policy must not be obscure. It must be a simple concrete formula without reservations, implications, or complications, easily understanded of the people to whom it is addressed.
Reticence, vagueness, and contradiction are fatal. Let me illustrate this by taking a typical instance. The Prime Minister, addressing American troops the other day from a motor-car, said that the Germans could have peace to-morrow on President Wilson's terms. Your Lordships see from the quotation from Count Hertling's speech what that may be twisted to be. In so far as that declaration involves a modification of the "knock-out blow" policy it is to be welcomed, but I submit that, as a positive statement of our peace aims, it has all the defects so well known to this House of legislation by reference; to determine what the exact import of a clause is you have to hunt up antiquated, and sometimes partly obsolete, Statutes in order to find out where you are. If you are going to deal with a peace offensive, what is needed is a terse, concrete formula embodying the ideals which animate our policy. The Germans have said "no annexations," and even now they speak of "historic frontiers." Whether it is honest or dishonest, you must answer it, and keep on answering it. On every peace offensive you must hurl back your reply. It is not enough to resist stolidly; you must counter-attack. What I ask is that such a formula should be framed and used, and should be stuck to. I hope that we shall not have anything in the nature of a sliding scale here.
That is the case which I desire to submit to the consideration of the House. I have tried to put it in as few words as I could. If I must further compress it within the scope of a Resolution, it would run as follows—
"That in the reception accorded to enemy peace proposals more regard should be paid to the opportunities such occasions afford for defining our own terms and for discrediting militarism in the eyes of the people of the Central Empires themselves."
I beg to move.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, Lord Wimborne informed us that his Motion was postponed at the request of Lord Curzon. Lord Curzon told Lord Wimborne that the Foreign Office was averse from a discussion at the present juncture. Lord Curzon shared that view. He conveyed it to Lord Wimborne, and Lord Curzon's hope was, not that the Motion would be postponed, as Lord Wimborne indicated, but that it would be withdrawn from the Paper. I am not in a position to deal with the Motion which Lord Wimborne has just read to your Lordships. This Notice has been on the Paper for three weeks. Lord Wimborne has not thought it necessary to give notice of his Motion to either the Leader of the House or to the Department to which that Motion—
LORD WIMBORNE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl. On the day on which I put the Motion down on the Paper I wrote to the Leader of the House and said that I was willing to tell him exactly what I proposed to say, and I have always been willing to meet him and to give him the whole thing verbatim. There is no question of concealment about it; he did not take the trouble to see me.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Lord Curzon invited the noble Lord to withdraw his Motion, and he has tried on several occasions to see the noble Lord in this House.
LORD WIMBORNE: That is not true.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: And the Motion on the Paper as it stands to-day is not the Motion just submitted by Lord Wimborne. I submit that under those conditions it is impossible for me to do more now than to reply in the exact terms which Lord Curzon himself would have used had his health permitted him to be present this evening. I must say that I should have liked to advert upon certain attacks made by the noble Lord upon the Foreign Office and certain implications that he made.
Lord Curzon, however, says that he would have been precluded from embarking upon any discussion of the question at the present time, for reasons which he had already stated to Lord Wimborne. Those reasons were that, Herr von Kühlmann having fallen, his views did not now appear
896
to be relevant to the present situation. So strongly wag this view taken in the other House that, when an hon. Member tried to raise a debate on a Motion for the adjournment, the House of Commons thought it so inopportune that not one Member rose to support that hon. Member in moving the adjournment. If it is sought to raise a discussion on these terms in general, it is submitted that the present moment, while a great offensive is in course of being carried out, is singularly ill-chosen for the purpose.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I might further submit that in any case such a discussion could most suitably be raised after due notice to the Foreign Office of the terms of the Motion, and, perhaps, with some knowledge that, in the opinion of the Public Department, public interests would not be prejudically affected by such a discussion. In the present case Lord Wimborne placed his Motion upon the paper without any intimation having been made to the Foreign Office or any such assurance having been received by them. In spite of Lord Curzon's intimation to him that at the present time a debate would not be in the public interests, and that Lord Curzon would not be in a position to reply, no intimation has been received of the particular points to which Lord Wimborne desired replies, and he has concluded with a Motion the terms of which have never been communicated to the Leader of the House.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I did not quite catch the noble Earl's preface. Is he reading a letter which the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, asked him to read to the House?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am speaking from a full note prepared for my guidance by the Leader of the House, and the terms are substantially those which would have been presented to the House had Lord Curzon himself been able to attend.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I do not think that makes it quite clear. I have been in this House for over forty years. Do I understand that the noble Earl is speaking from the Foreign Office brief which would have been given to Lord Curzon in the event of his being able to be here?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I have riot been in this House for forty years, but it is quite twenty-five years since I first entered the House of Commons, and from my knowledge of Parliament as a whole I submit that the procedure which I am following is quite correct. I said—and it will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow—that Lord Curzon, being unable to attend to-day, had given me a full note of what he would have said had he been present. This note was not prepared by the Foreign Office, but is part. of the statement I am making on behalf of the Leader of the House and refers to the definite complaint that a Motion has been submitted to the House of which notice has been upon the Paper for three weeks without its terms being communicated either to the Foreign Office or to the Leader of the House, and that the terms of the Motion have only been divulged within the last five minutes. In these circumstances I regret I am not in a position to reply to the specific questions put by Lord Wimborne.
LORD WIMBORNE: My Lords, I must contradict the noble Earl on personal points. I myself spoke to the Leader of the House and put myself entirely at his disposal. I offered to put him in possession of everything I wished to say, and it is not my fault if he is not aware of what I wished to say. It is three weeks since I gave not ice of the terms of my Motion.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Not the terms of the Motion.
LORD WIMBORNE: Notice of the fact that I intended to make the Motion. I put it down on Thursday fortnight, and it was withdrawn at the request of the noble Earl. I must tell your Lordships that I understand that the noble Earl came down to the House and saw Lord Colebrooke, who went up to the Table and took my Motion off the Paper. That was a most exceptional thing to do, but I make no complaint of it. I was most anxious that the Leader of the House should have nothing to complain of, and that he should be consulted as to the time when he would reply to my observations, but I must protest that it is totally untrue that there was anything clandestine or sprung-upon-the-House in this Motion. If the noble Earl did not know what I was going to say it is not my fault, because I put myself entirely at his disposal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord move?
LORD WIMBORNE: No, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUTCH CONVOY.
LORD BERESFORD LORD BERESFORD had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government for further particulars relative to the abandonment of the right of search at sea in connection with the Dutch convoy sailings to the East Indies.
Has the new arrangement been agreed to by the Allies of the British Government.
Do the Government still adhere to the words of the Foreign Office telegram of April 25, 1918.
Is the Declaration of London regarded as in any way binding with reference to the "Right of Convoy" for a Neutral Power.
Is the proposed convoy accompanied by armed vessels or vessel; and if so, can the orders given to the commanding officers be communicated to this House; and to move for Papers.
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, I want to draw your Lordships' attention to what I may describe as one of the most amazing documents ever presented to Parliament. It is contradictory, it is not clear, it is confused, and worse than all it really is a document which would affect our sea power in the future. I refer to a White Paper called "Correspondence respecting the Despatch of a Dutch Convoy to the East Indies." What that Paper conveys to the mind is that the British Government gave way to the Dutch Government after a threat of resistance by force on the part of the Dutch Government if we enforced our right to visit and search ships at sea. I think this Paper demands very careful examination. This right of search we have had for centuries, as the Foreign Secretary called attention to in the Paper, and this right is supported by International Law. I say that this Paper contains action unparalleled in all the traditions of our long sea history.
The Foreign Office appears to have given way to pressure, as it has-on many occasions,

899
and its communications vary and sometimes are contradictory, provided we allow that the Minister of Blockade is under the control of the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office really, with great respect, has been playing with war ever since the war began, under the plea of the tactful handling of difficulties. When they get to tactful handling they generally create a great many more difficulties which they have to make the best of. They always seem to decide against us and in favour of neutrals and of our enemies. There are many cases which have become public in which public pressure has forced the Foreign Office to act, but when public opinion is in front of the Government the Government are always too late. In the first two years of the war the Foreign Office allowed neutrals to carry immense volumes of trade to the enemy, and, although the people expostulated, an effective blockade was not put on. I was up in the North and saw four vessels laden with hematite ore which were detained by the senior medical officer against orders on the ground that they were going to Rotterdam where the cargo would be discharged into lighters and taken straight to Germany, but in the end he was ordered to send these vessels on. The same thing has occurred again and again, and those of us who are seamen and who know how to carry out work at sea have been horrified many times during the war at the action of the Foreign Office over and above that of the Admiralty.
I want to know what the Allies say about this right of convoy and the action of the Dutch Government in having broken International Law. Have the United States and Japan agreed to the abrogation of International Law? Have they ever been consulted? If the Dutch have nothing to conceal why should they put forward so arrogant a demand, accompanied by a threat, that these vessels should not be visited? They say that their vessels are to go free from the right of search which every other neutral is forced to comply with. There is no precedent for this case in any naval war which has ever been waged. What reply are the Government going to make to Denmark, Norway and Sweden should they make similar demands accompanied by similar threats? I do not see how they can do anything else but what they have done in the case of the Netherlands.
I see that in Sir Walter Townley's Despatch of May 4 it is stated that—
900
"The naval attache was told that this information had been communicated to the Governments interested."
Why did not the Minister communicate this information, not leave it to the naval attaché? The whole thing seems to me to be confused and dangerous to this country. I see that the Minister of Blockade, in a Memorandiun of June 7, 1918, mentions that the waiving of our right might risk an international complication of the utmost gravity. I think that international complication is very likely to occur unless we know what these other neutral nations say with regard to what our Government is doing in connection with the Dutch nation. I should like it to be observed that M. van Swinderen never refers to the other nations at all in his Despatch, and we know, with regard to whether communications were made to the other Governments, what the naval attaché told Sir Walter Townley. But M. van Swinderen does say on page 10, with reference to the British Government's objection to the right of convoy—
"This point of International Law can he left out of account in the present case."
This is a most extraordinary way of breaking International Law, and I want to know what are the views of the Allies with regard to this very naive proposal.
With regard to the third Question, the White Paper contains contradictions and inconsistencies which appear to me to be quite inexplicable. The Foreign Office and the Blockade Ministry appear to be separate Departments, nominally working together. They send separate Despatches and the Blockade Department send secret correspondence. If your Lordships will allow me I will read the letter of April 25 of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in which he says—
"You should let the Netherlands Government know that His Majesty's Government of course do not recognise the right of convoy,' and that they will exercise the belligerent rights of visit and search of merchant vessels should the Netherlands Government carry out their proposal."
Nothing could be more straight, or more strong, or more clear than that—that the Foreign Secretary was determined that we should maintain our rights at sea.
Then I turn to another letter of June 7, in which I find that the Secretary of State

901
for Foreign Affairs says, in corroboration of the telegram I have already read—
"… the British Government thought it right to lose no time in warning the Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs that they would he 'unable to recognise any claim for the immunity from visit and search of ships sailing under neutral convoy."
There again is a clear and definite statement based upon International Law. The Foreign Secretary also says—
"It was therefore with considerable surprise that I received on the 31st ultimo, by telegraph from Sir W. Townley, a translation of an official notice published in the Dutch press that morning by the Ministry of Marine at The Hague, announcing among other things that ' the commander of the convoy would not tolerate any examination of the convoyed ships.' "
Those words convey a distinct threat. The Foreign Secretary goes on to say—
"In the face of this announcement, so made, His Majesty's Government feel compelled to reiterate in the most formal manner that the right of visit and search which Great Britain, whether she was a neutral or a belligerent, has, in conformity with the rules of international Law, consistently upheld for centuries, is not one which she can abandon."
Then he adds—
"As the Netherlands Government is well aware, the claim that immunity from search is conferred on neutral merchant vessels by the fact of their sailing under the convoy of a man-of-war flying the national flag has never been conceded by this country. By the course, therefore, which they are now pursuing, they do in fact demand that Great Britain shall abdicate her belligerent right to stop contraband trade by the regulated exercise of naval force, and, in the middle of a gloat war, abandon the allied blockade. This is a demand to which Great Britain could not possibly accede."
I have read these telegrams which are clear, decided, firm, and quite understandable. But I turn to the same Paper, and, to my amazement, find that on the same date—June 7—the Minister of Blockade sends a Despatch, which he is empowered to do by the Foreign Secretary, in which, while agreeing entirely with the drastic remarks of the Foreign Office, conveyed on April 25, he gives way entirely to the Netherlands Government on account of their public announcement. What really happened is this. The Netherlands Government determined to send this convoy and they determined to send an armed escort. They, apparently, knew it was against International Law, and they published this in the newspapers. As they had published it in the newspapers our Government gave in to them, and, as I shall show directly, gave into them as an act of courtesy. If a man hits me on the point of the nose I
902
certainly do not give in to him as an act of courtesy. So far as the Government go with regard to this convoy, we have had a very severe blow on the nose.
I wish to read to your Lordships another statement of the Minister of Blockade. He says—
"His Majesty's Government, whilst sincerely regretting that the Netherlands authorities should have adopted a course which appears to them to have been licking both in courtesy and in prudence—"
I do not know about "prudence," because the Netherlands Government carried their point by what they did—
"are anxious, nevertheless, to take into account the de facto situation in which the Netherlands Government have now placed themselves by their own public announcement."
Therefore, because the Netherlands Government made this announcement, accompanied by a threat, our Government are going to recognise it, and say—" Although we object altogether to what you have done, which is entirely against International Law, and although you have challenged a right which we have held for centuries, still, as you have placed yourselves in an unfortunate position, we are going to let you do what you suggest." I say that this is perfectly monstrous, and shows incredible weakness on our side.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs repudiated Articles 61 and 62 of the Declaration of Landon. Sir Walter Townley points out that the Netherlands Minister of Marine, speaking in the First Chamber of the States-General, said—
"As the honourable deputy is aware, this right of convoying was never really generally recognised before the Declaration of London."
Your Lordships threw out the Declaration of London when you threw out the Naval Prize Bill. It was an infamous Declaration as far as our sea-power went. The Foreign Office evidently recognises that it is dead. The Declaration of London, by those Articles 61 and 62 which I have mentioned, did allow the right of convoy. When we come to the Minister of Blockade he acts as if the Declaration of London was in force as International Law. As your Lordships remember, the House of Lords threw it out. If your Lordships had not thrown out that Naval Prize Bill, and we had gone to war with the Declaration of London in force, we could not possibly have won it.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD BERESFORD: That is true, because we are an honourable nation. If we had passed that Declaration into law it would have handicapped our fleet to such an extent that I maintain we could not have won the war. We could not have treated it as a "scrap of paper," although it was perfectly apparent that it was deadly opposed to our interests and entirely in favour of the enemy. According to the reading of this Paper, although the Foreign Office repudiates the Declaration of London, the Ministry of Blockade does not. That Paper shows a confusion of thought. If this is the way in which we are going on with the war we shall lose it.
I want to ask some pertinent questions with regard to the differences of opinion which are so prejudicial to our interests. What really happened was this. When the Declaration of London passed the House of Commons the Government had the idea that it would pass the House of Lords—but it did not—and they began negotiations with Holland. By the mercy of Providence your Lordships threw the Bill out, and the Government were in this fix, that they had begun these negotiations with Holland although the Declaration of London had never passed into law in this country, and that is the position they are in now. On August 8, 1914, the Government of this country were negotiating under an Order in Council because they thought that the Declaration of London would pass into law, the House of Commons having passed it. I object altogether to this system of government. We are governed by Committees on the one hand and by Orders in Council on the other, and it is a dangerous state of affairs, more particularly when we are at war. These things should come before Parliament and be decided in the broad public light of day.
The Minister of Blockade is still, apparently, acting on this pernicious Declaration of London. He reiterates, as your Lordships will see in the Paper, that the right of visit and search should be maintained in the strongest manner, almost as strong as the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and he says that this right cannot be abandoned. Then he writes a Despatch in which he absolutely abandons it. And under what? Evidently under the menace of an armed convoy. That is what I particularly object to, and I think the country will object. We want to keep Holland our friend, but this is not the way to show
904
frienship. Surely the action of the Foreign Office and the Minister of Blockade on this occasion is most reprehensible and not according to British tradition. You will find on page 7 of the White Paper, in a communication from Sir W. Townley to Mr. Balfour, the Foreign Secretary, the following—
"It is obvious that the convoy commandant would not tolerate any examination of the convoyed ships."
That is a threat, and it is a threat that moved the Minister of Blockade to act as he has done. The Minister of Blockade says also that the matter is "wholly exceptional." On page 9 of the White Paper he says—
"Bat it for these motives and in these circumstances His Majesty's Government are to waive their right of search in this particular case, as a act of courtesy, they must lay stress on the altogether exceptional nature of such a concession, which must not be treated as a precedent for similar concessions in future, nor held to commit His Majesty's Government in any way to the abandonment of their just claims on other occasions."
They have forfeited their just claims; and how on earth are we to know that these circumstances will not occur again? I think they are certain to occur again, and if made under the same threat our Foreign Office, or Minister of Blockade, will give way again.
I want to impress on your Lordships that this action will practically nullify the whole of the blockade. It is going against our traditional rights at sea which, as the Foreign Secretary himself has said, we have acted on for centuries. The broad fact remains that the British Government have surrendered our sea rights, after asserting them in the most determined manner, and by so doing have weakened our maritime power and created a precedent. Nobody can deny this, and it is done after the unmistakable threat of the Netherlands Government. The world, certainly, must think we have abrogated our sea right under the threat of armed resistance. They cannot think anything else if they read this White Paper. An armed escort with this convoy is a direct challenge to the British Government and their rights at sea. The Government say to the Netherlands Government, "We will not prevent your doing it, but we do not recognise your right." This is really what they have said; and this is the way in which we are sacrificing our sea power.

905
I ask whether these merchant ships are Dutch or German, or whether they are partly owned by Germans. We know that before the war a large number of these ships, probably two-thirds of them, were in German hands, and I should like to know whether they are wholly Dutch or partly German, and if so how much is German. No innocent vessel would have the slightest thing to fear from being searched, but Holland evidently does not believe our word relative to innocent vessels being passed on, and in spite of our pledge they are sending an armed escort. This is not the way friends should act, and it will cause countless and innumerable difficulties not only during the war but after the war.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to another point, which I have also brought before the public, in the other House of Parliament. The Foreign Office is presided over by a Secretary of State. That is perfectly right. The War Office is presided over by a Secretary of State, and other Departments of the Government have a Secretary of State. The Government have just created an Air Ministry presided over by a Secretary of State. But the most important Department of all—the Admiralty—is not presided over by a Secretary of State, and in big affairs the First Lord often has to represent matters though a Secretary of State. I remember when I was at the Admiralty in 1885 there was the question of a stoker who performed a most heroic act in the stokehold. A steam pipe burst and he managed to turn off the throttle valve, saving the ship and the men. In war time he would have got, or have been recommended for, the Victoria Cross, but he was recommended by the Admiralty for the Albert medal, and the recommendation had to go through the Board of Trade. Some clerk there wrote to the Admiralty and said, "We do not consider that this act merits the Albert medal." The Admiralty wrote back and said, "We are the proper people to know whether it merits the medal or not." The Board of Trade objected, and the man never got anything. That position, however, was altered. Really Admiralty business that has to go before the Sovereign, much of it, has to go through a Secretary of State, because the First Lord is not a Secretary of State. I hope shortly to bring a Motion before your Lordships' House to the effect that the First Lord should be made a Secretary of State. He is now in a
906
subordinate position, and that is not good or the Service or for the country.
The Foreign Office also have interfered with the Navy and Admiralty all through the war. The Navy brings in a ship to the three mile limit—it is really incredible, but that ship when brought in is under the control and orders of the Foreign Office and not of the Admiralty. For goodness sake make your policy in the Cabinet—that is your business; but it is not your business to interfere with the soldier or sailor as to how he shall carry it out. The reason we have lost an immense amount of time, many opportunities, and had so many catastrophes in this war, is that the politician, who should frame policy, will interfere with the executive, as they have done so many times. I desire to know, if the Government can tell me, who was responsible for these statements in this remarkable White Paper. We cannot succeed if we continue upon such methods.
With your Lordships' permission, I should like to summarise the case in this way. The Dutch Government make a proposal—it is really more than a proposal, it is a decision—that they are going to send an armed convoy without reference to other nations, to us, or to International Law or the traditional rights of the sea. They published this decision. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the strongest way possible, as we see in the White Paper, said that we should pay no attention to this decision, and that we were determined to maintain our right of visit and search. On the same day, June 7, the Blockade Minister is empowered by the Foreign Office to make what is called a confidential verbal Report, which is put in this Paper and which is diametrically and entirely opposed to the words used by the Foreign Secretary with respect to this breach of International Law. That sort of thing requires explanation. I do not suppose that anybody has yet been able to read that Paper, but if this sort of thing is to go on we shall hamper ourselves most materially in the war by raising difficulties which would not exist if we adhered to International Law. When we drive a great wedge like this into International Law and allow one Power to do something adverse to our interest, and adverse to the rules of the sea in war, we are opening the door in a perilous manner. Although I do not intend to divide the House on this occasion, I hone to bring forward the matter again, and to

907
ask that these things shall cease, and that we shall not have this divergence of opinion without the clearest reason being given for it. I shall also ask your Lordships to consider the question whether the time has not arrived for making the First Lord of the Admiralty a Secretary of State.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): My Lords, my noble and gallant friend has used many hard terms with regard to the Foreign Office and the distinguished man who is at its head. I hope, if my noble and gallant friend will give me his attention, to be able to satisfy him that his epithets were wholly inapplicable.
LORD BERESFORD: They were not personal; they were directed to what he did.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not suppose for a moment that my noble and gallant friend would make any personal attack, but what I protest against in the most emphatic manner is attributing to the Foreign Office and to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs action which is the action of the Government as a whole, and attacking the Foreign Office and its head as if it were due to their default and their neglect of duty that things have occurred for which the Government as a whole is responsible. I hope to satisfy my noble and gallant friend that the apprehensions to which he has given such lively expression are altogether unfounded, and to convince him that he may rest in his bed in peace with no idea that International Law has been abrogated or will be abrogated.
I propose to make a statement to the House upon the whole question connected with the Dutch convoy. I regret that the hour is so late, but I hope that your Lordships will bear with me, because the time has come when the misconceptions which have been circulated in regard to this matter of the convoy must be dealt with. I do not think that those misconceptions have ever been more forcibly embodied than in the speech to which the House has just listened. I shall make a consecutive statement, but in the course of it your Lordships may find that I answer every one of the questions put by my noble and gallant friend in the order, I think, in which he put them.
The essential facts about this convoy are as follows. As appears from the White
908
Paper which is before your Lordships, the Netherlands Minister of Marine on April 16 announced that the Government would send a convoy of Government passengers and goods to the Netherlands East Indies. On April 29 the Netherlands Minister informed the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the composition of the proposed convoy. The particulars are set out in the Note of the Netherlands Minister of that date—No. 3 in the White Paper—and the names of the vessels are given at the end of the communiqué of May 31, which also appears in the White Paper. The vessels were as follows. First, Her Majesty's ship "Hertog Hendrik" accompanied by a coal boat requisitioned for that purpose for the purpose of bunkering during the voyage. Second, a Netherlands merchant ship transformed into a man-of-war according to the rules of the 7th Convention, 1917, for the transport of military men to the Dutch East Indies, having for cargo military stores. Third, a Netherlands merchant ship requisitioned by the Netherlands Government, under convoy of the man-of-war mentioned under head one, for the transport of Government passengers with their families, and having for cargo exclusively goods of the Netherlands Government destined for the Government of the Dutch East Indies. It is, therefore, clear that the convoy, apart from the coal boat, consisted of one merchant vessel which was under the control of the Dutch Government, and was used for the transport of Government passengers and Government cargo only. The other two vessels were men-of-war which are not in practice subjected to visit and search.
On April 25 the Foreign Office had intimated through Sir Walter Townley, His Majesty's Minister at The Hague, that His Majesty's Government did not recognise the right of convoy, and that they would exercise the right of visit and search. This was communicated to the Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs on April 26, who, as H.M. Government were informed by telegram on May 13, made no demur, but no answer was received. On May 31 there was published at The Hague an official communiqué by the then Minister of Marine, in which it was stated as follows—
"The warships will therefore only carry naval personnel and war supplies, and the merchant ships only Government passengers with their families and Government goods. It is not intended to institute under protection of warships commercial intercourse which, without such pro-

909
tection, would not be permitted by the belligerents according to their views of commercial liberty of neutrals. No mail will be carried. It is obvious that convoy commandant will not tolerate any examination of the convoyed ships."
Thereupon Mr. Balfour sent a Note of June 7 to the Netherlands Minister again asserting the right of visit and search, and on the same day a verbal communication was made to the Netherlands Minister in London, which is set out in the White Paper, and which is so important that I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to read to the House the most essential part of it. Your Lordships will find the passage which I am now quoting on page 9 of the White Paper beginning at the third paragraph of that page—
"His Majesty's Government, whilst sincerely regretting that the Netherlands authorities should have adopted a course which appears to them to have been lacking both in courtesy and in prudence, are anxious, nevertheless, to take into account the de fac o situation in which the Netherlands Government have now placed themselves by their own public announcement. His Majesty's Government cannot consent to any abatement of the right which they claim to search vessels under neutral convoy. The repression of contraband and the enforcement of blockade lie, by international law, with the belligerent alone and not with the neutral; and this fundamental principle Great Britain is quite determined to uphold with all the force at her command. It is important that the Netherlands Government should be under no misapprehension on this point.
"If, however, the intention underlying the presentation of M. van Swinderen's note of the 29th April, and of communications in the same sense since made by M. Loudon to Sir W. Townley, was merely to suggest that a friendly arrangement might be arrived at between the two Governments under which such satisfaction would be given to legitimate belligerent requirements as would justify the British Government in dispensing on the present occasion with the formal exercise of their right of search, His Majesty's Government will not refuse to consider such suggestion. They desire, by adopting this conciliatory attitude, to give further practical evidence of their constant anxiety to maintain their relations with the Netherlands Government on the most amicable footing, and to show how far they are in fact willing to go out of their way in order to save the susceptibilities which the Dutch official announcement was calculated to arouse, and so to prevent the action of the Netherlands Government from definitely creating a situation gravely imperilling the friendly relations between the two countries.
"But if for these motives and in these circumstances His Majesty's Government are to waive their right of search in this particular case, as an act of courtesy, they must lay stress on the altogether exceptional nature of such a concession, which must not be treated as a precedent for similar concessions in future, nor held to commit His Majesty's Government in any way to the abandonment of their just claims on other occasions.
910
"On this clear understanding His Majesty's Government are ready to state the conditions on which the convoy composed of the ships whose names have been notified might be allowed to pass without interference through the British patrols on the intended journey from Rotterdam or Amsterdam to the Dutch East Indies. These conditions will be found to conform substantially with the suggestions put forward by the Netherlands Government themselves, and should therefore meet with their ready acceptance."
The conditions follow, and this is really the most vital document in the White Paper—

"(a) A detailed list of all passengers sailing in the convoy, to be furnished to His Majesty's Government, none but Dutch Government officials and their families being allowed to proceed.

"(b) Full particulars of the cargo on board any merchant vessel sailing in the convoy to be supplied in the same way as is now done by the Netherlands Oversea Trust in respect of ships under their control.

"(c) The Netherlands Government to give a formal guarantee that no goods shipped in the convoy are either wholly or in part of enemy origin.

"(d) The slops sailing under the Dutch naval flag, including the converted liner, not to carry any civilian passengers, nor any goods or articles other than warlike stores destined for the colonial authorities or forces, of which complete lists should be furnished.

"(e) No mails, correspondence, private papers, printed matter, or patrols to be carried by any ship in the convoy (except official despatches of the Dutch Government).

"(f) The convoy not to sail until the above stipulated particulars and undertakings have been furnished and have been found satisfactory by the British authorities."

These conditions were accepted in their entirety by the Netherlands Government.
It will be observed that the second of these conditions was that full particulars of the goods should be supplied, as is now done by the Netherlands Overseas Trust in respect of ships under their control. It must never be forgotten that an effective search of vessels at sea is, under present conditions, impossible. For that purpose it is necessary that the vessel should be brought into port, and even there the process takes a long time. Put shortly the reasons why effective search at sea is impossible are the size of the vessels now used; the fact that the information contained in ships' papers must be supplemented by further information which is recorded in this country concerning consignors and consignees; and the danger of attack by Rib-marines while the vessels searched and those searching are stopped for the purpose.

911
For these reasons the practice has been adopted with the Netherlands Overseas Trust of having the manifest and lists of passengers transmitted to London for examination before the vessel sails. This "advance booking," as it is called, is really the most effective way by far in which our naval control can be exercised, and it has, in practice, been found to be very effectual for the purpose of controlling shipments. With regard to the convoy now in question, His Majesty's Government is in a much better position with reference to the power of control than if we had chosen to rely solely on the exercise of the right of visit and search.
There is another consideration which His Majesty's Government were bound to take into account. They have no desire to criticise the motives which may have prompted the public statement in the communiqué of May 31, "It is obvious that convoy commandant will not tolerate any examination of the convoyed ships." It may have been prompted by a belief that such a statement would be grateful to public opinion in Holland, a country which is justly proud of the part which her Navy has played in history. His Majesty's Government have no reason to believe that any sinister design lay behind this statement. After such an announcement had been made it is obvious that to have stopped the convoy would have provoked a crisis of the most acute kind in the relations of this country with the Netherlands. We believe that that country and its Government are inspired by friendly sentiments towards Great Britain, and Great Britain has certainly no desire to quarrel with them. If the interests of Great Britain demanded it, we should not hesitate to put into practice the right of visit and search which we have steadily asserted for centuries. But the arrangement which was made gave us all, and more than all, we could have got by insisting on the exercise of these rights in all their rigour.
As regards the exercise of the right in future cases, if they should ever occur, this has been completely safeguarded. To have taken up an unbending attitude on this occasion might have led to consequences which would be deplored by every one. The decision taken was arrived at by the War Cabinet after the most careful consideration of all the circum-
912
stances. The decision was that of the Government, and it would be a mistake to treat it as if the matter had been merely departmental.
My noble and gallant friend Lord Beresford, in his second Question, has asked whether the new arrangement had been agreed to by the Allies with the British Government. The correspondence was unofficially communicated to the Governments of the United States, of France, and of Italy, and His Majesty's Government understand that they welcomed the amicable arrangement which was arrived at. It must be remembered that the position was a little complicated by the fact that these Governments have in the past been opposed to the exercise of the right to visit and search vessels under convoy.
LORD BERESFORD: What does the noble and learned Lord mean by "in the past"? Does that mean since the war?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is within your Lordships' knowledge that the position of Great Britain with regard to the right to visit and search vessels under convoy is one which has been repeatedly stated by the British Government, but the Governments of other countries have held different views on the matter.
LORD BERESFORD: I only wanted to know whether it was during the war.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am speaking of the historical fact which is well known. The position taken up by this country, although we believe it to be absolutely right, has not been shared in the past by those who are now on the most friendly terms with us. That had to be taken into account in dealing with the situation.
The noble and gallant Lord's third Question relates to the telegram of April 25. His Majesty's Government adhere to the statement in their telegram of April 25 that they do not recognise "the right of convoy." Their waiver on this occasion of the belligerent right to visit and search has been prompted, not by any weakening on this subject, but by the special considerations to which I have adverted.

913
The fourth Question relates to the Declaration of London. The Declaration of London is not regarded as in any way whatever binding with reference to the right of convoy for a neutral, nor, indeed, for any other purpose.
LORD BERESFORD: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That Declaration was, as my noble and gallant friend has said, never ratified, and although it was partially recognised for the time by Orders in Council subject to certain limitations, I may remind the House that the Declaration of London Order in Council No. 2 of 1914, and all Orders amending it, were withdrawn by Order in Council of July 7, 1916. So that we are absolutely free from the trammels of the Declaration of London.
My noble and gallant friend's fifth Question was as to particulars of the vessels, and instructions to the officers in command. I have already given particulars of the vessels forming the convoy. His Majesty's Government had no information as to the orders given to the commanding officers beyond what is conveyed in the communiqué of May 31, which I have already quoted. I may add that, as the convoy was bound for the Dutch East Indies, no question as to enemy destination of any of the cargo could arise. The precautions taken on this occasion have enabled His Majesty's Government to satisfy themselves that there was nothing wrong with this convoy.
The noble and gallant Admiral has put five questions to me, which I have specifically answered. Perhaps he will allow me to submit one for his consideration. If we had refused the offer of a friendly settlement and insisted on carrying out visit and search of the solitary merchant vessel which was conveyed, what does he suppose we should have found? I am sure that he does not suppose that we should have found that the Netherlands Government had misled us. The conditions which we had enforced enabled us to satisfy ourselves that there was nothing wrong. There is really nothing whatever to suggest that goods or passengers have been carried on this merchantman on some nefarious errand, what, where, and how, nobody can divine. On the whole, I submit to your Lordships, better judgment that the. attitude adopted by His Majesty's Government in this matter has combined, with a due regard for
914
the susceptibilities of a friendly neutral. complete security that neither cargo nor passengers open to any objection should be carried, and an unqualified assertion of the historic position of Great Britain on the subject of convoy.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for answering my Questions categorically, but I think your Lordships must agree that the attitude adopted by the Netherlands Government with regard to this question was unfortunate. Why send men-of-war at all? That has not been cleared up by the noble and. learned Lord. It was published that these men-of-war would not tolerate any examination of the convoyed ship; they naturally would not tolerate any examination of themselves. I think that the misconceptions to which tie noble and learned Lord referred were justified. He has cleared up some of them, but I still deplore the way in which this thing was done. It was a way likely to make a difficulty and to break our friendship with Holland for the Dutch Government to publish a threat of what they were going to do. The Foreign Office were so astonished that they called attention to the want of prudence and courtesy. The thing might have been done in a different way; and the Netherlands Government are to blame for what they did. I am sure that everybody in this House wants to remain friendly with the Dutch, but this is not the way to make friendship; and I will that our Government have got out of a very grave difficulty somewhat cleverly.
My noble and learned friend spoke of the Declaration of London, and I was very glad that he made a definite pronouncement that this Declaration is dead, because it has sometime, been referred to as extant. I hope we shall never hear of the Declaration of London again. My noble and learned friend also referred to effective search at sea. Circumstances, of course, have altered now that we have great oceangoing liners, and search at sea is more difficult than it was, more particularly with under-water warfare. But the old right of search at sea was hardly ever observed. What happened was that if the weather was rough and a boat could not go from the man-of-war to undertake the search, the merchant ship was ordered to heave, to and they waited until the wind went down,

915
and a prize crew was put on board to take her into port. It was rare to search and to condemn a ship at sea.
I want to point out once more that it was not our Government who provoked the crisis; it was the Netherlands Government. However, we have got out of the difficulty, and I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for the explanations he has given in answer to my Questions. But I still say that the way this was done, and the Papers being so contradictory, gave rise to what are called misconceptions, which in my view are due to the perfectly contradictory and disquieting particulars contained in the White Paper that has been issued.

THE FOURTH OF AUGUST.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, in moving that the House do now adjourn, may I announce that to-morrow
916
the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will move—
"That this House do attend at St. Margaret's Church, Westminster, on Sunday, August 4, being the fourth anniversary of the Declaration of War, and invoke the Divine blessing on our just cause."
[From Minutes of July 11.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

MILES DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Minutes of evidence and proceedings before this House on the Second Reading, together with the documents deposited in the case returned from the Commons.
House adjourned at eight o'clock.